Cornelius

I don’t think it would rival as much as enhance.

What translation is this?

Why the adjective “biblical?”

Tobit 12:15 15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.” Revelation 8:2–4 Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; 4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

Hey Von. Good to see you. It depends on the form of Buddhism. If it’s purely philosophy sure. I’ve done a fair amount of studying it. I already have my own tradition to worry about and work on. Working on following tw philosophies even if they are compatible seems like too much.

Welcome aboard.

Looks can often be deceiving. Hitler officially, like the rest of the Nazi Party, was a Positive Christian. This was the official religion of the party. A form of Christianity that they invented which was anti-semetic and "pure." Kind of like Identity Christianity in modern times. The SS followed a pseudo-pagan/christian religion that was taught by Himmler and created by his " religious advisor" Karl Maria Wiligut. In which "Krist" was an ancient germanic pagan god stolen by the jews. There were many ages such as the one where mutated man creatures that eventually came to be called dwarves and giants existed. Karl Maria Wiligut himself was from an ancient secret line of kings and wizards dating to prehistory that had magical genetic memories of the past making him a prophet. It turns out he was insane and later put in a psych hospital to Himmler's great embarrassment. Hitler also dabbled with these beliefs until Karl was hospitalized for insanity. Then he was furious with Himmler for the bad optics. There were also other beliefs such as the one about Vril Energy from the inner earth beings which was championed by the Thule Society. Mind you all of this is off the top of my head so please excuse any mistakes. This is splitting hairs and looking for an excuse. You wouldn't accept this answer from a religious as you accuse them. If you can lay any atrocity at the feet of the religious, as you have done many times on this forum, then Atheism has to accept it's bad apples. And the apples are bad indeed, with the death count at hundreds of millions by this point. It's only fair right? In modern times China, an atheist communist country, is currently torturing and killing Christians. It is banning their Bible and burning their churches down. This of course doesn't compare to the millions of Uigur Muslims currently held in concentration camps and having genocide committed among them. This is exactly what I am asking you to do here. I have seen you do this with your cohorts ad nauseum on this forum alone. It's only fair if you levy these charges against them to use the same measure against yourself. That actually isn't my point. It's actually the opposite. I hope you can reread what I wrote before with better understanding now. You can't blame atheism or the religious because it's just Humans committing these acts. To use a quote I heard once from a Rockstar "If an ** with a weapon is going to go out and kill a person or people cause another ** with a guitar told him too then they were an ** to begin with and would have done it anyway." That made sense to me at the time.

I just wanted to take a second as I realized that my post probably came off much harsher than was intended. I was a little confused at first at the reaction to it. I thought I should clarify that what I said is a basic tenet of the forum that is a part of its foundation. This is an interfaith forum that has open discussion. If you do not want your post commented directly on you can put it in the open pulpit area. So what I meant by writing it that way is that this principle is unquestionable and not open to discussion or debate. I didn't mean it to come across as angry or harsh.

I was with you right up until that point. I think a few seconds of critical thought and a review at Atheisms record over the past century and a half would prove otherwise. So instead of a belief or nonbelief problem. It might just be a human one. I might discuss further.

I'm always around. You just don't see me.

It's fine, it happens all the time. I am aware that I can come across as blunt and abrasive as well. The only emotion I assure you that was attached to my post was bewilderment. those were merely some of the many questions that flitted across my mind. What I've gathered is your problem isn't necessarily with people wearing their preferred religious symbol but perceived disingenuous display of their preferred religious symbols. I am still confused as to some of your specifications on the appropriate display techniques. It seemed like you were implying it's ok for people to wear a cross but they must wear it hidden inside their clothing unless it's a part of their uniform or accidentally falls out. "Intentional or not this is what came across as 'attitude'. In any case perhaps go back an read the conversations leading up to my comments, it's about context." Well if this is indeed what you were stating this would be your own special rule for religious pendants because it is not societal or held by many and may be entirely peculiar to you. Also if I'm here I've read the conversations. Thank you for the clarifications. I hope you soon realize that my straightforwardness and lack of tact is not an attitude just a flaw of my character. I come off much better in person where body language and tone come into play. I find through text online almost always I am misunderstood and have emotions and motivations projected onto my statements. I am actually very well received in person by most people and adored I assure you.

The only attitude is the one you are projecting onto the text. Try reading it without attaching emotional motivation and just read the text as plain inquisitive questions. I even added in that I was "just genuinely confused by what you are getting at here" to demonstrate that I was simply seeking clarification.

So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? How about a baphomet? or just a regular necklace? I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away? Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants? Is it only the cross? what about a wiccan necklace? I'm just genuinely confused by what you are getting at here.

Dan has every right, like every other poster, to post his views, beliefs, and opinions on any part of this forum as long as it follows the TOS. Just because a forum is labeled atheist doesn’t mean you have the right to silence him here or he is somehow banned from this part of the forum. End of story. Period. You are out of line.

Are you commenting on Dan or yourself?