|
TwoQuestions posted:There is no one who deserves mercy, everyone who has ever lived deserves Hell. No man deserves mercy, but Christ is merciful all the same. CommieGIR posted:Wrong. No1curr
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Miltank posted:No man deserves mercy, but Christ is merciful all the same. Really seems like it would have made a lot more sense for God to have been merciful from the start rather than go through a bunch of evil and heinous poo poo culminating in human sacrifice. Are you sure you don't worship Quetzalcoatl?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Miltank posted:No1curr What a comeback. Miltank posted:No man deserves mercy, but Christ is merciful all the same. Christ is dead. Seriously, again, why is your religious more real than any of the others?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
I don't give one hot poo poo about trying to objectively prove something to you which must be accepted on faith.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Miltank's god is a lot like Tinkerbell, if you don't believe in him he'll die. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I don't give one hot poo poo about trying to objectively prove something to you which must be accepted on faith. So then why make claims about the reality of 'forgiveness' and sin when the only thing you have to go on is blind faith? And how is your faith, which you talk about as if its a very objective and real thing, more valid than the faith of any of the other religions?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I don't give one hot poo poo about trying to objectively prove something to you which must be accepted on faith. Why doesn't it bother you, though? If God is real, why wouldn't he be just an accepted part of reality, like gravity or the internal combustion engine or anything else? Why is blind faith so important to God? I mean, let's look at this from an outside perspective: God has put us in a world where, for the most part, the components of the world are demonstrable to some degree. Do I want to know what color an apple is? I can observe an apple. Do I want to know what an Australian accent sounds like? I can listen to an Australian. Do I want to know the molecular structure of water? Using scientific tools I can see with my own eyes, perceive with my own brain a water molecule. But the most important decision of all - the single most important fact I have to accept or reject in my entire tenure on this Earth - is supposed to be accepted on hearsay alone? With nothing, no proof? I mean, I'm supposed to believe the story of Jesus, which was passed along orally for four decades before being written down, which was written in four (at least partially) contradictory accounts, which were then selected from among many by a council two centuries later, which was then translated and translated, copied by hand for hundreds more years, before being given to me? I get why "faith" in the sense of "trusting God to have you in his best interest" is considered a virtue, but this kind of faith is not that at all. I'm not being asked to have faith in God at this point, I'm being asked to have faith in many, many fallible men over centuries of time to not only have made no mistakes, but to have intended to make no mistakes, to be impartial and accurate about their reporting, to be ideologically neutral. That kind of faith is an unreasonable ask, even from a deity.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Miltank posted:No man deserves mercy, If God debases his own creations, he debases himself.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
I didn't really read past people making this assumption initially, but the story of the Garden of Eden is transparently metaphorical and an explanation for why humans are different from other animals.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I don't give one hot poo poo about trying to objectively prove something to you which must be accepted on faith. Wrong again. There's no "must" about it at all. You've very clearly already stated you choose to believe this inane thing. Neither you nor anyone else is under any obligation to accept things on faith.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Wrong again. There's no "must" about it at all. You've very clearly already stated you choose to believe this inane thing. Neither you nor anyone else is under any obligation to accept things on faith. I think possibly the intent there was that if you are going to believe in god you are going to have to do it based on faith, not that you are required to do it in general.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think possibly the intent there was that if you are going to believe in god you are going to have to do it based on faith, not that you are required to do it in general. Well, no. All someone would have to do to hold a reasonable belief in a god of some sort is have good evidence for one. Believing that faith is a requirement is rather silly.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
It is arguable that if you are inclined to view any given event as evidence for the existence of god, you are already posessed of rather a large amount of faith in his existence, or at least an abundance of credulity.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
What if religion was conceptualized more like morality? There's no objective evidence that mass murder is evil, because it's impossible to have an objective morality, but most people are content to believe in regardless.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:What if religion was conceptualized more like morality? There's no objective evidence that mass murder is evil, because it's impossible to have an objective morality, but most people are content to believe in regardless. Barring the possibility of certain extreme and highly unlikely circumstances, mass murder is objectively detrimental to human well-being.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Barring the possibility of certain extreme and highly unlikely circumstances, mass murder is objectively detrimental to human well-being. Depends on who you mass murder.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Barring the possibility of certain extreme and highly unlikely circumstances, mass murder is objectively detrimental to human well-being.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
But detrimental by whose standard, and can you call that standard objective?Series DD Funding posted:What if religion was conceptualized more like morality? There's no objective evidence that mass murder is evil, because it's impossible to have an objective morality, but most people are content to believe in regardless.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Barring the possibility of certain extreme and highly unlikely circumstances, mass murder is objectively detrimental to human well-being. Okay, but you're assuming that human well-being is good. Is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement objectively evil?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Okay, but you're assuming that human well-being is good. Is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement objectively evil?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Okay, but you're assuming that human well-being is good. Is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement objectively evil? I didn't mention evil or good at all, actually. Like "free will" or "absolute certainty", these are concepts that don't jive with our current understanding of how things work. Because we're human and have an interest in human well-being bred into us by the process of evolution, we view human well-being as a goal. Mass murder is objectively detrimental to that goal in most situations and can't be said to be objectively beneficial to it under any situation I can think of. If you can't tell the difference between mass murder and a few folks who claim to have decided that humanity should go away, yet aren't actually acting on that claim (either by mass murder or "leading by example"), then I don't know what to tell you. Hello Sailor fucked around with this message at 05:59 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Nessus posted:One of the apparent preconditions of Jesus returning is "there will be few believers left." Despite this, Christian churches encourage at least baseline reproduction and for the most part are at least open to new converts, if not actively prosyletizing. The end times sound pretty horrible though, like a bad acid trip coming to life. If I were a Christian I wouldn't want that to happen in my lifetime either. Let me die fat and happy, miss all the bad poo poo, then wake up in my new kickass body when it's time for the judging.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twWAupM99I4
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
You know he's bisexual right?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Kyrie's new av reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sf-hErZdlY
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
This thread is interesting. Everyone must know that Kizza Elizza and pink cow av are trolling, yet people keep writing long, effort-filled responses. To both "sides" in this: please stop conflating whether believing in this stuff encourages good or bad behaviour with whether or not it's true.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:This thread is interesting. Everyone must know that Kizza Elizza and pink cow av are trolling, yet people keep writing long, effort-filled responses. I think pink cow av is entirely sincere. And I think that perpetuating false information is a form of bad behavior. Doing good things for bad reasons is only a temporary lucky situation, and we shouldn't be too satisfied with it. Soon, the same people will do bad things for the same reasons we were just OK with, and it's pretty hypocritical to only call them out on it then.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Trent posted:
Well, indeed. So do I. But I didn't feel like trying to convince anyone here of that. I was primarily complaining about people running the implications in the other direction.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:This thread is interesting. Everyone must know that Kizza Elizza and pink cow av are trolling, yet people keep writing long, effort-filled responses. Just because the religious case is patently absurd and has no supporting evidence whatsoever doesn't mean the people advocating for it aren't arguing in earnest. Except Kyrie, he is a caricature.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:I didn't mention evil or good at all, actually. Like "free will" or "absolute certainty", these are concepts that don't jive with our current understanding of how things work. Because we're human and have an interest in human well-being bred into us by the process of evolution, we view human well-being as a goal. Mass murder is objectively detrimental to that goal in most situations and can't be said to be objectively beneficial to it under any situation I can think of. Yeah... it's also objectively detrimental to my goals to eat a bag of potato chips, but that doesn't stop me.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Yeah... it's also objectively detrimental to my goals to eat a bag of potato chips, but that doesn't stop me. You've already sufficiently demonstrated that you're either trolling or mentally ill. Get therapy and/or go away.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:This thread is interesting. Everyone must know that Kizza Elizza and pink cow av are trolling, yet people keep writing long, effort-filled responses. That's what makes me keep coming back. Kyrie is a fantastic troll. 10/10, voted 5, keep up the good work Kyrie
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:To both "sides" in this: please stop conflating whether believing in this stuff encourages good or bad behaviour with whether or not it's true. In the highly unlikely scenario that God does not exist, it would still be wisest to be a traditionalist Christian. This is because Christianity provides the sort of advice that can guide your life properly. Otherwise you risk falling into all sorts of traps and foolishness. Not only sexual immorality, but also greed, or an obsession with being liked and respected by normie scum.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:In the highly unlikely scenario that God does not exist, it would still be wisest to be a traditionalist Christian. This is because Christianity provides the sort of advice that can guide your life properly. Otherwise you risk falling into all sorts of traps and foolishness. Not only sexual immorality, but also greed, or an obsession with being liked and respected by normie scum. In lieu of Christianity, who gets to decide what "sexual immorality" even is?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:In the highly unlikely scenario that God does not exist, it would still be wisest to be a traditionalist Christian. This is because Christianity provides the sort of advice that can guide your life properly. Otherwise you risk falling into all sorts of traps and foolishness. Not only sexual immorality, but also greed, or an obsession with being liked and respected by normie scum. In a hypothetical atheistic world, I'd say Buddhism is the real winner, because Buddhism does not require a God. (They do not, as I recall, deny one, so much as say it's irrelevant - the equivalent of speculating on whether Jesus would post on SA or Reddit.)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Why specifically Christian, as opposed to Muslim or Buddhist? Definitely not Islam, way too restrictive and silly. A person should be able to have a beer. Buddhism isn't a very constructive form of living because it's all about detachment from everything and accepting death. It's more like a constructive form of dying. It has a placidity and laziness to it. Christianity on the other hand rebels against death and insists on life. It is about the struggle to achieve the greatest virtue possible, which makes a life thrive. So it assures the most well-lived life as a result.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Christianity on the other hand rebels against death and insists on life. It is about the struggle to achieve the greatest virtue possible, which makes a life thrive. So it assures the most well-lived life as a result. Counterpoint: You?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Shouldn't a dude be able to gently caress a butt kyrie? Look deep within yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Definitely not Islam, way too restrictive and silly. A person should be able to have a beer. Definitely not Christianity, way too restrictive and silly. A person should be able to have a buttsex
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Christianity is superior, even if God didn't exist. It emphasizes the autonomy of the individual, it sets a higher standard for human morality than what the 'average' person would do (ie a person who abuses a position of power is unambiguously evil), and its holy texts deify radical egalitarian dissent. E: Muhammad was a false prophet. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 22:58
|
|