|
Who What Now posted:The fact that they weren't the least bit unusual for their time save for calling themselves a different name. Dude how are you gonna even post stuff like this on topics that you don't know poo poo about? This is just wrong man, historically I mean. e:Why is it so offensive to you that I don't think Mormons are Christians? You havn't been assuming that I want to enforce christian sharia law this whole time right? Miltank fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Nov 29, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:09 |
|
Miltank posted:e:Why is it so offensive to you that I don't think Mormons are Christians? You havn't been assuming that I want to enforce christian sharia law this whole time right? getting offended over stupid poo poo is kinda his gimmick
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So what part in the holy story does Ash Ketchum play? I dunno. Brigham Young?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:My point is that yours is loving stupid. Again, they didn't do anything larger Christian groups didn't do at the time or in the past. Nor does killing a ton of people disqualify a group from being Christian, otherwise there'd only maybe five Christian denominations on earth. You bringing up these things has no bearing at all on whether or not Mormons are Christian you dense loving retard. Hey I like you, but calm down a bit buddy, you're missing Nintendo Kid's point so hard that you didn't even notice he is mostly agreeing with you. He's saying that Mormon theology isn't any stranger than the other wacky sects appearing contemporaneously which few question are Christian, and that the hostility to Mormons is likely political resentment over the seditious actions of the early Mormon church rather than a genuine concern over esoteric questions over the nature of Christ's divinity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
The fact that there are sects to begin with is almost all the proof you need. I mean, I know people that consider Catholics not true Christians because they see the veneration of saints as tantamount to idolatry. Everyone is so sure of their own interpretations, but they also seem ignorant that everyone else is totally sure of their interpretations. And there is no good way to find out who's really right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:The fact that there are sects to begin with is almost all the proof you need. I mean, I know people that consider Catholics not true Christians because they see the veneration of saints as tantamount to idolatry. Everyone is so sure of their own interpretations, but they also seem ignorant that everyone else is totally sure of their interpretations. And there is no good way to find out who's really right. This is a fundamentally irrational argument. "That people disagree means it's impossible to tell who's right!" However, yes, all Protestants should come home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This is a fundamentally irrational argument. "That people disagree means it's impossible to tell who's right!" The person who would be right is Jesus, and he would whip your bishops in the street with their own beads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The fact that they weren't the least bit unusual for their time save for calling themselves a different name. No, child, they were absolutely a ton different. You clearly don't know jackshit about the 18th and 19th century cult/new Christianity movement. It was not loving typical for a new sect to kill thousands of people, create a self-governing territory and later state, and continue killing hundreds more people along the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This is a fundamentally irrational argument. "That people disagree means it's impossible to tell who's right!" Nintendo Kid posted:No, child, they were absolutely a ton different. You clearly don't know jackshit about the 18th and 19th century cult/new Christianity movement. It was not loving typical for a new sect to kill thousands of people, create a self-governing territory and later state, and continue killing hundreds more people along the way. Nessus fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This is a fundamentally irrational argument. "That people disagree means it's impossible to tell who's right!" No no, it's "people disagree and it's impossible to tell who's right"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No no, it's "people disagree and it's impossible to tell who's right" This. When it comes to faith there is by definition no proof of anything. The right religion could have died out a thousand years ago and we would never know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Miltank posted:e:Why is it so offensive to you that I don't think Mormons are Christians? You havn't been assuming that I want to enforce christian sharia law this whole time right? It's also a really loving lovely thing to say to those of the Mormon faith. I mean come the gently caress on, with all the differences that exist all over the world and the past 2000 years of history, you're going to draw the line there? Really? They believe that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior, who the hell are you to judge further?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:nah it's when people start making posts about child porn in the Religion thread they're probably off their rocker they aren't off their rocker, they just got shuffled around to a different rocker in response to allegations
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
This whole derail about identification goes back to the topic of materialism/dualism. under materialist POVs, all experienced phenomena can be traced to a material origin (and possibly tested and verified). under dualistic POVs, there are some phenomena which belong to a non-material origin and have properties that cannot be tested and verified. if you're identifying by a concept which is classified as non-material under a dualistic model, then, because at least part of its being is owed to supernatural properties, it cannot be naturally tested and so you can't verify whether one is sufficiently That Identification Group (for example whether one belief system is Sufficiently Christian). You would have to have a supernatural being specifically take material form to give judgment on that. Christians believe Jesus was god taking material form, but Jesus did not specifically write down judgments of whether specific future groups (here we're talking about mormons) qualify as sufficiently christian. from there you have to go on whether the Pope or sovereigns who have declared themselves to have divine right are god taking material form and look at their specific rulings on those groups, if you believe that a pope or a king has divine properties. Of course there is no way to verify the divinity of those people so at the end of the day it just amounts to a political question of whether you should base material policy on something being from a non-verified immaterial origin
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No no, it's "people disagree and it's impossible to tell who's right" Liar. You said that there being multiple sects was "proof."
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:THOUSANDS? That wagon train wasn't THAT big, was it? This is including all the people killed on the way from New York through to Illinois, then Missouri, then out to Utah and the people killed until Utah became a state. Including things like 140 people at once at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre Brigham Young was a total shitlord, really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This is a fundamentally irrational argument. "That people disagree means it's impossible to tell who's right!" I think the argument is supposed to be that if the Bible was really inspired then it shouldn't be possible for so many different Christians to fundamentally disagree on so many points while all being able to point to the Bible as proof that their various conflicting interpretations are correct. This is one area in particular where I really struggle to make sense of Christianity. The Bible strikes me as incredibly unclear on all sorts of points, and not just silly little ones like "how many angels were in the empty tomb?" and so forth. The whole faith vs works thing is a pretty good example. I'm not in the least bit surprised that Catholics and Protestants have been arguing over this for hundreds of years, because as far as I can see they've both got plenty of good passages to point to to "prove" their point. Myself I just find it easier to assume that the reason the passages seem to conflict was because they were written by different guys who disagreed with each other, but then of course that would mean that God probably wasn't whispering in their ears while they wrote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
religious texts being vague and unclear or even contradictory is very useful for authoritarian rule because it allows one, when making a decision based on their personal opinion, to point to any specific section to give the illusion of there being a higher mandate than whatever the authoritarian's personal feelings are at the time. Translations have something to do with it, too. In a way, a religious text evolves and branches off into different "subspecies". Vague and unclear texts survive throughout the years as the political empires that have adopted them spread. They are translated differently to enforce the ruling wishes of a specific area's rulers and to make it more compatible with the customs of that area (and so more likely to be adopted by the local subjects). Rodatose fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:religious texts being vague and unclear or even contradictory is very useful for authoritarian rule because it allows one, when making a decision based on their personal opinion, to point to any specific section to give the illusion of there being a higher mandate than whatever the authoritarian's personal feelings are at the time. Cool theory but not a single example to support it, possibly because everything was done exclusively in Latin until 1965. Also, monarchs were subject to the official Magisterium teaching, and were not allowed to interpret religious policy in a subjective or inconsistent fashion; see, King Henry VIII and every other monarch during the Papal custodianship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
Why should I believe you or anyone else that makes similar claims? In my experience in asking this question no one really has a reason for why I should believe. They have reasons why it is beneficial and there are (they claim) consequences if I fail to believe. Neither of which is a reason to believe in the truthfulness of their claim. What enforces your belief? That's what I want to know. Don't you ever feel doubt?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
Jim Barris posted:Why should I believe you or anyone else that makes similar claims? In my experience in asking this question no one really has a reason for why I should believe. They have reasons why it is beneficial and there are (they claim) consequences if I fail to believe. Neither of which is a reason to believe in the truthfulness of their claim. What enforces your belief? That's what I want to know. Don't you ever feel doubt? The reason I believe is that it is beneficial for me. It makes me happier, healthier, more successful, more stable, more satisfied. I intentionally reinforce my beliefs, and through studying theology my doubts about religion aren't based on logical contradictions or whatever; instead, I am tempted to abandon all moral obligations and live a more sociopathic lifestyle (like everyone else), and ask myself if following God is worth giving up the pleasures of evil. When I have despairing moments, I use religion as consolation. Every time I think about abandoning religion, the consequences seem too grave (not out of fear of Hell, but rather a decline in mental stability and suicidal ideation caused by feeling alone in a pointless life, one destined to end in age, pain, and death). It also makes me a better influence on people I care about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
I'm not sure there are any instances of the Bible being translated in any particular way for political purposes, but translators have absolutely read their own theological assumptions into the text and translated it accordingly. The most famous example is of course Luther adding the world "alone" to Romans 3:28 to justify his sola fide doctrine. My favorite example though is Luke 17:21, which according to older translations reads "the kingdom of of God is within you". Some Christians didn't like this because Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, who were supposed to be The Bad Guys, so why would Jesus be saying that the kingdom of God was within them? They argued that the verse should really be translated as "the kingdom of God is in your midst", and that Jesus was referring to himself in the third person, implying that he himself was the kingdom of God. The only problem is that there's literally no evidence to suggest that this is what the verse was actually supposed to mean. It was just that this was what a bunch of Christians really wanted it to mean, because stuff about the kingdom of God being in everyone is strange and confusing, and it was much easier to just read it as yet another instance of "Jesus is really great and is going to make everything better".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
sgnl05 posted:I'm not sure there are any instances of the Bible being translated in any particular way for political purposes, but translators have absolutely read their own theological assumptions into the text and translated it accordingly. The most famous example is of course Luther adding the world "alone" to Romans 3:28 to justify his sola fide doctrine. Luther was trying to water down doctrines using shoddy reasoning. People who dislike the burden of religion and want to go hog wild will happily latch on to anything that distorts religious truth as less severe than it actually is. Inserting words into the translation is really unjustifiable and a clear attempt at manipulation rather than real exegesis. Seriously, what's the mindset behind not believing works are important? To just ignore the parts of Scripture that say they are? Answer: someone who doesn't want to feel compelled to do good works, or to avoid bad ones. In other words: an unrepentant sinner, who wants to be forgiven by God despite his willful continuance of sin. quote:My favorite example though is Luke 17:21, which according to older translations reads "the kingdom of of God is within you". Some Christians didn't like this because Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, who were supposed to be The Bad Guys, so why would Jesus be saying that the kingdom of God was within them? They argued that the verse should really be translated as "the kingdom of God is in your midst", and that Jesus was referring to himself in the third person, implying that he himself was the kingdom of God. The only problem is that there's literally no evidence to suggest that this is what the verse was actually supposed to mean. It was just that this was what a bunch of Christians really wanted it to mean, because stuff about the kingdom of God being in everyone is strange and confusing, and it was much easier to just read it as yet another instance of "Jesus is really great and is going to make everything better". The NABRE (Catholic Bible) says "among you," but the footnote says that the Greek word could also be translated as "within." It provides Luke 10:9,11 and 11:20 as contextual examples justifying this choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:I dunno. Brigham Young? I look foreward to sexually repressive Ash Ketchum University. Praise Pikachu on high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The reason I believe is that it is beneficial for me. It makes me happier, healthier, more successful, more stable, more satisfied. I intentionally reinforce my beliefs, and through studying theology my doubts about religion aren't based on logical contradictions or whatever; instead, I am tempted to abandon all moral obligations and live a more sociopathic lifestyle (like everyone else), and ask myself if following God is worth giving up the pleasures of evil. When I have despairing moments, I use religion as consolation. Every time I think about abandoning religion, the consequences seem too grave (not out of fear of Hell, but rather a decline in mental stability and suicidal ideation caused by feeling alone in a pointless life, one destined to end in age, pain, and death).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The reason I believe is that it is beneficial for me. It makes me happier, healthier, more successful, more stable, more satisfied. I intentionally reinforce my beliefs, and through studying theology my doubts about religion aren't based on logical contradictions or whatever; instead, I am tempted to abandon all moral obligations and live a more sociopathic lifestyle (like everyone else), and ask myself if following God is worth giving up the pleasures of evil. When I have despairing moments, I use religion as consolation. Every time I think about abandoning religion, the consequences seem too grave (not out of fear of Hell, but rather a decline in mental stability and suicidal ideation caused by feeling alone in a pointless life, one destined to end in age, pain, and death). Wanting to have sex with men is not sociopathic bro, you do not have to hate yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The reason I believe is that it is beneficial for me. It makes me happier, healthier, more successful, more stable, more satisfied. I intentionally reinforce my beliefs, and through studying theology my doubts about religion aren't based on logical contradictions or whatever; instead, I am tempted to abandon all moral obligations and live a more sociopathic lifestyle (like everyone else), and ask myself if following God is worth giving up the pleasures of evil. When I have despairing moments, I use religion as consolation. Every time I think about abandoning religion, the consequences seem too grave (not out of fear of Hell, but rather a decline in mental stability and suicidal ideation caused by feeling alone in a pointless life, one destined to end in age, pain, and death). Don't take this the wrong way, but being yourself is not evil and being yourself does not make you a sociopath. By all means, enjoy being Catholic, but you seem to have deeper issues that need to be addressed rather than simply patched by living a devout religious lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
sgnl05 posted:but then of course that would mean that God probably wasn't whispering in their ears while they wrote. Alternatively, God did whisper in their ears and he put down opposing ideas because he's a blood lusting dick? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
He sent His messengers to convert the goonsquad but hardened their hearts with cholesterol so that they would not listen to His messengers. And thus His will was done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
I pray that Zimboe will return one day and take me to the rapture. Zimboe is Lord.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Liar. You said that there being multiple sects was "proof." GAINING WEIGHT... posted:The fact that there are sects to begin with is almost all the proof you need. I mean, I know people that consider Catholics not true Christians because they see the veneration of saints as tantamount to idolatry. Everyone is so sure of their own interpretations, but they also seem ignorant that everyone else is totally sure of their interpretations. And there is no good way to find out who's really right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Every time I think about abandoning religion, the consequences seem too grave (not out of fear of Hell, but rather a decline in mental stability and suicidal ideation caused by feeling alone in a pointless life, one destined to end in age, pain, and death). If these are things that have actually occurred to you rather than fears of what may happen, you should see a psych and get treatment because mental issues don't up and disappear when you find God.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The reason I believe is that it is beneficial for me. It makes me happier, healthier, more successful, more stable, more satisfied. I intentionally reinforce my beliefs, and through studying theology my doubts about religion aren't based on logical contradictions or whatever; instead, I am tempted to abandon all moral obligations and live a more sociopathic lifestyle (like everyone else), and ask myself if following God is worth giving up the pleasures of evil. When I have despairing moments, I use religion as consolation. Every time I think about abandoning religion, the consequences seem too grave (not out of fear of Hell, but rather a decline in mental stability and suicidal ideation caused by feeling alone in a pointless life, one destined to end in age, pain, and death).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:If these are things that have actually occurred to you rather than fears of what may happen, you should see a psych and get treatment because mental issues don't up and disappear when you find God. For real, that's not Jesus helping you through your mental illness, that's injecting your religious beliefs to your mental issues and that's really unhealthy. "I'd be a sociopath if not for God" is not a solution to an issue, it's masking it and most likely delaying it until you later have a crisis of faith over something. Seek help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The reason I believe is that it is beneficial for me. It makes me happier, healthier, more successful, more stable, more satisfied. I intentionally reinforce my beliefs, and through studying theology my doubts about religion aren't based on logical contradictions or whatever; instead, I am tempted to abandon all moral obligations and live a more sociopathic lifestyle (like everyone else) N-no, not like everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Seriously, what's the mindset behind not believing works are important? To just ignore the parts of Scripture that say they are? Answer: someone who doesn't want to feel compelled to do good works, or to avoid bad ones. In other words: an unrepentant sinner, who wants to be forgiven by God despite his willful continuance of sin. i dont know what most of that even means. are works like, magic cheevos or somehitng?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The reason I believe is that it is beneficial for me. It makes me happier, healthier, more successful, more stable, more satisfied. I intentionally reinforce my beliefs, and through studying theology my doubts about religion aren't based on logical contradictions or whatever; instead, I am tempted to abandon all moral obligations and live a more sociopathic lifestyle (like everyone else) I suspect you don't know what the word "sociopath" really means. Among many, many other things, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
If hell is not your foremost concern as a Christian I would argue that it's probably because you don't believe in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:N-no, not like everyone else. Finally, the Baptist said, "I just don't understand how your teachings can make a good man." The Universalist replied, "What do you mean, friend?" "Well," the Baptist said, "under your doctrine I will not be punished for my acts in the next life, yes?" "That's so," the Universalist replied. "God would drat no one to Hell, save Satan perhaps. But no man or woman." "But if there's no threat of Hell, why, I could do whatever I want and be assured of Heaven." "Indeed you could, for nothing any mortal could do would earn an eternal punishment." "By your theology, sir, I could kill you, plunder your clothes and your wallet, and sell your horse in the next town!" "What prevents you from doing that now?" "Why, my knowledge that I would be damned to Hell if I did such a thing." "That is all that restrains you?" "What else could?" "Well, now," the Universalist said as he spurred his horse to put distance between himself and the Baptist, "when you put it like that..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Miltank, here are some good starting places: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening And especially important is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 21:03
|
|