|
Lots of Catholic Answers type loaded term lite-trolling going on, it looks like. Tsk tsk.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:....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' That's basically what kyrie has been doing the entire thread, you may have noticed! The humility he expresses is a farce in the face of the firm belief that all the people He Likes will do well, and all the Nations He Likes are in no trouble at all (And any problems they may have are simply because they simply didn't reflect his own beliefs). That is, history obeys his whims and not it's own laws, indifferent to every 1 of the 7 billion people which inhabit it. Thing is, the same logic works if you replace 'god' with 'reason', or 'markets'. "We must spread Reason in society" is functionally identical to "We must spread God in society" in the speaker's mind. What is being referred to is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with anything outside the speaker's own head. rudatron fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Op you make some convincing points but you ultimately fail to address the fundamental truth that there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:46
|
|
mdemone posted: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". I mean, given that the central evidence for historical Jesus is Tacitus writing that a man named Jesus, known as Christus, was crucified by the procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, and we known when Pilate was prefect of Judaea, it's not really a strong claim in comparison, don't you think?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The people Noah left during the (fictional) world flood would like a word with you. Also the Canaanites. One of Victors great moments was where he hemmed and hawed over genocide in the old testament, and pondered whether or not it really is bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Also the Canaanites. One of Victors great moments was where he hemmed and hawed over genocide in the old testament, and pondered whether or not it really is bad. Oh god I remember that: "It wasn't genocide, because GOD gave the go-ahead." 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I mean, given that the central evidence for historical Jesus is Tacitus writing that a man named Jesus, known as Christus, was crucified by the procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, and we known when Pilate was prefect of Judaea, it's not really a strong claim in comparison, don't you think? There is good reason to believe that the Chrestus text in Tacitus is an inserted interpolation from much later than the date of writing (around 116 CE, already late enough to imply that it was secondhand or third-hand information, possibly from his best friend Pliny the Younger, who we know was cribbing from contemporary Christians). Multiple commentaries on Tacitus were written over the next five hundred years, and none bother to quote him on Jesus until the middle of the 4th century, which coincides with the era of known redactions and insertions regarding Jesus in the texts of Suetonius and Josephus, among others. Even if we grant that Tacitus really wrote that, how would he have known about Jesus Chrestus? Rome's library had already burned twice since the crucifixion (under Nero and again under Titus), taking all relevant records with it. More likely he heard it from Pliny the Younger, who heard it from Christians. Pliny the Elder had also written about the Neronian war, but never mentioned Jesus or Christianity, and he was an eyewitness to that war. Tacitus isn't worth poo poo. He was playing the telephone game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:43
|
|
mdemone posted:There is good reason to believe that the Chrestus text in Tacitus is an inserted interpolation from much later than the date of writing (around 116 CE, already late enough to imply that it was secondhand or third-hand information, possibly from his best friend Pliny the Younger, who we know was cribbing from contemporary Christians). Multiple commentaries on Tacitus were written over the next five hundred years, and none bother to quote him on Jesus until the middle of the 4th century, which coincides with the era of known redactions and insertions regarding Jesus in the texts of Suetonius and Josephus, among others. Ah, I see that we have a bold denialist here, but even if Tacitus got the story solely from his knowledge of Christian customs, that still is a story that contradicts the version you put forward, and it's one that he considered credible enough to include. Of course, given that all references to Jesus are necessarily later forgeries or actually referring to some other figure known as Rex Iudaeorum in the denialist view, Occam's Razor for you must necessarily cut against the existence of a religious radical named Joshua bar-Joseph, who was baptized by another religious radical, was crucified by a prefect noted for his brutality against the Jewish population of Judaea, and ended up with his reinterpretation of Judaism winning out. Impossibly he had disciples in his lifetime and was born in Galilee.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. Let's make this easy and straight forward. Atheists seem to love arguing against the ideas of Schleiermacher (and to ignore that Barth happened), so let go with that. "Absolute dependance upon" ie. religious feeling Can you with a straight face tell me that "IN REASON WE TRUST" is not an expression of religious feeling? CommieGIR posted:The people Noah left during the (fictional) world flood would like a word with you. Who wrote the bible? Who wrote the Pentateuch? Why is your point a non-sequitor to someone who thinks the documentary hypothesis is correct and who thinks that theodicy is bullshit? SedanChair posted:This is just accusing humanism of nihilism framed in a different way. Actually they aren't being nihilistic. I am. I'm the one being destructive of created values and meaning. mdemone posted: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". There were Jewish groups that had messiahs well before and well after Jesus. That at isn't something that has stopped either. There are a lot of Jewish messiah claimants (even recent ones, like within our lifetime). Vespasian might have even been one! http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants13.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Actually they aren't being nihilistic. I am. I'm the one being destructive of created values and meaning. You shouldn't though, because humanistic values are backed by evidence. If you're gonna label "doing what works and lets people get along and have good brain feelings and food to eat" as "created values" as a way to liken it to flogging yourself on Ashura, I would argue that you're being insincere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
John the Baptist was pretty much one of the biggest contenders for 'Messiah' but they gave him a rather poo poo token role in Jesus' ascendancy so as to give shoutouts to those who thought he was alright dude but not enough to cast a shadow on Jesus' claim to fame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Atheists seem to love arguing against the ideas of Schleiermacher (and to ignore that Barth happened), so let go with that. "Absolute dependance upon" ie. religious feeling I can say with a perfectly straight face it's much more likely just a ham-handed attempt to subvert the "in God we trust" aphorism that just about every American is aware of (from our currency if nowhere else), rather than any substantive statement of deeply-held belief in the manner you claim. But then, you always do seem to have trouble disconnecting belief in anything at all from genuine religious sentiment. 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? Not much, the OP's a lightweight, though entertaining at times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Let's make this easy and straight forward. Hold on now, you're making a critical error. You're talking about two very wide-spread groups, and yet your pigeonholing atheism into one incredibly narrow interpretation while leaving the opposite Christian position as being as diverse as possible. You're making a common Category Error. Your definition of atheism is far too narrow and your definition of Christianity is far too broad in this instance. And the rest of your posts ignore this egregious error. You need to hold theism and atheism to the same standrads if you're going to compare them. Otherwise don't bother.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:...Occam's Razor for you must necessarily cut against the existence of a religious radical named Joshua bar-Joseph, who was baptized by another religious radical, was crucified by a prefect noted for his brutality against the Jewish population of Judaea, and ended up with his reinterpretation of Judaism winning out. Impossibly he had disciples in his lifetime and was born in Galilee. There are no contemporary sources for any of this. And unless you think that all scholarly work on late forgery is flawed, there is no reason to assume that any texts not furthering euhemerization would have been preserved by a church that spent the next millennium redacting its own literature. Therefore it shouldn't be surprising one way or the other that only historicism remains. What about Paul? Tens of thousands of words about the church, and not a single indication that he believed Jesus to have walked the earth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
I think my favorite instance of 'not doing their research' in the bible other than the whole genealogy of Christ to make him the Descendant of David (none of which loving matters because JOSEPH IS NOT HIS FATHER) is when Jesus is baptized and the heavens open and a bird comes down and a voice speaks 'This is my son, of whom I am well pleased" and then John writes to Jesus while he's in prison asking for a sign that he is who he says he is. Was John not paying attention or something? I'm guessing he does a lot of baptisms but I'm guessing if the heavens opened up and a booming voice declared something I might actually remember it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Do we have any historical evidence for the existence of Roman citizen Bigus Dickus?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Let's make this easy and straight forward. No, its not. Because reason and logic can be extrapolated and backed by evidence and tangible things. You are doing the 'faith = religion' fallacy. Faith can imply more than religious purpose, it can simply mean trust WITHOUT any religious implication. BrandorKP posted:Who wrote the bible? Who wrote the Pentateuch? Why is your point a non-sequitor to someone who thinks the documentary hypothesis is correct and who thinks that theodicy is bullshit? Ah, so all those things were the works of men. If that, then where is god in his written word? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, its not. Because reason and logic can be extrapolated and backed by evidence and tangible things. The root of all reason and logic is the separation of human and divine nature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The root of all reason and logic is the separation of human and divine nature. From the guy who argues that all law is divinely inspired.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:From the guy who argues that all law is divinely inspired. Yes. Law is an attempt to structure society in a manner which imitates divine nature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:27
|
|
mdemone posted:There are no contemporary sources for any of this. And unless you think that all scholarly work on late forgery is flawed, there is no reason to assume that any texts not furthering euhemerization would have been preserved by a church that spent the next millennium redacting its own literature. Therefore it shouldn't be surprising one way or the other that only historicism remains. There are no contemporary historical sources, or primary documents. There is only one primary source for the existence of Pontius Pilate as fifth prefect of Judaea, and one contemporary historical source. There's only one contemporary source for the existence of Herod Antipas as tetrarch of Galilee. Many, many people in antiquity are known from brief mentions or single sources. Jesus is singled out because of a desire to not only reject Christianity as true, but ensure that everything about it is false. Of course, this does not apply to Paul of Tarsus, who has no historical sources outside of Christianity referring to him, as you treat him as a real person. Given that textual analysis concludes that only half of the writings bearing his name were definitely written by one person...
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:28
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes. Law is an attempt to structure society in a manner which imitates divine nature. down with slavery posted:Are you on some mission to prove how big of a moron you are to D&D?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes. Law is an attempt to structure society in a manner which imitates divine nature. So, in other words, you cannot tell the difference between divinity and sociology. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Of course, this does not apply to Paul of Tarsus, who has no historical sources outside of Christianity referring to him, as you treat him as a real person. Given that textual analysis concludes that only half of the writings bearing his name were definitely written by one person... I wholeheartedly agree that Paul was multiple people writing at different times. Still doesn't explain why the epistles treat Jesus like a celestial being that succeeded Melchizedek as high priest of heaven, and never make any reference to Jesus' earthly life. Edit: And more importantly, the epistles seem to assume that their audience already knows this. mdemone fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:37
|
|
mdemone posted:I wholeheartedly agree that Paul was multiple people writing at different times. Still doesn't explain why the epistles treat Jesus like a celestial being that succeeded Melchizedek as high priest of heaven, and never make any reference to Jesus' earthly life. Considering that early Christianity seems to have been oral and focused around the teachings of Jesus (and the Gospel of Thomas is potentially a contemporary source), why would he? His writings are focused on theology.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Considering that early Christianity seems to have been oral and focused around the teachings of Jesus (and the Gospel of Thomas is potentially a contemporary source), why would he? His writings are focused on theology. Sure, I'll give you that. At the least, we can say that Paul has no evidentiary value for historicism. Although it does seem...odd, that in all the questions he had to answer about the way the church should operate, nobody ever asked him "well how did Jesus run it?" and he never referred to Jesus' earthly doings as justification for any church procedures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:46
|
|
mdemone posted:Sure, I'll give you that. At the least, we can say that Paul has no evidentiary value for historicism. Although it does seem...odd, that in all the questions he had to answer about the way the church should operate, nobody ever asked him "well how did Jesus run it?" and he never referred to Jesus' earthly doings as justification for any church procedures. Well, for one thing, there wasn't a "church" according to the gospels until after Jesus dies and no need to govern anything. Certain stories within the gospels are almost certainly the relics of power struggles as different early Christians attempted to establish central authority (e.g. "On this rock").
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Brandor you are so close to recognizing Do's message: all Earthly things are idolatry, especially the material church organizations. Christians affirm creation as good. There's a reason for that. Those off shoot groups who thought the material world was evil and the secret spiritual world was good, that all ways goes to weird (and harmful) places. I will say yes to God's earth and Do can keep his comet. SedanChair posted:You shouldn't though, because humanistic values are backed by evidence. If you're gonna label "doing what works and lets people get along and have good brain feelings and food to eat" as "created values" as a way to liken it to flogging yourself on Ashura, I would argue that you're being insincere. I have a different foundation for my humanism. We all are children of the Father and brothers and sisters of Christ. My humanism is a revealed value. But you're right they derive their humanism from evidence. From evidence, from sense perception, that's the epistemology they start with to reach a conclusion of humanism. Thing is epistemologies rest on ontologies. One has to make assumptions about what is and is not before one goes about thinking how do I know about things. "Knowledge knows nothing save that it knows nothing; it must take refuge in faith." We should be honest about our foundations, about our ground, about what the things we believe are dependent upon and the necessary (but usually hidden) leaps we take to have those beliefs. But yes humanism is a created value unless it's a discovered or revealed value. Maybe I can say this more simply. What came up with humanism? We either created it, discovered it, or it was revealed. mdemone posted:I wholeheartedly agree that Paul was multiple people writing at different times. It's pretty clear that about half of the letters are one person, and it's generally agreed to be Paul, and that person calls himself Paul.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I have a different foundation for my humanism. We all are children of the Father and brothers and sisters of Christ. My humanism is a revealed value. No, see you are making the same argument as MIGF, only in a more round about way: All laws, logic, philosophy, and social orders are divinely inspired, therefore god. Humanism has nothing to do with god, and shows you have a distinct lack of ability to grasp 'divinity' versus 'sociology' BrandorKP posted:But you're right they derive their humanism from evidence. From evidence, from sense perception, that's the epistemology they start with to reach a conclusion of humanism. Thing is epistemologies rest on ontologies. One has to make assumptions about what is and is not before one goes about thinking how do I know about things. "Knowledge knows nothing save that it knows nothing; it must take refuge in faith." We should be honest about our foundations, about our ground, about what the things we believe are dependent upon and the necessary (but usually hidden) leaps we take to have those beliefs. God of the gaps argument, right here. Any leaps we must have taken MUST have been based on faith, therefore god. That is terrible logic. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:God of the gaps argument, right here. Any leaps we must have taken MUST have been based on faith, therefore god. I'm not doing a proof. All proofs of God are nonsense. I'm saying we all have something our beliefs are fundamentally dependent upon that we accept by faith, those assumptions are idols, gods ("gods" are not God) CommieGIR posted:Humanism has nothing to do with god, and shows you have a distinct lack of ability to grasp 'divinity' versus 'sociology' Talk about Jesus as the Christ, is talk about humanity. In Jesus Christ there is no isolation of man from God or of God from man. Rather, in Him we encounter the history, the dialogue, in which God and man meet together and are together, the reality of the covenant MUTUALLY contracted, preserved, and fulfilled by them.- The Humanity of God Karl Barth A good book very much worth reading http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Humanity_of_God.html?id=ualdKvF5cdoC
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's pretty clear that about half of the letters are one person, and it's generally agreed to be Paul, and that person calls himself Paul. Yeah, I should have more accurately said that Paul's oeuvre was written by multiple people at different times. I don't deny that Paul existed or that he was named Paul or that he wrote a decent fraction of the epistolary text.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I'm not doing a proof. All proofs of God are nonsense. I'm saying we all have something our beliefs are fundamentally dependent upon that we accept by faith, those assumptions are very often idols, gods (not God) I accept proof of gravity due to its observable actions, and therefore have faith (TRUST) in it. Having faith in gravity in no way implies it suddenly became a religious institution or has religious appeal. If you get launched into space, does your 'faith' in gravity become nullified because a distinct lack visual appearance of it? No. You are mixing up the definitions of faith: Faith as referring Trust versus Faith as referring to Religion/Theology Two different meanings. BrandorKP posted:Talk about Jesus as the Christ, is talk about humanity. Talk about Jesus makes you a Christian. Humanism is not Jesus nor does it use him as a method. Jesus might have talked about similar ideals, but that no more makes Humanism Christian derived than suggesting that Buddha or Ghandi were Christ derived. Had Jesus, Buddah, or Ghandi never existed, the social ideals they promoted would have no doubt still been appealing. These are SOCIAL ideas they promote, not religious ones, no matter which person said it. You are mixing up sociology and theology. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Can you with a straight face tell me that "IN REASON WE TRUST" is not an expression of religious feeling? Well of course it is. This is Rationalism and it might as well be religion. No one is a Rationalist anymore though (well okay praxeologists) so who gives a poo poo. Methodological naturalism kicked rationalism's rear end way back in the day when people started subjecting theories to testing and looking at the evidence, and it turned out that just making things up and calling it Pure Reason has a poo poo track record of explaining the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well of course it is. This is Rationalism and it might as well be religion. No one is a Rationalist anymore though (well okay praxeologists) so who gives a poo poo. Methodological naturalism kicked rationalism's rear end way back in the day when people started subjecting theories to testing and looking at the evidence, and it turned out that just making things up and calling it Pure Reason has a poo poo track record of explaining the world. He's still buying into Metaphysics isn't eh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
I mean, I know the answer he's going to give is that when I look at evidence I am relying on faith that my senses are actually perceiving an external world and so if you redefine God to mean that then I believe in God too, I also believe in blork if you define it to mean that. Anyway, it's dumb as hell. I don't have faith that my senses work. The question of whether I can rely on my perceptions is just totally uninteresting and rather meaningless; it's a question I'm unable to ever know the answer to in principle, and my belief one way or the other wouldn't affect my life or behavior at all. There's no point to acting any other way than I act, touching a hot stove is still going to create unpleasant feelings whether I'm hallucinating the stove or not. Whether there's a dude in the sky who will burn me forever for sucking a dick though, and who would love nothing more than for me to stone fags all day while he watches. Well, that actually does have a pretty big effect on the world, so we should probably ask for proof from someone who says this dude obviously exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Anyway, it's dumb as hell. I don't have faith that my senses work. The question of whether I can rely on my perceptions is just totally uninteresting and rather meaningless; it's a question I'm unable to ever know the answer to in principle, and my belief one way or the other wouldn't affect my life or behavior at all. Your senses are faulty, therefore trust in my invisible friend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Has anyone pointed out how the classic Catholic imagery of Mary is very clearly Yonic? I can't believe I missed this earlier. A lot of the earliest imagery for Jesus is Yonic too. Turn the fish vertical. A vulva with little butt cheeks below it (the tail). Why because Sophia - God's feminine wisdom. They took fish from another cult, that I can't remember the name of right now. I've read that the ΙΧΘΥΣ stuff is after the fact justification for the symbol (dammit I don't remember where). Anyway some icons are hilarious with that in mind the haloed head of Christ, very much looks like a clitoris. Even images of saints: http://imgur.com/nTfzcbH Vulvas everywhere in Christian imagery. Often multiples in a single image! VitalSigns posted:Well of course it is. This is Rationalism and it might as well be religion. No one is a Rationalist anymore though (well okay praxeologists) so who gives a poo poo. That's actually why I give a poo poo that FFRF is using it as an ad line actually. I think that's where it's coming from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:That's actually why I give a poo poo that FFRF is using it as an ad line actually. I think that's where it's coming from. FFRF isn't representative of atheist thought, any more than some random ad taken out by a community church or a mosque is representative of theist thought hth
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:That's actually why I give a poo poo that FFRF is using it as an ad line actually. I think that's where it's coming from. That doesn't link them to some invisible chain back to God though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 21:24
|
|