|
Peta posted:It's obvious from his decision not to incite violent rebellion that he was a pacifist I'm not so sure about that. A lot of his followers were ex-Zealots. just because he didn't rebel about rome does not make him a rigorous pacifist, espacially not when there are literal acts of spoken and physical violence by him and his followers, in the bible.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Personally, I believe that the Mau Mau Uprising was a just war. How about you? I'm not a Christian. My personal opinions on wars are irrelevant to what Jesus commanded us to do. I also think it's perfectly moral to have sex outside of marriage. Peta posted:So you're telling Christians that they don't need to understand the fine points of the Gospel and then lambasting them for not understanding the fine points of the Gospel. Cool. What? No I am saying that if you want to use the Gospel to support some position, you do in fact have to understand the Gospel. Claiming that you should be able to use the Gospel to justify whatever you want but it's off limits to have that interpretation challenged is ridiculous. Why are you being ridiculous?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What? No I am saying that if you want to use the Gospel to support some position, you do in fact have to understand the Gospel. Claiming that you should be able to use the Gospel to justify whatever you want but it's off limits to have that interpretation challenged is ridiculous. Why are you being ridiculous? You have to understand the way in which the Bible should be interpreted by a modern audience. Most Christians know how to do this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:02
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not a Christian. My personal opinions on wars are irrelevant to what Jesus commanded us to do. I also think it's perfectly moral to have sex outside of marriage. VitalSigns posted:The biblical knowledge by some Christians in this thread is shockingly bad. Between the guy who claimed the KJV is the authoritative bible, the guy claiming adoption is sick because the biological mother isn't raising the child, and this guy trying to resurrect Just War theory, I'm starting to suspect they're trying to make Christianity look bad on purpose. So is justifying war a bad thing or not? Don't wait for the translation, Mr. Zorin!
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Jesus heals the Canaanite woman's child because she abases herself and says that she's like a dog compared to the Jews, the chosen people of God. I dunno how you're going to read that particular scene as Jesus saying that all religio-ethnic groups are equal but I'm sure it will be a good time. I've explained how I read that particular scene. But here's some more, Jesus is one satirical fucker. Many, many, of his actions and parables/sayings are pretty biting (and often irreverent) satire, (the most clear example is the triumphant entry). It's something rather important to keep in mind. I think he's loving with his disciples for keeping her away, and he does that a lot (fucks with his disciples). And what language are these gospels written in, and what groups are the authors probably from, and who in this passage do they probably identify with, and what's already happen to Israel? Start asking those questions and it makes more sense than just going, lol, he literally called her a bitch. Edit: and her nationality changes between Mark and Matthew, that implies things about the passage you know Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Rich white American/European college kids are the only people who oppose some form of just war theory. Jobless liberal arts graduates also fall into this category.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:07
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I've explained how I read that particular scene. But here's some more, Jesus is one satirical fucker. Many, many, of his actions and parables/sayings are pretty biting (and often irreverent) satire, (the most clear example is the triumphant entry). It's something rather important to keep in mind. I think he's loving with his disciples for keeping her away, and he does that a lot (fucks with his disciples). And what language are these gospels written in, and what groups are the authors probably from, and who in this passage do they probably identify with, and what's already happen to Israel? Start asking those questions and it makes more sense than just going, lol, he literally called her a bitch. This is far more complex, and fits far more poorly with the text, than assuming Jesus was inconsistent and had no real reason for consistency and plenty of reasons to be inconsistent.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Peta posted:You have to understand the way in which the Bible should be interpreted by a modern audience. Most Christians know how to do this. Saying "some Christians in this thread are posting stupid poo poo" is not the same as saying most Christians in the world don't know how to do something. You're tilting at windmills. Effectronica posted:So is justifying war a bad thing or not? Don't wait for the translation, Mr. Zorin! Trying to say that Jesus justified war is incorrect, and given the wars that the church historically supported (like let's say Franco's invasion of Spain and fascist dictatorship) yeah it's a probably a bad thing overall. If you want to be pro-war, there's plenty of pro-war philosophies out there for you. You don't have to try to say Jesus was cool with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:09
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Saying "some Christians in this thread are posting stupid poo poo" is not the same as saying most Christians in the world don't know how to do something. You're tilting at windmills. So are Christians required to de/convert in order to resist imperialistic oppression? Is this truly a reasonable demand to make of people?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:Jesus beat up a jewish merchant in front of the temple. Some sholars think that his followers may have been bodyguards with sticks, because there are multiple occasions where someone wants to get through to him (a samaritan woman, children) and is stopped by force. Plus you know, the whole "Good Samaritan" parable is kinda racist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Saying "some Christians in this thread are posting stupid poo poo" is not the same as saying most Christians in the world don't know how to do something. You're tilting at windmills. Not everyone is going to interpret Jesus's teachings the same way. Morality is relative, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So are Christians required to de/convert in order to resist imperialistic oppression? Is this truly a reasonable demand to make of people? I don't know man, take it up with God. But I hear he's pretty forgiving, so if you end up taking up the sword to defend your loved ones, he'll probably understand if you repent. Jesus also told you that if someone steals from you to give him more. That's not a realistic demand and Christian politicians generally don't follow that, but it's in there. Sorry you don't like what Jesus said about stuff, but that's not really my fault. But hey, Jesus said His message was not of this world and you had to let go of your life here and prepare for the next. It's no surprise that being perfect isn't always compatible with what the material world would consider the reasonable thing to do. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Peta posted:Rich white American/European college kids are the only people who oppose some form of just war theory. Pacifism, specifically liberal hippie pacifism, is the leftist way of saying "gently caress you got mine" It's easy to play world peace when you're in a protected fortress of prosperity, damning those outside it to fmine and war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Jesus also told you that if someone steals from you to give him more. That's not a realistic demand and Christian politicians generally don't follow that, but it's in there. Sorry you don't like what Jesus said about stuff, but that's not really my fault. Haha, yeah. I bet he literally believed that, and was not making a more sophisticated point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is far more complex, and fits far more poorly with the text, than assuming Jesus was inconsistent and had no real reason for consistency and plenty of reasons to be inconsistent. He's pretty consistent in basically going: You guys really don't get it do you, to his disciples. And he's actually joking, like a lot, in the gospels. Daniel J. Harrington posted:The Gospels have a lot of controversy stories and honor-shame situations. I suspect that the early readers found these stories hilarious, whereas we in a very different social setting miss the point entirely."
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:Pacifism, specifically liberal hippie pacifism, is the leftist way of saying "gently caress you got mine" I am glad that we agree on this front. The Iraq War was a actually good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:16
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't know man, take it up with God. But I hear he's pretty forgiving, so if you end up taking up the sword to defend your loved ones, he'll probably understand if you repent. What I'm getting from this is that Christians alone, or perhaps theists if I am generous, have a stricter scrutiny applied to their adherence to moral doctrines. Why not apply the same level of scrutiny towards atheistic utilitarians, or nihilists?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What I'm getting from this is that Christians alone, or perhaps theists if I am generous, have a stricter scrutiny applied to their adherence to moral doctrines. Why not apply the same level of scrutiny towards atheistic utilitarians, or nihilists? Because for young passionate atheists like VitalSigns it's easy to pick on religious believers and it feeds their ego.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:19
|
|
BrandorKP posted:He's pretty consistent in basically going: You guys really don't get it do you, to his disciples. And he's actually joking, like a lot, in the gospels. When you look at the actual text, the disciples are only mentioned in one account. The important element of the story between Matthew and Mark is "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the children's crumbs underneath the table."
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
yeah I guess it is racist if you read the parable contextless without the rest of the chapter and in a time period after Christianity has already completely changed the way we understand our relationship to each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
the women replies to God with meekness instead of justification that is the message here and it is pretty important to Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:23
|
|
Miltank posted:yeah I guess it is racist if you read the parable contextless without the rest of the chapter and in a time period after Christianity has already completely changed the way we understand our relationship to each other. I'm not watching that all the way through, is it arguing that it's racist because it supposedly singles out a single "good samaritan" or what?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Yes, it is actually that stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What I'm getting from this is that Christians alone, or perhaps theists if I am generous, have a stricter scrutiny applied to their adherence to moral doctrines. Why not apply the same level of scrutiny towards atheistic utilitarians, or nihilists? What no, we're all sinners. If you can't turn the other cheek or give away all your possessions, that's between you and God. When people want to twist Christianity into supporting war with Just war or greed with the Prosperity Gospel, it's perfectly reasonable to point out those theories aren't justified scripturally. Peta posted:Because for young passionate atheists like VitalSigns it's easy to pick on religious believers and it feeds their ego. I'm trying to defend Christianity here, man. Maybe your problem is with trolls like Is It Fascism Yet who are trying to claim that war is good and Jesus was a bigot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm trying to defend Christianity here, man. Maybe your problem is with trolls like Is It Fascism Yet who are trying to claim that war is good and Jesus was a bigot. The historical Jesus was a bigot by our standards. That says nothing of the theological Jesus. Also war is often good. I don't know why you bolded Is it fascism yet's name but he is right on all counts. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
I'm very serious about this. the bible is more complex and nuanced than the worldview of liberal humanism, and i hate it when people try to reduce it to that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Peta posted:Because for young passionate atheists like VitalSigns it's easy to pick on religious believers and it feeds their ego. Or again, the whole argument of this thread being that the timeless revelatory nature of the bible and the moral incorruptibility of those schooled in its wisdom being a reason to hand temporal power to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:28
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What no, we're all sinners. If you can't turn the other cheek or give away all your possessions, that's between you and God. When people want to twist Christianity into supporting war with Just war or greed with the Prosperity Gospel, it's perfectly reasonable to point out those theories aren't justified scripturally. Arguing that Jesus's extreme demands are meant to be taken 100% seriously is asinine in light of what Jesus actually says about who will receive salvation.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Or again, the whole argument of this thread being that the timeless revelatory nature of the bible and the moral incorruptibility of those schooled in its wisdom being a reason to hand temporal power to them. If Christians are to be consistent with the core tenets of their faith then they absolutely should want to live in a theocracy, and it's their right to make it a reality. In theory there's nothing wrong with theocracy; there have been some bad ones but there have also been some pretty good ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:When you look at the actual text, the disciples are only mentioned in one account. The important element of the story between Matthew and Mark is "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the children's crumbs underneath the table." Who are the authors of Mark and and Matthew and who would they identity with in this passage. And does the version in Mark or Matthew matter more (Mark probably because this isn't in Luke). Mark's audience is gentile (because the Jewish traditions have to be explained). So again who would the author and intended audience identify with. And is my interpretation in line with Mark's larger themes of "the failure of the disciples" and the "messianic secret"? To make it clear the author of Mark is writing about this "Greek born in Syrian Phoenicia" woman to an audience of Greek thinking gentiles. I think it's pretty clear the intent is to equate the audience with the woman. It's satirical and the audience would have known it was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Peta posted:If Christians are to be consistent with the core tenets of their faith then they absolutely should want to live in a theocracy, and it's their right to make it a reality. In theory there's nothing wrong with theocracy; there have been some bad ones but there have also been some pretty good ones. None I would want to live in personally, but that probably has something to do with my status as a minority who would be almost guaranteed persecution. And how is it a Christian's right to make theocracy a reality? Or do I have a right to oppose them? Because again, an anti clerical purge sounds pretty good right about now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:None I would want to live in personally, but that probably has something to do with my status as a minority who would be almost guaranteed persecution. It's their right to make it a reality insofar as, in theory, the emergence of a theocratic state wouldn't significantly infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to oppose them just as you have the right to oppose any other form of government with whose principles you disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:I'm very serious about this. the bible is more complex and nuanced than the worldview of liberal humanism, and i hate it when people try to reduce it to that. Interpreting the Gospels as pacificism has been a hallmark of sects of Christianity going back to the beginnings of the Church, before liberal humanism was even a thing...oh wait are you actually a fascist? Peta posted:I don't know why you bolded Is it fascism yet's name but he is right on all counts. Hope this helps. Oh so this: Peta posted:I am glad that we agree on this front. The Iraq War was a actually good idea. Was serious?! Haha okay, I'll just be charitable and assume that your support of imperialism is a piss-poor troll attempting to make Christians look bad. Either way though I'm just gonna stop responding to you because goddamn if you're defending the invasion of Iraq in the Year of Our Lord 2014 I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Peta posted:It's their right to make it a reality insofar as, in theory, the emergence of a theocratic state wouldn't significantly infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to oppose them just as you have the right to oppose any other form of government with whose principles you disagree. Except anyone born under that theocracy who happened to be gay or something similar. And you really seem to have missed to core argument of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Except anyone born under that theocracy who happened to be gay or something similar. And you really seem to have missed to core argument of this thread. This guy just gave the Iraq War his official Jesus Stamp of Approval, I don't know why you're bringing up a few oppressed minorities as if that will sway him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:And how is it a Christian's right to make theocracy a reality? Most of us think theocracy is bad and hypocritical. But think about the way you are arguing and what your argument implies as answers to these related (but not identical) questions. Is it anyone's right to make social progress? Do they have the right to march towards the Kingdom? If in going after theocracy you say no to those related questions that's a problem and very big problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Actually, even in theory, granting special privileges to one ethnic-religious group is a dumbass idea, with predictable outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:47
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This guy just gave the Iraq War his official Jesus Stamp of Approval, I don't know why you're bringing up a few oppressed minorities as if that will sway him. Please don't cheerlead here in the Disco. BrandorKP posted:Who are the authors of Mark and and Matthew and who would they identity with in this passage. And does the version in Mark or Matthew matter more (Mark probably because this isn't in Luke). Mark's audience is gentile (because the Jewish traditions have to be explained). So again who would the author and intended audience identify with. And is my interpretation in line with Mark's larger themes of "the failure of the disciples" and the "messianic secret"? I'm arguing from the perspective of assuming the gospels are recording and transmitting stories of Jesus first, so the question of whether the authors of Matthew and Mark are simultaneously writing this elaborate satire versus Jesus reaffirming the notion of Jews as God's chosen people is one that will be biased towards the latter answer.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Interpreting the Gospels as pacificism has been a hallmark of sects of Christianity going back to the beginnings of the Church So has been interpreting them as a reason for upheaval and war. you have a very selevtive view on religious history if you seriously claim christianity as mainly pacifist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm arguing from the perspective of assuming the gospels are recording and transmitting stories of Jesus first, so the question of whether the authors of Matthew and Mark are simultaneously writing this elaborate satire versus Jesus reaffirming the notion of Jews as God's chosen people is one that will be biased towards the latter answer. Then you're not understanding how the texts work. The whole bible is shaped by it's authors saying things in their context via the history. Religious texts were constantly being re-written and weren't really fixed, doing things like filling in story holes, or commenting on the current situation with the events being written about, those things were act of worship and were understood to be part of the documents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:55
|
|