i just read somewhere that people are thinking of euthanizing their pets in preparation for this rapture
i am so angry i am shaking
I feel better about euthanizing pets than I do about just killing them for the rapture
those people don't deserve pets anyway
AMP'd on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
there was a L&O episode about this service you could sign up for
basically, you wrote emails to all the people you thought would be "left behind" after the rapture
and the system had 3 guys running it, and 2 out of 3 of them had to log-in once a day or the emails would be sent out
all 3 of them were religious so they figured at least 2 of them would be taken up in the rapture so when they didn't log in, it was proof the rapture was happening and the emails would be sent out
anyway, one of them got murdered and another guy couldn't get to a wi-fi hot spot so the emails went out and one was this guy confessing to murdering his wife and hiding her body in his house or something
An "infallible, absolute proof" of Camping's assertion rests on a head-spinning numerological argument about the number of days that have elapsed since Jesus was crucified. The date of the crucifixion is itself somewhat uncertain, but Camping takes it to be April 1 in 33 AD. Come May 21, 2011, Camping says, 722,500 days will have elapsed since that occurrence. And 722,500 is (5 x 10 x 17) x (5 x 10 x 17). Those numbers are important, according to Camping, because 5 symbolizes atonement, 10 represents completeness, and 17 is for heaven.
April 1?
OH MAN
This proves that the entirety of Christianity is based on a massive, global April Fools' Day prank!
The final paragraph is the best part.
It should be noted that Camping himself has made such predictions—and garnered news headlines—before. Back in the 1990s he said he was "more than 99 percent sure" that the end was coming in September 1994. That date came and went, but this time Camping is absolutely certain. Given his fluidity with numbers, maybe he will be 110 percent sure the next time around.
there was a L&O episode about this service you could sign up for
basically, you wrote emails to all the people you thought would be "left behind" after the rapture
and the system had 3 guys running it, and 2 out of 3 of them had to log-in once a day or the emails would be sent out
all 3 of them were religious so they figured at least 2 of them would be taken up in the rapture so when they didn't log in, it was proof the rapture was happening and the emails would be sent out
anyway, one of them got murdered and another guy couldn't get to a wi-fi hot spot so the emails went out and one was this guy confessing to murdering his wife and hiding her body in his house or something
Those numbers are important, according to Camping, because 5 symbolizes atonement, 10 represents completeness, and 17 is for heaven.
But... even assuming those numbers did actually symbolize what he says they do... where is he getting this (atonement x completeness x heaven)^2 = rapture equation?
What is he talking abouuuuuutttttttttttttt? How is anyone believing this omg my brainnnnssss
This is the same man who predicted the Rapture was going to take place in 1994 (clearly he was confused by the coming of the Sony Playstation console, not Jesus)
remember the second coming of sony?
AMP'd on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Foolproofthats what my hearts becomein that place you dare not look staring back at youRegistered Userregular
The facts surrounding the death of controversial Anglican minister Martin Bergmann, in Hammersmith, west London, last week, continue to be mysterious. Speculation as to the events leading up to Bergmann's untimely death at the age of 39 is still rife, with murder, suicide and death by misadventure all possibilities.
Police have so far refused to comment, saying that "investigations are in progress", but others have not been slow in coming forward. Claiming that "there are many who would want him dead", supporters and friends – all of whom declined to be named – said that Bergmann's death was part of an international conspiracy of mind-boggling complexity, in which P2, the enigmatic Vatican lodge rumoured to be behind the controversial death of Pope John Paul I, is supposedly central. But members of the Church of England's General Synod have moved to crush what they have called "these tasteless and irresponsible rumours", putting Bergmann's death down to the "final act of a deeply troubled mind, now, it is to be hoped, at peace at last."
The confusion surrounding Bergmann's final hours is all of a piece with the rest of his life. Reliable facts about Bergmann are few and far between. The often viciously partisan positions his extreme views have invoked meant that Bergmann was always surrounded by a fog of often ill-founded rumours, a situation exacerbated by his refusal to communicate with the media. Like one of his mentors, the Danish religious philosopher Kierkegaard, Bergmann professed a deep hatred of the press; a contempt extending beyond mere refusal to co-operate into occasional examples of outright violence. One – notorious – incident last year, in which a photographer threatened a legal case for assault, was ultimately settled out of court.
The "dark nordic prince" arrived in England under a cloud a decade ago, hounded out of his native Norway for leading a rogue Protestant sect whose practices and beliefs, according to one Norwegian churchman at the time, were "unspeakable and wholly unacceptable." ("Only the C of E would welcome you with a CV like that," a senior Church of England official remarked recently.) Some say that Bergmann "cynically and wantonly" exploited the ailing Church of England's renowned tolerance "to a parodic degree", using Church protection to disseminate beliefs "in every way contrary to established Christian doctrine."
Fond of quoting Kierkegaard's dictum, "Christianity is what Christ came to abolish", Bergmann developed what he called an "anti-Christian Gnostic Christianity". He characterised established Christianity as "the cult of Paul" and decried church buildings as "prisons for God." Drawing upon Gnosticism, he argued that the "Creator entity" – the Judaic Christian God – was a "blind idiot god suffering from autism"; all creation – and organic life in particular – were to be regarded as "foul excresences we must seek to annul or to escape". But it was his persistent vilifications of the Roman Catholic Church that proved the greatest source of embarrassment to the Church of England hierarchy, whose declining congregations are one factor impelling an increasingly strong ecumenical drive towards convergence with Rome. The vociferousness of his anti-Catholicism was taken by some to be indicative of failing mental health ("he was totally gone", one former friend said yesterday). Bergmann, however, claimed that "the only rational view of the Roman Catholic Church" was that it was "a monstrous blasphemy of transcendent evil: incomparably more corrupt than the Mafia (if indeed it can be separated from organised crime, which of course it cannot)". His views, he said, were backed up by "hard sociological data which even they can't suppress now" concerning the – apparently endemic – problem of institutionalised child abuse amongst Catholic clergy. But Bergmann alienated any of the few supporters he had even within Protestantism by adding that "any religion that is serious about worshipping the Father-God will always be about child abuse; the only difference between the religion of the Paulites and that of the Abrahamites is that, in the Paulites' case, child torture spills over into child murder. Despite tying and binding Isaac, the Jewish God ultimately spares Abraham's son; but the Paulite God actually kills his own son."
Presenting a "Spinozist immanent critique" of Calvin, Bergmann argued that "the Calvinists' biggest mistake was that they were insufficiently fatalistic. Evidently, fatalism and morality do not mix. They confused an ethical and transcendental injunction – if you eat the apple you will be ill – with a moral command – do not eat the apple." The "specific and unique" contribution that Protestantism had to make had been "systematically distorted into a dismal work-cult," Bergmann argued, "by a set of State-loving, self-serving money-grubbers." Bergmann's well-known detestation of consumer culture was based around an adherence to what he called the "category of the sufficient" which had been "annihilated" by a capitalism "insisting you gorge yourself on more and more things you don't want." Bergmann argued that "aseticism and self-denial are not moral positions but very specific programs for the systematic dismantling of secular identity, ways of opening up the body to the Utter Nothingness which is the reality of the true God."
Unsubstantiated rumours suggest that the Church's tolerance of Bergmann was not due solely or even primarily to the C of E's well-known spinelessness, but to his reputed competence in the ostensibly discontinued practice of exorcism, a subject about which the Church has been consistently evasive. But even Bergmann's purported expertise here had a bizzare twist, since his technique as an exorcist was supposedly based on "co-operating with demons" in an attempt to "free them" from "mammal meat." All of which prompted an exasperated High Church spokesman to remark that, "Surely even a Church as notoriously liberal as ours must abominate priests who openly sympathise with demons, and who make no bones about their hatred of God."
There are those who claim that Bergmann had "never abandoned the harsh and pitiless pantheon of dark gods" from his "ancient Norse heritage." But friends suggest that the "rot really set in" when he began to take seriously the works of the late Science Fiction writer Philip K. Dick. "Dick's sanity was questionable at the end," the Reverend Colin Wemmick, an erstwhile associate of Bergmann's points out. "But Martin had become convinced that Dick's [Gnostic-influenced] conviction that the Roman Empire had not ended was a vindication of his own views of an unbroken continuity of Roman power."
According to his opponents, the discovery of Bergmann's body – masked, and trussed with various kinds of harnesses - "make a mockery" of his theories of "anti-sexuality" which argued that "sexuality" was "a secular hell people voluntarily enter; a meat prison for the body." Others claim that the scene of Bergmann's death was "obviously faked by his enemies – of which he had many." Yet the most intriguing suggestion comes from those closest to Bergmann, who indignantly insist that, far from being some secret sexual perversion, the apparatus Bergmann had assembled was part of a regime of "systematic anti-sexual practice" ("he was building a machine to escape the meat"). A series of unpublished writings on Masoch which reputedly argue that "the properly religious attitude is always deeply masochistic," and which extol Masoch "as a profoundly religious thinker," apparently confirm this interpretation.
In death as in life, little is certain about Martin Bergmann. Reverend Wemmick probably summed up the situation best when he said, "when you look into Martin's life, you open up a can of worms – a writhing mass of confusion." Those worms are likely to writhe for some time yet.
Berk on
0
Options
SpudgeWitty commentsgo next to this blue dot thingyRegistered Userregular
The facts surrounding the death of controversial Anglican minister Martin Bergmann, in Hammersmith, west London, last week, continue to be mysterious. Speculation as to the events leading up to Bergmann's untimely death at the age of 39 is still rife, with murder, suicide and death by misadventure all possibilities.
Police have so far refused to comment, saying that "investigations are in progress", but others have not been slow in coming forward. Claiming that "there are many who would want him dead", supporters and friends – all of whom declined to be named – said that Bergmann's death was part of an international conspiracy of mind-boggling complexity, in which P2, the enigmatic Vatican lodge rumoured to be behind the controversial death of Pope John Paul I, is supposedly central. But members of the Church of England's General Synod have moved to crush what they have called "these tasteless and irresponsible rumours", putting Bergmann's death down to the "final act of a deeply troubled mind, now, it is to be hoped, at peace at last."
The confusion surrounding Bergmann's final hours is all of a piece with the rest of his life. Reliable facts about Bergmann are few and far between. The often viciously partisan positions his extreme views have invoked meant that Bergmann was always surrounded by a fog of often ill-founded rumours, a situation exacerbated by his refusal to communicate with the media. Like one of his mentors, the Danish religious philosopher Kierkegaard, Bergmann professed a deep hatred of the press; a contempt extending beyond mere refusal to co-operate into occasional examples of outright violence. One – notorious – incident last year, in which a photographer threatened a legal case for assault, was ultimately settled out of court.
The "dark nordic prince" arrived in England under a cloud a decade ago, hounded out of his native Norway for leading a rogue Protestant sect whose practices and beliefs, according to one Norwegian churchman at the time, were "unspeakable and wholly unacceptable." ("Only the C of E would welcome you with a CV like that," a senior Church of England official remarked recently.) Some say that Bergmann "cynically and wantonly" exploited the ailing Church of England's renowned tolerance "to a parodic degree", using Church protection to disseminate beliefs "in every way contrary to established Christian doctrine."
Fond of quoting Kierkegaard's dictum, "Christianity is what Christ came to abolish", Bergmann developed what he called an "anti-Christian Gnostic Christianity". He characterised established Christianity as "the cult of Paul" and decried church buildings as "prisons for God." Drawing upon Gnosticism, he argued that the "Creator entity" – the Judaic Christian God – was a "blind idiot god suffering from autism"; all creation – and organic life in particular – were to be regarded as "foul excresences we must seek to annul or to escape". But it was his persistent vilifications of the Roman Catholic Church that proved the greatest source of embarrassment to the Church of England hierarchy, whose declining congregations are one factor impelling an increasingly strong ecumenical drive towards convergence with Rome. The vociferousness of his anti-Catholicism was taken by some to be indicative of failing mental health ("he was totally gone", one former friend said yesterday). Bergmann, however, claimed that "the only rational view of the Roman Catholic Church" was that it was "a monstrous blasphemy of transcendent evil: incomparably more corrupt than the Mafia (if indeed it can be separated from organised crime, which of course it cannot)". His views, he said, were backed up by "hard sociological data which even they can't suppress now" concerning the – apparently endemic – problem of institutionalised child abuse amongst Catholic clergy. But Bergmann alienated any of the few supporters he had even within Protestantism by adding that "any religion that is serious about worshipping the Father-God will always be about child abuse; the only difference between the religion of the Paulites and that of the Abrahamites is that, in the Paulites' case, child torture spills over into child murder. Despite tying and binding Isaac, the Jewish God ultimately spares Abraham's son; but the Paulite God actually kills his own son."
Presenting a "Spinozist immanent critique" of Calvin, Bergmann argued that "the Calvinists' biggest mistake was that they were insufficiently fatalistic. Evidently, fatalism and morality do not mix. They confused an ethical and transcendental injunction – if you eat the apple you will be ill – with a moral command – do not eat the apple." The "specific and unique" contribution that Protestantism had to make had been "systematically distorted into a dismal work-cult," Bergmann argued, "by a set of State-loving, self-serving money-grubbers." Bergmann's well-known detestation of consumer culture was based around an adherence to what he called the "category of the sufficient" which had been "annihilated" by a capitalism "insisting you gorge yourself on more and more things you don't want." Bergmann argued that "aseticism and self-denial are not moral positions but very specific programs for the systematic dismantling of secular identity, ways of opening up the body to the Utter Nothingness which is the reality of the true God."
Unsubstantiated rumours suggest that the Church's tolerance of Bergmann was not due solely or even primarily to the C of E's well-known spinelessness, but to his reputed competence in the ostensibly discontinued practice of exorcism, a subject about which the Church has been consistently evasive. But even Bergmann's purported expertise here had a bizzare twist, since his technique as an exorcist was supposedly based on "co-operating with demons" in an attempt to "free them" from "mammal meat." All of which prompted an exasperated High Church spokesman to remark that, "Surely even a Church as notoriously liberal as ours must abominate priests who openly sympathise with demons, and who make no bones about their hatred of God."
There are those who claim that Bergmann had "never abandoned the harsh and pitiless pantheon of dark gods" from his "ancient Norse heritage." But friends suggest that the "rot really set in" when he began to take seriously the works of the late Science Fiction writer Philip K. Dick. "Dick's sanity was questionable at the end," the Reverend Colin Wemmick, an erstwhile associate of Bergmann's points out. "But Martin had become convinced that Dick's [Gnostic-influenced] conviction that the Roman Empire had not ended was a vindication of his own views of an unbroken continuity of Roman power."
According to his opponents, the discovery of Bergmann's body – masked, and trussed with various kinds of harnesses - "make a mockery" of his theories of "anti-sexuality" which argued that "sexuality" was "a secular hell people voluntarily enter; a meat prison for the body." Others claim that the scene of Bergmann's death was "obviously faked by his enemies – of which he had many." Yet the most intriguing suggestion comes from those closest to Bergmann, who indignantly insist that, far from being some secret sexual perversion, the apparatus Bergmann had assembled was part of a regime of "systematic anti-sexual practice" ("he was building a machine to escape the meat"). A series of unpublished writings on Masoch which reputedly argue that "the properly religious attitude is always deeply masochistic," and which extol Masoch "as a profoundly religious thinker," apparently confirm this interpretation.
In death as in life, little is certain about Martin Bergmann. Reverend Wemmick probably summed up the situation best when he said, "when you look into Martin's life, you open up a can of worms – a writhing mass of confusion." Those worms are likely to writhe for some time yet.
The empire never ended.
Foolproof on
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
Those numbers are important, according to Camping, because 5 symbolizes atonement, 10 represents completeness, and 17 is for heaven.
But... even assuming those numbers did actually symbolize what he says they do... where is he getting this (atonement x completeness x heaven)^2 = rapture equation?
What is he talking abouuuuuutttttttttttttt? How is anyone believing this omg my brainnnnssss
His whole argument is based on a joke sequence from the Clue movie.
Even if you were right, that would be one plus one plus two plus one, not one plus *two* plus one plus one.
he created a commission that researched the issue and concluded that since babies were not capable of free choice they would still be capable of reaching the beatific vision despite original sin, and then benedict essentially made the commission a papal bull
"researched"
good post
well it's ridiculous
they're not doing anything scientific or scholarly, they're editing church doctrine to match what people generally believe
I don't care what internal justification they have for it, that's what's happening
or you're objectively wrong and acting like a child?
he created a commission that researched the issue and concluded that since babies were not capable of free choice they would still be capable of reaching the beatific vision despite original sin, and then benedict essentially made the commission a papal bull
"researched"
good post
well it's ridiculous
they're not doing anything scientific or scholarly, they're editing church doctrine to match what people generally believe
I don't care what internal justification they have for it, that's what's happening
or you're objectively wrong and acting like a child?
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
edited May 2011
they sort through two thousand years of theological writing on the concept of limbo, original sin and the question as to whether or not infants are capable of choice and whether God punishes those without choice
they spent I believe months combing through the vatican library
PiptheFair on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
What Pip is saying is that you can't just edit church doctrine. You need to theologically discuss the issue in order to actually find out what the "truth" is, and that includes careful reading of religious texts, the precedent set by earlier rulings, the teachings of Pope whoever the whoever and so on.
I suspect that some historical research comes in there somewhere, but essentially you have to theologically justify the change in doctrine to fit with other existing doctrine.
Basically they don't just make this shit up on the fly, is the short version. If they did then it would mean that the strictures of God and the teachings of religious figures in the past are entirely malleable and thus pretty worthless as actual strictures.
Solar on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
edited May 2011
the pope can make shit up on the fly though
PiptheFair on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
they sort through two thousand years of theological writing on the concept of limbo, original sin and the question as to whether or not infants are capable of choice and whether God punishes those without choice
they spent I believe months combing through the vatican library
right
I got that
only that can only be considered "research" if you buy the idea that these are impartial observers of factual data rather than self-interested philosophers deliberately selecting texts that agree with the conclusion they decided on in the beginning.
the Catholic church has a lot of things, but intellectual credibility isn't one of them
edit: yes, that's why the pope can make shit up on the fly
Mostly because when Popes do that they tend to a) have got some monks to research it first and make sure it is vaguely legit and b) it can lead to some really big problems down the line.
Solar on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
they sort through two thousand years of theological writing on the concept of limbo, original sin and the question as to whether or not infants are capable of choice and whether God punishes those without choice
they spent I believe months combing through the vatican library
right
I got that
only that can only be considered "research" if you buy the idea that these are impartial observers of factual data rather than self-interested philosophers deliberately selecting texts that agree with the conclusion they decided on in the beginning.
the Catholic church has a lot of things, but intellectual credibility isn't one of them
edit: yes, that's why the pope can make shit up on the fly
Posts
I feel better about euthanizing pets than I do about just killing them for the rapture
those people don't deserve pets anyway
basically, you wrote emails to all the people you thought would be "left behind" after the rapture
and the system had 3 guys running it, and 2 out of 3 of them had to log-in once a day or the emails would be sent out
all 3 of them were religious so they figured at least 2 of them would be taken up in the rapture so when they didn't log in, it was proof the rapture was happening and the emails would be sent out
anyway, one of them got murdered and another guy couldn't get to a wi-fi hot spot so the emails went out and one was this guy confessing to murdering his wife and hiding her body in his house or something
The final paragraph is the best part.
So the religious version of Safehouse.
The Apocalypse Has Never Been More Fun
Secret Satan Wishlist!! Thinkgeek Wish List
Shaving gets you left behind?
That sucks
What is he talking abouuuuuutttttttttttttt? How is anyone believing this omg my brainnnnssss
remember the second coming of sony?
77?
your avatar is very appropriate at this time
:^:
The facts surrounding the death of controversial Anglican minister Martin Bergmann, in Hammersmith, west London, last week, continue to be mysterious. Speculation as to the events leading up to Bergmann's untimely death at the age of 39 is still rife, with murder, suicide and death by misadventure all possibilities.
Police have so far refused to comment, saying that "investigations are in progress", but others have not been slow in coming forward. Claiming that "there are many who would want him dead", supporters and friends – all of whom declined to be named – said that Bergmann's death was part of an international conspiracy of mind-boggling complexity, in which P2, the enigmatic Vatican lodge rumoured to be behind the controversial death of Pope John Paul I, is supposedly central. But members of the Church of England's General Synod have moved to crush what they have called "these tasteless and irresponsible rumours", putting Bergmann's death down to the "final act of a deeply troubled mind, now, it is to be hoped, at peace at last."
The confusion surrounding Bergmann's final hours is all of a piece with the rest of his life. Reliable facts about Bergmann are few and far between. The often viciously partisan positions his extreme views have invoked meant that Bergmann was always surrounded by a fog of often ill-founded rumours, a situation exacerbated by his refusal to communicate with the media. Like one of his mentors, the Danish religious philosopher Kierkegaard, Bergmann professed a deep hatred of the press; a contempt extending beyond mere refusal to co-operate into occasional examples of outright violence. One – notorious – incident last year, in which a photographer threatened a legal case for assault, was ultimately settled out of court.
The "dark nordic prince" arrived in England under a cloud a decade ago, hounded out of his native Norway for leading a rogue Protestant sect whose practices and beliefs, according to one Norwegian churchman at the time, were "unspeakable and wholly unacceptable." ("Only the C of E would welcome you with a CV like that," a senior Church of England official remarked recently.) Some say that Bergmann "cynically and wantonly" exploited the ailing Church of England's renowned tolerance "to a parodic degree", using Church protection to disseminate beliefs "in every way contrary to established Christian doctrine."
Fond of quoting Kierkegaard's dictum, "Christianity is what Christ came to abolish", Bergmann developed what he called an "anti-Christian Gnostic Christianity". He characterised established Christianity as "the cult of Paul" and decried church buildings as "prisons for God." Drawing upon Gnosticism, he argued that the "Creator entity" – the Judaic Christian God – was a "blind idiot god suffering from autism"; all creation – and organic life in particular – were to be regarded as "foul excresences we must seek to annul or to escape". But it was his persistent vilifications of the Roman Catholic Church that proved the greatest source of embarrassment to the Church of England hierarchy, whose declining congregations are one factor impelling an increasingly strong ecumenical drive towards convergence with Rome. The vociferousness of his anti-Catholicism was taken by some to be indicative of failing mental health ("he was totally gone", one former friend said yesterday). Bergmann, however, claimed that "the only rational view of the Roman Catholic Church" was that it was "a monstrous blasphemy of transcendent evil: incomparably more corrupt than the Mafia (if indeed it can be separated from organised crime, which of course it cannot)". His views, he said, were backed up by "hard sociological data which even they can't suppress now" concerning the – apparently endemic – problem of institutionalised child abuse amongst Catholic clergy. But Bergmann alienated any of the few supporters he had even within Protestantism by adding that "any religion that is serious about worshipping the Father-God will always be about child abuse; the only difference between the religion of the Paulites and that of the Abrahamites is that, in the Paulites' case, child torture spills over into child murder. Despite tying and binding Isaac, the Jewish God ultimately spares Abraham's son; but the Paulite God actually kills his own son."
Presenting a "Spinozist immanent critique" of Calvin, Bergmann argued that "the Calvinists' biggest mistake was that they were insufficiently fatalistic. Evidently, fatalism and morality do not mix. They confused an ethical and transcendental injunction – if you eat the apple you will be ill – with a moral command – do not eat the apple." The "specific and unique" contribution that Protestantism had to make had been "systematically distorted into a dismal work-cult," Bergmann argued, "by a set of State-loving, self-serving money-grubbers." Bergmann's well-known detestation of consumer culture was based around an adherence to what he called the "category of the sufficient" which had been "annihilated" by a capitalism "insisting you gorge yourself on more and more things you don't want." Bergmann argued that "aseticism and self-denial are not moral positions but very specific programs for the systematic dismantling of secular identity, ways of opening up the body to the Utter Nothingness which is the reality of the true God."
Unsubstantiated rumours suggest that the Church's tolerance of Bergmann was not due solely or even primarily to the C of E's well-known spinelessness, but to his reputed competence in the ostensibly discontinued practice of exorcism, a subject about which the Church has been consistently evasive. But even Bergmann's purported expertise here had a bizzare twist, since his technique as an exorcist was supposedly based on "co-operating with demons" in an attempt to "free them" from "mammal meat." All of which prompted an exasperated High Church spokesman to remark that, "Surely even a Church as notoriously liberal as ours must abominate priests who openly sympathise with demons, and who make no bones about their hatred of God."
There are those who claim that Bergmann had "never abandoned the harsh and pitiless pantheon of dark gods" from his "ancient Norse heritage." But friends suggest that the "rot really set in" when he began to take seriously the works of the late Science Fiction writer Philip K. Dick. "Dick's sanity was questionable at the end," the Reverend Colin Wemmick, an erstwhile associate of Bergmann's points out. "But Martin had become convinced that Dick's [Gnostic-influenced] conviction that the Roman Empire had not ended was a vindication of his own views of an unbroken continuity of Roman power."
According to his opponents, the discovery of Bergmann's body – masked, and trussed with various kinds of harnesses - "make a mockery" of his theories of "anti-sexuality" which argued that "sexuality" was "a secular hell people voluntarily enter; a meat prison for the body." Others claim that the scene of Bergmann's death was "obviously faked by his enemies – of which he had many." Yet the most intriguing suggestion comes from those closest to Bergmann, who indignantly insist that, far from being some secret sexual perversion, the apparatus Bergmann had assembled was part of a regime of "systematic anti-sexual practice" ("he was building a machine to escape the meat"). A series of unpublished writings on Masoch which reputedly argue that "the properly religious attitude is always deeply masochistic," and which extol Masoch "as a profoundly religious thinker," apparently confirm this interpretation.
In death as in life, little is certain about Martin Bergmann. Reverend Wemmick probably summed up the situation best when he said, "when you look into Martin's life, you open up a can of worms – a writhing mass of confusion." Those worms are likely to writhe for some time yet.
Yes
Seventy Seven
PSN - MicroChrist
I'm too fuckin' poor to play
WordsWFriends - zeewoot
The empire never ended.
His whole argument is based on a joke sequence from the Clue movie.
Even if you were right, that would be one plus one plus two plus one, not one plus *two* plus one plus one.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
I think the German's pronouce it with more of an authoritative, Saxon twang than the Romans
But yeah basically.
Tsar (Tzar) is also derived from caesar.
Other spellings include Csar and Czar, which are more obviously related
It's pretty amazing just how much European culture was influenced by the Romans, even more than a thousand years after the Empire fell.
snatching your people up
tryin to Rap'em so you need to hide your wife, hide your kids
hide your wife, hide your kids
and hide your husbands 'cause he Rapturing everyone out here
(super late I know but still)
also central asian and middle-eastern and potentially even western china
or you're objectively wrong and acting like a child?
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=81522826&CFTOKEN=47610669
shit, I don't even practice organized religion
I just get pissy when people spout off inane bullshit
can you give me a summary here?
I'm like three thousand words in and I have no idea why you linked it
they spent I believe months combing through the vatican library
I suspect that some historical research comes in there somewhere, but essentially you have to theologically justify the change in doctrine to fit with other existing doctrine.
Basically they don't just make this shit up on the fly, is the short version. If they did then it would mean that the strictures of God and the teachings of religious figures in the past are entirely malleable and thus pretty worthless as actual strictures.
right
I got that
only that can only be considered "research" if you buy the idea that these are impartial observers of factual data rather than self-interested philosophers deliberately selecting texts that agree with the conclusion they decided on in the beginning.
the Catholic church has a lot of things, but intellectual credibility isn't one of them
edit: yes, that's why the pope can make shit up on the fly
Yeah he can
but generally they don't
Mostly because when Popes do that they tend to a) have got some monks to research it first and make sure it is vaguely legit and b) it can lead to some really big problems down the line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Observatory