|
Captain Mog posted:Is there anywhere I could like read arguments between social justice warriors and fundamentalist Republican Christians? That sounds like the best thing ever. Check the comments on any YouTube video. It's not the best thing ever.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
I had a nice night last night! I did some spiritual reflection and remembered just how deeply guilty I am in the eyes of God, and how everything I have is purely a result of his mercy. How all harsh judgment on my part is inherently hypocritical, because if I were to be judged harshly by God I would be cast in the lake of fire. I saw how I was responsible for all of the friendships, relationships, and colleagues that have gone wrong, and so I apologized to everyone else in spirit and absolved them of their fault; I saw the vulgarity of my lusts, and although I know I cannot control myself, I will aspire to avoid my most heinous acts. Now, there's like 350 new posts in this thread, so time to get crackin'! 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 merely interpret the text as it is. The alternative is to say, "God didn't really do this, it was a mistaken human addition to the Bible." But that is a road that allows one to undermine the whole Bible, or whatever parts you dislike, and also defeats the purpose of trying to understand the intended meaning of ancient religious texts in a purely scholarly way. Or one can say, "God changed his mind later," but that contradicts crucial doctrine that God does not change, and implies God had faulty and evil views. Some say, "it is a progressive revelation," but this still doesn't really explain why God ordered genocide. Others say, "God is an evil fascist and if he does exist, I will not worship him," but I have more respect for my Creator and Savior than that. And others say, "The whole thing is irrelevant, because God does not exist," but this is nonsensical because God obviously exists. Suppose God is a fascist; what, then, can we learn about fascism? CommieGIR posted:1.Soooo....in other words, not as superior as you make it out to be. 1. I never claimed it was superhuman, only that it holds onto the truth. 2. She ran hospices. A hospice is where someone goes to die. 3. Before the spread of rampant sexual misbehavior, STDs were nowhere near as bad of a problem. But STDs and unwanted pregnancies and emotional trauma and other consequences aren't the real reason for encouraging people to be chaste, the reason is the virtue of chastity itself, which ennobles mankind. Paul MaudDib posted:That's a fallacy, though. A placebo can have a substantial medical effect on a believer, even though it has no actual medical effect whatsoever. For many people, believing something will have an effect literally makes it so - completely independent of the existence of any deity. There is no "community service that builds a similar emotional connection" to the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ. Chupe Raho Aurat posted:How come none of the many "lost tribes" still being discovered today, ever walk out or the jungle and say "Hi, have you guys heard about Jesus?" People have to be told the Gospel. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:That's bread in the tabernacle itself, not just consecrated bread. Like I said, making poo poo up What a stretch! But there is only one kind of consecrated showbread in Leviticus. GlyphGryph posted:Ugh, a Catholic. You, who in truth cast down god and worship the devil, represented by your human "father", are actually willing to start a thread about how Catholicism is the way to Christ? You truly think your idolatry, your usurping of the divine by those who advocated that god's love could be bought with a suitable donation, is the way to Christ? We worship God and renounce Satan. The word "father" is a term of respect used elsewhere in the Bible, to be distinguished from the Heavenly Father. There is no idolatry in the Catholic Church, only veneration of icons and relics, and God's love is not purchased, these are myths. quote:The Bible teaches that only Jesus is the source of salvation, and yet your Church argues that Jesus is not enough. It plants itself firmly between man and god. How do you reconcile the blasphemy of your "pope", who holds himself up as the equal of Jesus Christ? The Bible teaches that Jesus is the only source of salvation, as does the Church; but the Bible also teaches in some passages that rites such as baptism are essential for salvation. It is not between men and God, the church are the men and women of God. The pope does not hold himself as the equal of Jesus Christ, this is another myth. quote:Fight against those like the Church who would raise false idols. The Bible says "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Timothy 2:5,6), and yet your Church as replaced him yet again, as it replaced him as the head of the Church, has peddled the blatant blasphemies that "in Mary is effected the reconciliation of God with humanity" (On Reconciliation and Penance. St. Paul Editions, p. 139). It has risen up the Saints, mere humans, as divine agents, and it's aim has always been the same. It's the aim of transubstantiation, where the powers of the church claim to be able to command and control the Lord our Creator, it's the aim of claiming that only the Catholic Church can save your soul, their tithing is collected to insure their domination here on earth as the servant of the one who was given power here on Earth, to lead souls astray. The Saints, including Mary, are held to be in divine communion with the Lord our God in Heaven. The saints are great Christian men and women from history, deserving of immense respect by any Christian. Praying to the saints is called "intercessory prayer," in which the saint then prays to God on your behalf. Transubstantiation does not seek to control the Lord, but merely fulfills his command to "do this in memory of me." Our tithing, by which is meant voluntary donations, required by any denomination which desires to function at all, is collected for various communal purposes, including art and structures which benefit all churchmen, as well as schools, hospitals, and charities which directly assist those least fortunate. But perhaps it's better in your pocket? That's enough for this post! But I'm not done just yet tonight...
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
And look who's back...
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I had a nice night last night! I did some spiritual reflection and remembered just how deeply guilty I am in the eyes of God, and how everything I have is purely a result of his mercy. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I merely interpret the text as it is. The alternative is to say, "God didn't really do this, it was a mistaken human addition to the Bible." But that is a road that allows one to undermine the whole Bible, or whatever parts you dislike, and also defeats the purpose of trying to understand the intended meaning of ancient religious texts in a purely scholarly way. Or one can say, "God changed his mind later," but that contradicts crucial doctrine that God does not change, and implies God had faulty and evil views. Some say, "it is a progressive revelation," but this still doesn't really explain why God ordered genocide. Others say, "God is an evil fascist and if he does exist, I will not worship him," but I have more respect for my Creator and Savior than that. And others say, "The whole thing is irrelevant, because God does not exist," but this is nonsensical because God obviously exists. It seems like two different things to say, On the one hand: God, in the past, endorsed genocide, and seems to have moderated His stance later. How can we reconcile this with the concept that God does not change, or that God cannot order evil? (Or whatever.) Or on the other hand: Genocide makes a nation strong, and failure to ruthlessly suppress neighboring cultures makes a nation weak, as ordained by the Bible. If I am one of the people who God ordains to be genocided, is God my Savior? Does my horrible death at the hands of whoever God is bossing today somehow redeem me? Am I supposed to take solace in my murder, knowing that at least these other people will be able to make use of my land, goods, and female relatives for the sake of their religion? How do you reconcile the concept of human personhood with your implicit prospect that it is necessary to ruthlessly annihilate and suppress some number of other humans, lest the weaknesses of "multiculturalism" and "peace" plague them? If there is ever one ultimate human monoculture, how will you prevent the return of dissent, tolerance, and irreligiousness? (Also, how does this reconcile with the Tower of Babel?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:So here's something that always stumped me. A very good question! The official Catholic teaching is that those God-fearing souls who died prior to Christ's crucifixion were held in "The Bosom of Abraham" in Hades, which is the Greek word for Sheol, the Old Testament conception of death, which is not really the same as Hell (it is not eternal fire, but simply a place without thought, or sound, or sight, etc.) When Jesus died on the cross, his soul "descended into Hell," as we say in the Creed, but in truth it is written in Acts 2:31 that he descended into Hades. There, it is believed that Jesus gathered all of the good souls in Hades, and brought them to Paradise with him, before his glorious Resurrection. BrandorKP posted:Kyrie what is the context of the four Gospels? By that I mean in direct response to what event were the four gospels written. Why does that context make what you're doing here problematic? The context of the Gospels is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, who redeemed mankind of its sin and offered it forgiveness and eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't understand your last question. GreyjoyBastard posted: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? Hinduism is the corrupted, popular version of Brahmanism. It is notable for its "acceptance of all religious philosophies", but anyone should be able to note the problem herein: religious philosophies are contradictory! It is impossible to be both a Catholic and a Muslim. Hinduism is so tolerant because it treats religion as purely a means of personal religious satisfaction, and not as an eternal, inviolable truth. It is fundamentally polytheistic, idolatrous, etc; it is a multicultural religion which does not uphold standards of reason or truth, only personal experience, and is therefore akin to feel-good new age philosophy in substance, and it is precisely its mish-mash of an assortment of beliefs that makes it "the oldest religion on Earth." It is possible for people to be very good Hindus; but although it appears kind and harmless, it seeks to convince people that Christ is merely "another path," and not the only path, which He is. ShadowCatboy posted:Seriouspost: What are your thoughts regarding the epistemology that underlies a belief in God? How do you come to know God, and how do you know you've come to know God? Or to put it another way: what are your thoughts regarding reason, faith, and their relationship to a justified belief in God? This is a difficult question to answer without giving a personal account. But I will try and abstract it a bit. Honestly, it's a whole bunch of pieces coming together; you feel His presence in moments of prayer, worship, activity, guilt, joy, and contemplation; you see the truth of His morality every day; and you reason out that He must have created the universe, and must have sent Christ here to save our woeful species, who He loves despite our faults. As for Buddhism and Islam, I have addressed my thoughts on them in other posts in this thread. I'm still pages behind, but this will be my last question of the night! One has to be well rested.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:58
|
|
"
|
I have a question. Can Madoka ever forgive Homura for sealing away her divinity, seizing the power of the Law of Cycles, and locking her within a gilded cage?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
On the fruitful topic of genociding dissident religions and other nations: Would it be a moral act in the eyes of God to genocide, say, Indians who refused to convert to (presumably Catholic) Christianity, in order to suppress their irreligious behaviors? If it would not be OK, how do you reconcile that with those Old Testament stories? For that matter, is it acceptable to harm unbelievers in your day to day life, if so doing might guide them to the one true faith - say, by threatening to burn their house down if they won't renounce their idols? If the Roman Catholic Church were to be driven to extinction by some other religious group (say, militant Unitarianism), and God showed no sign of intervening in the matter, would that just indicate that the militant Unitarians were stronger and more faithful, therefore more deserving of rulership of Rome?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:And others say, "The whole thing is irrelevant, because God does not exist," but this is nonsensical because God obviously exists. If it's so obvious then why isn't everyone a Christian? Chairs obviously exist, and you don't see billions of people disagreeing with this fact. Kyrie eleison posted:3. Before the spread of rampant sexual misbehavior, STDs were nowhere near as bad of a problem. But STDs and unwanted pregnancies and emotional trauma and other consequences aren't the real reason for encouraging people to be chaste, the reason is the virtue of chastity itself, which ennobles mankind. This is demonstrably untrue, unless by "before the spread of rampant sexual misbehavior" you mean "back when organisms reproduced asexually". So I assume you're talking about the sexual revolution in the sixties when you say that STDs didn't used to be a problem, and that's complete horseshit. The syphilis epidemics of the 16th and 17th Century were so much worse than the modern HIV epidemic that it's not even funny. Kyrie eleison posted:Hinduism is the corrupted, popular version of Brahmanism. It is notable for its "acceptance of all religious philosophies", but anyone should be able to note the problem herein: religious philosophies are contradictory! It is impossible to be both a Catholic and a Muslim. Hinduism is so tolerant because it treats religion as purely a means of personal religious satisfaction, and not as an eternal, inviolable truth. It is fundamentally polytheistic, idolatrous, etc; it is a multicultural religion which does not uphold standards of reason or truth, only personal experience, and is therefore akin to feel-good new age philosophy in substance, and it is precisely its mish-mash of an assortment of beliefs that makes it "the oldest religion on Earth." It is possible for people to be very good Hindus; but although it appears kind and harmless, it seeks to convince people that Christ is merely "another path," and not the only path, which He is. Hey see here, see that thing you're doing where you're deciding not to believe in Hinduism and sneering at every religion except yours because they're obvious bullshit wastes of time for dumb people? The only difference between me and you is one of consistency: I just add one more god to the massive pile of "this sounds like bullshit" that you already agree exists. Whatever it is you're doing when you look at some many-armed God and laugh it off? That's what I do when I see stained glass widows depicting some bearded guy doing magic tricks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
I was once religious and the problem is when you are you feel just as right as one does when they aren't. Not a little more doubtful, not a bit more hesitant.. exactly as sure. More so, often. Change of beliefs so central to one's identity doesn't come from debate. It comes from a change of attitude and an opening of the mind. Haven't studies been done which prove it doesn't matter how many facts and holes you poke in the religious arguments, they'll just shore up their beliefs further? I asked earlier in this thread what would change your minds and the answer I got was: nothing. So what's the point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
I don't think Kirye is a Catholic at all, frankly. He's making frequent and simple mistakes that can be easily recognized. If he actually is a Catholic, he's probably just joking or having a vast confusion about what is Christian faith. There is no proof that God exists. The Catholics know this and know that the existence of God can't be demonstrated. The existence of God can be known by an individual, which is what Faith is. I'm a Catholic and I know that God exists (otherwise I wouldn't be a Catholic: it's a simple sillogism). The knowledge of God can be achieved through personal paths of Philosophy or Theology, and it's self evident if you accept the logic behind it and the basis from which the reasoning starts. Or you can simply accept it, the quia est of God according to St. Thomas Aquinas, the fact that "he is". In neither case however you can know the quid est, or what He is. Some protestants, and it's a position that many Catholics like and propose, suggest instead that believing in the existence of God is an act of pure faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I don't think Kirye is a Catholic at all, frankly. He's making frequent and simple mistakes that can be easily recognized. If he actually is a Catholic, he's probably just joking or having a vast confusion about what is Christian faith. Kyrie is obviously a troll who is trying to make catholics look intolerant and callous. His/her OP literally justified Christianity by arguing essentially, look how much richer Christian countries are than the countries that Christians colonized, enslaved, and completely hosed up; our riches are proof of God's favor right there. Also I don't think Kyrie has read the Bible because the argument "Wealth is proof of God's favor and proves my faith is true" was blown to pieces in the Book of Job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I don't think Kirye is a Catholic at all, frankly. He's making frequent and simple mistakes that can be easily recognized. If he actually is a Catholic, he's probably just joking or having a vast confusion about what is Christian faith. You're right, he's a heretic who believes in prosperity gospel. This was shown.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
My favorite syphilis-related tidbit is that it annihilated the Polish royal family entirely. Admittedly, Slavs are pretty debauched, or at least frequently drunk, so maybe there's something to his moral argument of why stoic Nordic Christians are the holiest people on earth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
A hospice is where people go to die, therefore their quality of life issues are not relevant. Checkmate, athiests 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:My favorite syphilis-related tidbit is that it annihilated the Polish royal family entirely. Admittedly, Slavs are pretty debauched, or at least frequently drunk, so maybe there's something to his moral argument of why stoic Nordic Christians are the holiest people on earth. Scandinavian countries are much richer than Poland is today. In fact, almost every nation west of Poland in Europe is doing better, and Poland is the success story of the post-communist states in Eastern Europe. These nations though are far more secular than extremely religious Poland. Proof God rewards secularism over devotion? Or proof God hates Slavs so much being a religious Slav doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Scandinavian countries are much richer than Poland is today. In fact, almost every nation west of Poland in Europe is doing better, and Poland is the success story of the post-communist states in Eastern Europe. These nations though are far more secular than extremely religious Poland. Definitely the second one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
If the OP's a gimmick, s/he's sure as heck committed to it. Holy moly, that post history. Anyway: quote:"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. So, yup.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
I doubt Kyrie is a gimmick. I followed a girl on tumblr who had similar Catholic morals, but her politics were Stalinist instead of Moral Majority / Dork Enlightenment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Being the religious equivalent of libertarianism is not something to be proud of, you know. The difference is in that broad understanding of God thing. Look at the Libertarian example: Freedom, Human-action, will and choice, those are all very defined and specific terms Compare that to: Unconditioned, Absolute, abyssal, transcendent, those words are that indicate something not specific, not firmly defined in, or across, or underlying all things. And then even those words are too limiting and restraining and are only used because language is necessary. So there are these structures to think about and talk about the unconditioned and undefined that is the foundation of reality (that broad very understanding of God the Father), well those have been taken and are being used to talk about a very specific and very defined idea as the foundation of reality. That's a bad thing to do and monotheism is uniquely suited to respond to it with: Cut that idol poo poo out. And that's actually what's becoming my main problem with the FFRF type stuff. The we don't believe in "gods" business. That's statement about a limited category of gods! Ruling out supernatural, old man in the sky types gods, that's easy. It's the gods that don't fit into that limited category like: freedom, money, wisdom, self, natural laws, etc. Those non-supernatural idols, they are much, much, nastier and very real. Defined and specific things seen as foundation of reality that we might have faith in, those gods need gone after too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And that's actually what's becoming my main problem with the FFRF type stuff. The we don't believe in "gods" business. That's statement about a limited category of gods! Ruling out supernatural, old man in the sky types gods, that's easy. It's the gods that don't fit into that limited category like: freedom, money, wisdom, self, natural laws, etc. Those non-supernatural idols, they are much, much, nastier and very real. Defined and specific things seen as foundation of reality that we might have faith in, those gods need gone after too. ....yeaaaaaaaahhhhh, I don't think you REALLY understand Humanism and the purpose of the FFRF other than classifying 'Stop picking on God unless you are willing to also go after what I view as false idols'
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And that's actually what's becoming my main problem with the FFRF type stuff. The we don't believe in "gods" business. That's statement about a limited category of gods! Ruling out supernatural, old man in the sky types gods, that's easy. It's the gods that don't fit into that limited category like: freedom, money, wisdom, self, natural laws, etc. Those non-supernatural idols, they are much, much, nastier and very real. Defined and specific things seen as foundation of reality that we might have faith in, those gods need gone after too. This is just accusing humanism of nihilism framed in a different way. "Strip away gods? Why don't you just strip away everything? Why not masturbate all day?"  Only, if we actually strip away the literal belief in sky gods and leave the values we can temper with human reason, we might be less likely to sacrifice our firstborn son on an altar because we hallucinated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Kyrie is obviously a troll who is trying to make catholics look intolerant and callous. His/her OP literally justified Christianity by arguing essentially, look how much richer Christian countries are than the countries that Christians colonized, enslaved, and completely hosed up; our riches are proof of God's favor right there. If he is, he is dedicated to the point of deserving mockery in and of itself for nearly only posting in such a way for years now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Brandor you are so close to recognizing Do's message: all Earthly things are idolatry, especially the material church organizations. So what happens when these authoritarian Catholic girls get married? Do they submit to their husbands as good Christian wives or is the guy a whipped beta?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:If he is, he is dedicated to the point of deserving mockery in and of itself for nearly only posting in such a way for years now. Sometimes gimmick posting is a hobby itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Hinduism is the corrupted, popular version of Brahmanism. It is notable for its "acceptance of all religious philosophies", but anyone should be able to note the problem herein: religious philosophies are contradictory! It is impossible to be both a Catholic and a Muslim. Hinduism is so tolerant because it treats religion as purely a means of personal religious satisfaction, and not as an eternal, inviolable truth. It is fundamentally polytheistic, idolatrous, etc; it is a multicultural religion which does not uphold standards of reason or truth, only personal experience, and is therefore akin to feel-good new age philosophy in substance, and it is precisely its mish-mash of an assortment of beliefs that makes it "the oldest religion on Earth." It is possible for people to be very good Hindus; but although it appears kind and harmless, it seeks to convince people that Christ is merely "another path," and not the only path, which He is. Well that's the thing: how exactly do you address the same logic when it's applied to Catholicism? Catholicism itself can be considered a "corrupted, popular version of Judaism as popularized by Jesus," since when you go back far enough it was basically considered a weird little cult for disenfranchised hobos, and the additional trappings that evolved into what is definitively Catholic came about due to politics as well as from Platonic philosophy once it spread through the Greco-Roman world. It's a cliche that's been repeated by previous posters, but it's still something you haven't addressed. How can Catholicism be considered the One True Religion when it's vulnerable to the same logic that you're using to dismiss all other religions? quote:This is a difficult question to answer without giving a personal account. But I will try and abstract it a bit. Honestly, it's a whole bunch of pieces coming together; you feel His presence in moments of prayer, worship, activity, guilt, joy, and contemplation; you see the truth of His morality every day; and you reason out that He must have created the universe, and must have sent Christ here to save our woeful species, who He loves despite our faults. As for Buddhism and Islam, I have addressed my thoughts on them in other posts in this thread. Establishing a belief system as objectively true requires more than a collection of subjective accounts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
McDowell posted:So what happens when these authoritarian Catholic girls get married? The gloves come off. pissing, you name it
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:If the OP's a gimmick, s/he's sure as heck committed to it. Holy moly, that post history. I once printed out Matthew 6:5 on a bunch of handouts and slipped in next to the crazies yelling about a sin-cursed world at passersby (this was on campus at UC Irvine several years ago). When they realized it, they started yelling "white devil" at me, which I appreciated greatly. Edit: they themselves were also white, confusingly enough. mdemone fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Brandor you are so close to recognizing Do's message: all Earthly things are idolatry, especially the material church organizations. No catholic girl that I know of is virgin past 18, let alone at marriage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Guys, I think we need to address the larger point of Kyrie's posting; are there any modern descendents of Canaanites left? If so, is God still angry at us for their failed genocide? Please no answers like "The Old Testament has so many inconsistencies with history in general, it's not a stretch to say maybe the genocide of the Canaanites was supposed to be a metaphor for something else", we're exploring what God being fascist means about fascism right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And that's actually what's becoming my main problem with the FFRF type stuff. The we don't believe in "gods" business. That's statement about a limited category of gods! Ruling out supernatural, old man in the sky types gods, that's easy. It's the gods that don't fit into that limited category like: freedom, money, wisdom, self, natural laws, etc. Those non-supernatural idols, they are much, much, nastier and very real. Defined and specific things seen as foundation of reality that we might have faith in, those gods need gone after too. Okay sure it's easy to rule out belief in Gods. But what if I redefine "Gods" to mean "literally anything and everything in the universe"? You can't rule out belief in that, checkmate atheists you worship Gods too, and oh hay as long as you're worshiping Gods you may as well just start worshiping mine no big deal. ShadowCatboy posted:How can Catholicism be considered the One True Religion when it's vulnerable to the same logic that you're using to dismiss all other religions? All those other religions aren't obviously true, and Catholicism is duh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
What I've always wanted someone to address is why the 1st-century Nazorians apparently thought Jesus lived and died during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE), as the Christian scholar Epiphanius reports in his 4th-century compilation of "heresies". Nazorian preaching according to Epiphanius posted:The priesthood in the holy church is [actually] David's throne and kingly seat, for the Lord joined together and gave to his holy church both the kingly and the high-priestly dignity, transferring to it the never-failing throne of David. For David's throne endured in line of succession until the time of Christ himself, rulers from Judah not failing until he came 'to whom the things kept in reserve belonged, and he was the expectation of the nations'. With the advent of the Christ the rulers in line of succession from Judah, reigning until the time of the Christ himself, ceased. For the line fell away and stopped from the time when he was born in Bethlehem of Judea under Alexander, who was of priestly and royal race. From Alexander onward this office ceased-from the days of Alexander and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, to the days of Herod the king and Augustus the Roman emperor. The Babylonian Talmud provides independent confirmation: Sanhedrin, Hagigah, etc. posted:...when King Jannaeus was killing our rabbis, R. Jesus ben Periah and Jesus [the Nazarene] escaped to Alexandria, Egypt… To say nothing of the fact that the gospels themselves do not agree on the decade of Jesus' birth, nor the year of his death. Or the fact that at least some early Christians thought he was crucified under the reign of Claudius (41 to 54 CE), according to Irenaeus. Or the dozens of contemporary Roman authors who were writing histories of the time period and never mentioned Jesus or Christianity at all. (Marcus Paterculus, Marcus Nonianus, Pamphila of Epidaurus, Aufidius Bassus, Pliny the Elder, Cluvius Rufus, Julia Agrippina, Fabius Rusticus, etc. etc. and most damning of all, Philo himself in Alexandria.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Dammit, Kyrie, I skipped like five pages of goontalk only for you to ignore my question. I award you no points. None!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I once printed out Matthew 6:5 on a bunch of handouts and slipped in next to the crazies yelling about a sin-cursed world at passersby (this was on campus at UC Irvine several years ago). Its like the 404 Error of fundamentalists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
OP, please give in to nihilism and the yearning for nonexistence. It will make you feel so much better than you currently do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The context of the Gospels is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, who redeemed mankind of its sin and offered it forgiveness and eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't understand your last question. Why did the individuals who wrote down the gospels write down the gospels? A very long period time passed between the crucifixion of Jesus and the gospels getting written down. A very specific thing happened and the communities of the Jesus movement went from orally passing on the story of Christ (with only some sayings written down) to writing it down. What was going on between 65 and 110? (65 being the earliest good date for Mark and 110 the latest good date for John) More specifically what happened between 66 and 73. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War The writing down of the gospels is isn't just about one cross, it's about lots of crosses. Furthermore what was happening before that, leading up to it. What did Paul do, how does his delivery of the Jerusalem collection go (you won't find that in Acts other than his arrest, it didn't go well)? The Romans crucified a gently caress load of people, and they smashed that temple Paul delivered that collection to. These are the events that the people writing down our gospels are responding to, that shape how they tell the story of Jesus' life and death. Understanding those events alters any good interpretation of the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, which alters interpretation of the old testament. As Christian how do we know about God? By far the most important way is the story of Jesus as the Christ found in the gospels. God incarnate, Christ, suffers in that story, and is a symbol of all the others crucified by Romans in that story. You've got it backwards. God does not order genocide, He suffered it with us, as one of us. Where does your interpretation of the old testament put you in relationship to the cross? Does it put you with the man and all of the others on the cross? Or does it put you with those those would would justify putting people on the cross?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
I am totally convinced by KE and agree to all his arguments. Catholicism clearly sucks balls, I'm switching to Episcopalian. Maybe Presbyterian, depends on whether Episcopal churches want to be run by the queen of England or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:As Christian how do we know about God? By far the most important way is the story of Jesus as the Christ found in the gospels. God incarnate, Christ, suffers in that story, and is a symbol of all the others crucified by Romans in that story. You've got it backwards. God does not order genocide, He suffered it with us, as one of us. Where does your interpretation of the old testament put you in relationship to the cross? Does it put you with the man and all of the others on the cross? Or does it put you with those those would would justify putting people on the cross? The people Noah left during the (fictional) world flood would like a word with you. Oh, and the people Moses ordered killed and their women taken into bondage and their children slaughtered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, a Christianity thread in D&D. This is like the good old days again! So I just skipped to right here - what did I miss?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Holy poo poo, a Christianity thread in D&D. This is like the good old days again! So I just skipped to right here - what did I miss? Kyrie eleison posted:Hinduism is the corrupted, popular version of Brahmanism. It is notable for its "acceptance of all religious philosophies", but anyone should be able to note the problem herein: religious philosophies are contradictory! It is impossible to be both a Catholic and a Muslim. Hinduism is so tolerant because it treats religion as purely a means of personal religious satisfaction, and not as an eternal, inviolable truth. It is fundamentally polytheistic, idolatrous, etc; it is a multicultural religion which does not uphold standards of reason or truth, only personal experience, and is therefore akin to feel-good new age philosophy in substance, and it is precisely its mish-mash of an assortment of beliefs that makes it "the oldest religion on Earth." It is possible for people to be very good Hindus; but although it appears kind and harmless, it seeks to convince people that Christ is merely "another path," and not the only path, which He is. discuss
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:40
|
|