Brainiac Five posted:

I don't understand what exactly is supposed to be a uniquely secular or atheistic plan against global warming. It's like this is bullshit put together by people who assume that all things associated with religion must be frauds.

rudatron posted:

Why would an 'underlying content' exist without the ability to resolve differences? And how could humanity as a whole move in roughly the same direction yet still remain isolated & alone, on a 'fundamental' level? The probability of that happening has to be very low, you may as well expect to quantum tunnel through the earth.

McDowell posted:

The underlying content, the substantive reality, is the objective material of creation and the cosmos, beyond our limited perception as humans here on Earth. We participate by forming our minds and choosing to either embrace or overcome sensuality. Your mind/soul then moves away or towards service to the Creator. You always have free choice and the ability to make up your mind, but you move in one of 2 directions - self-service or crew-mindedness.

Main Paineframe posted:

That's "matrilineal", not "matriarchal". They're not even remotely the same thing.

Brainiac Five posted:

There is exactly one Christian martyr in the Bible, Saint Stephen, who dies spouting what would have been considered vile blasphemies at the time, on the level of saying David Koresh really was the Son of God. Jesus also tells his followers that they must arm themselves when the time comes, because he was an apocalyptic prophet who attracted Zealots to his cause. Jesus also refuses to denounce the sections of the law which call for the stoning to death of adulterers, not only in that the story of "let him without sin cast the first stone" is an interpolation from a later period into the Gospel of John, but also in that the story doesn't challenge the law as unjust. Indeed, Jesus came to fulfill the law, and not one letter of it would pass away, he says, and though he also says that "love God" and "love thy neighbor" are the most important commandments, he doesn't tell anyone they're released from having to avoid shellfish or put witches to death. Jesus actually tightens the Mosaic law in multiple passages.

BrandorKP posted:

There was a lot a batshit neo-platonism in early Christianity. But most of Christianity does not reject that creation is good and most of it does not reject the material. I believe in saying "Yes to God's Earth". No evacuating by comet for me.

Majorian posted:

Really? It seems to me that a lot of Muslims worldwide aren't that interested in building a theocratic state. Are they just bad Muslims, from your viewpoint?

Majorian posted:

You're going to have to connect the dots a little more visibly than that - Christianity promises salvation, too, and glorifies martyrs. It doesn't seem to me that the differences between the Bible and the Qu'ran can account for the distinction in behavior. Indeed, one of the most active anti-Israeli terrorists over the past several decades was George Habash, an Orthodox Christian (and also a Marxist). If one read his biography but didn't read anything about his religious and ideological affiliations, one would probably not see too much of a difference between him and other Palestinian insurgent leaders. It wasn't religion that brought him and Arafat together; it was sociopolitical and historical factors.

Majorian posted:

Yet you seem to be reducing the causes for what we commonly label "Islamist" violence is a function of Islam, as a religion. That's not a terribly uncommon interpretation in the West, but don't you think that when Westerners take that viewpoint, it probably alienates Muslims as well?

rudatron posted:

It's not reductionism though, if religion was the result of a psychological disposition, then it wouldn't correlate strongly with geography (unless that's the implicit claim you're making, in which case lol gently caress off). You're being way too essentialist if you're claiming that religious belief can act as an effective or useful marker of behaviors, that's just magical thinking. It doesn't even act as a useful marker of political ideology, as a wider view of history would demonstrate. The only thing that can't be unbound from the religion proper is the metaphysical claims, which are useless.

Sethex posted:

The American keyboard social scientist has done a pretty good job at looking at religious causes with a pretty extreme reductionist lens. Are you saying that Islam isn't involved in Islamist ideology? Are you saying that in order to not alienate people we should seek to ignore or paint the causes as something non-specific but maintain a certainty that Islam isn't the cause?

McDowell posted:

There's plenty of interference and misinformation that has accrued over the centuries - you can make up your own mind, I'm just a student (and a pretty lousy one at that). How many Romans would have scoffed at some crucified Hebrew, preferring to say yes to the world of Caesar and Zeus? Creation is much bigger than the planet earth, and while ultimately 'everything happens for a reason' this planet is beset with evil. There's a 'Planet Nine' hypothesis that fits with other pop culture prophecies of Nibiru. If astronomers find it and it I will be very interested to learn the year of perihelion. The recycling takes time but that is the phase we have been in since Hale-bopp departed.

Sethex posted:

The American keyboard social scientist has done a pretty good job at looking at religious causes with a pretty extreme reductionist lens. Are you saying that Islam isn't involved in Islamist ideology? Are you saying that in order to not alienate people we should seek to ignore or paint the causes as something non-specific but maintain a certainty that Islam isn't the cause?

SSNeoman posted:

Yes and yes.

I'll repeat myself: these people know Osama Bin Ladin's speeches by heart but can't even remember the five pillars of Islam. How do you reconcile that with the notion that "extremism is caused by Islam"?

splifyphus posted:

And you think woefully inadequate English translations of select portions of a 1300 year old Arabic text taken out of context and hermeneutically reconstituted into the tiny world horizon of Sam Harris, Islamic Expert are a better explanation than the total civil chaos and destitution caused by 60ish years of Team America: World Police?

The people ISIS exploits have nothing else to fall back on. It's pretty easy to have a monolithic enemy to rally against just by pointing at the sky as it shits bombs on your weddings, your families, your places of worship, your hospitals, your schools, etc etc. Material circumstances have always had an enormous role in the production of ideology. Poverty, sickness, starvation, oppression and war practically excrete dogmatism and groupthink.

blowfish posted:

Hipster terrorists with a copy of "Islam for Dummies" in their luggage don't need to know what they're blowing themselves up for.

SHISHKABOB posted:

Like is the argument over whether Islam the religion has any influence at all, or is it just about to what degree. Because, terrorism happens everywhere, it's not unique to Islam. But a person's way of thinking will probably have an influence on whether they do terrorist poo poo, and things like religion have an influence on the way people think. In some form, in some fashion.

It's like take a ball of chewed up-spit out gum, a lot of it, and then mix it the gently caress up and plop it on the ground. Trying to argue about what flavor of gum is the most significant aspect of the ball of gum is retarded.

SSNeoman posted:

Btw thread this literally happened. One of the Daesh's suicide bombers did indeed have Islam for Dummies in his personal luggage.

computer parts posted:

The argument is that Islam is inherently special (barbaric,etc) and represents a unique threat to the "secular" (read: Western) world.

splifyphus posted:

And you think woefully inadequate English translations of select portions of a 1300 year old Arabic text taken out of context and hermeneutically reconstituted into the tiny world horizon of Sam Harris, Islamic Expert are a better explanation than the total civil chaos and destitution caused by 60ish years of Team America: World Police?

The people ISIS exploits have nothing else to fall back on. It's pretty easy to have a monolithic enemy to rally against just by pointing at the sky as it shits bombs on your weddings, your families, your places of worship, your hospitals, your schools, etc etc. Material circumstances have always had an enormous role in the production of ideology. Poverty, sickness, starvation, oppression and war practically excrete dogmatism and groupthink.

Main Paineframe posted:

It's caused by a lot more than just "60ish years of Team America: World Police". Western influences and abuses in the region go back over a century, and by the time America came into the picture it was mostly just taking over the influence Britain and France could no longer maintain. While US meddling in the region has been significant, the roots of Arab resentment against the West date back to 1915.

SHISHKABOB posted:

Well that's a retarded and reductionist perspective. Probably espoused by far right groups appealing to national identities or some poo poo.

poo poo, man, the USA has been a unique threat to millions of people over the years, does that mean there's something "inherently special" about it?

Josef bugman posted:

Hell's, it might be even longer consider this is the British "motherfuckers" empire we are talking about.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Yeah, America is exceptional.

SHISHKABOB posted:

It's fuckin history dude, frame it with whatever narrative you want, but poo poo's complicated and nothing has a simple cause.

Sethex posted:

If you'd been reading you wouldn't approach my comments as though I am seeking to erase the US's foreign policy as a chief force in the creation of these religious death cults.

America has been a dick to more people and regions than simply the Muslim ones, yet the responses of the oppressed seems to be extremely variable.

Sethex posted:

Griffen posted:

I think comments like these are what distinguish between people who honestly want to understand Christianity, and those who have already made up their mind about what it is and only see passages that reflect their opinion. This may be pointless, but I'd like that answer this line by line.

On the comment of Saint Stephen, sure, his proclamations would have been blasphemous to the Jews, but that has no bearing to the point that Stephen died without opposing his murderers. The reason I brought up Stephen was because as the first martyr, he followed Jesus' example of not facing death for the faith with violence, in contrast to the use of "martyrdom" in radical Islamic terror attacks. Just because someone says something that you do not believe or understand does not make them violent.

quote:

I assume when you speak of Jesus saying to arm yourselves, you refer to Luke 22, where he contrasts the Disciples' earlier missions where they never went without to what they are about to undertake, and that they should prepare themselves. Yes, he says buy a sword, because it is a metaphor for the violence and uncertainty that is to follow his death. The chapter before he warns of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, which occurs in AD 70-ish, around Masada's timeframe. He also says that they should eat his flesh and drink his blood, which is a reference to the Paschal (Passover) sacrifice that all Jews were required to eat to be saved in Egypt. Jesus loved to be metaphorical, and later having to explain some of the more important stuff the Disciples couldn't follow. That's because in Exodus (or Numbers, can't remember off-hand) God explains to Aaron that he usually speaks to people in riddles and dreams (Moses was a rare exception). Since Jesus is God, He's going to have the same MO. The key distinction that should clarify the issue is that when it came down to it, Jesus refused to oppose his own death, even condemning Peter for fighting for his sake.

quote:

As for was Jesus a zealot? Perhaps so, and he certainly fulfilled the passage "zeal for your house will consume me" when he cleared the temple of money changers and traders. However, his zealotry was not of a violent or political nature, hence the disillusionment of Holy Week after the Triumphal Entry - everyone thought he'd step up and overthrow the Roman rule over Israel. That's what was so revolutionary about His coming, is that He came not to overthrow Rome, but to overthrow the chains of sin.

quote:

Now, as for Jesus not denouncing the Law, I have a feeling anything I say will ring hollow to you. I really suggest you read the book of Romans, as Paul does a great job distinguishing between the Law and salvation. In short, the Law exists to outline to man how we should live, to try and outline the goals we should reach for. The problem is, God deals with people, and we're not very cooperative or smart. So the Law of Moses was really a first go at it, stuff like "don't kill each other," or "don't have sex with your mother-in-law, wtf is wrong with you?" Jesus came to bring the fulfillment of the Law (the ultimate atonement that we could never provide ourselves), but also to fully clarify God's intent in the Law. That is a lot of the meat in the Sermon on the Mount. It's not enough to not kill each other, you also shouldn't hate each other either, because murder stems from hate. Jesus won't challenge the law of "no adultery" because adultery is still wrong; as he says to the woman "go, and leave your life of sin." Furthermore, Jesus quite clearly asserts his authority over the Law, and denounces heedless adherence to our own manifestations of the Law that miss the point. The clearest example is when he heals on the Sabbath (which nominally is illegal under the Pharisee tradition) stating that "is it not better to free this son of Abraham from his infirmity?" He sums it up by "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath." Anyone can twist words around to do harm to people (honor the Sabbath -> do no work -> do not heal -> people suffer), and this is in essence what you are trying to do.

Now, if you honestly have questions about Christianity, I would be happy to continue the discussion, but if you've already made up your mind I won't bother you about it.

blowfish posted:

Come on, get professional help. This isn't even funny anymore, it's just sad.

McDowell posted:

You don't need to worry about me, you either see the big picture or you don't, everyone is at a different stage in their overcoming (if they are overcoming at all). I'm not in any rush to leave this vehicle, I'm in it to learn. In this time and place we could devote our energies to each other so we can all be comfortably monastic, but there are always corrupting forces at work. Look at what a perversion prosperity gospel is - this is Lucifer in action. There are some ominous things on the horizon when you think about VR, AR, and porn applications. A day could come where people might be wearing those goggles during all their waking hours, their perceptions completely dependent on machine input. Their sensuality would be used to completely enslave them.

Who What Now posted:

Yes, the Devil is out to get you using VR. Because that's definitely not something a crazy person would say.

McDowell posted:

Some people think and deeply believe that just playing Dungeons & Dragons, reading science fiction, and being open to possibilities beyond the mundane is satanic, or evil. Could you possibly institutionalize them all?

quote:

I just fear a day where people might be expected to wear literal blinders as a part of their job. Of course it would start as a consumer toy, that way everyone wants to use it.

McDowell posted:

I'm not in any rush to leave this vehicle, I'm in it to learn.

Brainiac Five posted:

McDowell posted:

rudatron posted:

It's just a different way to communicate.