Miltank posted:
’Tis death! ‘tis death! (or: I may die) ’Tis life! ‘tis life! (or: I may live) ’Tis death! ‘tis death! ’Tis life! ‘tis life! This is the hairy man Who brought the sun and caused it to shine A step upward, another step upward! A step upward, another... the Sun shines!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Do you know how to read English? Did you read his manifesto? It does not mention God or Jesus or Christianity. He is concerned with race. Also he killed people during a church service. I saw that he was on the congregation list of a local Lutheran church, but that doesn't make him a regular or a believer. Please justify the claim that he was religious. I believe that if he studied traditional Christianity he would have learned to control his racism, as traditional Christianity opposes racism. If he had asked his Lutheran pastor about this issue, he would have steered him away from racist thinking. If he had even sincerely prayed to God, he would have realized the evil of it. You are trying to indirectly blame religion for Dylann Roof but I think you have no case. I also wouldn't say that Roof was "unhappy" in the sense we are talking about. He wasn't suicidal or depressive, he was angry at media coverage of race and was engaging in political terrorism to gain attention for his cause.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I believe that if he studied traditional Christianity he would have learned to control his racism, as traditional Christianity opposes racism. If he had asked his Lutheran pastor about this issue, he would have steered him away from racist thinking. If he had even sincerely prayed to God, he would have realized the evil of it. You are trying to indirectly blame religion for Dylann Roof but I think you have no case. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-28-column28_ST_N.htm quote:God said so
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Luckily, God sent us a prophet to show which side he was on.  quote:.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Yes everyone knows about that. That was in the 1860s and is not really traditional Christianity. It is a warped version that deviates from both the early church and what he would hear at a Lutheran church today. (With regards to race I mean, not interested in a technical discussion on slavery, which in the old days was more of a business relationship than a racial thing, also wouldn't be taught from a Lutheran church today) Anyway Dylann Roof never mentioned Christianity and would not have been taught racism in his church. It is clear from his manifesto he learned it from online forums Kyrie eleison fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:08
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Yes everyone knows about that. That was in the 1860s and is not really traditional Christianity. It is a warped version that deviates from both the early church and what he would hear at a Lutheran church today. On the contrary, early Christianity failed to reject slavery, like virtually all large religions of the time. Only Saint Patrick of the major church fathers condemned it unconditionally, and the Irish church in turn was heretical in many fashions, such as allowing women to become ordained and bishops.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Yes everyone knows about that. That was in the 1860s and is not really traditional Christianity. It is a warped version that deviates from both the early church and what he would hear at a Lutheran church today. No True Scotsman, eh? Miltank posted:Luckily, God sent us a prophet to show which side he was on. Oh c'mon now...
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I looked at Wiki and it said that Iceland is like 85% Christian, which is about 15% more than the US, which also has about a quarter of its people identifying as non-religious, but Wiki is run by pro-Christian ideologues and cannot be trusted. About 78% of people in Denmark identify as members of their national church and there are some smaller Christian groups as well. According to a recent gallup poll, 31% of Icelanders are "non-religious," while 10% are a "convinced atheist." In Denmark, another poll says 24% "do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force." It's true many are members of the Church of Denmark, but that isn't really a reliable way to gauge people's personal belief systems. Again, this doesn't add up to your claim that atheists live depressing lives, otherwise how could countries with such large populations of nonbelievers score so highly on a study that measures happiness? Moreover, it doesn't support your recommendation that a country should necessarily be religious to be happier. It turns out happiness comes from all kinds of places, and you might notice I haven't denied that religious people are happy, just that the irreligious are happy too. My personal opinion is happiness comes from connection and community, none of which has to necessarily be religious to give people a sense of belonging and fulfillment. Perhaps you can discard your pre-conceived notions of the nonbeliever's emotional well-being and just stick to things you know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:According to a recent gallup poll, 31% of Icelanders are "non-religious," while 10% are a "convinced atheist." In Denmark, another poll says 24% "do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force." It's true many are members of the Church of Denmark, but that isn't really a reliable way to gauge people's personal belief systems. Well like I said I'm mainly referring to the studies that said religion makes people happier as well as my own personal experience with being atheistic and how miserable and depressive it made me, as well as the way depressing speeches and complaints often make mention of the godless and uncaring universe in order to set the fundamental tone. It's hard to give a depressing speech when you believe that God loves us and will be victorious over evil and that all good people will go to Heaven. I do believe it's possible for a person to enjoy a completely hedonistic life, so long as they are privileged enough for it, but they will still have moments of misery whenever they contemplate death and eternity, or humanity's failings, especially at the end of their lives or when they are afflicted with some misfortune such as illness or trauma. I know you'll deny that but it's true. I want to know more about "connection and community," do you think that a person who prefers solitude is capable of being happy? I am personally pretty solitudinous, some would say introverted (although I don't particularly care for this term because it suggests difficulties with socializing rather than distaste for most people), I have some very close connections with some few people but is it possible for me to be happy after they are dead or if they betray me? Also does a connection with God count as happiness, many people say they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who they talk to regularly, so does that count as another connection? Thanks Kyrie eleison fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Hedonism or religion, there is no human experience between the two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Yes everyone knows about that. That was in the 1860s and is not really traditional Christianity. It is a warped version that deviates from both the early church and what he would hear at a Lutheran church today. So moving the goal posts is going to be the order of the day? Fine. Hell, forget about Dylann Roof specifically, what about any of the 115 shootings that occurred in churches in 2012 that were related to domestic violence issues that spilled over into the congregation? Oh wait, you're going to argue that No True Christian would abuse their spouse, in spite of the rampant and well known history of Christian pastors advocating exactly that. We even had a thread in GBS about the church that tried to put a "Christian Bondage" spin on spousal abuse that made Fifty Shades of Grey look tame by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Well like I said I'm mainly referring to the studies that said religion makes people happier as well as my own personal experience with being atheistic and how miserable and depressive it made me, as well as the way depressing speeches and complaints often make mention of the godless and uncaring universe in order to set the fundamental tone. It's hard to give a depressing speech when you believe that God loves us and will be victorious over evil and that all good people will go to Heaven. Alright, but other sources of evidence, studies and anecdotes both, don't line up with your conclusions. Fact is nonbelievers are capable of leading happy fulfilling lives, in large numbers, irrespective of your failure to do so. Kyrie eleison posted:I do believe it's possible for a person to enjoy a completely hedonistic life, so long as they are privileged enough for it, but they will still have moments of misery whenever they contemplate death and eternity, or humanity's failings, especially at the end of their lives or when they are afflicted with some misfortune such as illness or trauma. I know you'll deny that but it's true. I guess atheists who donate, give back, volunteer, and so forth are hedonists  It's true nonbelief doesn't have a rosey answer to this problem, but neither does religion, really. It's sort of like saying there's an answer to the lack of free gifts on Christmas Day. It's not really an answer, just a story we tell our kids. People approach death in different ways, ultimately. Some people really own their mortality, as I try to do, and through that ownership morph that misery many people feel into acceptance. We're just going to die, and there's nothing (for now) that we can do about it. This acceptance can be rather freeing, because it places you back in the present moment where true happiness lies. Kyrie eleison posted:I want to know more about "connection and community," do you think that a person who prefers solitude is capable of being happy? I am personally pretty solitudinous, some would say introverted (although I don't particularly care for this term because it suggests difficulties with socializing rather than distaste for most people), I have some very close connections with some few people but is it possible for me to be happy after they are dead or if they betray me? Also does a connection with God count as happiness, many people say they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who they talk to regularly, so does that count as another connection? Thanks Certainly, many Buddhist monks have accomplished just that. I suppose I should amend my views on happiness to most people. I think it's possible for a person to sit in a cave in solitude for 20 years and achieve unperturbed happiness, but that's a special person indeed who's a master at meditation. I think most people need some sort of connection with other beings in their lives as a sort of scaffold to reach that brain-state we call happiness. It seems to be a biological imperative, even in the most antisocial and violent people that exist in our society. Solitary confinement is a good example of this. Being thrown into solitary confinement in a maximum security prison is still the ultimate punishment, for most people. Most people would literally rather hang out with murderers and rapists than be forced to be by themselves for days at a time. That's pretty telling. Personally I think this all has to do with boredom, ultimately. We get so bored with ourselves and our constant internal monologues and mind-chatter that we seek to immerse ourselves in other people who share our experiences. This is also the reason people do drugs, watch a movie, or skydive. Asshole Businessman fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:So moving the goal posts is going to be the order of the day? Fine. Hell, forget about Dylann Roof specifically, what about any of the 115 shootings that occurred in churches in 2012 that were related to domestic violence issues that spilled over into the congregation? Uh I'm not moving the goal posts, you clearly are... I guess by your not arguing otherwise, you are basically conceding that Dylann Roof did not do what he did because of religion. Also spousal abuse, which is not even slightly related to the subject at hand, is not in accordance with the teachings and values of traditional Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
This traditional christianity lark sounds pretty good given that it's apparently christianity without any of the lovely bits. I wonder where and when it might be practiced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This traditional christianity lark sounds pretty good given that it's apparently christianity without any of the lovely bits. "Well, you see, if you are a TRUE CHRISTIAN...."
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Uh I'm not moving the goal posts, you clearly are... I guess by your not arguing otherwise, you are basically conceding that Dylann Roof did not do what he did because of religion. I never said Dylann Roof did what he did because of religion. You're moving the goal posts by making a counter-argument to something I never said. You claimed religious people are happier than non-religious people, I provided a clear example where that wasn't true, and you went on to argue about whether or not religion was directly responsible for Dylann Roof's actions. Do you not see the leap in logic you made? Some Pinko Commie fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:I never said Dylann Roof did what he did because of religion. You're moving the goal posts by making a counter-argument to something I never said. You have not sufficiently demonstrated that he is religious or that he is unhappy, and your choice to mention him of all people was clearly implying something about his motives. Nor would one particular example disprove the general statistical trend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You have not sufficiently demonstrated that he is religious or that he is unhappy, and your choice to mention him of all people was clearly implying something about his motives. Nor would one particular example disprove the general statistical trend. You're the one that went specifically to Dylann Roof, I was talking about the plethora of church shooters in aggregate. Easy mistake since he's the most recent, but it's not like it's an uncommon occurrence either. Wade Wilson posted:Happy people don't shoot up churches composed of a different race than themselves. Unless you're going to posit that shooting people of a different race is something positive that can make someone happy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:You're the one that went specifically to Dylann Roof, I was talking about the plethora of church shooters in aggregate. Easy mistake since he's the most recent, but it's not like it's an uncommon occurrence either. Wade Wilson posted:Happy people don't shoot up churches composed of a different race than themselves. rofl, who were you referring to perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Tell me more about ethics in Christian dogma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Tell me more about ethics in Christian dogma. Ethics are very important to Christians, mayhaps for you they are just a punchline?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
You were miserable as an atheist for the same reason you're arrogant as a christian - you base your self-esteem on how much you think the world revolves around you (it doesn't). It's odd that you also discount hedonism because it means you couldn't be happy when someone close to you dies or betrays you. Feeling sad/betrayed is the perfectly natural human emotion to feel in those situations, but the healthy thing to do is accept it, and then move on. Is feeling happy irregardless of circumstance really something you want?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You were miserable as an atheist for the same reason you're arrogant as a christian - you base your self-esteem on how much you think the world revolves around you (it doesn't). I don't want to feel happy regardless of circumstance, but I want to be able to resist despair regardless of circumstance. It doesn't hurt for more neutral moments to be made happier as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Hedonism and mindfulness can achieve that though. Appreciate what you have in the context of your life or, more succinctly, YOLO swag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Hedonism and mindfulness can achieve that though. Appreciate what you have in the context of your life or, more succinctly, YOLO swag. You should consider going to a hospital and telling this to inpatients.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Does it work better or worse than telling them that god loves them and that's why they're in hospital?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You joke, but Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, did just this. Can't find any evidence for this from cursory investigation but... maybe he'll provide some? (Not holding my breath)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Wrong thread friend, though it's probably for the best, since you'd probably be probated if you'd posted that in the pope threadKyrie eleison posted:You should consider going to a hospital and telling this to inpatients.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Wrong thread friend, though it's probably for the best, since you'd probably be probated if you'd posted that in the pope thread Yeah, duh. I was threatened by a mod. Why do you think I replied to it here? And as for the second part: No. The miracle cure implies they will be saved from death. The afterlife is something for the dying to hope for after death. Do you see the distinction? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Yes, one of the two might actually happen at some point in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, one of the two might actually happen at some point in the future. Haha, check out this guy. He knows what the afterlife is like!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
That's a distinction without a difference, in the context of happiness vs beliefs. Both are immature fantasies that stifle the healthier acceptance of circumstance. You don't have to live a lie to be happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
rudatron posted:That's a distinction without a difference, in the context of happiness vs beliefs. Both are immature fantasies that stifle the healthier acceptance of circumstance. You don't have to live a lie to be happy. If you have a disproof of religion, feel free to share it any time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
You can use that same tactic to defend stuff like flat-earth theory, when presented with objections you just ad-hoc you way around it. Let me put it this way - any metaphysics that discards any one religion/brain-in-a-vat/matrix/it's-all-a-dream scenario must discard all of them. Pragmatically, you act as if the chair you are sitting on is real, but the same series of assumptions behind that pragmatism leads inevitably to atheism. It's all about consistency. This isn't really relevant to what's kyrie's saying about some utility benefits of religious belief, which I'm trying to undercut by both questioning whether belief should be subject to utility (instead of probability of truth) and challenging whether or not that relationship is universal or particular (being a miserable atheist -/-> atheism is necessarily miserable).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Many religions don't care about an afterlife or make it minor. Yet it would be not only difficult to support that Buddhist or Yoruban areas were historically pits of misery, the very idea relies on certain assumptions about people that just don't hold up to lived experience, and can only be held as a broader, revealing ideological stance.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:(With regards to race I mean, not interested in a technical discussion on slavery, which in the old days was more of a business relationship than a racial thing, Wrong. The whole "be a slave for six years and be released on the seventh" only applied to Jewish men, non-Jews and Jewish women were slaves for life and were never freed. Plus I'm not aware of any sort of business relationship that lets you beat your employee literally to death with no repercussions as long as they don't immediately die right away but instead suffer in agony for a day or two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:26
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wrong. The whole "be a slave for six years and be released on the seventh" only applied to Jewish men, non-Jews and Jewish women were slaves for life and were never freed. Plus I'm not aware of any sort of business relationship that lets you beat your employee literally to death with no repercussions as long as they don't immediately die right away but instead suffer in agony for a day or two. Nope. "And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years. Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed. For it is the jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field. In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession."
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Fiftieth year, because slaves that lived that long deserved a break I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:11
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Fiftieth year, because slaves that lived that long deserved a break I guess. That's every fifty years, not after fifty years of being held in slavery. Someone who had been enslaved the year before would be immediately freed the next year.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
OT Law and Christian law are different. Although the Church did have Jubilees of a sort after the year 1300, every 25 or 50 years, although I'm not sure what their effect was on slavery. Christians often end up defending the OT because critics often accuse the OT of being too harsh, even though Christians are not bound as strictly by the OT and have our own take on things. There was a distinction drawn between good and bad slavery. It turns out that pretty much every classical philosopher supported slavery in one form or another. Should also be noted that the slave trade does continue today in some countries. But before the Civil War it seems the Pope asked for the end of the slave trade, and of cruel treatment of slaves, and criticized the avarice of those who took slaves, without rejecting the concept of slavery entirely. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm With Vatican II the Church has decided that "slavery" as a word only really applies to negative forms anymore, when it used to be more neutral, and so due to this shift it can now be said that the Church is against slavery in general. Whatever "positive forms of slavery" might exist, they are better called something else. Paul exhorts us to be slaves to Christ Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:18
|
|