|
Cemetry Gator posted:“We look for that fine day when we will see him again, all weariness gone, clear of mind, strong and sure and smiling again, and the sorrow of this parting gone forever. May God bless Ronald Reagan and the country he loved.” They're talking about when they die and get to see Him (Reagan) in heaven. Seriously, you don't have enough Christian Facebook friends to know this is a thing people say.
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Fly posted:Seriously, you don't have enough Christian Facebook friends to know this is a thing people say. I think the problem here is that I have Christian Facebook friends, and as Christians they're not worshipping loving Ronald Reagan.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Fly posted:They're talking about when they die and get to see Him (Reagan) in heaven. And I thought Colombia was an exaggeration.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
I wonder how Andy Schlafly feels about Matthew 6:5-6?quote:And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Well obviously Jesus is telling the gays in his audience, there aren't any because the elder generations were superior, to stay in the closet so straights need not think about them. And where pray tell does it prohibit praying loudly on a website?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I wonder how Andy Schlafly feels about Matthew 6:5-6? I bring this up whenever one gets particularly vocal and they just come up with some interpretation like "Well he doesn't mean like acts, he means that subliminally. You shouldn't make what you do known because you are a Christian, but you can worship in public if you feel the need to as long as you aren't making everyone notice because you can", of course five minutes later they're spitting out crap about literal bible and all
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Andy and others like him will probably say that the verse isn't against public prayer, it's against things like televangelists who put on a show of loving God just so they can get money/fame.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I wonder how Andy Schlafly feels about Matthew 6:5-6? Here's the Conservative Bible "translation" Matthew 6:5-6 CB posted:And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to pray when standing in the synagogues and in the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. I tell you truly: They will get what's coming to them. For comparison, here's the King James version that they use as a reference. Matthew 6:5-6 KJV posted:And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. The don't do anything ridiculous, like say that pray in private really meant don't pray in a literal synagogue, but whether intentional or not I think they completely mangled verse 6. Verse 6 is all about telling you that you should pray in private, because God sees all, and you shouldn't care whether anyone else can hear your prayers. God will reward you for your private prayers, and that is the only reward you should care about. Conservapedia changes it from you praying in secret, to praying to a secret God, and changes God seeing your secret prayers into God seeing in a mysterious manner. To me, that robs the passage of any meaning. You are supposed to be pointing out the hypocrisy of needing openly pray to an all seeing God. Only a vain person should care whether other people are able to hear his prayers to God. Instead you just say that you are praying to a secret God with secret ways of hearing you, and that doesn't really say anything. Also, by changing "They have their reward" into "they will get what's coming to them" you lose the meaning of the verse 5. Verse 5 isn't saying God is going to punish those people for praying incorrectly, it's saying that God will ignore them, because there's no reward to be given. Those people didn't desire divine blessing, they desired that their fellow man see them pray, and that's what they got. That is contrasted with the reward for praying silently in Verse 6, which is the truly desirable divine reward. Taking the reference to "their reward" out of Verse 5 is also bad just from a stylistic perspective, because you lose the mirrored structure of the verses. The both start with a command, then contrast the two methods of prayer, and then refer to the "reward" that each type gives (recognition from men or recognition from the divine). This isn't major from a theological perspective, but it does show a basic lack of understanding of writing techniques. To be clear, I'm not a Biblical scholar, and am basing all of my comments off of a pretty quick reading of these verses the KJV and the CB. My opinion is based on comparing the KJV text and the CB text, not based on any reading of earlier translations (neither is the Conservative Bible Project though). Also, it's entirely possible that my interpretation is just wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Andy and others like him will probably say that the verse isn't against public prayer, it's against things like televangelists who put on a show of loving God just so they can get money/fame. No they love Pat Robertson. quote:Pat Robertson (b. 1930)[1] is a conservative American evangelist, spiritual leader and political leader, also owner and presenter of the TV show The 700 Club. Robertson sought the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination and even managed to carry Washington State in the primary caucuses by mobilizing his supporters. Thereafter, he helped in the initial formation of the Christian Coalition. Robertson attacks anti-Christian bias in America and around the world and defends Christian liberties. Jerry Falwell's page is mostly positive too. They love televangelists.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I wonder how Andy Schlafly feels about Matthew 6:5-6? It's there, translated- forgive me, not translated, that would imply that they are actually translating this poo poo, not just rewording it. Conservative Matthew 6:5-6 posted:And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to pray when standing in the synagogues and in the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. I tell you truly: They will get what's coming to them. For comparison: KJV Matthew 6:5-6 posted:And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. There is zero commentary on this. There is some on Matthew 6:3 though: KJV Matthew 6:3 posted:But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: Analysis posted:ἐλεημοσύνη [alms/charity]: giving to the poor, not a duty... gently caress the poors. Bootstraps, and all that. I hate how turgid the writing is, and how it sucks all the poetry out of the words. Compare: KJV Matthew 7:6 posted:Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine... Conservative Matthew 7:6 posted:Stop giving holy things to the dogs, and throwing your pearls in front of pigs. It's just so inelegant. [e]: Beaten. Pesky Splinter fucked around with this message at 18:34 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:thoughtful Biblical analysis You're spot on. The generally-accepted interpretation of these verses is exactly what you think it is. In general, this is a theme that Jesus gets into a few times; if you want to be a genuinely virtuous person, part of the requirement for that virtue is that you not go around explaining to everyone how virtuous you are. You just go and do the right thing, whether anybody is ever going to find out about it or not.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
This made me wonder about how Andy handles the passage on the Sheep and Goats. It went largely untouched, except this verse:Matthew 25:33 posted:And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. ...receives this hilarious commentary: Andy's fevered brain posted:Perhaps this should be translated as "He will set the sheep to his conservative side, and the goats to his liberal side." The Greek word "δεξιός" (translated here as "right") can be translated metaphorically as "cautious authority"; "εὐώνυμος" (translated here as "left") can be translated metaphorically as "unlucky", "sinister" or ... "liberal"? I generally ignore the "Andy has a mental illness" posts, but this genuinely makes me belive the dude is off his nut.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Ray and Shirley posted:This made me wonder about how Andy handles the passage on the Sheep and Goats. It went largely untouched, except this verse: What am I saying of course he doesn't know that. In fact, I'm not open-minded enough to think that the author of Matthew came up with it 1800 years before the French revolution...
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
How the gently caress does he translate the rest of that verse then:quote:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Yeah, because that's what conservative sheep do.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
That last verse makes me picture those people who propose by mail to serial killers.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:How the gently caress does he translate the rest of that verse then: Aside from capitalising the 'M' in 'me' (because it's Jesus talking), and changing the 'ye/thou/thee' to 'you', and the usual moderisation of the grammar and word order, it reads pretty much the same: quote:"'When I was hungry, you gave Me food. When I was thirsty, you gave Me drink. When I was a stranger, you took Me in. Yet again, zero commentary.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:Taking the reference to "their reward" out of Verse 5 is also bad just from a stylistic perspective, because you lose the mirrored structure of the verses. This is what bugs me the most with this type of religious person. You aren't supposed to do things or believe for rewards, you're supposed to do it because it's what you feel you should do regardless of some sort of payment
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:You're spot on. The generally-accepted interpretation of these verses is exactly what you think it is. In general, this is a theme that Jesus gets into a few times; if you want to be a genuinely virtuous person, part of the requirement for that virtue is that you not go around explaining to everyone how virtuous you are. You just go and do the right thing, whether anybody is ever going to find out about it or not. They even have a deadly sin/virtue pair for that one. Pride is so bad it's considered to be literally the foundation of all the other deadly sins. Believing you're more virtuous than everybody else and feeling the need to advertise it so you look good is not only pride but also vanity. Conversely, humility is considered a virtue. Jesus himself said "yeah I'm basically underneath all the criminals and vagrants and beggars." Pride also has a negative effect on piety in that if a person believes they've achieved the peak of virtue they'll quit trying and inevitably start sliding backwards or, in many cases, only act virtuous because they want to be perceived as virtuous (hello, TV preachers, how are you today?) and reap the worldly benefits. This, of course, often feeds into the other sins of greed, gluttony, or sometimes lust.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:They even have a deadly sin/virtue pair for that one. Pride is so bad it's considered to be literally the foundation of all the other deadly sins. Believing you're more virtuous than everybody else and feeling the need to advertise it so you look good is not only pride but also vanity. Conversely, humility is considered a virtue. Jesus himself said "yeah I'm basically underneath all the criminals and vagrants and beggars." I feel the need to qualify that this is a thoroughly Catholic perspective, Protestantism (especially American, right wing Protestantism) doesn't have a formulated set of "deadly sins", and generally shies away from attempts to philosophically explain why sins are bad beyond "the Bible says so".
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:gently caress the poors. Bootstraps, and all that. One of the Schlafly videos posted earlier has him claiming people going to hell for some other reason, but just as Schlafly doesn't have a grasp of the Federalist Papers, he's also apparently making stuff up in the bible. Perhaps he's quoting from his made-up, Conservative Bible though.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I feel the need to qualify that this is a thoroughly Catholic perspective, Protestantism (especially American, right wing Protestantism) doesn't have a formulated set of "deadly sins", and generally shies away from attempts to philosophically explain why sins are bad beyond "the Bible says so". Valid point; I've been more exposed to Catholicism and particular brands of evangelical Christianity that have a lot of similarities to it than other forms of Protestantism. My mother attempted to raise me Catholic (and ultimately failed partly due to the fact that she was a really, really bad Catholic who flopped about different denominations)and I've known a lot of Baptists. Oddly enough, the Baptist churches I've come into contact with all hate each other and spent more time damning everybody else to Hell than figuring out how to get into Heaven. Needless to say, drat near all of them vote Republican and many believe that God is punishing America for being too gay. Whenever I read this thread I can't help but think "holy poo poo I grew up in a culture that not only believes all of this but many things that are actually worse." I quit being a Christian a long time ago and actively avoid the county I'm from.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Fly posted:In actual fact, the only people Jesus ever condemns to hell are those who refuse to help the poor. Nah, you have to remember a lot of Christian theology is inspired by Paul and the authors of other various letters to churches at the time. Jesus may have condemned only those who refuse to help the poor to Hell, but Paul was happy to say things like, for example, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 posted:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. This is also one of the verses that's used against gays because while the NRSV (the version I'm quoting) has "male prostitutes" other translations say "homosexual offenders" or "men who have sex with men." So yeah Andy isn't making up stuff in the bible this time at least.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
See, that male prostitute thing would be one of those iffy spots again. For a book that's supposed to be easy to understand which is basically your guide to life and spiritual salvation, the book is really vague around some things and stupidly easy to manipulate.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:See, that male prostitute thing would be one of those iffy spots again. For a book that's supposed to be easy to understand which is basically your guide to life and spiritual salvation, the book is really vague around some things and stupidly easy to manipulate. It's not JEsus's fault that Paul the Angry Pharisee had a bug up his rear end about sexual immorality. He should have stuck with manicheism.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:It's not JEsus's fault that Paul the Angry Pharisee had a bug up his rear end about sexual immorality. He should have stuck with manicheism. Well that's kinda what gets me about him in particular. This guy was a raging rear end in a top hat, gets blinded (judging on his hangups some woman probably showed some ankle and it shocked his system), turns to Christianity, yet remains a raging rear end in a top hat. So because he was converted "by god" (the guy that's not supposed to gently caress with free will) everything he says should be taken as gospel and followed.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Well that's kinda what gets me about him in particular. This guy was a raging rear end in a top hat, gets blinded (judging on his hangups some woman probably showed some ankle and it shocked his system), turns to Christianity, yet remains a raging rear end in a top hat. So because he was converted "by god" (the guy that's not supposed to gently caress with free will) everything he says should be taken as gospel and followed. It was also he was the first person who wrote to converts who were not originally Jewish. He was important as he was the start of Christianity becoming more than just a Jewish "cult"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Basically the whole point is that anyone who says "context doesn't matter" is a) wrong a b) historically illiterate. I really don't care what simplistic constructions other people believe, look into the history of any major religion and there is a profoundly human story of people trying to hash out what the meaning of life is and how we should go about realizing it. Hell, it's not even clear what "divine inspiration" means in this context. All directly from god's mouth, god only acted as a motivator? Different groups understand the text in different ways. I mean, yes, it's all arbitrary, there's no real "right" way, at least no a provable one, but fundamentalists are kidding themselves if they think their interpretation is the prima facie obvious one
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:they think their interpretation is the prima facie obvious one That's the center of it, really. If it's obvious to me that this is right it should be obvious to everybody else. Alternately, the zealous want to prove themselves right by forcing their views on everybody else in an argument by majority kind of sense. Both are logical fallacies.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:logical fallacies. quote:Example: Atheist scientist A might present arguments that there is no God. Opponent C might respond by stating that A is fat and should be able to use science to control his weight. This would be an example of the tu quoque fallacy. I quoted this from Conservapedia no joke. quote:Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization, converse accident, or painting with too broad a brush) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allow. No really they know this is on their site right? quote:A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy No, really, do they? quote:For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago." It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, would result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy. Holy poo poo really quote:Person A believes that a military program should be cut this can't be real
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:Well, he tried to argue (unsuccessfully) that you should be able to recall senators because George Washington once mentioned it in a letter. I was waiting for one justice to remark, "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
The last one about military funding being cut is really because there is a democrat in office and we don't have a named brown person they need killed. Their simplistic understanding of national debt and deficit overrides their simplistic idea on military effectiveness.
FADEtoBLACK fucked around with this message at 03:56 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:I quoted this from Conservapedia no joke. You can't be too surprised that Andy hasn't looked at the page on logical fallacies.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:Well, he tried to argue (unsuccessfully) that you should be able to recall senators because George Washington once mentioned it in a letter. Somehow I completely skimmed over this post. This is incredible. How did this case get all the way to the NJ Supreme Court?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:You can't be too surprised that Andy hasn't looked at the page on logical fallacies. http://www.conservapedia.com/Name-a-fallacy_fallacy posted:The name-a-fallacy fallacy refers to the fallacy in which, rather than engaging with their opponent's arguments in detail, a person responds with the mention of a logical fallacy, without any explanation of how the fallacy actually applies to the argument at hand.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 13:30
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:http://www.conservapedia.com/Name-a-fallacy_fallacy posted: What a shock, the only place the "name-a-fallacy" fallacy exists is on Conservapedia. The "citation" goes to a page where someone says, "We need a catchy name for the fallacy of being over-eager to accuse people of fallacies that you have catchy names for," because apparently you can just invent new logical fallacies and call them valid.
|
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:What a shock, the only place the "name-a-fallacy" fallacy exists is on Conservapedia. The "citation" goes to a page where someone says, "We need a catchy name for the fallacy of being over-eager to accuse people of fallacies that you have catchy names for," because apparently you can just invent new logical fallacies and call them valid. It amuses me because these are generally people that not only have not studied logic but actively refuse to even understand the basics. A fallacy doesn't even completely, totally negate an argument it's supposed to be a sign that you should fact check it. But then these are the same people that can hear advice coming from the entire medical community and go "stupid doctors, what do they know? 12 years in medical school, what did they learn? Pfah."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:What a shock, the only place the "name-a-fallacy" fallacy exists is on Conservapedia. The "citation" goes to a page where someone says, "We need a catchy name for the fallacy of being over-eager to accuse people of fallacies that you have catchy names for," because apparently you can just invent new logical fallacies and call them valid. Funny enough, there is such a thing as a 'fallacy fallacy' or 'argument from fallacy', which is the fallacy of assuming someone's position is automatically incorrect for invoking a fallacy. Shows you how much thought they actually put into this- they invented a new word/concept for something that already exists, proving they do no research whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Oh, this is interesting: http://www.conservapedia.com/Gary_Larson (created by someone who got banned, of course). Without looking, what Far Side panel do you think Conservapedia would be most likely to use, to illustrate Gary Larson's work?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:Oh, this is interesting: http://www.conservapedia.com/Gary_Larson (created by someone who got banned, of course). I hope they realize Gary Larson has specifically asked people to not post his comics on the internet. Blarghalt fucked around with this message at 00:50 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
SocketWrench posted:See, that male prostitute thing would be one of those iffy spots again. For a book that's supposed to be easy to understand which is basically your guide to life and spiritual salvation, the book is really vague around some things and stupidly easy to manipulate. The Bible isn't supposed to be any of those things. Also Paul isn't really expressing sexual/gender values that would be too alien to Romans at the time who also often struggled between the dissonance of being humans who liked to gently caress and the values of being virtuous stoic unfeeling manly war robots with obedient chaste wives. edit: A Republican would probably be right at home in Rome as you get to be a self-absorbed rear end walking around with the pretense of "rugged self control" and a wife who knows their place and you can have gay sex as long as your partner is just a thing you put your dick into and not anyone you have feelings for or talk about in public. And if you think your daughter is a whore you can just exile her to an Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 20:40 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:31
|
|
