HOME | DD
SolJuniper β Bible
#bible #catholic #christian #christianity #biblechristian
Published: 2015-03-27 08:24:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 3902; Favourites: 62; Downloads: 6
Redirect to original
Description
Found this here:Β lefthemispheres.blogspot.com/2β¦3/27/15
Thanks everyone for your support and favorites
Related content
Comments: 90
Y'know, deviantart is for art, mostly. Specifically, art that the uploaders actually made themselves. It's not an image board in which to post whatever edgy pictures you have at hand. I think you ought to reconsider what you're doing
π: 0 β©: 2
MOSTLY? what about the people who write? Why do you think there are journals? And edgy pictures? Please, hon. This is post is not meant to be taken seriously. SolJuniper probably thought it was funny and wanted you all to have a good laugh... or apply cold water to burnt area.
Whichever, whatever. It doesn't matter. My opinion on this post? It's funny. LOL ROFL yada-yada-yada.e.t.c.e.t.c.
'You find it offensive? I find it funny! That's why I'm happier than you!'
π: 0 β©: 1
Who ever said that written pieces aren't art? The point of that guy's comment is that dA is meant for people who create, not for people who just gather stuff they had no hand in and post it for popularity. In fact, it's specifically against the website rules to upload things you haven't made yourself.
π: 0 β©: 1
Also want to point out there's a link up in the description. They aren't saying this work is theirs. I clicked the link, and it leads right to the site and i did find the picture which leads to an article further explaining the post. I think SolJuniper wants us to see (if we were interested) what this post means in the context of the site.Β
Also, it sounds as if you are accusing me of saying that written works aren't art? I'm not sure if you've noticed, but why do you think they call it 'literary arts'? Writing is art.Β
About the creativity factor: A person doesn't need to create a physical thing. Creation can be a psychological thing too. Look down at other comments. They are posting their opinions/ideas on the post. As for 'gathering stuff for popularity', I look up things such as these 'memes' or 'picture quote' things to give myself something to show my friends. Usually so they can laugh.Β
And as for the rules, I have yet to find them on the site. I cannot find a clear link to them. But that rule is very common and I do want to say that a lot of times, when sites have rules like this, there is usually a 'as long as you site the source, it's okay' thing after that specific rule.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you had actually read the rules (found here ) instead of just assuming what they'd be like, you'd know that linking somewhere else and saying "this isn't mine" doesn't change the fact that this person has uploaded something that isn't theirs. I also wasn't saying that you implied that written work isn't art. I was clarifying that nobody ever made that statement and your "what about people who write" comment was unnecessary.
Also, philosophical ideas about creativity has nothing to do with this whole thing. The point of dA is that the things you upload are things you've created yourself and that's all.
Anyway, given that the rules might not be so easy to navigate if you're looking for something specific, here are a couple of things relevant to this situation. They were taken from a few different pieces of dA's FAQ and copyright policy.
Our copyright policy, in brief, states that your submissions may only contain materials or images which were created entirely through your own effort, authorized stock or resources and materials or images for which you have obtained permission for use in the submission.
This means that content such as screenshots, celebrity photographs, video game sprites, and other similar materials are not typically considered to be valid resources for use in submissions to your deviantART gallery unless you have obtained written permission from the copyright holder.
Failure to obtain proper permission for the use of materials protected under copyright can leave your deviantART submission vulnerable to being removed by our staff following a valid claim of infringement against it.
If the work you wish to use is not a valid stock or resource material then you need to contact the proper copyright owner of the material prior to submission. Once contacted the owner of the material needs to provide you with a written statement which clearly states that you have permission to use the work and that you have permission to sublicense your derivative work to deviantART as required by deviantART's Submission Agreement. The owner should state that they understand the nature of both deviantART and the nature of the Submission Agreement.
- In most cases it does not matter how much of the material you have used, whether it's a single frame, a few moments of audio, a short clip of video or any other sampling it's still considered to be protected by copyright and you still require the owner's permission for use.
- It doesn't matter how you obtained the material, it's still considered copyrighted and you still need permission.
- It doesn't matter whether or not you've credited the proper owner, it's still considered copyrighted and you still need permission.
- It doesn't matter if you are not selling it or making a profit, it's still considered copyrighted and you still need permission.
- It doesn't matter if you can find other people using things without permission, it's still considered copyrighted and you still need permission.
- It doesn't matter if you've edited it a little bit or made a few alterations, if it's recognizable it's still considered copyrighted and you still need permission.
π: 0 β©: 0
Looking at people around me make me glad to be Christian.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well said, and good for you.
Everyone of course has the right to believe whatever they like, and the right to practice those beliefs so long as they're not hurting anyone else.
That being said, religions extremists don't acknowledge this right. There are a shocking number of religious extremists in Christianity who believe that atheists are somehow less human, and don't deserve the same respect. I have personally encountered an unpleasant number.
Evangelicals routinely state the lie that "morality comes from religion", specifically their religion, and use it to justify endless streams of harassment and hatred.
Obviously the extreme end is having laws that effectively make heresy or blasphemy a death sentence. Pakistan has laws like that right now. That being said, Christianity has a long history of doing the same thing.
There are a lot of countries out there where there are battles being fought for whether they will have a religious or secular government.
Since religious extremists don't recognize the right of others to have different beliefs, they fail to see that only secular institutions can act justly towards diverse groups.
π: 0 β©: 1
The west secularized from the 18th century. In most of it the formerly great civic power of Christianity was severely limited. People used to be killed for heresy (such as having the "wrong sort" of Christianity) by "Christians" at one time. In Christianity at least, that no longer is the case.
Nor do political extremists recognize the right of others to have different beliefs and will kill them over the matter- see A Hitler, J Stalin, VI Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed, it is extremism and totalitarian persecution of people that causes undue suffering, not any particular set of beliefs.
I didn't mean to imply that any specific group or class of groups is solely responsible for persecuting and harming human beings, rather it seems to be an irksome weakness in the core of human psychology.
I don't know how to fix this core problem that leads to intolerance. Any ideas?
π: 0 β©: 1
The instinct to try to ban/criminalize/annihilate that which we personally don't approve of is a temptation many find hard to resist.
What I would call the growth of social/political liberalism which gradually developed in "the west" from the commencement of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, certainly tempered the influence the persecutory instinct had to cause mischief - although, of course, there were times when a general onward march of liberalism was thrown into reverse in some areas; indeed, even whole nations could be plunged into a comprehensive totalitarianism far worse than had ever existed in the least enlightened earlier eras - Nazi Germany being the most obvious example. Official persecution of homosexuals actually increased rather than lessened during a time when things were going in a generally more liberal direction in the UK following an 1885 law which criminalized all private homosexual acts by men (a law which was not repealed until 1967).
With the instinct to wish to destroy what they don't approve of being so strong in many people, my ideal state would have the following as non negotiable absolutes which it guarantees to its people -
You may live your own life as you see fit as long as this does not do physical harm others. You cannot force that lifestyle on others. However, you may be as virulent as you want in peacefully seeking to convince others to follow your own lifestyle/beliefs (see below).
You have freedom of speech - except for calls to commit physical harm to others and the libeling and slandering of others.
As an adult, you will not have what you can see, hear, and read censored (see above).
Excepting stolen goods, you will not be criminalized over what you privately own/possess (the only exception being child pornography showing the criminal abuse of minors - which makes the possessor of such images accessories to real crimes).
You have complete freedom of belief - religious and political.
As a consenting adult you will have complete sexual freedom.
You will face no criminal laws based in subjective opinions, subjective tastes, subjective moral disapproval, or the application of the principle of strict liability (in none of these cases can an individual be completely sure when they may or may not be violating laws which are using such evidential criteria).
Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β Β -
So called "political correctness" is fundamentally totalitarian, stating as it does that there is only one way in which a particular thing can be "rightly" viewed by everyone, and that other ways are to be banned, censored, shouted down - even subject to state criminalization.
π: 0 β©: 0
"Don't cherrypick the Bible," says people who cherrypick the Bible to point out inconsistencies where they do not exist.
π: 0 β©: 2
Talking snakes? Riiight.....
π: 0 β©: 0
Bullshit is bullshit, no matter how you slice it.
But if you want a really good laugh, read the Koran. Same shit, different book.
Atheist and proud.
Peace.
π: 0 β©: 1
That person used it's brain, while reading. Others refuse to do so
π: 0 β©: 0
Hello potential skype picture that will annoy all my friends.
π: 0 β©: 0
nice, ive always thought the cure for religion is to look at it closely
π: 0 β©: 0
Ugh, I understand why you feel that way.Β I would like to share a short video that really answered some of my questions about the Bible if you are interested.
π: 0 β©: 1
No thanks, I've study and read multiple bibles/religious views points, and thinking for myself I have come to the conclusion that ALL religion is bullshit, but thanks.
π: 0 β©: 0
Humankind is simply "unable" to apply Justice on earth.
This is an obvious statement. However, as mentioned above, the bible is a patchwork, and lot of alterations are well known. But far from that, how many versions do we have ?
60 + I think, and so on... revisions are still printed and distributed.
Anyway the point here is to really understand that Atheism is a rejection of a religion (hopefully not all of them), because people may want to believe in something which is soooo high and sooooo perfect to be able to undertake the role of servant creatures of God.
That said, I think it may be relevant to study the others, because as humans, with a brain, we need to stay open-minded... otherwise the time of darkness and ignorance, will crush us...
π: 0 β©: 0
That doesn't, strictly speaking, make much sense: you can think that Bible is wrong about almost everything, and still believe in god - Zeus, for example. It would make more sense to say: "I've studied the Bible. That's why I'm not a Christian".
π: 0 β©: 0
Thou shalt not kill is a bad translation. The original text is more about assassination than killing and it make sens if you, for exemple, consider self-defense. And bein second after after an injuction against atheism made somone considerated progressist like John Paul II consider it fit for absolution when atheism and apostasy arent so well in context as, as you said taking somthing out of context in the bible make it hard to anderstand, even "thou shalt not kill" is problematic. It permit the logic: rule two dont aply if you do it on people that arent folowing rule one leading straight to religiouse war and inquisition as history remember us.
You are right that all political system can leed to totalitarian regime, but some are aiming to make a totalitarian regime, theocracy fit it on any sens philosopher have gived to totalitarisme and orhers, like democracy, are aiming at avoiding it.
I like the image by the way. Even if I don't think an atheist has to read any fantasy book that start a religion to validate his atheism. There is many reson to become an atheist and this one is as good as any.
π: 0 β©: 0
This goes both ways.
You can't just pick all the stupid stuff in the book and post it out there to make a point.
Plus you have to keep in mind that the bible as we know it is a patchwork written by hundreds of people over thousands of years - of course some of that is bullshit.
That's why some poeple just stick to the basic stuff that even Atheists and Agnostics can subscribe too, or is there a problem with "Thou shalt not kill"?
π: 0 β©: 1
Thou shall not kill is not unique to the bible. Just about every society on earth except the American Republican party has that rule. Even the ten commandments are problematic, given that they're partly meant to enforce a totalitarian monotheistic regime.
π: 0 β©: 1
"monotheistic" is correct, "totalitarian regime" comes doesn to how you handle them, which applies to literally all doctrines in existance, be it nationalism, socialism or religion.
π: 0 β©: 1
Monotheism holds that there is a universal truth that only they know and that everyone else is damned. It's easily set it apart from other systems. It's the difference between your local green party in the USA or Europe and the Republican party fighting to make Christianity the only protected law under the constitution.
π: 0 β©: 1
no it doesn't, you can have radicals in christianity and radicals in enviromentalism.
for exsampel bill and melinda gates, the founders of the gates-foundation recieved some very "unfriendly" mails stating that there investment in vaccination in 3rd world countries is actually damaging the enviroment, because it causes over population - which is just blatantly wrong.
likewise you may have tempered and yet faithfull people even in the highest rankes of the church, i think the current pope is nothing like the republicans you talk about, or is he?
π: 0 β©: 1
There are radical Christians and radical environmentalists. The key difference is that mainstream environmentalism is right, and climate science is correct. While Christianity remains as unproved and subjective as any other thousand faiths.
Well, with regards to your example about environmentalism; there is a large group of people who oppose vaccines, but they're rarely environmentalists. Most of the time the anti-vaxxers are libertarian or conservative leaning with religious overtones. Science has always been enemies with religion.
Pope Francis has his good points, though his encouragement for a beaten wife to stay with her husband or his remarks of trans people as non-human throw him firmly on the shit list. for me
π: 0 β©: 1
If science and religion have always been enemies, why did Muhammad state, that every muslim is obliged to seek knowledge?
π: 0 β©: 1
There have always been outliers among religion; Muhammed, Giordano Bruno, Sun Tzu. Unfortunately, the majority of religious power structures have opposed every advancement of science and human rights. From the Catholic Church to radical Zen Buddhism of the Japanese Imperial army. These were faiths that proliferated based around supressing knowledge and encouraging others to never doubt or question.
And unlike religion, the basis of science is doubt not faith.
π: 0 β©: 1
you can find the same radical adherence in science, or rahter people who referre to themselves as scientists.
the best exsampel are the people that call themselves economists or economic researchers. whenever reality proves their predictions wrong, they claim there had been special factors that could not be forseen. Why? Is economy a religion?
π: 0 β©: 0
Seven years in a catholic elementary and high school and sunday school made me an atheist too!
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Truly amazing how few actually read this bookΒ thoroughly. And those that only read the good parts and skip over the dark parts. Like when Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt. Priests tend to skip the part where God hardened theΒ Pharaoh's heart so he would not give in to Moses' request. Or the poor guy they found gathering firewood on a sunday that God demanded should be stoned to death. Or the many cities they pillaged along the way. They are quite happy to skip that part, and with good reason.
Some may say that I focus only on the bad parts. And I don't. I know about the good parts but since everyone is focused on those and can't seem to shut up about them, I'll bring up the less-known parts or the overlooked parts of this collection of fairytales.
Bottom line, I agree with what this say. I was never a religious type but I hung around with a Christian youthgroup for many years and listened to the priest tell biblestories from time to time and I started to notice more and more that didn't make sense and when I began reading these stories myself, the pitchblack parts came forward and really convinced me that this was either completely made-up or too horrifying to ever be taken seriously.
π: 0 β©: 1
Awesome, I like to bring up the contradictions in the bible (Which there are many).
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev |