Posted On:7/18/2011 7:31pm
Style: lol yet again more Judo !
I still want pizza ... and a few rounds of medium contact kickboxing ...
Originally Posted by ghost55
Violence is pretty uncommon in clubs in this area, and the dude didn't seem particularly hostile up until the moment he slapped me.
“I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.”
Has entered Barovia...
Posted On:7/18/2011 7:34pm
Posted On:7/18/2011 8:50pm
Gladiators Academy Lafayette, LA Style: Judo, MMA, White Trash JJ
Let me say something on this but this is only my opinion and stuff I have been, let's say, told for lack of a better word. When it comes to rank in Judo if someone says you are a certain rank OR sponsors you for a rank and a board agrees with them then you should not question them. I forget the Latin term that came up during the Morton investigation. It's just to say that you are not significant enough to question such an authority because they are certainly infallible.
Now in the case of Morton we were proven correct. So certainly they are not infallible but "certainly" they are not wrong in this one. I have no idea about Lowery nor do I care to know.
I have resigned my position in Judo politics. Stuff like this is making us look bad and quite frankly I am fed up with it. My solution has been to remove my self from that nonsense.
Judo is only gentle for the guy on top.
My dog is cuter and smarter than yours.
Posted On:7/18/2011 9:02pm
Style: Kodokan Judo
Originally Posted by 100xobm
Why isn't Mtripp on the board anymore anyways?
We are not worthy!
Falling for Judo since 1980
Posted On:7/18/2011 9:19pm
Originally Posted by atomicpoet
He is arresting me based on a conventional understanding of what the word "American" means.
Not really. In fact, you actually likely wouldn't be arrested at all.
Language is based on conventional agreement. If you disagree with the definition, take it up with society. We can say the same with other words, including "the", "cockroach", and "Christianity".
Some words have greater levels of conventional agreement than others. Let's face facts here—you're not arguing that Mormons are non-Christians based on some disinterested review of the facts. You're arguing that Mormons are non-Christians because you find some of their beliefs (or what you think they are) distasteful. You know slightly better than to say, "My invisible friend told me that if I think Mormons are wrong, he'll buy me a big house after I die", but not much more than that. You're not arguing that Mormons are superchristian and that the other sects should wise up, you're seeking to diminish them, and trying to claim that History Is On Your Side.
We have lots of historic documents shedding light on what a Christian is. Namely, we have what the early Christians had to say about themselves (Paul, Clement, etc.). We also have what opponents of Christianity had to say about them (Marcus Aurelius, Rabbi Akiva, etc.).
Yup, and we have a lot of documents from movements that were Christian and then were written out of Christianity. And we have dozens upon dozens of interpretations of those documents as well.
For you to be oblivious of the wealth of documentation available to us is to have no understanding on what history is. Doing a song and dance on interpretation has no bearing on what historical fact is.
I'm not oblivious. I'm just not a believer. As a non-believer, it is pretty easy for me to see that the conflict between mainstream Christians and Mormonism is hardly any different than the conflict between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (the latter being the church of my youth). Well, there is one difference—rather less bloodshed. But time and history have a way of working things out, so now there are very few EO who will claim that RCs are non-Christian. The same will surely be the case, and likely in our lifetimes, with Mormons and the Protestant sects who are their main competitors for recruits.
It does not refute anything. However, it does indicate that calling yourself a Christian in early 19th century North America was convenient.
That's a rather fanciful understanding of 19th century North America.
Yes, there is. Off the top of my head, there's the Shema, the Apostles' Creed, and the Nicene Creed.
That's not history, those are claims made by various sects. Again, the problem is a simple one: you are a believer and find somewhat different beliefs offensive. That the documents you mention are in one case actually Jewish and in the latter two cases from three and four hundred years after Christianity was founded tells me that indeed, there's nothing really to them. Clearly, people were Christians for hundreds of years before those creeds were solidified and became popular. History itself isn't an agent telling Person X that he is Christian and Person Y that he is not. Mostly that was done via public cults (state-sanctioned sects) and ideological power. You're just a servant of one of the contemporary sects. There's nothing else going on here.
I'm using monotheism to indicate a broad concept that Christians largely have agreement about. You should know what this word means without me explaining it to you.
I do. I also know that what monotheism is has been the subject of some controversy between Christian sects. That hardly matters to me, as I have no stake in the outcome. Thus, it's easy for me to see your increasing hysterics as a simple matter of sectarianism, along the lines of whether clergy should be bearded or not.
The difference between Mormonism and historical -- that is to say, historically documented creeds of the early Church -- is that Mormons have a fundamental disagreement on what "monotheism" and "oneness" means.
As have a variety of other sects over the millennia. You think the Mormons are heretics. For heresy to be some useful guide in creating a taxonomy, one would need to be a believer in the first place.
No, I'm saying that it's a documented historical fact that Visigoths existed. That there is no more Visigoths has no bearing on this fact. In the same way, God may or may not exist, but this has no bearing on whether there have been historical Christian beliefs.
It is a historical fact that Christians exist. It's a historical fact that Christian sects have always had widely differing beliefs. This continues to this day. This includes Mormonism.
Great. So if I murder someone, I'll get off -- because history is primarily interpretive. If I disagree with what the word "murder" means, I guess I'm not going to jail.
I see you have made a sharp right turn into lunacy here. History is interpretive, period. You may find that an uncomfortable reality, but it's true, nonetheless. Quick, why did the Soviet Union fall? Was it because of the Cold War? Because of the power of markets over command economies? Something in the Russian national character? Long crises due to geography and the relative absence of cold water ports? Because Stalin was the gravedigger of the revolution and refused to follow Trotsky's plan to spread socialism internationally? Because the German revolution of 1918 failed, thus leaving the Soviet state weak early in its development? Because the Pope prayed for it to happen?
You can find scholars answering all these questions with "Yes!" and making strong or weak arguments for the same. If you're just stuck blubbering, "But but...the Soviet Union fell!" you're not going to understand anything.
It is only interpretive if one has never read any historical documents regarding early Christian creeds. I'm beginning to think you haven't.
It's only factual if you think early Christian creeds are even relevant to the conversation, which you only do if you think they're inspired by God.
My taxa is based on my ability to read documents of later imperial Rome -- and its description of a new upstart religion that was taking the Empire by storm.
"...taking the Empire by storm"! Was that emblazoned on the cover of the paperback book that led to your conversion?
There is an Atheist's Club since atheism is an "ism". Doctrines imply exclusivity.
Ah, Christian propaganda! No wonder you're confused.
Anyway, I make a habit of not arguing with people whose ultimate argument is "My invisible friend promised me a big house after I died if I think the way I do," so you can have the last word.
The majority of evangelicals and fundamentalists agree that Roman Catholicism has its basis in a historic creedal tradition.
And the ones that don't will make the same exact arguments you are making right now. You just think they're wrong, but you're right, because of your invisible pal.
You and I have a fundamental disagreement in views. I say that history is primarily factual. You say it is interpretive. I wonder how your views would be sustainable if you were ever to go to court.
Court, of course, has nothing to do with actually having a theory of history, or with creating a useful taxonomy of religious belief. Shorter: you're a moron.
Last edited by Rivington; 7/18/2011 9:26pm at .
NOTE TO SELF - MOAR GRAPPLE - GET A NORMAL HAIR CUT - REPEAT
Posted On:7/18/2011 9:59pm
Style: Submission Grappling
As far as I am concerned, anyone who accepts Yeshua as Messioch is a Christian. Mormons self-identify as christian too. Evangelical Lutherans are not so keen on the idea. I brought it up because I think some folks were ready to see Mark as part of a group he sees as biggots.
Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie
KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao
In De Janerio, in blackest night,
Luta Livre flees the fight,
Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!
When I Get Back
Posted On:7/18/2011 10:16pm
So if Mark Tripp challenges someone to a Temple-sealed Randori, does that mean the Tatami extends Beyond the Veil?
SHIAS CAN BE FOREVER!!!
Posted On:7/18/2011 10:23pm
Originally Posted by Matt Phillips
I brought it up because I think some folks were ready to see Mark as part of a group he sees as biggots.
He's white he is already part of that group.
Posted On:7/18/2011 10:35pm
Originally Posted by Matt Phillips
In my experience, no one fucks like a Mormon girl. Just sayin'
Bishop's daughters, specifically, right?
Posted On:7/18/2011 10:38pm
Originally Posted by capt. moroni
Suggested themes: family home evening, the quad, board games, baking cookies, G-rated movies, basketball at church gym (the only fight that starts with a prayer), and coffee cups turned upside down...
Don't forget the green jello "salad" with carrots in it.
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info