|
Mind Loving Owl posted:I'm pretty sure the Bible or at least related texts mention Jesus having some younger siblings. Wasn't one of his brothers an apostle? yes, BUT it was OBVIOUSLY a 'brother' in the sense of 'all men are brothers', because OBVIOUSLY. also, Jesus never pooped, not even once.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:yes, BUT it was OBVIOUSLY a 'brother' in the sense of 'all men are brothers', because OBVIOUSLY. There was actually a pretty big controversy in the Middle Ages over whether images depicting Mary bathing baby Jesus were blasphemous or at least inaccurate as many at the time believed Jesus never became dirty. And speaking of art of the messiah when pictures of Christ as an infant were commissioned the patrons would often insist on the artist giving Jesus their face because that's not the height of loving hubris and blasphemy at all. It's part of why so many of those painting have creepy adult faces on baby bodies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Oh gently caress me, you ain't kidding 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh gently caress me, you ain't kidding Oh that's not Jesus, that's just the Moonchild. You only have to worry when he whips out the lightning dick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:yes, BUT it was OBVIOUSLY a 'brother' in the sense of 'all men are brothers', because OBVIOUSLY. To be fair in Christianity being Jesus' real brother would suck dick. I mean, if you become the best donkey merchant in town that's awesome, but nothing beats 'literal god's child who saved the world from sin'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Re: Satanchat, isn't most of our conception an outgrowth of Manichaeism and not Greco-Roman thought? Especially via St. Augustine and other huge figures in the early church who converted from Manichaeism but never left all the baggage behind?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wasn't there a portion of the New Testament early on in Jesus's life where Jesus started to father crowds and talk about how was the sun of god, and his mother and siblings came over and told him to stop acting like a crazy person or he'd get the poo poo kicked out of him? I seem to remember that happening in one throw-away passage, and showing that Mary did indeed conceive more children with Joseph. I don't know about that, I do know there was one book which was booted out of the set that talked about Jesus' "invisible" youth. He killed people for splashing him, bumping into him, maimed a crowd for daring to speak out about what a little poo poo stain he was, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Re: Satanchat, isn't most of our conception an outgrowth of Manichaeism and not Greco-Roman thought? Especially via St. Augustine and other huge figures in the early church who converted from Manichaeism but never left all the baggage behind? Yes. There are a lot of obvious links between Christianity and Manichaeism, and not just the spiritual "world of light" being against the material "world of darkness". YOu know the whole father, son and holy ghost trio? Well, Wikipedia posted:The Great Builder (Syriac: ܒܢ ܖܒܐ ban raba). In charge of creating the new world which will separate the darkness from the light. He calls to: A lot of these ideas all tie to one another, into Judaism as well. Christianity itself spent a lot of its early days trying to simplify the cosmology and cosmogony that had formed from the weird syncretism that produced it. That's sort of my point when I say that I don't think you can really argue that Christianity got "twisted", at least not early on. Religions don't really work that way, they're organic parts of society and evolve along with it. It's no surprise that Christianity in a society that was mercantile and then capitalist would take on new definitions of good and evil. The real problem with American claims is the belief of their own ultimate vindication as being the only "right" Christians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:I'm not all that familiar with Christianity and this is an interesting derail, so: why/how was Mary born without sin? One of the ideas of Christianity (this varies by sect so I'll focus on the Catholic variety of it) is that everybody is a sinner and is born with sin. Part of it goes back to Adam and Eve loving up and unleashing sin upon the world by eating the fruit of knowledge (this is also why people that don't know any better, like children and the severely retarded, are given a free pass) but the other part of it is that sex is a sin. The first sin is lust, after all, and the best way to avoid that sin is to be completely celibate (note: chastity and celibacy are not the same thing). Now, people that are capable of total celibacy are pretty rare so even the Bible says "yes sex is a sin but we get that people can't not gently caress so go ahead and get married and have sex...it's still a sin but God won't punish you so long as you don't have sex outside of marriage." That's also part of why there is argument over whether Mary had other children or what have you. If she only had sex with her husband she could be considered chaste and would be pure if she didn't break any other rule, so if she was also kind, patient, charitable, temperate, and such she was OK. So, anyway, everybody is born stained with sin because you can't get people without sex and we all came from Adam and Eve, who were also stained with sin because they hosed up. It takes effort to cleans yourself of sin. You don't need to be completely pure to get into heaven but if you aren't even trying then you don't get in no matter how pure you are. God likes to see effort. Problem is, the idea is that Jesus was pure his whole life. He started as pure as one could possibly be so his effort was put into making other people pure. As he was the Son of God he was more or less required to be pure so people were arguing that God would have to choose a completely pure woman for the birth to happen. So, either God made Mary pure because magic or Mary was pure to begin with. Or he just cleansed her of sin at birth. Who even knows really, nobody can seem to agree on it. Or if it even rally matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the ideas of Christianity (this varies by sect so I'll focus on the Catholic variety of it) is that everybody is a sinner and is born with sin. Part of it goes back to Adam and Eve loving up and unleashing sin upon the world by eating the fruit of knowledge (this is also why people that don't know any better, like children and the severely retarded, are given a free pass) but the other part of it is that sex is a sin. The first sin is lust, after all, and the best way to avoid that sin is to be completely celibate (note: chastity and celibacy are not the same thing). Whoa, sex is inherently sinful? That's news to me, and I grew up in a rather extreme hellfire & damnation Christian family. How does one square that with god's command to be fruitful and multiply?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:Whoa, sex is inherently sinful? That's news to me, and I grew up in a rather extreme hellfire & damnation Christian family. How does one square that with god's command to be fruitful and multiply? It doesn't. Pick the clobber verses you prefer and go to town.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:Whoa, sex is inherently sinful? That's news to me, and I grew up in a rather extreme hellfire & damnation Christian family. How does one square that with god's command to be fruitful and multiply? It's because the Bible is made up of the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the Epistles. It's a three-way matchup of wildly conflicting viewpoints, ideologies, and writing styles. You literally cannot follow every rule in the Bible because there are so many direct, boolean true-and-false contradictions that even to try would do your head in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the ideas of Christianity (this varies by sect so I'll focus on the Catholic variety of it) is that everybody is a sinner and is born with sin. Part of it goes back to Adam and Eve loving up and unleashing sin upon the world by eating the fruit of knowledge (this is also why people that don't know any better, like children and the severely retarded, are given a free pass) but the other part of it is that sex is a sin. The first sin is lust, after all, and the best way to avoid that sin is to be completely celibate (note: chastity and celibacy are not the same thing). Sorry dude, but you are talking out of your rear end here. When you say sex is a sin, it is 100%, completely, in totality, without a doubt, absolutely, positively, with no redemption, utterly wrong. Plain and simple. I don't even know where to begin, this is how wrong the post is. I think I am just going to say that you do not know what you are talking about. If you learned that from a church, then by Catholic standards, that priest or whoever is technically practicing heresy. Do note that I'm not calling you a heretic. That's not my scene. I'm just saying by Catholic standards, it is heretical to call sex sinful. So when my two friends were getting married, they were having a Catholic wedding. And I was reading from this book of readings they give the bride and the groom so they can choose. And one of the ones is the Garden of Eden story. The creation of Man and Woman. The end of the passage was "And it was very good." Well, I was reading it out for them, and when I got to that line, I put a little twist on it to drive a sexual meaning from it. Once the bride calmed down, I started reading the commentary. And the priest started off with "And it was very good, indeed. Many people forget that sex is good..." The point being that sex is not sinful. If you were married in the Catholic church, went to confession, and told the priest that you had hot sex with your wife every night, provided that you were open to having children (you can have sex for fun, as long as you're willing to have kids too), the priest would say "that's not a sin." Remember, in the Garden of Eden story, which mind you takes place in a garden, which is a symbol for loving and fertility, God made Man and Woman, because it was not good for Man to be alone. He didn't make another dude for company so Adam would have someone to watch football with. Nope. He made a sexual partner. They were banished from the Garden not because they had sex, but because they ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree. Seriously. I don't know where to begin with deconstructing this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:Whoa, sex is inherently sinful? That's news to me, and I grew up in a rather extreme hellfire & damnation Christian family. How does one square that with god's command to be fruitful and multiply? What variety of Christianity was it? Some of them only think lust, excessive sex, recreational sex, or extra-marital sex is sinful and there's a ton of variety in the beliefs. But yeah, short of it is, the Bible says loving is a sin but there are other passages where you get a free pass on having sex while married because God said "go forth and multiply" and an apostle said "yeah, celibacy is preferred but most people can't do that." In some denominations it's "gently caress your spouse but nobody else and you're fine" while others teach that sex is OK only if you don't enjoy it that much, only use the missionary position, and only do it to make babies. Like was said, the Bible contradicts itself on sex all over the place so there's just no way to get all of Christianity to agree on it. edit: This is also why some of the more chill denominations still think gay sex is a sin, incidentally. Gay sex is incapable of producing children so it's purely recreational and God hates that poo poo. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:What variety of Christianity was it? Some of them only think lust, excessive sex, recreational sex, or extra-marital sex is sinful and there's a ton of variety in the beliefs. But yeah, short of it is, the Bible says loving is a sin but there are other passages where you get a free pass on having sex while married because God said "go forth and multiply" and an apostle said "yeah, celibacy is preferred but most people can't do that." In some denominations it's "gently caress your spouse but nobody else and you're fine" while others teach that sex is OK only if you don't enjoy it that much, only use the missionary position, and only do it to make babies. What are these passages that say that sex is sinful? Edit: Also, understand that there is a difference between promoting celibacy and stating that sex is sinful. Part of the reason why is the whole idea about avoiding temptation. So yes, if you want to live the purest life possible, you would be celibate to avoid the temptation of lust, but it is lust that is sinful, not sex. Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:What are these passages that say that sex is sinful? Now that I google around a bit I can't find a passage in particular. That's just what I was taught growing up; that having sex was a sin but God tolerated it if you got married and had sex only to make children. There's a lot of vagueness on what "sexual immorality" means from what I looked at so I'm going to assume this is one of those things that people make up their own definition and stick with it. Probably why the views on it vary so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:What are these passages that say that sex is sinful? I mean, sure it's not outright "sinful" but this is a pretty string condemnation of sex even within marriage: 1 Corinthians 6-7 posted:12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. But ultimately Paul was a shithead so this isn't too surprising. e: I think there might be some confusion going on between various definitions of "sin," especially with respect to Catholicism where these things can have a fairly technical definition that's not necessarily the same as common usage. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:also, Jesus never pooped, not even once. Okay fine all sex is a sin, but then why didn't Jesus poop? Is pooping a sin?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:They were banished from the Garden not because they had sex, but because they ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree. Eating the fruit made them realize they were naked, making them 'embarrassed'; and this part of the story fits in with people having sexual shame / hang ups. But whatever, the whole thing is allegory. I wonder how space geek conservapedians feel about the tree of immortality. God kicks humans out of the garden because, having attained knowledge, they could get immortality next - making them equal to Him. If 'knowledge' can be seen as our ability to craft tools and change our environment; 'immortality' is colonizing another star system and guaranteeing humanity a permanent role in the universe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:yes, BUT it was OBVIOUSLY a 'brother' in the sense of 'all men are brothers', because OBVIOUSLY. I was taught many moons ago that it the hebrew word for "brother" is the same word used for cousin so there is ambiguity about James.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I mean, sure it's not outright "sinful" but this is a pretty string condemnation of sex even within marriage: I wouldn't say it's a strong condemnation. In short, what Paul is saying is that it is an ideal for man to choose to abstain from sexual relations entirely, since it is one of our bodily passions. It's not uncommon for religious people to deny their urges to help them focus on God and to try and become more holy. After all, the whole point of Christianity is to be free from our physical bodies and their needs and to be fulfilled spiritually by God. But since we have bodies, we have certain things to take care. For example, you bolded 7:1, but that's not something Paul is saying. Paul's responding to something from a letter that he received. This is where things can get a little complicated. He's not denying that it is good for a man to not have sexual relations with a woman, but he is also saying that it is not sinful for a man to have sexual relations with a woman who happens to be his wife. It's like eating. It is almost always a good thing to fast, but on a normal day, it is not sinful to refrain from fasting. However, it is always sinful to be a glutton. He basically tells this dude that what he's saying just isn't realistic. Yeah, it's good to not have sex, but that's a standard that most people just can't meet. The need to do it is too strong within them. So, what's going on is that they are resorting to sexual immorality. Paul is saying that to prevent that situation from occurring, sex needs to occur within marriage. Throughout this passage, Paul is telling the guy to be realistic here. Yeah, not having sex is amazing, but it's just not a standard that everyone can live up to. Once again, a lot of the passages you bolded make sense in the context of doing this act to avoid sin. For instance, your bolding of "so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self control" is basically Paul telling the Corinthians that while they can practice abstinence for a time to focus on prayer and God, they should be careful because they just may not have that level of self-control. I think the most important thing that Paul says, which is something you didn't highlight, is "But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that." When he says "I say this as a concession, not a command," it's him acknowledging that reality. It's like fasting. I have Crohn's. As a Catholic, I should fast during Lent. However, I sometimes struggle with keeping my weight up. During these times, I am not able to fast. In the Church's perspective, giving me the choice to not fast is a concession to my bodily needs. It's not sinful for me to not fast since I need to keep my weight up. But the church is also not saying "YOU SHALL NOT FAST!" It's just dealing with reality. Paul is not saying that sex is a sin. He's saying it's better though to avoid sex altogether. He's not big on sex. He's not a huge fan. But in the context of using this passage to say "Is sex sinful," the answer is a plain no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It's because the Bible is made up of the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the Epistles. It's a three-way matchup of wildly conflicting viewpoints, ideologies, and writing styles. You literally cannot follow every rule in the Bible because there are so many direct, boolean true-and-false contradictions that even to try would do your head in. Yeah. Just about any position you'd wish to take on a subject can be defended by scripture and the conflicts are irresolvable. It's a Rorschach test that allows you to see whatever morality you bring to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:What variety of Christianity was it? Some of them only think lust, excessive sex, recreational sex, or extra-marital sex is sinful and there's a ton of variety in the beliefs. But yeah, short of it is, the Bible says loving is a sin but there are other passages where you get a free pass on having sex while married because God said "go forth and multiply" and an apostle said "yeah, celibacy is preferred but most people can't do that." In some denominations it's "gently caress your spouse but nobody else and you're fine" while others teach that sex is OK only if you don't enjoy it that much, only use the missionary position, and only do it to make babies. My family has gone to a half dozen churches over my life, but they're all "non-denominational", which means they don't let some big fancy organization tell them what to believe. They've varied quite a bit. The first was arguably my dad driving around in a bus (that I was born in) having tent revivals in each town he drove through. He met my mother at one of these revivals and told her god told him she was going to marry him. Instead of running away from the crazy man, she went home to pray on it and decided he was telling the truth and they got married against the wishes of her dad and brothers. I never met my uncles. The rest of the churches got progressively "better", but an early one did send my parents into severe debt because the "elders" jointly signed promissory notes for the church debt. Guess who was an elder! After that fiasco, my parents moved the school from that dying church into our house, where we continued to indoctrinate a couple dozen kids. At this point, the churches are mostly harmless, aside from hating gays, athiests, blacks, Muslims, etc all for the low, low price of 10% of whatever you make. Edit: That got tangential and I sorta lost track of the question. But these churches were all too ready to make you feel guilty. Masturbation was unquestionably a sin. Any way they could pile on the guilt was fair game. Yet I never heard that sex within marriage was a sin. Hearing something that is crazier than my childhood experience is pretty rare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I wouldn't say it's a strong condemnation. In short, what Paul is saying is that it is an ideal for man to choose to abstain from sexual relations entirely, since it is one of our bodily passions. It's not uncommon for religious people to deny their urges to help them focus on God and to try and become more holy. After all, the whole point of Christianity is to be free from our physical bodies and their needs and to be fulfilled spiritually by God. But since we have bodies, we have certain things to take care. Would you agree with the claim that passages like this one can be used to support a theology that treats sex as a Bad Thing that God sort of grudgingly tolerates as long as you make sure to only do it with your spouse? I think this is what people mean, and they are using a colloquial definition of sin = bad thing to talk about it. Note also that this is clearly not the only supportable Biblical view of sexuality, and I don't think many mainstream religions subscribe to it explicitly. That said, this passage is evil and the sex-negativity it typifies permeates a lot of Christian thought even if they don't outright claim sex is inherently sinful. Libby Anne at Love, Joy, Feminism has blogged about the way the Purity Culture in white American Evangelicalism causes sexual dysfunction by teaching people that it's good or okay to completely suppress their sexuality. The idea that having no sexuality is a "gift" is really hosed up and whether sex is technically considered a sin or not is kind of unimportant. (That's not to say that there's anything wrong with being asexual or whatever, if that's how you authentically are then more power to you. Just as long as nobody is guilting people into it.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
So has Conservapedia announced that the Klansman who shot up the Jewish center was a fat liberal atheist yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:So has Conservapedia announced that the Klansman who shot up the Jewish center was a fat liberal atheist yet? You mean known Democratic organization the Ku Klux Klan? Why would they even need to state the obvious?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:Yet I never heard that sex within marriage was a sin. Hearing something that is crazier than my childhood experience is pretty rare. When I was a child multiple people told me that I should never go to the local YMCA and should stay at least a block away from it at all times because it was one of the devil's organizations on Earth because The Village People, who were gay, wrote a song about the YMCA. Gay people hung out and recruited at the YMCA so I should avoid it if I didn't want to be gay because gay people burn in a special part of Hell. I wish I was making that up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I wouldn't say it's a strong condemnation. In short, what Paul is saying is that it is an ideal for man to choose to abstain from sexual relations entirely, since it is one of our bodily passions. It's not uncommon for religious people to deny their urges to help them focus on God and to try and become more holy. After all, the whole point of Christianity is to be free from our physical bodies and their needs and to be fulfilled spiritually by God. But since we have bodies, we have certain things to take care. Paul was an rear end in a top hat, a rage addict, and a loving unkillable Wolverine of a human being (Dude was in more than one shipwreck, waylaid on the road by bandits more than once, and famously freed from jail by a massive earthquake). But more than anything else, he was a pragmatist who saw the church as being extremely fragile and endangered. His advice was very specific and often contradictory, because "You guys need to shut up" is advice that a loud church needs and a quiet church really doesn't. The Corinthians were taking old Jewish purity law waaaaaay too literally. ANY sex was verboten. And Paul's advice to them was specifically, "Guys, your poo poo ain't working, stop it. No, really. Jesus will be okay if you have a bit of sex. WITH YOUR WIFE, though." E: for accuracy Somfin fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Paul was an rear end in a top hat, a rage addict, and a loving unkillable Wolverine of a human being (Dude was in more than one shipwreck, waylaid on the road by bandits more than once, and famously freed from jail by a massive earthquake). But more than anything else, he was a pragmatist who saw the church as being extremely fragile and endangered. His advice was very specific and often contradictory, because "You guys need to shut up" is advice that a loud church needs and a quiet church really doesn't. The Corinthians were taking old Jewish purity law waaaaaay too literally. ANY sex was verboten. And Paul's advice to them was specifically, "Guys, your poo poo ain't working, stop it. No, really. Jesus will be okay if you have a bit of sex. WITH YOUR WIFE, though." Am I correct in assuming that since Paul had a huge role in establishing the first Christian churches that some of his backstory may have gotten amplified over history similar to Jesus never becoming dirty, Mary being pure, the assumption of Mary into heaven, etc? Did Paul have influence on writing the parts of the bible that involved him?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Christianity is basically all Paul with random tidbits about some Jew named Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I wonder how space geek conservapedians feel about the tree of immortality. God kicks humans out of the garden because, having attained knowledge, they could get immortality next - making them equal to Him. If 'knowledge' can be seen as our ability to craft tools and change our environment; 'immortality' is colonizing another star system and guaranteeing humanity a permanent role in the universe. Lesswrong versus Conservapedia, whoever wins we lose. And have to read that loving Potter fic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Am I correct in assuming that since Paul had a huge role in establishing the first Christian churches that some of his backstory may have gotten amplified over history similar to Jesus never becoming dirty, Mary being pure, the assumption of Mary into heaven, etc? Did Paul have influence on writing the parts of the bible that involved him? Paul's always been kind of weird in the historical record. A lot of people don't like him. And a lot of people back then didn't like him- one of his second letters mentions that the people he's writing to used to be his friends and now aren't. Which is understandable because he was the kind of asshat we just don't really make anymore. But his deeds are really profound and have never been particularly overstated compared to other religious figures. He was never divinised beyond basic sainthood, he was never depicted as being handsome (even when the painters were going waaaay out of their way to gloss over his flaws), and almost all of the parts of the bible that involved Paul were literally written by Paul. He's got the only mention of Spain in the bible, because his last letter (chronologically speaking) mentions his plans to borrow a shitton of money and head that way to start up churches there. He never made it. Even his actual experience with Christianity was pretty humble, compared to his contemporaries. He was a Pharisee, well versed in Jewish law, actually tasked with destroying the fledgling Christian faith. Then he had an epiphany and converted while on the road to Damascus- he never actually met Jesus. And as with most people who convert from active resistance to active alliance, his loyalty to his new faith became ferocious. If you look for the deeper consistency inside all of the wild contradictions in his letters, his actual faith was pretty nuanced and careful. He advocated for including EVERYONE in the new church, not just converted Jews who had obeyed the Torah all their lives, but everybody, forever, no matter what their background, which was radically progressive for his day. He also had a deep and abiding trust in women (Yes, despite what that one letter says about how women should behave during worship, again, specific letters to specific churches with specific problems).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
What always confused me was the combination of Satan as the King of Evil actively working to manipulate humans in earth, combined with him being a prisoner in Hell. The combination of the roles of prisoner and king imply that God runs a lovely operation in Hell. It's like those Mexican prisons holding drug lords where he's able to run his business completely unimpeded because everyone in the prison is on his payroll. I'd expect God to hire a better warden.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Liquid Dinosaur posted:What always confused me was the combination of Satan as the King of Evil actively working to manipulate humans in earth, combined with him being a prisoner in Hell. The combination of the roles of prisoner and king imply that God runs a lovely operation in Hell. It's like those Mexican prisons holding drug lords where he's able to run his business completely unimpeded because everyone in the prison is on his payroll. I'd expect God to hire a better warden. There's really not a way to think too hard about Satan and Hell that doesn't start to make God look like an idiot or a psycho, which may be behind the recent resurgence in universal reconciliation and the popularity of books like "Love Wins".
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
I assume nobody has ever told Andy about werewolf syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:I assume nobody has ever told Andy about werewolf syndrome. Satan-worshipping Darwinist tries to use demon-possession as an argument for evolution. See: Demon Possession and Excess Hair, Demon Possession and Obesity
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
A little off topic, but I love how hard they deride evolution as being full of logical inconsistencies but every time people talk about loading animals into arks it's all about how they only needed certain "kinds" and how after long enough you can use these kinds to create other "kinds" of animals. If people evolved from monkeys, why is there still monkeys? Meanwhile, look at all the different kinds of dogs we got out of wolves!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:A little off topic, but I love how hard they deride evolution as being full of logical inconsistencies but every time people talk about loading animals into arks it's all about how they only needed certain "kinds" and how after long enough you can use these kinds to create other "kinds" of animals. If people evolved from monkeys, why is there still monkeys? Meanwhile, look at all the different kinds of dogs we got out of wolves! ~*protobears*~
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Well, prehistoric Europe was one of the coldest places with large, permanent human population; and people of European descent tend to have the most body and facial hair, so...
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 18:55
|
|
