|
Who What Now posted:Also, anyone who says that Biblical slavery is different than American slavery is full of loving poo poo (sorry, Nessus). Any system where you own a human being as property and can rape or beat them to death without consequence is not meaningfully different from any other system where you can own human beings and rape them or beat them to death without consequence. Can we all agree that Christ asks us not to beat each other to death?
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:40 |
|
Cavaradossi posted:Naming a sin does not justify it! But if the position of the Church was that all actions in its name forever had all been right, I think you'd take that as more of a way of shutting down argument. "We are all sinners" means: we don't always, any of us, always do what is right. I don't find that a very controversial position. Neither do I think it condones any particular action of any particular person. It is merely a statement of fact. Though irritatingly to scholars of papal infallibility it refuses to supply a definitive list of its infallible acts, so nobody can try to see if the bits that are infallible do in fact fit together. Cavaradossi posted:Can we all agree that Christ asks us not to beat each other to death? It all depends on your definition of 'each other', doesn't it?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Also, anyone who says that Biblical slavery is different than American slavery is full of loving poo poo (sorry, Nessus). Any system where you own a human being as property and can rape or beat them to death without consequence is not meaningfully different from any other system where you can own human beings and rape them or beat them to death without consequence. Cavaradossi posted:Can we all agree that Christ asks us not to beat each other to death?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Can we all agree that Christ asks us not to beat each other to death?* Well yeah, if you survive for two days your master is in the clear 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Can we all agree that Christ asks us not to beat each other to death? The hell he doesn't. Matthew 10:35 posted:"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. And, again, neither God nor Jesus ever specifically speaks out against slavery, not a single time. That is an enormous moral failing considering their claims to moral authority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Can we all agree that Christ asks us not to beat each other to death? Well sure, but much like charity, this should be a voluntary individual decision and not imposed upon us like the socialists and abolitionists and big-government tax-and-spend liberals want!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:As far as I can see, this claim is substantially more baseless than their's. quote:Rushworth Kidder notes that the Golden Rule can be found in the early contributions of Confucianism. Kidder notes that this concept's framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions". According to Greg M. Epstein, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely." Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition". All versions and forms of the proverbial Golden Rule have one aspect in common: they all demand that people treat others in a manner in which they themselves would like to be treated.  Now, for the fun part: GAINING WEIGHT... posted:So, wait, are you contending that Christianity isn't actually true, it's just that you like it the best? Do you think it's important that people be Christian? If not, are you only a Catholic cause it makes you feel good, and not because you think the events and system described therein are actually, factually correct? fade5 posted:That's the beauty of it, you don't have to believe if you don't want to. There's some good things to find in religion, and it gives you a nice sense of community, but if you don't feel the need then don't worry about it. "All rivers drain into the same ocean" is one way to describe it that really speaks to me; everything works out in the end, no matter where you start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:I'd think you went to a pretty peculiar Mass. You know drat well what I meant and you are still avoiding the real heart of the question. There are two problems with your suggestion: 1) I go to Mass and feel nothing; I pray and try to find God and get nowhere. By your standards, this proves Christianity false, right? Since it's all dependent on my subjective feelings. 2) I go to the service of a different religion and get a big kick out of it. I finally realize: Joseph Smith is God's true prophet, and I need to get me some magical underwear. This proves Mormonism correct by your definition, since it's all dependent on my subjective feelings. Unless you are really, truly, and sincerely arguing that your method only works for Catholic Mass - that if I find that special feeling elsewhere, I'm wrong, and if I fail to find it in Mass, I'm also wrong. Which still leaves the burden on you to explain why subjective feeling proves a religion right, but only if it's Christianity - you not only have to give me some reason to take Catholicism's subjective feelings more seriously, but you have to give me a solid reason why that special feeling in other faiths is false. Let me put it another way, just in case the above doesn't quite spell it out: you take your own feelings as proof, but other people's feelings are dismissible. So most people's subjective feelings are wrong, yes? So, why not yours? Why are your subjective feelings so much more correct than other people's? Do you think you're the best at interpreting God? Do you think you are infallible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The hell he doesn't. That quote means that he comes to divide the believers from the unbelievers. Not that anyone should be beaten to death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:That quote means that he comes to divide the believers from the unbelievers. Not that anyone should be beaten to death. What happens to the unbelievers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:53
|
|
Nessus posted:Ethically I agree with you completely. Sociologically, there were distinctions. For one thing, the Roman system lacked the poisonous racial connotations we're still dealing with; that's probably the largest example I can think of. Often slaves retained some limited legal rights, or it wasn't an inherited status, or it was linked to the land rather than being personal furniture. These are not defenses of those institutions; they are condemnations of the American institution, which managed to dispense with all of these things, making a horrible thing into something even worse. At Roman law slaves are defined as people without a will; their will is entirely subordinated to the arbitrary will of another person. They don't even have legal personality. Slaves were also deprived of ancestors and names, since by definition those with antecedents would be subject to the authority to the head of their family - who would also be entitled to dispose of his family members as he willed with the authority of the paterfamilias. In later iterations of the law, slaves gain rights; but they are still deprived in the aforementioned way. The Roman tradition does apply some moral judgements to slavery, principally that a true man would not permit himself to be submitted to servitude; moreover, Romans tended to argue that slavery rendered people slavish. To bring it back to Christianity - ideas based upon this idea of what freedom is were influential to people like Wilberforce, because they believed that freedom of will was a necessary ingredient for salvation, because only a free will not subject to that of another can choose a redemptive path. Here you also see the ugly side of some Abolitionist arguments - lots of them believe a dead slave cannot go to heaven, because a slave has no free will. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:1) I go to Mass and feel nothing; I pray and try to find God and get nowhere. By your standards, this proves Christianity false, right? Since it's all dependent on my subjective feelings. The answer I've usually heard, and always found enormously insulting, is that if this happens then you did it wrong and need to be less prideful or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well sure, but much like charity, this should be a voluntary individual decision and not imposed upon us like the socialists and abolitionists and big-government tax-and-spend liberals want!  Though I guess the Catholics have been relatively free of this, no doubt because the Church's giant money bins means they can flip the bird at the Koch Brothers of the world if they care to. Sort of like how the king in the old days could work with the peasants against the nobility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Let me put it another way, just in case the above doesn't quite spell it out: you take your own feelings as proof, but other people's feelings are dismissible. So most people's subjective feelings are wrong, yes? So, why not yours? Why are your subjective feelings so much more correct than other people's? Do you think you're the best at interpreting God? Do you think you are infallible? No: I think that I came to Catholicism through personal experience. As you note, this isn't that unusual a way for people to come to God. I have never dismissed anyone's feelings. I was asked how I would advise a newcomer to religion, and I would advise them to gain personal experience of God, live a life of prayer, and hope to come to the Father through Christ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What happens to the unbelievers? Separation from God is Hell, we've done this one...
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Separation from God is Hell, we've done this one... No, you've just blanket-asserted it to be true, and then triumphantly pointed to catechism in the feverishly misguided belief that that carries any weight at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:59
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No: I think that I came to Catholicism through personal experience. As you note, this isn't that unusual a way for people to come to God. I have never dismissed anyone's feelings. I was asked how I would advise a newcomer to religion, and I would advise them to gain personal experience of God, live a life of prayer, and hope to come to the Father through Christ. In fairness to Cavaradossi, I don't believe there is supposed to be some sort of right answer to the question he is trying to field. Captain_Maclaine posted:No, you've just blanket-asserted it to be true, and then triumphantly pointed to catechism in the feverishly misguided belief that that carries any weight at all. It's a sort of necessary corollary to the argument that evil is an absence of God's grace - if god is omnipotent, after all, evil cannot be an independent power agitating against him. So it's easier to define it as absence. All of this stuff comes from Augustine.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No: I think that I came to Catholicism through personal experience. As you note, this isn't that unusual a way for people to come to God. I have never dismissed anyone's feelings. I was asked how I would advise a newcomer to religion, and I would advise them to gain personal experience of God, live a life of prayer, and hope to come to the Father through Christ. No, we got that. But you DID dismiss others feelings by declaring your religion the 'One True Religion' based on your 'personal experience'. So yes, you DID discount their feelings, because others find THEIR particular sect or religion to be just as true based on the exact same reasoning. This does not validate your religion as 'True', only that you feel strongly about your personal beliefs, as well you should, but says nothing about it as a 'truth' And internalized emotions are not 'personal experience of God' no matter what they tell you. Disinterested posted:In fairness to Cavaradossi, I don't believe there is supposed to be some sort of right answer to the question he is trying to field. True, but accepting that helps break down the idea that he knows the 'Truth' even if he never admits it. Cavaradossi posted:Separation from God is Hell, we've done this one... What if YOU are the unbeliever? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Separation from God is Hell, we've done this one... I mean, as outlined above, for a lot of people God seems like, at best, kind of a dick, and possibly a maltheistic manifestation who inflicts torments on us. A bit like the fellow from that story on the Twilight Zone, where everyone has to be nice to the sullen boy or they'll get sent to the cornfield, and die. Which everyone has to assure him was a good thing, yes it was, he's very smart and clever. In the face of such a vision, why should separation from God be bad? If this is not a correct image of God, why does it seem to accord so much with the vision and image being so gloatingly painted by Kyrie and so forth? Present us with another image of God, perhaps, if there is one; one who doesn't seem like the lovely parent you can never, ever escape.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No: I think that I came to Catholicism through personal experience. As you note, this isn't that unusual a way for people to come to God. I have never dismissed anyone's feelings. I was asked how I would advise a newcomer to religion, and I would advise them to gain personal experience of God, live a life of prayer, and hope to come to the Father through Christ. Yes, a newcomer to religion, not to your religion. Let's assume I ask that question of muslim, hindu, and zoroastrian friends, and they all give me the same advice (for their faiths, obv). I follow it, and end up with four conflicting subjective feelings of equal weight. I liked all the services, and all of them seemed equally true! Now what do I do, to find the correct religion? The one that not only makes me feel nice, but is true? Disinterested posted:In fairness to Cavaradossi, I don't believe there is supposed to be some sort of right answer to the question he is trying to field. There is if one faith is correct while all others are false! That's the thing about this question - "I don't know" is a losing argument, one that points to all faiths being wrong. This isn't a "God's Holy Mystery" question like "why is the universe so big" or "why did god create the sunset" or some poo poo, where "I don't know, God's Holy Mystery" is a valid enough response. To say "I don't know" to this is to admit a complete lack of basis for your beliefs. And if that's the case, then the obvious question follows: why do you continue to believe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:That quote means that he comes to divide the believers from the unbelievers. Not that anyone should be beaten to death. I don't give a poo poo. He never expressly condemns slavery and he is massively immoral because of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Why are you people asking questions if you are going to ignore any answers. All of these things have been answered again and again in this very thread, is your point just to be willfully dense?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:09
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:There is if one faith is correct while all others are false! That's the thing about this question - "I don't know" is a losing argument, one that points to all faiths being wrong. This isn't a "God's Holy Mystery" question like "why is the universe so big" or "why did god create the sunset" or some poo poo, where "I don't know, God's Holy Mystery" is a valid enough response. To say "I don't know" to this is to admit a complete lack of basis for your beliefs. And if that's the case, then the obvious question follows: why do you continue to believe? He's giving you a personal and not a thoroughly doctrinal response - but even if he did, most religions, even Catholicism, affirm some level of personal interrogation and discovery of religious identity. All he can tell you is look and see what you will find. The only other response to your question that I can imagine is a fundamentalist one: you must believe - it is expressly commanded.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why are you people asking questions if you are going to ignore any answers. All of these things have been answered again and again in this very thread, is your point just to be willfully dense? What's hilarious is that this could be said to either side
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:11
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:What's hilarious is that this could be said to either side I honestly think this is more demanding of their patience than ours. It's like 20 people shooting questions at a lone guy who I think, in the form of Cavaradossi is actually trying to answer your questions as best he can. There are limitations to his hermeneutic - he doesn't share basic assumptions with lots of you, of course his answers will be disjointed. The only way you can argue with a Catholic is (a) fundamentally convincing him God is not real or (b) arguing, in the Church's own terms, that their own logic is inconsistent. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why are you people asking questions if you are going to ignore any answers. All of these things have been answered again and again in this very thread, is your point just to be willfully dense? Handwaving is not an answer. These are things he needs to be up front about. Disinterested posted:I honestly think this is more demanding of their patience than ours. Yes, for the obvious reasons, but that is because they expect us to buy the answer at face value.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Yes, a newcomer to religion, not to your religion. Let's assume I ask that question of muslim, hindu, and zoroastrian friends, and they all give me the same advice (for their faiths, obv). I follow it, and end up with four conflicting subjective feelings of equal weight. I liked all the services, and all of them seemed equally true! Now what do I do, to find the correct religion? The one that not only makes me feel nice, but is true? God only sends the true feeling of Catholic ecstasy to the predestined Elect upon whom He lavishes His Grace. If those heathen faiths felt equally magical and true, that's just God letting you know that you were selected from the beginning of time for a spot in Hell, so you may as well stop worrying about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Why should he feel compelled to give you any answers when you have so happily discarded all of the answers given to you by earlier posters. Throwing pearls to swines etc
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why should he feel compelled to give you any answers when you have so happily discarded all of the answers given to you by earlier posters. Throwing pearls to swines etc If only his wisdom about the supremacy of his particular religion was that valuable. Nobody has discarded any of his answers, but he's done a damned good just at hiding behind hand waving away valid concerns about the validity of the 'Divine Truth' he claims to hold over all other 'Divine Truths'
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If only his wisdom about the supremacy of his particular religion was that valuable. As well as treating issues as settled merely because he declares them so to be, and when pressed tosses out catechism as if it carries any weight outside of those who already believe it to be correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I don't give a poo poo. He never expressly condemns slavery and he is massively immoral because of this. However he is held to be totally, for real, 100% completely God, so you'd think he might have at least dropped a reference to this. Of course, I suppose one could say it wasn't written down, and that Jesus's more cryptic utterances are lost to history because they made no sense to those who recorded them, even if we, were we transported there and fully fluent in Aramaic, would have comprehended "aha, God is telling us what to do with artificial intelligences."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why should he feel compelled to give you any answers when you have so happily discarded all of the answers given to you by earlier posters. Throwing pearls to swines etc Because the previous "answers" sucked dick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Also nobody wants you to accept anybody's truth (not even Kyrie), as has been stated like thousand times, it's your decision and your decision alone to lead your life the way you want, and if you feel anybody is pained over your choices, that's just some sort of delusion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why should he feel compelled to give you any answers when you have so happily discarded all of the answers given to you by earlier posters. Throwing pearls to swines etc "A burning of the bosom" is fine as a personal answer to why he believes, but since that feeling appears to be beyond an individual's control and religious ecstasy comes over people of all faiths, at best it seems to imply that all religious dogmas are equally false and God makes Himself known to people regardless of the specifics of their religious doctrine, or that there is no God and it's an artifact of human psychology, or at worst that God is a sadistic deceptive cock who sends Muslims and Hindus false feelings to lead them astray and into everlasting fire (the last appears to be Kyrie's interpretation, given his explanation of Vatican II as a hilarious prank to discourage conversions and pack heaven with Methodists and Jews).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"A burning of the bosom" is fine as a personal answer to why he believes, but since that feeling appears to be beyond an individuals control and religious ecstasy comes over people of all faiths, at best it seems to imply that all religious dogmas are equally false and God makes Himself known to people regardless of the specifics of their religious doctrine, or that there is no God and it's an artifact of human psychology, and at worst that God is a sadistic deceptive cock who sends Muslims and Hindus false feelings to lead them astray and into everlasting fire (the last appears to be Kyrie's interpretation, given his explanation of Vatican II as a hilarious prank to discourage conversions and pack heaven with Methodists and Jews) It'll be kind of funny if it turns out only the Orthodox go to heaven though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Also nobody wants you to accept anybody's truth (not even Kyrie), as has been stated like thousand times, it's your decision and your decision alone to lead your life the way you want, and if you feel anybody is pained over your choices, that's just some sort of delusion. Um, Kyrie does. He's been pretty explicit about 'On your dying breathe you will convert/Convert you Sociopaths/etc.' But hey, pearls before swine amirite?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why should he feel compelled to give you any answers when you have so happily discarded all of the answers given to you by earlier posters. Throwing pearls to swines etc "Pearls" is more than a tad too kind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"A burning of the bosom" is fine as a personal answer to why he believes, but since that feeling appears to be beyond an individual's control and religious ecstasy comes over people of all faiths, at best it seems to imply that all religious dogmas are equally false and God makes Himself known to people regardless of the specifics of their religious doctrine, or that there is no God and it's an artifact of human psychology, or at worst that God is a sadistic deceptive cock who sends Muslims and Hindus false feelings to lead them astray and into everlasting fire (the last appears to be Kyrie's interpretation, given his explanation of Vatican II as a hilarious prank to discourage conversions and pack heaven with Methodists and Jews). Well, Kyrie is dick. Maritain, whom I mentioned earlier, wrote about sense of ecstasy derived from reading Plotinas and Plato, implying that religious epiphany isn't reserved to a clique of doctrinally righteous jerks, but rather that religious experience compatible (and leading to) with Christian ideals is available universally and comes naturally to anybody who is allowed to live a happy, independent life, physically and spiritually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Also nobody wants you to accept anybody's truth (not even Kyrie), as has been stated like thousand times, it's your decision and your decision alone to lead your life the way you want, and if you feel anybody is pained over your choices, that's just some sort of delusion. You haven't even read this thread, have you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Um, Kyrie does. He's been pretty explicit about 'On your dying breathe you will convert/Convert you Sociopaths/etc.' He says that there will be hell for non-believers (not sure if he subscribes to hell as literal fiery pits), but if you choose to be non-believer, well good for you, and good luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:26
|
|