Communocracy posted:

Whenever my friend says he is going to "church" he means he's actually going to a rave to get high on drugs and dance around. OP, could Jesus drop a bassline so sick that not even he himself could rinse out to it? Makes you think.

people rinsing out to Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUDTq7cAqR0

Communocracy posted:

Not sure if you knew this but that's just baptist church footage with drum n bass played overtop, they are basically rinsing out to Jesus but not actually to dnb

Kyrie eleison posted:

I can tell you the real answer, but you probably won't like it. God regularly condemns entire peoples and uses other peoples to wipe them out. This scenario effectively plays out in reverse later when the Kingdom of Israel is totally destroyed by neighboring kingdoms, who are believed to be acting as agents of God to punish Israel. There's methods people use to hand-wave this stuff, but it's there and it's a recurring theme throughout the OT, so I'll just tell you the truth about it.

The way things play out here is that peoples who are loyal to God and have strong, faithful societies are going to survive whereas those who are disloyal to God are going to be annihilated. And Jesus, in withering the fig tree, continues this sort of divine judgment. In essence, the religiosity of a society is the greatest predictor of its cultural and military strength. The values that accompany religious belief also accompany strong societies.

At the time God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asks God whether God would destroy the city if ten righteous people still lived in it. God replies that no, he would not. This means that the peoples destroyed in this time were despised by God, even their women and children, who the Bible notes are frequent victims of such conquering; look to the book of Lamentations to see how the Israelites respond to Jerusalem being treated in the same way. If this seems overly harsh, please consider God's perspective as the infinitely wise creator and final judge of humankind.

The OT tells a story of the Israelites being powerful conquerers blessed by God, and finally being conquered themselves due to their infidelity. They then try to rebuild afterwards with a stronger and more lasting spiritual foundation. I think this is an insightful look at how civilizations rise and fall throughout history.

Blarghalt posted:

So here's something that always stumped me.

Evidently, a lot of Christians believe that Jesus did the 'harrowing of hell' thing where he freed every good person that had died before he'd been crucified. Not really mentioned at all in the Bible and more a later invention, but whatever. What about the people that were, say, born in an area of the world right after Jesus died (say, the Amazon rainforest) where they never heard of Christianity, and indeed never could have had the opportunity to learn about it?

"Man, looks like God gave you the short end of the stick there. Sorry, I don't make the rules. Eternal hellfire for you! "

Communocracy posted:

I've been to the south, it was shocking how many huge rear end churches there were. Rotting decaying libraries and high schools and enormous mega-churches that look like they were just built that's what I remember Houston/Baytown being like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmhZVjaqQo

CommieGIR posted:

One of the local groups from my hometown just shelled out $700,000 for giant crosses

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/aug/08/colossal-crosses/

Communocracy posted:

Amazing, and how much money do those people contribute to feeding the homeless or rehabilitating the environment every year? I'm betting not much. prayze jayzis errday https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQdIiEUFtqk

Effectronica posted:

What happens is that most orthodox Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, mainline Protestants) have implicitly concluded that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not actually necessary for salvation, though it helps to get your soul into shape for salvation. Most Christians who don't accept this conclusion generally are gleeful about the possibility that more people will go to Hell for them to feel superior to.

But this was a massive controversy in the Catholic Church around the time of the Age of Discovery.

Blarghalt posted:

So here's something that always stumped me.

Evidently, a lot of Christians believe that Jesus did the 'harrowing of hell' thing where he freed every good person that had died before he'd been crucified. Not really mentioned at all in the Bible and more a later invention, but whatever. What about the people that were, say, born in an area of the world right after Jesus died (say, the Amazon rainforest) where they never heard of Christianity, and indeed never could have had the opportunity to learn about it?

"Man, looks like God gave you the short end of the stick there. Sorry, I don't make the rules. Eternal hellfire for you! "

Nessus posted:

I'm aware Tolkien was Catholic. You seem to have gotten a very different read out of the religion than he did. Then again, he actually had to fight a grinding war. Or does God only want wars that are routs and slaughters?

I mean it sounds like you're saying "any civilization that stops murdering and enslaving its neighbors wantonly will inevitably decay and collapse." You're even kind of drawing a connection between 'when the religion's adherents start going "hm, maybe we should consider not just slaughtering and enslaving our neighbors"' and 'multicultural bad thing decay'. This seems very close to the celebration of militarism and violent action for its own sake in certain 20th century political movements. Have you considered that? Is God, in your view and your theology, a fascist?

spoon0042 posted:

They're still trying to sort out limbo. It's almost like the concept of original sin is bonkers.

ikanreed posted:

My ancestors were money changers. Your deity whipped them for feeding their family.

spoon0042 posted:

They're still trying to sort out limbo. It's almost like the concept of original sin is bonkers.

SedanChair posted:

people who believe that Teresa was anything other than a death fetishist who felt a thrill in her clitoris when a starving old man checked out looking into her eyes. But she was so famous!

Average Bear posted:

Did the thread realize they were getting insanely obviously trolled yet? Holy gently caress D&D pull it together.

Kyrie eleison posted:

God regularly condemns entire peoples and uses other peoples to wipe them out. This scenario effectively plays out in reverse later when the Kingdom of Israel is totally destroyed by neighboring kingdoms, who are believed to be acting as agents of God to punish Israel. There's methods people use to hand-wave this stuff, but it's there and it's a recurring theme throughout the OT, so I'll just tell you the truth about it.

Average Bear posted:

Did the thread realize they were getting insanely obviously trolled yet? Holy gently caress D&D pull it together.

SedanChair posted:

Pilate said "what is truth?" and Jesus couldn't think of poo poo to say

Captain_Maclaine posted:

If so, it's a very slow burn since he's being doing this for over a year now. I suspect he's being mostly genuine, or at least not consciously trolling us.


EDIT: \/\/\/\/\/\/Oh goodie, I was so hoping you'd show up!

BrandorKP posted:

That gospel starts by answering that question explicitly and has Jesus answer that question explicitly.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Yeah, this has been Kyrie's gimmick as long as I've been aware that he exists.

Kyrie, we already know your stance on Buddhism - they should have bargained for a better offer than nonexistence (by accepting Jesus Christ into their hearts). How about the Hindus?

(Trick question, Hindus are about as non-monolithic as it's possible to get, but I'm in part curious about your perception of what's fundamentally Hindu, and in part curious about why that is fundamentally wrong.)

Hodgepodge posted:

At least he's arguing in his own words, instead of being like "here's a link to the Bible, I think you'll find it is true a priori."

Ninjasaurus posted:

Yeah but if he wasn't an effort troll then the jig would be up real fast and that's no fun for anyone.

Zeitgueist posted:

I kinda stop caring about whether it's a troll when like 70% of the US agrees with the position unironically

CommieGIR posted:

Thats some excellent logic there Being a saint does not excuse you from valid criticism, nor does carrying out what you interpret as acts of kindness make those acts free from criticism either.

And to be fair: I have not read Hitchen's books on her, I read doctors reviews who volunteered there and were appalled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa#Quality_of_medical_care

quote:

...the use of opioids in India for managing cancer pain remains—ten years after Mother Teresa's death—highly problematic for legal, regulatory, cultural, and other reasons (including supply interruptions, harsh punishments imposed for even minor infractions of the rules, and the fear of addiction by health workers)... As late as 2001, researchers could write that "pain relief is a new notion in [India]", and "palliative care training has been available only since 1997".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism

CommieGIR posted:

And nuns with no medical training treating patients who needed pain relief more than massages. But hey, keep going all out on the context issue.

itsnice2bnice posted:

On SA this probably comes across as passive aggressive, but I sincerely hope that people who have such an incredibly low opinion of Mother Teresa and her charitable work strive and succeed in making the world a better place for the poor and destitute themselves. God Bless.

itsnice2bnice posted:

Mother Teresa isn't a saint. She was beatified, but AFAIK that is only like 3/4 of a Catholic saint. Anyway, unlike in the West using drugs to provide pain relief was unfortunately enough not common practice in India at that time for various reasons. Since this is Argumentum ad Wikipedia anyway I'm just going to C&P from Wikipedia as well:



The context is reality and the sad reality is that if it wasn't for those nuns these people would've died alone on the streets. Even providing them with merely a roof over their heads and a bed to die in seems like an act of kindness to me.

On SA this probably comes across as passive aggressive, but I sincerely hope that people who have such an incredibly low opinion of Mother Teresa and her charitable work strive and succeed in making the world a better place for the poor and destitute themselves. God Bless.

itsnice2bnice posted:

On SA this probably comes across as passive aggressive, but I sincerely hope that people who have such an incredibly low opinion of Mother Teresa and her charitable work strive and succeed in making the world a better place for the poor and destitute themselves. God Bless.

Miltank posted:

Atheists love turning Mother Teresa into a villain so they can justify their own inaction regarding the weakest. These are people who would rather the weakest die alone in the streets because simply loving them isn't enough. Teresa was a terrible sinner I'm sure, as we all are- but this movement to demonizer her is pretty much just plain evil and it is telling that Christopher Hitchens is among her detractors.

CommieGIR posted:

Demonize? No, I don't want to demonize her. While her work is commendable, there are glaring issues as to why she couldn't be more effective. That's all.

But specifically lashing out at people who raise criticism of her work is no better than labeling any critical of Israel an anti-semite.

SedanChair posted:

people who believe that Teresa was anything other than a death fetishist who felt a thrill in her clitoris when a starving old man checked out looking into her eyes. But she was so famous!

Miltank posted:

Miltank posted:

Some posts aren't about you.

Miltank posted:

hmmmm, nope. ripping on mother teresa still making you look like a dipshit.