|
Brandor is your argument that religion is ideology and ideology is an inescapable cultural constant? Or is it something more complex than that?
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
mdemone posted: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. I appreciate your philological culture but the consolidated theory (which you're free to refute) is that early Christians talked and met people who had known and talked with Jesus himself, who didn't need to be proven his earthly existence because of that. While the tradition talks of the twelve apostles, Jesus had many followers and met several thousands people in his life. About Tacitus, as you know, the problem was created by the destruction of many historical texts during the fifth and sixth century, making him one of the few reputable historians whose writing survived destruction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
 Brandor do you believe that you have solved the problem of Solipsism? And if so, is your answer simply "Logos"? I feel like this may be a sticking point for why you and I have such difficulty communicating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Good evening friends! I have decided to stay up a little unreasonably late to work through a few more questions. I saw some good questions I wanted to respond to while reading at work today, but couldn't respond then. Since I'm still eight pages behind, I've been searching each page for "kyrie". Going forward, I recommend you use this word in your post if there are a lot of posts and you want me to address it. Also, please feel free to re-ask questions I have missed due to the volume. Here is a melancholy but powerful (if you stick with it) little song to accompany my post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99TCWaHmWKc Malmesbury Monster posted:I'm not sure anyone has found the answer to that one yet. Obviously, it can't be confrontational. Pope Francis recently made some waves by suggesting that maybe proselytizing is rude (obviously kyrie wasn't listening). This comment, like many others by the Holy Father (especially as they are construed by the media), have caused a stir in the Catholic community! But we know that the Pope, of all people, encourages evangelism, and talking about the faith. He does it all the time! He simply likes to challenge us with comments like this. What he means by "proselytizing" is a negative form of evangelization which includes violence or coercion or rudeness or other methods of intimidation, rather than "attraction", which he says is the true method of conversion. My only goal here is to answer questions, not to browbeat anybody. You are free to make your own choice. Salt Fish posted:I was raised Mormon and attended a Mormon church for 15 years. Kyrie eleison, I find your omission of The Book of Mormon from the OP very troubling. How can you claim to be happy with your life when you have not understood the full truth of our relationship with God? You will eventually realize the error of your ways when your immortal soul burns in hell for eternity. Mormonism is similar to Islam in that it is a "latter-day" addition to the true texts, and quite a fanciful one at that! One of the members of my church is an ex-Mormon and he is a very solid person and great believer (and doubter!). I think of Mormonism as kind of a cynical American nationalism that views religion as just a political and social tool, to the extent they will accept truly ridiculous theology. CommieGIR posted:Not that I really care, but they worship Christ as the son of god and recognize the trinity. Pretty sure that makes them Christian. Actually, Mormons reject the Trinity. BrandorKP posted:I would ask the same type of questions about the OT interpretation Kyrie does. Being able to do this involves recognizing that the stories in the bible are myths: stories told by humans to communicate meaning with each other. Parts are definitely not factual. That should not be threatening to Christians. It should be especially nonthreatening to anyone who thinks Jesus is the Logos. It is a factual statement to say that the bible was written by people with agendas who occasionally made things up to try to influence the world and the people around them. Interpreting the bible as if it is perfect and directly from God is to deny a truth standing right in front of oneself. Logos-centric Christians (Kyrie) should not do that. Of course I doubt these things, but when it comes down to it, one has to accept Scripture. There isn't much point of reading the Bible if you aren't going to accept that it means what it says. I'm curious about how you interpret the conquest of Canaan. rudatron posted:That's actually a really good metaphor considering the point BrandorKP just brought up. Kyrie, troll or not, is the fan obsessed with canon, creating wired structures and performing mental gymnastics to trying to bring their stories into 'real life', whereas brandor is saying that subtext actually matters more. I consider myself a fan of both. D1Sergo posted:Kyrie makes these threads repeatedly, this is like the 5th one I've seen this year. Yes its a troll, its one that has worked countless times before. This is incorrect, I'm not sure if I've ever made a thread in D&D before, but I certainly haven't made five this year. I have, um, involved myself in other threads, though mostly last year. Phobophilia posted: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? This is a very difficult question. I think Madoka has the capacity to forgive Homura, if Homura truly repents, but I will understand if Madoka's judgment is more final and severe in the situation she does not trust Homura's apology. VitalSigns posted: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. You overplayed your hand here, friend. I have most certainly read it, including Job, which is really a wonderful book that is often misconstrued. You are right that wealth is not a sign of righteousness, but that was not I meant in my initial post. What I meant by it was to point out that Christianity is important to human history, and therefore the human species, for all time. There's no avoiding it. It will always be there, right at our beginning. Forever. McDowell posted: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. prop-d?  (not many like her!)rudatron posted:Brandor is right: 'reason' functions to these atheists in exactly the same way as 'god' does to a canonical thiest. Forget about metaphysical arguments for the moment, how is the word 'god' used by a canonical (or maybe stereotypical) believer? It's a signifier not of an external entity, but something inside the believers' head. "This offends god" should just be read as "this offends me". "God does not approve" = "I do not approve". The external nature of 'god' is simply a projection of the believers' own ideas onto reality, hence why proof or disproof of it's existence isn't necessary. A Believer is able to maintain a psychological distance from their own ideas of reality, a 'simple observer' of themselves. That's an amazing device to deflect criticism, you essentially get to act humble even when maintaining your own superiority. A constant problem for Christians, or anyone else seeking to live a virtuous life, is to not be "proud of your humility", or "proud of your charity", or anything else like that. Basically, to not take pride in your virtues! And it is a constant struggle, as pride always is. Personally, I have a very simple refrain: "I am evil." And it always helps to put me in my place. I have been blessed by God in many ways, and if I have any wisdom at all, or any virtue at all, it comes only from Him. And if he desires to take any of it away, that is his right, and I cannot complain. I signed up to be "baptized by fire," and I know this life is ultimately a test. Alright, I hope this is satisfactory for now. Let me know if you have any other questions or want me to address a question I passed over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Mormonism is similar to Islam in that it is a "latter-day" addition to the true texts, and quite a fanciful one at that! One of the members of my church is an ex-Mormon and he is a very solid person and great believer (and doubter!). I think of Mormonism as kind of a cynical American nationalism that views religion as just a political and social tool, to the extent they will accept truly ridiculous theology. I agree, no latter-day additions to the true text and the covenants handed down by the Lord God Himself. *throws the New Testament into the fire* Kyrie eleison posted:You overplayed your hand here, friend. I have most certainly read it, including Job, which is really a wonderful book that is often misconstrued. You are right that wealth is not a sign of righteousness, but that was not I meant in my initial post. What I meant by it was to point out that Christianity is important to human history, and therefore the human species, for all time. There's no avoiding it. It will always be there, right at our beginning. Forever. Christianity is only 2000 years old, friend. If you want a religion that's been important to the human species for all time, you're going to need a God a little bit older. Ishtar maybe? Ra?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
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. What's funny is, other gods as you say actually offer something real. Money is power, reason gives you knowledge about the real world, fame is recognition, but God offers nothing. You can pray all you like but you will receive nothing. Might as well worship the gods that offer tangible rewards, the ones closer to D&D than the bible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I agree, no latter-day additions to the true text and the covenants handed down by the Lord God Himself. *throws the New Testament into the fire* The true God at our beginning, Dyēus ph2ter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes, Hitler was the ultimate outcome of having a purely christian nation. Hence you have to return to Judaic values of law originating from divine providence in order to avoid future hitlers. the torah is not in heaven
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What a stretch! But there is only one kind of consecrated showbread in Leviticus. It's not enough for the bread to be consecrated for it to be reserved for the sons of Aaron; it needs to be actually used in a ceremonial purpose as well, by placing it in the tabernacle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:It's not enough for the bread to be consecrated for it to be reserved for the sons of Aaron; it needs to be actually used in a ceremonial purpose as well, by placing it in the tabernacle. Chapter and verse, if you please. (I really need to sleep and will respond later.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I appreciate your philological culture but the consolidated theory (which you're free to refute) is that early Christians talked and met people who had known and talked with Jesus himself, who didn't need to be proven his earthly existence because of that. While the tradition talks of the twelve apostles, Jesus had many followers and met several thousands people in his life. I'm certainly aware that this is the prevailing theory. Mostly I just find it suspicious that Paul never sees fit to refer to Jesus as having really existed, if just in an offhand manner, not even once. However, that is not evidence for mythicism -- but neither can Paul be used to support historicism. (The historiography of Pauline text is very interesting on its own merits, but again that's not really relevant here.) If Jesus had so many followers and met so many people during his ministry, why do we not have any contemporary sources? The answer must be 1) they never existed because nobody wrote anything down, which I find a barely-tolerable assertion, 2) they were destroyed, which doesn't make sense for a church that would prize historical proof of their founder, or 3) they never existed because Jesus never existed. If we adopt #1, things start to get pretty sketchy because there are a few decades in the late 1st century (after the war) where not only do we not know what was happening, we don't know who was in charge of the Christian church, what they were teaching, where they were traveling, or what they thought of Jesus himself. Only afterwards do we start to see written Christian texts, and that is a major red flag even if it's not dispositive for any particular claim. quote:About Tacitus, as you know, the problem was created by the destruction of many historical texts during the fifth and sixth century, making him one of the few reputable historians whose writing survived destruction. No, the problem is that the Roman records burned twice during the first century, well before Tacitus began to write. Neither he nor Pliny the Younger would have primary records of Roman Palestine before the Neronian war, and very likely this means there was no way for him to have that information about Chrestus from a neutral source. Again, we have many surviving commentaries on Tacitus, and none that were written before the 4th century quote his mention of Chrestus, whereas the ones written during and after the 4th century do quote the text at issue. This fits with the timing of other known redactions that can be traced to the 4th century, which doesn't prove anything but certainly doesn't help Tacitus look any more pristine. His work is probably compromised, and/or almost certainly founded on hearsay. Edit: I want to say that no one should take my posts as being combative or polemical. I could just talk about this stuff for days because it's so drat interesting from a historiographical perspective. It makes no difference to me whether Jesus existed or not; as a strong atheist I am certain that even if he did, he was not divine, but "merely" a good guy with great ideas who was also maybe just a little kooky about his god. It's the rise of Christianity throughout the first millennium that is such a powerful topic, for me. mdemone fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
All ancient historians mixed legends and hearsay in their histories, frankly. The first truly modern history book is The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire of Gibbon. Anyway, the number of people claiming that the famous passage " Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque." is a false, are the minority.mdemone posted:Edit: I want to say that no one should take my posts as being combative or polemical. I could just talk about this stuff for days because it's so drat interesting from a historiographical perspective. It makes no difference to me whether Jesus existed or not; as a strong atheist I am certain that even if he did, he was not divine, but "merely" a good guy with great ideas who was also maybe just a little kooky about his god. It's the rise of Christianity throughout the first millennium that is such a powerful topic, for me. Oh, don't worry, I find it very interesting as well. Cippalippus fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Chapter and verse, if you please. Lev. 24:8-9
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Anyway, the number of people claiming that the famous passage " Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque." is a false, are the minority. That's certainly true, but it doesn't mean the minority's claim cannot be correct. If anything, the problem of scholarly bias (especially for religious studies) muddles the issue of scholarly agreement beyond any hope of disentanglement. Gotta run now, hopefully others will chime in with thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:What's funny is, other gods as you say actually offer something real. Money is power, reason gives you knowledge about the real world, fame is recognition, but God offers nothing. You can pray all you like but you will receive nothing. Might as well worship the gods that offer tangible rewards, the ones closer to D&D than the bible. Well that's not all that surprising really. It's important to remember that early Christianity was just a simple minor cult for the poor and disenfranchised. However, as it became absorbed into the Roman/Byzantine empires, Christianity in turn began to take on many of the philosophical, political, and cultural elements of the Greco-Roman world. One of these influences was Platonic idealism. As you guys might remember from high school philosophy, Plato held that the primacy of reality lay not in material things, but rather was rooted in their related concepts. For Plato, ideas were not mental representations of objects. Instead, objects are flawed instantiations of ideas. This led to a hierarchy of being in Plato's worldview, where ideas stood at the top (the idea of a chair, which was eternal), objects stood beneath them (a particular chair, which will suffer dents and scratches, break, and eventually rot away), and depictions of objects stood lower still (a painting of a chair is a mere representation of a chair, which is itself a mere representation of an idea. Two steps removed from the ideal reality). This logic naturally leads to a certain sense of asceticism, and is likely what was responsible for one of the iconic elements of Christianity: the sense of stark metaphysical dualism between body and soul, the material and divine, as well as the denigration and disdain for material life. Whereas Judaism was more concerned with daily life and ways of living, Christianity was about purifying oneself of base material needs to merge with the divine (a form of Platonic asceticism). Christianity then is just Judaism interpreted through a Greco-Roman lens. This becomes more obvious as you look at other elements of the Catholic church as it evolved: the Papacy itself is just an extension of the Roman Imperial system, whereas Sainthood is just a version of Roman polytheism and apotheosis. Actually, I'd like to get Kyrie eleison's thoughts on this matter as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Mormonism is similar to Islam in that it is a "latter-day" addition to the true texts, and quite a fanciful one at that! One of the members of my church is an ex-Mormon and he is a very solid person and great believer (and doubter!). I think of Mormonism as kind of a cynical American nationalism that views religion as just a political and social tool, to the extent they will accept truly ridiculous theology. Yes, they reject the singular trinity, they believe that the father, son, and holy ghost are distinct beings. I misspoke. But as for cynical American nationalism, I'm pretty sure that encompasses many of the fundamentalist Christian groups as well. Kyrie eleison posted:I think of Mormonism as kind of a cynical American nationalism that views religion as just a political and social tool, to the extent they will accept truly ridiculous theology. Wait, aren't you Catholic? 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:What's funny is, other gods as you say actually offer something real. Money is power, reason gives you knowledge about the real world, fame is recognition, but God offers nothing. You can pray all you like but you will receive nothing. Might as well worship the gods that offer tangible rewards, the ones closer to D&D than the bible. Oh it's worse than that even. I think that if one is really exceptional at following the example of Christ, loving and accepting all others, mocking power and authority, overturning tables of hypocrisy, well people tend to get killed for that. Kyrie eleison posted:Of course I doubt these things, but when it comes down to it, one has to accept Scripture. There isn't much point of reading the Bible if you aren't going to accept that it means what it says. I'm curious about how you interpret the conquest of Canaan. You're Catholic, you've got scholasticism in your tradition. Texts have multiple meanings. As for Joshua, it's probably not factual historically. Any good intro to understanding the bible textbook will tell you that too. It's a book about faithfulness, monarchy, and God's mercy, and it's from well after (700-800 years after, events 1300 BCE writing probably 600 BCE ish) the events it writes about. What are the Deuteronomists (the group the author was probably from) trying to do in 630-622. Judea is vassal state of Assyria, Assyria is losing power, and the D group wants an independent state. What does the Book of Joshua look like in light of that? It's an state origin myth. How/why origin myths are used and formed, I personally think that's much more interesting and useful to understanding the world right now. mdemone posted:I'm certainly aware that this is the prevailing theory. Mostly I just find it suspicious that Paul never sees fit to refer to Jesus as having really existed, if just in an offhand manner, not even once. You know Paul is in Acts right? "And within an hour he was preaching in the synagogue of the Jews about Yeshua, that he is The Son of God." (Aramaic in Plain English) ShadowCatboy posted:One of these influences was Platonic idealism. Here's the thing. Christian does mesh with neo-platonism quite well. But then again it meshes with Aristotelianism quite well (see the Catholics). But then again it meshes with existentialism quite well. It's content is independent of the philosophical vehicle. Hell there are even examples of positivism meshed with Christianity. And again the early Greek influence is a reaction. The more Jewish group being dead combined with having to respond to Roman stoic critique (Eg. Celsus) then later getting drawn back being restricted by responses to the heretical groups. What ever language is the most adequate expression of living life as a Christian at the moment Christianity can/does/has use(d). And if you're going down the route I think you are, that Jesus fellow lots of partying, eating and drinking with fishermen, whores, and tax collectors not particularly ascetic. John the Baptist now that's an ascetic. Jesus not so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You know Paul is in Acts right? Acts is an apologetic fiction in the guise of an historical document, according to most modern scholarship. See the following, among others: Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008) Richard Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009) Thomas Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The lntertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2004), esp. pp. 377-445 (on Acts specifically) Dennis MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003) John Dominic Crossan, The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2012), pp. 196-217. Clare Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (TDbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) Loveday Alexander, 'Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts', New Testament Studies 44 (1998), pp. 380-99 P.E. Satterthwaite, 'Acts against the Background of Classical Rhetoric', in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Bruce Winter and Andrew Clarke; Grand Rapids, Ml: William B. Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 337-80. The MacDonald work is especially instructive. He works out the detailed parallels between Homer's Odyssey and Paul's shipwreck, in a way that makes the conclusion impossible to avoid: Acts is a literary creation without historical value. Points of comparison include, but are not limited to: 1) the appearance of an assuring goddess/angel; 2) riding planks to safety 3) arrival on an island among welcoming strangers; 4) mistaking the castaway for a god and giving him a new ship; 5) resurrection of Eutychus (see Homer's episode on Elpenor); 6) visions of Cornelius and Peter (see Homer's episode on Agamemnon's vision); 7) Paul's farewell at Miletus = Hector's farewell to Andromache; 8) lottery of Matthias = lottery of Ajax; 9) Peter's escape from prison = Priam's escape from Achilles. In each of these cases, there are actual Greek words and phrases that appear identically in both Homer and Acts. This is not a coincidence, and it likely wasn't meant by Luke to be read as one. He also uses Greek vocabulary from Euripides and the book of Ezekiel, but the Homer rip-offs are the most obvious ones. Also notice that Acts in the New Testament substantially parallels the various stories told in Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and Acts of Thomas, all of which explicitly use mythological figures. (For example, Peter's story extensively recapitulates Paul's story, whose journey is also suspiciously similar to Jesus' own story.) Is the Acts written by Luke any more trustworthy as history? Or is it a revisionist fiction created to propagate a specific story about how the church spread? As Burton Mack said regarding the hundreds of Jews that supposedly converted after the Pentecost sermon: Burton Mack posted:No Jew worth his salt would have converted when being told that he was guilty of killing the messiah. No Greek would have been persuaded by the dismal logic of the argumentation of the sermons. The scene would not have made sense as history to anyone during the first century with first-hand knowledge of Christians, Jews, and the date of the temple in Jerusalem. So what do we have on our hands? An imaginary reconstruction in the interest of aggrandizing an amalgam view of Christianity early in the second century. Luke did this by painting over the messy history of conflictual movements throughout the first century and in his own time. He cleverly depicted Peter and Paul as preachers of an identical gospel. . . . That is mythmaking in the genre of epic. There is not the slightest reason to take it seriously as history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
And where in Acts are the figures that ostensibly knew Jesus? Pontius Pilate. Joseph of Arimathea. Simon of Cyrene. Martha. Lazarus. Nicodemus. Why did Luke erase them from his "history"? Even Mary and James* disappear and are never mentioned again after they join the congregation in Acts 1:14. Why? *Two other James appear in Luke & Acts, but both are distinguished from Jesus' brother James. One was executed by Herod, and the other was James ben-Alphaeus, who remarkably gets amalgamated into the character of brother James the Pillar in manuscripts that date from the second century, well after Luke was dead. mdemone fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
What reason would the author of acts have to say Paul was talking to Jews about Jesus if he wasn't? What would fabricating that accomplish? Why would Paul take the the collection to the Jesus Movement in Jerusalem not knowing who Jesus was? And of course Luke/Acts is cribbing from Greek/ Roman myths. The birth narrative is more of that too. They had to have a birth narrative because Roman emperors had one. Edit: Who, Miltank saw your posts probably won't respond until at least tomorrow. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:What reason would the author of acts have to say Paul was talking to Jews about Jesus if he wasn't? Because the signal to noise ratio of communications in the early church was somewhat worse than email forwards between senior citizens. Also, to make Paul appear knowledgeable about Jewish law and connected to its traditions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Look I'm just saying it's a pretty extraordinary claim to say Paul didn't know about Jesus. Luke/Acts having sections being derived from Roman / Greek myths is pretty well known (but it's debatable if Luke/Acts is apology or a subversion and personally I lean towards subversion). Seriously though. This guy traveling between all those Jesus movement churches, really didn't know about Jesus? Come on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Well obviously he was talking about a guy named Jesus, but the question is what Jesus did he believe himself to know? He doesn't sound like the Jesus of the Gospels. Because the Gospels hadn't been written yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Here's the thing. Christian does mesh with neo-platonism quite well. But then again it meshes with Aristotelianism quite well (see the Catholics). But then again it meshes with existentialism quite well. It's content is independent of the philosophical vehicle. Hell there are even examples of positivism meshed with Christianity. None of this really contradicts my main point, which is a response to Kyrie eleison writing off Hinduism as "the corrupted, popular version of Brahmanism," and cannot be the One True Religion because it can incorporate other religious elements despite their contrariness. Catholicism runs into a similar problem: it can be considered "the corrupted, popular form of a Judaic sect," and over the centuries had incorporated elements that are entirely alien to its Judaic origins if not outright contradictory. Hell, there was a ton of hubbub in early Christendom regarding how one should interpret the Holy Trinity and whether these interpretations were polytheistic, and thus heretical. As for asceticism, by "asceticism" I'm not saying that Jesus himself is ascetic. I'm saying that unlike Judaism, Christians (under the influence of Platonism) adopted a disdain for material reality with preferred emphasis on the ideal or divine. While this is now a defining feature of Christianity, it is not something originated with Christianity nor can it be credited to Christianity. The idea of Catholicism or Christianity being a unique, unadulterated, special-snowflake, one-true-religion religion is absolutely false. So yes, technically Christianity CAN mesh with Aristotelianism well, but it took a while of butting heads with the Aristotelian philosophers before this happened. And when you look at how Americans treated it, Christianity can also mesh really well with slavery, capitalism, and preemptive warfare. Christianity isn't a solely top-down force in affecting the world. Politics, philosophy, and culture have influenced Christianity drastically over the centuries and now has only very tenuous links with its roots, despite the multiple reformations that attempted to purge it of its foreign elements and get back to its roots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:the torah is not in heaven Torah is closest man can get to replicating heaven on earth. ShadowCatboy posted:Catholicism runs into a similar problem: it can be considered "the corrupted, popular form of a Judaic sect," and over the centuries had incorporated elements that are entirely alien to its Judaic origins if not outright contradictory. Hell, there was a ton of hubbub in early Christendom regarding how one should interpret the Holy Trinity and whether these interpretations were polytheistic, and thus heretical. Welcome to my unironic view of christianity. Eh, they may be corrupted idolators, but they're not so bad any more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Torah is closest man can get to replicating heaven on earth. Then heaven sucks sweaty taint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Then heaven sucks sweaty taint. I don't think you "get" heaven.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:I don't think you "get" heaven. You do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:I don't think you "get" heaven. SedanChair posted:You do? And heeeeeree weeeee go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
If heaven is full of the people who insist they're going there or know how to get there, then heaven is literally hell
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:I don't think you "get" heaven. Please, by all means, "enlighten" me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Look I'm just saying it's a pretty extraordinary claim to say Paul didn't know about Jesus. Luke/Acts having sections being derived from Roman / Greek myths is pretty well known (but it's debatable if Luke/Acts is apology or a subversion and personally I lean towards subversion). Oh, Paul knew about Jesus all right. He knew him to be the celestial high priest in heaven, having taken the place of Melchizedek as foretold in prophecy. My position is that Paul didn't think Jesus walked the earth, and that his letters bear that out. Stories written about Paul were written later, by people that either did believe Jesus walked the earth, or wanted their audience to think so, and those two choices are of equal value as evidence for historicism: none at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Please, by all means, "enlighten" me. Quite simply, Heaven is a place on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Quite simply, Heaven is a place on Earth. I thought I was already in hell?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Quite simply, Heaven is a place on Earth. incorrect love does not come first here WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Quite simply, Heaven is a place on Earth. Do you know what that's worth? They say in heaven, love comes first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Quite simply, Heaven is a place on Earth. Jackson County, Missouri?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jackson County, Missouri? You going for an As I Lay Dying reference or a Sound and the Fury?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You going for an As I Lay Dying reference or a Sound and the Fury? Mormonism reference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Mormonism reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden#Latter-day_Saints
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:46
|
|