|
My Imaginary GF posted:I'm the boot of your imagination, forever stomping upon your face. You do a disservice to athiests by showing the need to oppress their judgments. Religion isn't about god, its about the community that organizes to worship god, and you judge that community when you judge god. So, who the gently caress are you to judge others' community without presenting a viable alternative? You're living in the viable alternative. Any nation that isn't a theocracy is the viable alternative and we've had them basically forever. And, again, I'm the guy who's better than God.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:11 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I'm the boot of your imagination, forever stomping upon your face. You do a disservice to athiests by showing the need to oppress their judgments. Religion isn't about god, its about the community that organizes to worship god, and you judge that community when you judge god. So, who the gently caress are you to judge others' community without presenting a viable alternative? Uhh pretty sure he was dumping on God, not religion. Don't change the subject just cuz you're made out to be an idiot... again
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And, again, I'm the guy who's better than God.  I'm the guy who's better than god. Do you really not see the need for religion to serve as a counterpoint of concentrated wealth and or power during development of political organization with peaceful transitions of power? down with slavery posted:Uhh pretty sure he was dumping on God, not religion. Don't change the subject just cuz you're made out to be an idiot... again A god without religious community is a dead god. The discussion about the 'nature of god' isn't about god, its about projecting an idealized nature of humans unto an indiscernable aspect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Do you really not see the need for religion to serve as a counterpoint of concentrated wealth and or power during development of political organization with peaceful transitions of power? Ummmm.....what? If I recall, during a lot of transitions of power, religion does the EXACT opposite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:01
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:A god without religious community is a dead god. The discussion about the 'nature of god' isn't about god, its about projecting an idealized nature of humans unto an indiscernable aspect. no, it's about saying god as most Christians know him is a pretty immoral entity sorry bud, it's true you don't get takebacks for genocide
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
Nope, sure don't. Did it serve that purpose? Absolutely. Is it literally the only thing that can or could have done so? Nope. Don't hate the player, hate the game, scrublord.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:04
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Do you really not see the need for religion to serve as a counterpoint of concentrated wealth and or power during development of political organization with peaceful transitions of power? Do you know anything about the history of religion? I'm pretty sure "fighting economic inequality" isn't really one of their strong points. Maybe talk about how the church was instrumental in proliferating reading and writing during certain points of history.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:no, it's about saying god as most Christians know him is a pretty immoral entity God as most christians know god is idolatry and paganism. I really can't wrap my head around the logic of trinity and saint veneration, and if there is one thing which approaches divinity upon earth, its the search for pure logic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:06
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:God as most christians know god is idolatry and paganism. I really can't wrap my head around the logic of trinity and saint veneration, and if there is one thing which approaches divinity upon earth, its the search for pure logic. Did this sound like a good post when you read it? I'm struggling to understand what your point is here. The Christian god from the bible was immoral. Just deal with it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Did this sound like a good post when you read it? I'm struggling to understand what your point is here. Wrap it up, Christianalures. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Did this sound like a good post when you read it? I'm struggling to understand what your point is here. There is no single god in the christian corpus, they have many gods which are aspects of an all-father.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:The Christian god from the bible was immoral. Just deal with it. Its hard for him to come to terms with that, as he things human law is divinely inspired. My Imaginary GF posted:There is no single god in the christian corpus, they have many gods which are aspects of an all-father. Ummm...its a monotheist religion...it MIGHT be a pluriform monotheistic religion, but most Christian sects are purely monotheistic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:There is no single god in the christian corpus, they have many gods which are aspects of an all-father. god i love D&D's special christian snowflakes
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:god i love D&D's special christian snowflakes How christian of you to assume someone is a christian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:With my own standard. And as for how I pretty clearly typed it out with my hands. Why should God, or anyone else, care about your rudatron posted:Anything that acts with a purpose can be judged, morally. The demand to not judge a fictional God on the basis of morality is essentially admitting that you can't defend their actions, so you have to retreat to absurdities. "Well, you see, it's above morality/logic/whatever. What does 'above' mean here? Oh, don't worry about that, all you have to know is that your objections aren't valid, because I said they aren't." I disagree. Most of the time the problem is that atheists judge God as if He was at once real and fake. They acknowledge His "crimes" but ignore everything else. This approach is obviously absurd. Either you acknowledge God's existence, in which case you have no right and no standard by wich to judge Him; or you deny God's existence in which case the morality of his actions is a non-issue, nonsense, even.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I wish universal reconciliation was more popular. Christianity would seem a lot nicer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
But that's an absurd objection, even fictional characters can be judged! You use your imagination, or more formally, you just suppose for the sake of argument. How is that controversial? Like, I don't even know fully how to respond to this. Are you seriously taking issue with the simple process of taking a supposition? rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:I disagree. Most of the time the problem is that atheists judge God as if He was at once real and fake. They acknowledge His "crimes" but ignore everything else. This approach is obviously absurd. Either you acknowledge God's existence, in which case you have no right and no standard by wich to judge Him; or you deny God's existence in which case the morality of his actions is a non-issue, nonsense, even. Well no, that is not the case. One can evaluate upon a fictional entity's actions by just giving them hypothetical reality for the purpose of demonstrating how consistent or absurd their articulated actions and traits are compared to their 'actual' behavior taken at face value. The reason why the 'approach' you claim is absurd is because it IS absurd since no one taking the skeptical stance sincerely actually does that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
And Sakarja, I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you or whatever, but just to return to your objection, you bring up the idea of having a 'right and standard' to judge. Do you understand that that's not actually an intellectual defense? The idea of a 'right to judge' isn't an intellectual idea, it's a political idea. The reality of the 'divine right of kinds' wasn't that kings couldn't theoretically be judged, but that they didn't want to be, so they made up this idea that they were 'above' judgement. It doesn't actually hold water intellectually, it's a pure expression of political power: Actually Exiting Doublethink (a la 1984), if you want to put it like that. Do you understand, then, how it's really troubling to mount that as a defense? Because, in order to accept your argument, your opponent must relinquish their 'right' to independent thought and morality. That, to me, is really hosed up. rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:Why should God, or anyone else, care about your Quote me where I said God or anyone else should care. Whether or not people care has absolutely no bearing on the fact that I'm better than God. quote:And by your own reasoning, He's the one in control when you claim to be better than Him. Your atheism is just one of His evil acts, if I understand you correctly. This is true, yes. quote:I disagree. Most of the time the problem is that atheists judge God as if He was at once real and fake. They acknowledge His "crimes" but ignore everything else. This approach is obviously absurd. Either you acknowledge God's existence, in which case you have no right and no standard by wich to judge Him; or you deny God's existence in which case the morality of his actions is a non-issue, nonsense, even. That's retarded. I can judge Darth Vader as being evil even though he isn't real. And you also seem to be confusing the ability to judge with having that judgement respected. Those are two wildly different things, sport.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Uh, being omnipotent, God is both good and evil. I mean seriously, I did my Taoism spiel right before this stupid argument. Albeit "good and evil" are wholly human concepts, and ironically, mostly Christian in the sense we use them in debates about Christianity. Perhaps God does not subscribe to slave morality, and sees one human who recreates the world on a grand scale (much as Jesus did) as worth the suffering of millions. Perhaps you might say God is beyond good and evil. Okay this isn't working out as subtle. Nietzsche. Maybe Nietzsche is right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted: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. And you are wrong to say that! At least in terms of Christian doctrine. Christians affirm God's creation. They say "Yes to God's Earth" and Christian doctrine rejects dualism. WE said no to the Gnostics, with the whole secret spitural world is good, material world is bad creation of a demiurge business. Now some Christians definitely have gnostic leanings are anti-material and dualistic. But Christianity isn't, at-least all the denominations that matter aren't. ShadowCatboy posted: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. A more detailed response to this is at the end of the post. But The most important theological thing that happened in the 20th century, is a "NO" to Christianity tying itself to any of these things. But, I'll get to that. mdemone posted:My position is that Paul didn't think Jesus walked the earth, and that his letters bear that out. Then why was he trying to bring him back. And I'm not kidding with that statement. Paul risks everything on parousia, a return of Jesus. There aren't letters after Romans, because Paul delivers the Jerusalem collection during Pentecost. Money from all those churches, that all his letters were addressed to, delivered to the temple. Paul’s act looks patterned on something else to me, the triumphant entry palm Sunday, and Paul's letters show him obsessed with collecting this money over a long period of time. Paul rolls in and shitstorm ensues. The Jerusalem Jesus movement rejects the money (the opposite of what is in Acts). Paul pisses so many people off they take him back to Rome to kill him. Importantly I also cannot ignore the most important interpretation of Paul’s last letter Romans, this all has to do with the subtext of Romans. A paraphrasing of that commentary is: God revealed in Jesus on the Cross opposes and defeats all efforts to identify God with human culture, achievements, possessions, or governments. What Paul is saying in Roman hinges on the cross! On Jesus having been a real person who was crucified by Rome! And there is the root. Shadowcatboy do you see what's going on now. All those things Christianity gets meshed with our root, the cross, denies, opposes, defeats, any final synthesis with any of those things. I've told you this before but it's a drat shame philosophy of religion classes never get past Schleiermacher, never past liberal theology, never past the perfect word of God business. Barth smashes liberal theology to pieces, he denies the attempt to have final synthesis of the root of Christianity with philosophy, because any of those synthesis put the Son of Man on the Cross. He does this with Paul's last letter. And Paul's last letter depends on the death of Jesus on the Cross (and general speaking one has walk on the earth, to get crucified on it). Summarized, Paul thought Jesus was crucified, that's pretty strong evidence that he thought he was a person. It's also a big loving deal, because it's what Barth's NO is based on. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Uh, being omnipotent, God is both good and evil. I mean seriously, I did my Taoism spiel right before this stupid argument. I don't accept that anything can be both itself and its own negation. A cannot simultaneously be both A and not-A. I also don't care what morality God subscribes to because it's an evil morality and I especially don't accept that anything is beyond my ability to judge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:I disagree. Most of the time the problem is that atheists judge God as if He was at once real and fake. They acknowledge His "crimes" but ignore everything else. This approach is obviously absurd. Either you acknowledge God's existence, in which case you have no right and no standard by wich to judge Him; or you deny God's existence in which case the morality of his actions is a non-issue, nonsense, even. God, if real and as described by any of many varieties of Christian faith, has created an entire race of creatures, most of whom he has or will also cast into eternal agony and suffering in Hell. Better not to exist at all than exist in literally unending agony. Nothing God could do or has done could possibly atone for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
It's good to know that as long as I say I think someone is crucified then they are real. Also that it's a big deal. They really should do a show on the politics behind writing the bible. I could see some serious political poo poo going down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
If God is beyond judgement then so are his teachings and Christian morality, and thus our acceptance of them can only come from a belief in God's supreme authority, nowhere else. As rational beings we have the choice to accept a belief either because of its utility (either observed or theorized), or because of trust in an authority who claims to have knowledge of its utility. This authority will have become a trusted figure usually because we have observed them to be correct in most other cases. But because God is beyond moral judgement, the only thing left to go on are miracles and prophesy, which have been notoriously difficult to confirm. It would seem that God prefers belief not to come from rational judgement, then, as he has apparently made his only form of credentials impossible to access for the average person. Also because God does not sign his name to each of the few miracles that happen (especially the ones that seem to occur to non-Christians), how could we possibly use them? Why make them so difficult to interpret? At best we would need to have trust in someone else's interpretation of a miracle, but then why accept only Christian miracles and not Islamic ones, for example? So God is not only beyond judgement, he is impossible to interpret, mysterious, and a prankster and trickster. I guess my point is that God seems to be some alien that loves loving with us all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:It's good to know that as long as I say I think someone is crucified then they are real. Want to really be confused? It's not in that post, but the whole point of crucifying someone was to deny them existence, it's a statement of: you are nothing and won't even leave a corpse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's not in that post, but the whole point of crucifying someone was to deny them existence, it's a statement of: you are nothing and won't even leave a corpse. ....what? No, the point of crucifixion was to publicly shame and demonstrate your suffering to others as a warning and to dissuade criminals, especially with crimes against the state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Brandor is your argument that religion is ideology and ideology is an inescapable cultural constant? Or is it something more complex than that? It's back to Barth's Commentary on Romans. No synthesis between God and human ideas / culture is possible, all potential synthesis crucify. If I think of God in terms of Being-itself, reality, truth; and of religion as dealing with those topics; where does that go? It goes to I should object to any ideology that claims to have truth or that claims to really let us know anything about reality. Then it get more complicated, that guy I'm obsessed with, Tillich, he's a reaction to Barth. He's trying to pick up the all pieces of what Barth smashes. See Shadowcatboy isn't wrong, there is all that history of Christianity being meshed with other ideas. That can't be denied either. Maybe there is or can be correlation (which is not a synthesis). See this Jacobeus posted:If God is beyond judgement then so are his teachings and Christian morality, and thus our acceptance of them can only come from a belief in God's supreme authority, nowhere else. isn't wrong. Barth's "No" leaves only Kerygma, proclamation of revelation, throwing stones at heads. Unless correlation is possible and it (correlation) has it's problems too. Edit: Who does my response to Miltank address why we might not communicate? Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:....what? No, the point of crucifixion was to publicly shame and demonstrate your suffering to others as a warning and to dissuade criminals, especially with crimes against the state. and to destroy your corpse (generally eaten by dogs and crow, see Crossan) so as to prevent a burial. What does that mean in Jewish context of that time period?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:and to destroy your corpse (generally eaten by dogs and crow, see Crossan) so as to prevent a burial. What does that mean in Jewish context of that time period? I'd point out that more often than not, after dead the corpse was returned or could be claimed. If it was not claimed or asked for, yep, you'd be scavenged. Regardless, you entirely misunderstand the purpose of crucifixion, instead framing it only via a single culture's viewpoint instead of the overall purpose of the act of crucifixion. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'd point out that more often than not, after dead the corpse was returned or could be claimed. If it was not claimed or asked for, yep, you'd be scavenged. Again going with Crossan here, no they didn't generally return the corpses. Some people had money and could bribe people to get one, but generally they were left up to disintegrate. (Edit; and generally people with money, important people, were executed in other ways) And the evidence is the lack crucified bodies. There is like one, or at most handful (depending on who you read). There are accounts of ranging from lot's to assloads of crucifixions. That's really odd the lack of crucified bodies in culture where the burial of the dead was so important, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Again going with Crossan here, no they didn't generally return the corpses. Some people had money and could bribe people to get one, but generally they were left up to disintegrate. (Edit; and generally people with money, important people, were executed in other ways) And the evidence is the lack crucified bodies. There is like one, or at most handful (depending on who you read). There are accounts of ranging from lot's to assloads of crucifixions. That's really odd the lack of crucified bodies in culture where the burial of the dead was so important, isn't it? Still doesn't really stand up to what you think crucifixion is about. While the rotting of the body on the cross might have been an end result, it was not the purpose of crucifixion as you imply it was. It was just an end result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Are we swimming in excavated Jewish corpses or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Are we swimming in excavated Jewish corpses or something? Apparently not, because they were all crucified, OF COURSE!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Still doesn't really stand up to what you think crucifixion is about. While the rotting of the body on the cross might have been an end result, it was not the purpose of crucifixion as you imply it was. It was just an end result. To elaborate: ask yourself, "why crucifixion instead of, say, beheading?" Either one can result in a body being scavenged or denied proper burial, but only one involves hours or days of publicized suffering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:To elaborate: ask yourself, "why crucifixion instead of, say, beheading?" Either one can result in a body being scavenged or denied proper burial, but only one involves hours or days of publicized suffering. Which is generally why it was a state or military punishment: You get turned into a big billboard saying: "Don't do what this guy did"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:51
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:There is no single god in the christian corpus, they have many gods which are aspects of an all-father. Generally when you get owned that hard it's better to just not respond rather than make a post like this which is right up there in the MGIF greatest (idiot post) hits.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:Why should God, or anyone else, care about your Yet another reason believing in God rules: I have someone to blame! The atheist has only themselves, or if their feeling particularly myopic, everyone else. sudo rm -rf posted:I wish universal reconciliation was more popular. Christianity would seem a lot nicer. It's one of the oldest teachings on salvation in Christianity  "B-but what about jerks who say they're in the special club and everyone else is hosed?!" - Why would you even listen to someone so transparently selfish and stupid, nevermind think/act like they are correct? did you learn nothing from Obi-wan
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Black Bones posted:did you learn nothing from Obi-wan I really don't see what Tusken Raiders walking in single file to hide their numbers has to do with anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:00
|
|