|
I don't really get the draw of any of this, if you're going to join a cult join one where you can do acid in the desert and get sexually abused. At least you get acid instead of forced castration and sexual abuse, a bunch of stupid rules about poo poo that doesn't matter and sexual abuse, or an old man in a wooden box that you have to tell secrets to who proceeds to abuse you. Sexually.
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
You know what I cant get past when it comes to religious belief systems? That diminished readiness for inquiry paired with it. When one decides they believe in a certain Creator, it puts aside some of that wonder a person undecided about the nature of the Universe has. What if there is no afterlife, but something else beyond our understanding? I am more free to take on this question without any of the sort of emotional baggage that comes with the in-group. What a wonderful thing it is to be a skeptic, to always be wide open to any possibility as the physical evidence and rationale dictates. How great it is to take some personal wisdoms from all the religions of the world without the burden of going along with stupid ideas. It is truly a blessing to not know and readily admit it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:I don't really get the draw of any of this, if you're going to join a cult join one where you can do acid in the desert and get sexually abused. At least you get acid instead of forced castration and sexual abuse, a bunch of stupid rules about poo poo that doesn't matter and sexual abuse, or an old man in a wooden box that you have to tell secrets to who proceeds to abuse you. Sexually. I'd hope that being the world's largest finally disqualifies a religion as a cult, but fair enough. rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:You know what I cant get past when it comes to religious belief systems? That diminished readiness for inquiry paired with it. When one decides they believe in a certain Creator, it puts aside some of that wonder a person undecided about the nature of the Universe has. What if there is no afterlife, but something else beyond our understanding? I am more free to take on this question without any of the sort of emotional baggage that comes with the in-group. What a wonderful thing it is to be a skeptic, to always be wide open to any possibility as the physical evidence and rationale dictates. How great it is to take some personal wisdoms from all the religions of the world without the burden of going along with stupid ideas. It is truly a blessing to not know and readily admit it. I don't really know how a Christian could state to your satisfaction that they don't have a sense of wonder without you having to take them at face value, but, uh, okay. I don't think that the afterlife is within our understanding in the Christian religion, except what has been shown through the Gospel. Certainly the most popular depictions of heaven and hell are almost entirely informed by tradition and (ancient or modern) pop culture rather than scripture. I can't speak for anyone except myself, but I think there's wisdom and goodness to be seen in every religion, even if I think mine is the true one. "Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Christianity doesn't have experience, though. It has a petty history of pointless squabbles over inane bullshit, but experience? Please. Philosophy, as any discipline of study, builds on old thought to create new thought, sometimes throwing away old ideas. Religions stifles new thought because 'purity' of belief is held as something important. It's like comparing a man who sits in a hole for 20 years, versus a man who engages with others, records new ideas and then mixes them up for 10. Who has more 'experience'? It stifles bad thought, whereas secularism leaves it up to natural selection, at the expense of individual members of the society, societal cohesion and health; indeed, at the expense of civilization. It lets every new, naive, inexperienced generation wreak havoc on itself with the same bad ideas over and over. "Purity" is important in all ideologies, but all ideologies become more nuanced over time as issues arise. To suggest that 2000 years doesn't count as "experienced"... with all those ecumenical councils to decide this or that, to anathematize this or that heresy... all those conflicts which challenged canon law... all of the interesting developments in thought and behavior... well. I just don't think you're being fair.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
The average American today has a big gap in their knowledge of history between the time of Jesus Christ and the Reformation. It's just one big mysterious time period called the "Dark Ages", and it's regarded as "bad". Many people think that Game of Thrones is a "reasonable substitute" for knowledge of actual medieval history. It's quite by design that 1500 years are missing, even though those 1500 years took us from ancient times to modernity, and should therefore be classified as an unparalleled Western achievement. Instead, we're sold this myth that it was all stagnant over that time until Martin Luther came along and finally got things started by breaking everything apart and atomizing everyone. But if you do a side-by-side comparison, I think you'll find quite a bit of difference between the time of Martin Luther and the time of the fall of Rome, and that is medieval Christianity's achievement. No, they didn't have Apple Watches, but they had some pretty impressive events and discoveries which took place over that time. People born today were literally indoctrinated into a belief that traditional and medieval Christianity is wrong and evil and stupid, because this is a matter of Protestant orthodoxy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
You live in a weird country because over here we tend to think the renaissance was when it all started getting interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
The dark ages were bad. All archaeological settlements that existed before the dark ages start show a decline in sophistication and size during the dark ages. Europe didn't reach the same level of economic production until about 1500, ~1000 years later. Even then, it was still a backwards shithole (compare with China) until enlightenment. You say yourself that this medieval mindset stifles thought, but 'bad' is not the correct qualifier. It stifles 'politically inconvenient' thought. By contrast, The only fair way to determine truth is to externalize it through the test, the experiment, the logic. Leaving it to the discretion of the powerful for the sake of 'social cohesion' (whose version of 'social cohesion'?) is what creates stagnation. If truth makes you unhealthy or immoral, then that's your problem, not anyone else's. The rest of us are doing just fine, thanks.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:23 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The dark ages were bad. All archaeological settlements that existed before the dark ages start show a decline in sophistication and size during the dark ages. Europe didn't reach the same level of economic production until about 1500, ~1000 years later. Even then, it was still a backwards shithole (compare with China) until enlightenment You say yourself that this medieval mindset stifles thought, but 'bad' is not the correct qualifier. It stifles 'politically inconvenient' thought. By contrast, The only fair way to determine truth is to externalize it through the test, the experiment, the logic. Leaving it to the discretion of the powerful for the sake of 'social cohesion' (whose version of 'social cohesion'?) is what creates stagnation. If truth makes you unhealthy or immoral, then that's your problem, not anyone else's. The rest of us are doing just fine, thanks. Rome collapsed, and Christianity rebuilt the West. Oh I wouldn't say the rest of society is doing "just fine." When I look around I see a highly dysfunctional civilization in decline, filled with great injustice. Lies abound, propaganda is everywhere, immorality is rampant, there is no sense of the social cohesion that you mock. Doing fine? Aren't you a revolutionary?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Quite a lot of the west never really fell when Rome did, because Rome never really conquered it, the borders may have extended that far but the way people lived was probably rather more to do with the people who lived there than Rome. The cultural extent of Rome was rather smaller in its day than were its nominal borders. So much of the period after the fall of Rome could probably be considered the comparatively natural development of other, pre-existing cultures, who while fond of cribbing from Rome in a lot of ways, also brought quite a lot of their own ideas to the table.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Christians: so bad at administration that it takes a thousand years for Europe to recover from the disaster of Christian theocracy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
No one else buys your bullshit of truth making people unhealthy or immoral, yet to you these are relevant concerns for what should be considered knowledge. You're the only person broken enough to think that, in this respect most people are fine ie- not like you. The increase in sophistication through the middle ages was inevitable and unremarkable. It's the later trajectory, when christianity is being rejected and authority questioned, that is interesting. That's why people focus on it. First you say the dark ages were dandy, now you make dumb ownership claims of the rise of The West? Maybe you should learn history before you use it in your arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Christians: so bad at administration that it takes a thousand years for Europe to recover from the disaster of Christian theocracy. "ugh... the West totally didn't reach modernity fast enough" Also everyone buys into that silly idea that Christianity resulted in the death of Rome. NOT SO. It was already well into the decline by the time they converted. I mean, Constantinople survived much longer despite being Christian. The theory doesn't hold water
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Constantinople was also rather different from Rome both in geography, surrounding nations, and in structure.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No one else buys your bullshit of truth making people unhealthy or immoral, yet to you these are relevant concerns for what should be considered knowledge. You're the only person broken enough to think that, in this respect most people are fine ie- not like you. I don't think "truth" makes people unhealthy or immoral, I do think having a massive disarray of viewpoints that corrupt the youth of every generation and result in the death of society does make things unhealthy or immoral. The problem is that these views aren't true, the actual truth is traditional and is held by the church. "A huge variety of stupid and destructive opinions available to children, teenagers, and young adults" is not the same thing as truth. I love how predictable it is to you, how "inevitable" the sophistication was. As if it had ever happened before, or as if it wasn't coming from fertile cultural soil created by the West. You think the Renaissance came out of nowhere?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
The Church didn't give us all the stuff that makes us what we are, you yourself define the Church's contribution as being constant and unwavering, which means that they don't produce progress. Progress is the result of all the people who have lived and died and changed things over the centuries. It is far more the result of lots of disparate and conflicting ideas than it is of the Church. An organisation centered around an unchanging text and faith is not an organisation which can claim ownership of all human progress, even if the concept of doing that in itself were not laughable.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Truth is impossible without tolerating a variety of views, only by sifting through them will better things emerge. That you think this is proof of a 'corrupt' or 'dying' society is your own ignorance, people are better educated and less prejudiced now then they've ever been. Why? Progress. And make up your mind kyrie, either today's society is bad because it deviated from christianity (ie is a rejection of), or the skepticism of the renaissance that created the society of today must acknowledge christianity as its 'fertile soil'. Wouldn't both imply christianity is inherently self-destructive? I expect you to claim that christianity made human flight possible, or argue that democracy now owes itself to christianity. Truly it is a wonder drug capable of doing everything you want it to, when it's convenient for you, without you having to provide any argument as to why. Who knows, maybe christianity can get you laid with another dude. rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:01 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Truth is impossible without tolerating a variety of views, only by sifting through them will better things emerge. That you think this is proof of a 'corrupt' or 'dying' society is your own ignorance, people are better educated and less prejudiced now then they've ever been. Why? Progress. I don't like this idea that the Renaissance is a "skeptical" period, it was a Catholic period which saw the creation of much great Catholic art and philosophy. During the Renaissance you wouldn't have found intellectuals whining about how "ugh why dont they make the Bible available in MY language" or whatever, culture just thrived and anyone smart knew Latin. St. Peter's Basilica which Luther hated people voluntarily funding so much was the outstanding achievement of Renaissance architecture. Erasmus had lots of interesting philosophical ideas while, get this, not breaking apart from the church! But that's the difference between an actual "reform"-minded person and a simple schismatic. Once the schism started in earnest and all of the nations started divvying up church land and re-igniting their nationalistic empires and whatnot it was the beginning of the end of the West, and we're in the twilight years now. Anyway, to address your point, just because Christianity failed to properly contain heresy does not mean that it is inherently self-destructive. It just means that not enough work was put in to enforce orthodoxy or to educate people properly. The church allowed itself to get too liberal, and many people opted to betray their God in favor of sexual deviance or money or whatever. Society "progressed" a lot during those years, in every capacity, you just don't see it. In the sense that Christianity is unchanging, i mean its core moral values, which are correct, are unchanging, although they obtain nuance. Today you have lots of so-called "progress" that is really just rebellion against basic moral values, and it is more "self-destructive" than anything I can imagine.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
That's nothing but romanticism, the old order was burned because it was hated. People weren't happy then, and they seem pretty intent on not going back. Progress will continue, whether you want it or not. Nationalism was, for it's time progressive, but now its time has past and so will, eventually, be replaced. Same deal with Capitalism. I trust in the ability of ordinary people to make up their own minds about what really are basic moral values, regardless of whatever bullshit stubborn old men want them to think (just so they hold on to power). So far it's working out quite well. People are coming around to the idea that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. Maybe you should too, would do you a bit of good.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:That's nothing but romanticism, the old order was burned because it was hated. People weren't happy then, and they seem pretty intent on not going back. Progress will continue, whether you want it or not. Nationalism was, for it's time progressive, but now its time has past and so will, eventually, be replaced. Same deal with Capitalism. I trust in the ability of ordinary people to make up their own minds about what really are basic moral values, regardless of whatever bullshit stubborn old men want them to think (just so they hold on to power). So far it's working out quite well. People are coming around to the idea that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. Maybe you should too, would do you a bit of good. That nationalism or capitalism are good things... in the sense that capitalism has given us massive technological progress, yes, but at the consequence to our moral fabric, our environment, etc. it has been a catastrophe. It's kind of a deal with the devil, a real Faustian bargain. A lot of people don't know, but Faust saw himself as an enlightened liberal type who cared deeply about progress and was going to use his newfound diabolical powers to elevate society. Hence why the genius Oswald Spengler described Western society as "Faustian." What is this obsession you people have with homosexuality? Aside for the inappropriate crassness of bringing it up all the time, I have made the decision and I'm not going to be a homosexual. I made that choice.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Hold up, did Christianity build this modern world with all its wonders, or is the modern world a diseased hulk staggering its way to a deserved death for having abandoned the Golden Age that was 800 AD Europe?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hold up, did Christianity build this modern world with all its wonders, or is the modern world a diseased hulk staggering its way to a deserved death for having abandoned the Golden Age that was 800 AD Europe? Both, the modern world was only possible as a result of the massive cultural achievements of Western Christianity, but due to its orgiastic moral dissolution it is ultimately self-destructive. Lots of fantastic technology, little substance. High-quality movies with no heart. Nobody reads classic literature anymore. All anyone cares about is exploring their sexual deviancy. Multiculturalism eroding every nation into the dustbin of history. Born just in time to browse dank memes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What is this obsession you people have with homosexuality? Aside for the inappropriate crassness of bringing it up all the time, I have made the decision and I'm not going to be a homosexual. I made that choice. How many times a day do you think about butt stuff?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
It's also impossible to discuss modernity without talking about the influence of America which completely changed the West due to superseding Europe and re-defining Western values to align with those of the American settlers.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:That nationalism or capitalism are good things... in the sense that capitalism has given us massive technological progress, yes, but at the consequence to our moral fabric, our environment, etc. it has been a catastrophe. It's kind of a deal with the devil, a real Faustian bargain. A lot of people don't know, but Faust saw himself as an enlightened liberal type who cared deeply about progress and was going to use his newfound diabolical powers to elevate society. Hence why the genius Oswald Spengler described Western society as "Faustian." And kyrie: I just want you to be happy. If man-on-man dick sucking is something you would enjoy, then I say go for it champ. rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:20 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
Watched this just now and enjoyed it. It seemed relevant enough that I'm posting it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 13:37
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I don't like this idea that the Renaissance is a "skeptical" period, it was a Catholic period which saw the creation of much great Catholic art and philosophy. During the Renaissance you wouldn't have found intellectuals whining about how "ugh why dont they make the Bible available in MY language" or whatever, culture just thrived and anyone smart knew Latin. St. Peter's Basilica which Luther hated people voluntarily funding so much was the outstanding achievement of Renaissance architecture. Erasmus had lots of interesting philosophical ideas while, get this, not breaking apart from the church! But that's the difference between an actual "reform"-minded person and a simple schismatic. What is your opinion on the administration of the Eucharist? Shall we return to the traditional way where the laity receive only the bread?
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What is your opinion on the administration of the Eucharist? Shall we return to the traditional way where the laity receive only the bread? That was always a matter of pragmatism... avoiding spilling the wine, and making communion go quickly enough. As is, the wine is still not present at every Mass, but although it usually is, I often skip it, mainly if the line is too long. The greater scandal to most traditionalists is that we receive communion in the hand now, rather than on the tongue while kneeling, and it can also be administered by someone who is not a priest. However neither of these particularly bother me.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 14:11
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:That was always a matter of pragmatism... avoiding spilling the wine, and making communion go quickly enough. As is, the wine is still not present at every Mass, but although it usually is, I often skip it, mainly if the line is too long. And yet, ultraquism received a great measure of popular support in Bohemia. Why do you think that is?
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The dark ages were bad. All archaeological settlements that existed before the dark ages start show a decline in sophistication and size during the dark ages. Europe didn't reach the same level of economic production until about 1500, ~1000 years later. Even then, it was still a backwards shithole (compare with China) until enlightenment. You say yourself that this medieval mindset stifles thought, but 'bad' is not the correct qualifier. It stifles 'politically inconvenient' thought. By contrast, The only fair way to determine truth is to externalize it through the test, the experiment, the logic. Leaving it to the discretion of the powerful for the sake of 'social cohesion' (whose version of 'social cohesion'?) is what creates stagnation. If truth makes you unhealthy or immoral, then that's your problem, not anyone else's. The rest of us are doing just fine, thanks. Nice outdated concepts of history, time traveling William Gibbon.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
I actually agree with Kyrie here, that concieving Europe between the fall of Rome and the rise of Italian geeks as "total poo poo who never did anything and were evil and stupid and pooped and then picked up the poop and ate the poop because they were great big dumb dumb heads" is stupid. So what exactly constitutes the "moral fiber"? How close is this to "an organized system in which some people - mysteriously, the people who I am like - are able to oppress, control, hurt and perhaps kill others, who are conveniently not like me"? I bet there's a real strong overlap!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I actually agree with Kyrie here Nessus posted:pooped and then picked up the poop and ate the poop
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Nobody who knows what they are talking about even calls it the dark ages anymore so that's an easy way to screen opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
I'm for designating any era without Internet the "dark ages." How can people even enjoy their lives without the ability to instantly read about far-off calamities, or to watch Let's Plays? I suppose the ancient barbarians used a physical disc of sorts for their recorded music, which I imagine they put onto the player with a starving, dirty hand. Of course, spending one's entire life staring at a Computer Box is going to seem positively depressing to the future, as they will opt to spend their lives in constant full-range 3D augmented reality, some of which willingly taking on schizophrenic qualities, such as turning their boss into an ogre, or making their wife more attractive.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Ignorance is by far the superior of knowledge, after all.
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nice outdated concepts of history, time traveling William Gibbon. lol.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:But if we apply the golden rule to God, we are erring, apparently. How so? Apply it to everyone I say, even when the Iron Rule appears more satisfying. Especially then. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I don't understand how you can acknowledge the exaggerations and outright fabrications that are all but proven to be within the Gospels as we have them today, but still take seriously the idea that Jesus was divine and/or anything other than a regular person exaggerated into the Messiah over time. First, it's pretty easy: I already believe that Jesus was just a man, but I believe in Christ too. I accept the possibility that the God part could be false, but I don't think that it is. The Bible is only a small part of why I believe in God, and it has never been required to be more than it is (a library of sacred texts of my spiritual and biological ancestors). Second, no has to subscribe to any religion at all if they don't want to. To the same end, we are free to subscribe to one if we want. The mix of spiritual comfort and challenge is not for everyone, but many find it worthy and enjoyable. Be whatever best makes sense to you. Third, I don't think it's as small as a minority as you say. I admit I have no stats, only personal anecdotes of people considering morality. It is definitely not a very popular idea with assholes, and they do like to make a lot of noise (anything to project their insecurities onto others I suppose), but who cares? Assholes are for loving, not listening to. You're wrong about the lack of canonical support though; universal reconciliation is as old if not older position as exclusive salvation. It's only wikipedia, but it's a good enough place to start if your interested in the history of the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation I'm afraid that exclusion is not one of the major tenets of my faith, sorry? God's sacrifice is for everyone, regardless of how they feel about it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:How so? Apply it to everyone I say, even when the Iron Rule appears more satisfying. Especially then. (This is not necessarily your position, of course! But the OP was going on about how you can't judge God and all that)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:If God created humanity purely to suffer, knowing what would happen and nonetheless condemning anyone to literally eternal punishment, he does not deserve our worship even if we must endure underneath his power. That's a big "If". What if he created us to experience joy? What if he allows for and accepts our condemnation? What if he experiences our suffering?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
Yeah, this sounds p. hot.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Miltank posted:Nobody who knows what they are talking about even calls it the dark ages anymore so that's an easy way to screen opinions. It was one big uplifting party, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:07
|
|
