|
Hey Kyrie I just want to know what you think of this.  
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
I don't know most of those acronyms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
What in hell does 9/10 of that even mean?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Hey Kyrie I just want to know what you think of this. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I don't know most of those acronyms. Al Harrington posted:What in hell does 9/10 of that even mean? I'm not a trad, so I'd be in the "Standard Novus Ordo" category, which in this context means "normal Catholic." This chart is giving advice to young members of a particular Second Vatican Council-rejecting traditionalist group called SGG which is an acronym for St. Gertrude the Great. The chart is meant to help them so that they can determine whether members of other trad groups (or normal Catholics) can make suitable marriage partners or not. Ironically, it seems to conclude that aside for one other trad organization called "CMRI" (the acronym stands for "The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen" in Latin), the only relatively reliable choice in partner is a normal decadent Vatican II Novus Ordo girl, because said girl can easily be converted after seeing the splendor of a true Latin Mass and actually valid sacraments. The rest all have families that are too militant for their faction. I have sympathy for people raised in these sorts of groups, as this stuff is poison for people's hearts and minds and everyone should accept Vatican II.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I have sympathy for people raised in these sorts of groups, as this stuff is poison for people's hearts and minds and everyone should accept Vatican II. But of course your religious views aren't poisonous, oh no! After all, they're perfect and true!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:You do see the issue with this though, right? Your conception of God, influenced by growing up Christian, fits best with the Christian God. Like, of course it does, right? I went through a period where I was disillusioned with both Christianity and Atheism where I read the Koran and the Book of Mormon as well as some Buddhist writings. I found Islam to be too ridged and too idolatrous- the religion is much less convoluted than Christianity, but I found that its simplicity detracts from it. There is plenty of terrible awful poo poo in the Christian Bible, but although Christians refer to it as the "word of God," they recognize that the bible was written by men and therefore subject to interpretation. The Koran is the word of God in a much more literal sense. Its (comparatively) easy for Christians to, for example, let women into the clergy, or embrace gay marriage, both of which are directly contrary to the biblical writings of Paul. Islam simply doesn't allow for these kinds of reinterpretations- they would undermine the entire religion. You might say that I am being unfair, but I strongly disagree. If you look closely you will find that the Islamic parallel to Jesus isn't Muhammad- its the Koran itself. The Book of Mormon is written in terrible fake King James English and is really hard to take seriously especially because of how recently that whole thing happened. Its hard to even pin down where it is coming from theologically but it is blatantly racist, historically ridiculous, and to top it all off I have a really difficult time getting myself to believe in revealed knowledge of that sort anyway. Its basically just Islam round 2 but this time its in America and the holy scriptures don't even read well in their original language. Buddhism I found it to be entirely too focused on viewing reality passively as opposed to the urgency which is demanded by Christianity. I didn't really look that hard into Buddhism which is why I was curious as to why some prefer Buddha to Christ as a moral compass. e:The Christian parallel to Muhammad is Mary. Miltank fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
What do the Christians in the thread here make of the Book of Revelation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Al Harrington posted:What do the Christians in the thread here make of the Book of Revelation? Overall it was okay but not as good as the Book of Eli
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
It's pretty good combined with something that gives you more item charges, lots of free soul hearts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
site posted:Could you clarify what you mean by martyrdom in this instance? I don't think I'm comprehending what you're trying to get at here. I have seen a lot of people take pride in their suffering because they can connect it to some grand thing (religion or the denial thereof, a purported refusal to accept an easy answer, and so forth) when in fact it is usually some combination of "lousy material circumstances, untreated depression or other mental issue, unhealthy relationship of some kind with others" - and then they don't address those latter things, on the impression that doing something about those would weaken their witness for Sagan or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
How is CowOnCrack still in college with a 2004 regdate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
McDowell posted:How is CowOnCrack still in college with a 2004 regdate? Lots of people registered pretty young with their parents/siblings' credit cards for things like online game clans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Didn't you read? they aren't still in college. Friendzone trauma claims another future.
Rodatose fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
he had to drop out because that e:  reminder that he literally wrote a manifesto on why women shouldn't be allowed to make their own romantic choices and how men should claim their wives based on a six-sigma compatibility algorithm wheez the roux fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I'm not a trad, so I'd be in the "Standard Novus Ordo" category, which in this context means "normal Catholic." This chart is giving advice to young members of a particular Second Vatican Council-rejecting traditionalist group called SGG which is an acronym for St. Gertrude the Great. The chart is meant to help them so that they can determine whether members of other trad groups (or normal Catholics) can make suitable marriage partners or not. You annoy me sometimes but I am glad you are not going to be recruited as a "trad spouse." That doesn't sound very fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Miltank posted:There is plenty of terrible awful poo poo in the Christian Bible, but although Christians refer to it as the "word of God," they recognize that the bible was written by men and therefore subject to interpretation. Yeah, thank goodness that's the case. Oh, except for the like 100 million+ who don't and see it as literally The Word of God. Like on par with the Quran Word-of-God. Who have no problem denying women the ability to teach in a church or who think homosexuality is a sickness of sin or who thought of course (American chattle) slavery is okay, it says so right in the Bible that slaves should obey their masters! Yeah, no. And I feel like it'd be easy to argue that the flexible nature of Biblical interpretation is actually a weakness of the religion. Like, why would God deliver a holy text that's so vague and mysterious? The Quran is much more authoritative. Clearly it's correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Encouraging lazy thinking is always, always dangerous. Even if you try to teach somebody all of your values to the point where you think your lazy faith-based elision of reason shouldn't matter, guess what will be communicated? Only the laziness, because that's the way we are wired as humans. People should be taught that faith is dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Yeah, thank goodness that's the case. Oh, except for the like 100 million+ who don't and see it as literally The Word of God. Like on par with the Quran Word-of-God. Who have no problem denying women the ability to teach in a church or who think homosexuality is a sickness of sin or who thought of course (American chattle) slavery is okay, it says so right in the Bible that slaves should obey their masters! Yeah, no. What are you even getting at here? I mean I don't disagree with any of this but what does it have to do with what I said?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Al Harrington posted:What do the Christians in the thread here make of the Book of Revelation? It's a wild apocalyptic vision quest written by someone who hated the Empire. I dig it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:57
|
|
Miltank posted:What are you even getting at here? I mean I don't disagree with any of this but what does it have to do with what I said? are you purposely being dense? Miltank posted:There is plenty of terrible awful poo poo in the Christian Bible, but although Christians refer to it as the "word of God," they recognize that the bible was written by men and therefore subject to interpretation. The Koran is the word of God in a much more literal sense. Its (comparatively) easy for Christians to, for example, let women into the clergy, or embrace gay marriage, both of which are directly contrary to the biblical writings of Paul. Islam simply doesn't allow for these kinds of reinterpretations- they would undermine the entire religion. You might say that I am being unfair, but I strongly disagree. There are absolutely enormous numbers of Muslims who feel free to reinterpret the Quran; Quranic study and interpretation are very important and Islamic beliefs and can vary WILDLY from community to community. There are also massive numbers of Christians in the US, numbering in the tens of millions (and maybe over 100 million!) who believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God himself and consider the idea of it being manmade to be utterly heretical. You are absolutely being unfair, as well as disingenuously rejecting the reality of the situation by pretending your personal version of Christianity is at all common in the US.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
If 100 million Christians think the bible is literally 100% true in all parts, that's less than 5% of them. Who cares about the 5%? Let alone that they clearly don't think it's literally all true because otherwise they wouldn't be trying to work clear description about how being rich isn't good and helping the poor is into convoluted knots so they're actually about supply side jesus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:07
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:If 100 million Christians think the bible is literally 100% true in all parts, that's less than 5% of them. Who cares about the 5%? Because in America they're a plurality of the population and those fuckers vote consistently. lol 5% of the global population!! yeah turns out that 5% have probably the biggest single influence on global politics of any voting bloc anywhere and jesus christ i've been fishmeched again!! 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Muslims can and do reinterpret the Koran but I don't understand how the more liberal Muslims justify it theologically. Another major flaw of Islam is that it cannot be translated so I can't read the Koran properly  E: I was just explaining why I personally chose Christianity over Islam. How does what I personally believe have anything to do with people who disagree with me? Miltank fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:Because in America they're a plurality of the population No they absolutely are not. It's simply not true. 
Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Miltank posted:What are you even getting at here? I mean I don't disagree with any of this but what does it have to do with what I said? Uh...because you said Christians don't do this??? It was a pretty direct response, I'm confused by your confusion. By the way, the 100 million figure was Americans only, just under a third of the population purportedly believes this. It's probably far more worldwide, which is why I included the "+". Apparently there are around 500 million "charismatic Christians" (think pentecostals) worldwide, and although it's not implicit, it's a pretty good assumption they're going to be literalists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
47% don't take it literally word for word, but believe it is the word of God himself. a further 21% do take it entirely literally. That is 68% who believe it is the word of God, and not man. if you weren't fishmech you would understand that's what I was talking about but you saw me use the word "literally" and assumed that applied to everything I wrote afterwords, because you're fishmech and we all know you're equally as incapable of reading clearly as brandor is at writing, and as eripsa is at thinking
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:47% don't take it literally word for word, but believe it is the word of God himself. a further 21% do take it entirely literally. That is 68% who believe it is the word of God, and not man. if you weren't fishmech you would understand that's what I was talking about but you saw me use the word "literally" and assumed that applied to everything I wrote afterwords, because you're fishmech and we all know you're equally as incapable of reading clearly as brandor is at writing, and as eripsa is at thinking So you have literally no idea what "biblical literalism" means. Great! Here's a hint kid: it doesn't mean "don't take the bible literally"! GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Uh...because you said Christians don't do this??? It was a pretty direct response, I'm confused by your confusion. According to that survey there's approximately 88 million in the US as of 2014. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:31
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you have literally no idea what "biblical literalism" means. Great! The Smartest Kid in America™, everybody
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Uh...because you said Christians don't do this??? It was a pretty direct response, I'm confused by your confusion. No. I said Christians don't have to do this, It's actually a pretty big difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:47% don't take it literally word for word, but believe it is the word of God himself. a further 21% do take it entirely literally. That is 68% who believe it is the word of God, and not man. if you weren't fishmech you would understand that's what I was talking about but you saw me use the word "literally" and assumed that applied to everything I wrote afterwords, because you're fishmech and we all know you're equally as incapable of reading clearly as brandor is at writing, and as eripsa is at thinking So out of that 68%, 47% don't take the Bible literally and the other 21% still don't follow the old law because nobody follows the old law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Miltank posted:No. I said Christians don't have to do this, It's actually a pretty big difference. Ahhhh no, no that is not what you said. It may have been what you meant, but it is not what you said. The post in question is on THIS PAGE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Ahhhh no, no that is not what you said. It may have been what you meant, but it is not what you said. The post in question is on THIS PAGE. Even Christians who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God still believe it was written by humans and subject to interpretation. All scripture is subject to interpretation that's the purpose of scripture. You misunderstood me. Miltank fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:46
|
|
Miltank posted:Christians who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God still believe it was written by humans is this supposed to be another one of those bullshit "beautiful paradoxes" of faith or is it just regular bullshit
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:The Smartest Kid in America™, everybody The dumbest man in SA, everybody.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:is this supposed to be another one of those bullshit "beautiful paradoxes" of faith or is it just regular bullshit E: yes. It's more of a mystery than paradox really. Miltank fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Even Christians who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God still believe it was written by humans and subject to interpretation. Um, no. That's not true. They don't believe God himself wrote down the words but they believe God told the person what to write, and that therefore it is written by God the same as if I wrote down a letter you dictated, the letter is still written by you even if you didn't physically put letters on paper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
No you are wrong. The writers of the New Testament are not considered prophets, they are believed to be moved or influenced by the Holy Spirit, not channeling God's dictations. When fundamentalists say the bible is the word of God they mean that it is a collection of the divinely inspired works of the human authors of the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Miltank posted:No you are wrong. The writers of the New Testament are not considered prophets, they are believed to be moved or influenced by the Holy Spirit, not channeling God's dictations. When fundamentalists say the bible is the word of God they mean that it is a collection of the divinely inspired works of the human authors of the Bible. Well unless the Holy Spirit is starting his own movement, whose words do you think we was influencing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Miltank posted:No you are wrong. The writers of the New Testament are not considered prophets, they are believed to be moved or influenced by the Holy Spirit, not channeling God's dictations. When fundamentalists say the bible is the word of God they mean that it is a collection of the divinely inspired works of the human authors of the Bible. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness - 2 Timothy 3:16. The words "God-breathed" right there are taken very literally by many Christians. Not all of them, but enough of them. They absolutely do not believe "Yeah the New Testament was just written by people," they believe that Paul and other authors of the letters were being used by God to say what he wanted to say. It's possible you just didn't know these people exist, but now you do know. But now that you know, don't act like they don't exist just because you think they make you look bad or you disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Um, no. That's not true. They don't believe God himself wrote down the words but they believe God told the person what to write, and that therefore it is written by God the same as if I wrote down a letter you dictated, the letter is still written by you even if you didn't physically put letters on paper. Eh, there is a distinction to be drawn. The holy spirit is more of an inspiration and less of a dictation. Anybody can be moved by the holy spirit to speak the truth as they understand it. Claiming that the literal word of God was passed on to you by an angel to write down is different. Personally, I think someone speaking from the holy spirit can still say things that are not fully correct, but have a grain of truth. You have to understand the mindset of the author whenever you interpret the holy spirit. It always comes from a human source.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 06:33
|
|