|
Sinnlos posted:No, not really. Church policy at the time was one that advocated conversion of indigenous peoples, rather than eradication. Unfortunately the patronato system meant that clergy in the new world were appointed by secular leaders rather than reporting to the Vatican. The Spaniards did use scripture to justify their actions, but this was pretty much theological acrobatics performed to make themselves feel good. I'm also well aware of the fact that Cortez probably did not have that detailed a knowledge of scripture, either. I was just making a comparison. I also find it hilarious that we're being told to take other religions at face value but when discussing Christianity you have to know Israelite culture and the subtleties of figurative language.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Maybe the "genuine" beliefs of conservative Christian would be more respectable if they weren't constantly pushing for monstrous legislation. Right, but why lump all non-conservative Christians in with them, or Muslims with ISIS, or Jews with the Likud Party? A lot of us want to keep the shitlords in the religious right as far away from power as possible. Don't treat us like enemies - it doesn't help anyone but the right. Sinnlos posted:No, not really. Church policy at the time was one that advocated conversion of indigenous peoples, rather than eradication. Unfortunately the patronato system meant that clergy in the new world were appointed by secular leaders rather than reporting to the Vatican. The Spaniards did use scripture to justify their actions, but this was pretty much theological acrobatics performed to make themselves feel good. Yep. In fact, arguably the most active clergyman in the New World at the time was Bartolomé de las Casas, who was an early abolitionist. Majorian fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I also find it hilarious that we're being told to take other religions at face value... Ergh, did I say that? I don't believe I ever did. I actually think that people should be trying to read the Qu'ran in IT'S exact context as well, instead of assuming that all Muslims are suicide bombers! I mean, obviously I don't think it's as authoritative as the Bible (in fact, it's basically an altered version of the Old Testament), but that doesn't mean I don't support interpreting IT in a proper manner as well!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Why is it necessary to read it 'in its context'? Its context no longer exists, and we have a multitude of much better tools to examine life today and solve problems. There's nothing of value to be gained. Hell, the people reading it today don't read it in its context, they read it in ours, that seems like a more important thing to consider.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Why is it necessary to read it 'in its context'? Its context no longer exists, and we have a multitude of much better tools to examine life today and solve problems. There's nothing of value to be gained. If you don't read it in it's context, then you're only going to misinterpret what it's trying to say: Hence, that whole discourse I gave on hyperbolic language.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:If you don't read it in it's context, then you're only going to misinterpret what it's trying to say: Hence, that whole discourse I gave on hyperbolic language.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
If you find you have to keep using figurative language and complex word games, then it's likely that you're projecting. 'In its context' in then just code for 'ignore these bits, because I said so'. In fact, by trying to excuse some parts because of 'context', you're making an explicit effort to willfully misinterpret what it's actually saying, because it's inconvenient for you to take it at face (read: actual) meaning. All of which ignores that the conceit - in its context it's totally okay (dubious) - is worthless because we don't live in that context, we live in this one. You read what is presented, not what you want to be presented.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not convinced it is even possible to correctly interpret a text. Through what process can we distinguish true interpretations and misinterpretations? Well, unless you're somehow able to dig their corpses up from the grave and throw a Phoenix Down on them, there's is no real way to know EXACTLY what the ancient writers were trying to say. And unless God himself decides to visit one of us in a dream, there's no 100% foolproof way of figuring out ALL of the EXACT details of his will for us. However, what I can do is look at Jesus Christ. I can look at how he, the incarnation of GOD HIMSELF, behaved, and model my behavior after him. In addition, I can also look at everything the scriptures say about God... Hosea 6:6 posted:I want you to show love, Ezekiel 33:11 posted:11 As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die? 2 Peter 3:9 posted:9 The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent. Micah 6:8 posted:No, O people, the Lord has told you what is good, Leviticus 19:18 posted:Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against a fellow Israelite, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. Leviticus 19:33-34 posted:Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. 34 Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners living in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. Psalm 86:15 posted:But you, O Lord, Psalm 103:7-14 posted:He revealed his character to Moses And conclude that, even in the Old Testament, he valued love, mercy, and compassion above all else. And then, taking THAT knowledge, and keeping in mind the hyperbolic ways in which violence was often described, I can conclude that even the OT God was not, in fact, a vicious and cruel deity, as he might have seemed at first. rudatron posted:If you find you have to keep using figurative language and complex word games, then it's likely that you're projecting. 'In its context' in then just code for 'ignore these bits, because I said so'. In fact, by trying to excuse some parts because of 'context', you're making an explicit effort to willfully misinterpret what it's actually saying, because it's inconvenient for you to take it at face (read: actual) meaning. And again, the only reason it seems that way to you is because you're transposing your own Western outlook on a text that was written for an entirely different culture that lived something like 4000 years ago. Remember, we're talking Pre-Enlightenment here: People wrote and communicated just a little bit differently back then than they do now. Fionordequester fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Basically, its the responsibility of the communicator to communicate clearly and expressively, not the listener to divine/magic/'interpret' what is being said in a way that is beneficial to the ego of the communicator. If the words in the holy texts of religions are inaccurate, they should be corrected. But that's not going to happen, because religions rely on their 'archaicness' to grant them legitimacy. They want to present themselves as holding 'timeless truths' - contradicted by the fact that they emphatically do not hold those truths, and are in fact outdated. So there's the conflicting desires of not wanting to undermine that legitimacy, but not being able to ignore any longer the falsehoods and immorality presented. Hence this constant drive to move the literal into the metaphorical, without textual basis, to save the political power of religion, without in turn providing anything of value to society as a whole. The whole thing's just a game of narrow self interest and convenient lies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Right, but why lump all non-conservative Christians in with them, or Muslims with ISIS, or Jews with the Likud Party? A lot of us want to keep the shitlords in the religious right as far away from power as possible. Don't treat us like enemies - it doesn't help anyone but the right. I did forget to qualify some posts with "conservative" or "evangelical," those are the people I take issue with. There are plenty of good and decent churches and the majority of churchgoing people and other believers are just as screwed by the nutball theocrats as the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Basically, its the responsibility of the communicator to communicate clearly and expressively, not the listener to divine/magic/'interpret' what is being said in a way that is beneficial to the ego of the communicator. If the words in the holy texts of religions are inaccurate, they should be corrected. And the Bible DID communicate clearly and expressively TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED 4000 YEARS AGO!! That's the crucial bit that you're missing! In fact, that's the crucial bit that all of our Biblical translators seem to be missing! I would actually be in full support of a new translation that included footnotes for all the more troublesome sections, saying "Actually, it probably was meant to be more like this or that, except, it was aimed at the ancient Jews instead of us, so that's why they said it that way".
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Well, unless you're somehow able to dig their corpses up from the grave and throw a Phoenix Down on them, there's is no real way to know EXACTLY what the ancient writers were trying to say. And unless God himself decides to visit one of us in a dream, there's no 100% foolproof way of figuring out ALL of the EXACT details of his will for us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
I'm critiquing what is presented on its on terms. If I have better beliefs and values and facts available to me than they did, that's their problem, not mine. It would be unfair to condemn them, history is a process, shoulders of giants etc. But that doesn't stop me from being able to identify stupidity. Pretending that it's not there, through this game of emphasizing what you like and de-emphasizing what you don't, is just lying to yourself. Footnotes or 'more accurate translations' aren't good enough, because you're still not accepting the text for what it actually is. The only way forward would be to disown certain sections, as things that were wrong and immoral. But that would be admitting that these texts cannot be divinely inspired, and therefore, that the entire religion is a lie. Which it is, but these things tend to preserve themselves at the expense of everyone else. So that's not going to happen. It should though, because I think pretending that human beings fell from grace or whatever is a toxic & wrong idea. The truth is in the future, not the past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, but I can also do this and say that you are wrong and I'm right. By what authority do you claim precedence over my argument? Heh, well, I can always claim to have greater knowledge than you on the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern culture. I could ALWAYS pull rank on you that way  .But yeah, even among the most well respected of scholars, you'll find tremendous disagreement on what proper Christian behavior is. One need only look at the sheer amount of denominations we have to see proof of that. So really, what it comes down to is this: "What works best for healing the world? What way seems to demonstrate God's love and compassion the best? Which way seems to help the most in trouncing evil while promoting grace and love"? That's ultimately what it comes down to when deciding one's way of life. In fact, even Paul himself kind of says as much... "Paul, Romans 14 posted:The Danger of Criticism rudatron posted:I'm critiquing what is presented on its on terms. If I have better beliefs and values and facts available to me than they did, that's their problem, not mine. It would be unfair to condemn them, history is a process, shoulders of giants etc. But that doesn't stop me from being able to identify stupidity. Pretending that it's not there, through this game of emphasizing what you like and de-emphasizing what you don't, is just lying to yourself. Footnotes or 'more accurate translations' aren't good enough, because you're still not accepting the text for what it actually is. And again, you're not seeing the text for what it actually is, because you're transposing your own Western way of interpreting things onto it. If you're going to do that, you may as well give it the Garzey's Wing treatment, as shown here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWru5o07j_I&t=1m42s Again, different cultures...different ways of communicating. Fionordequester fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:And again, you're not seeing the text for what it actually is, because you're transposing your own Western way of interpreting things onto it. If you're going to do that, you may as well give it the Garzey's Wing treatment, as shown here... I'm fairly sure you could draw this kind of positivity from Mein Kampf if you juxtaposed it with that much massaging in the guise of 'context'. You just don't understand Hitler's way of communicating if you think Mein Kampf is horrible, really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I'm fairly sure you could draw this kind of positivity from Mein Kampf if you juxtaposed it with that much massaging in the guise of 'context'. Actually, Germany is a Western culture, and Mein Kampf was only written something like 90 years ago. That's hardly a good example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Heh, well, I can always claim to have greater knowledge than you on the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern culture. I could ALWAYS pull rank on you that way Oh can you now, kiddo? Well! I've studied the bible and "Ancient Near Eastern cultures" for longer than you have. No, seriously, just ask me how I get my whites looking so bright, I'll never tell. Now that I've established to have an expertise in this field using the exact same method you have, prove my interpretations wrong using something other than the claim of "I've studied it more than you". Because, as I just established using the exact same oh-so-rigorous methods you have, I currently possess the greater claim of expertise. If the sarcasm was too thick for you, my point is is that claiming to be an expert of the Internet doesn't mean poo poo and gives you no credibility. Demonstrate it, son.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If the sarcasm was too thick for you, my point is is that claiming to be an expert of the Internet doesn't mean poo poo and gives you no credibility. Demonstrate it, son. Alright. How do you wish for me to demonstrate it? Give me an idea of what you're after.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Alright. How do you wish for me to demonstrate it? Give me an idea of what you're after. Fionordequester posted:Alright. How do you wish for me to demonstrate it? Give me an idea of what you're after. Some independent, third party evidence. People who have neither any reason to explicitly support or deny your view who nevertheless come to the exact same conclusion you did. Edit: Hell, give me undeniable proof of God that doesn't require pre-belief in him. Should your God exist, that should be trivial. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Some independent, third party evidence. People who have neither any reason to explicitly support or deny your view who nevertheless come to the exact same conclusion you did. Well, I don't know about that second part, since that's something that's best left up to God himself. But I'll get cracking on the first part, alright?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I'm fairly sure you could draw this kind of positivity from Mein Kampf if you juxtaposed it with that much massaging in the guise of 'context'. Ah  . Because Jesus was exactly like Also to all whining about God not proving to you that he is the creator. That's your fault you cannot see God's magnificence. Whine to God.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ah For the record, I don't believe it's always someone's fault when they do not know God. Just putting that out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:There's kind of a difference between taking someone's beliefs seriously on the one hand, and not being a dick about them on the other. Explain why your super special beliefs in old stories and/or e: I won't care if you just believe super special dumb poo poo in private because curing idiocy is not practical, but if you try to justify anything that affects other people with your super special dumb beliefs, you can get hosed. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 09:02
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
Okay, but don't expect people to respect you for being a bigot.
|
Crowsbeak posted:Also to all whining about God not proving to you that he is the creator. That's your fault you cannot see God's magnificence. Whine to God. Unless you already started believing through no hard evidence at all, this is totally meaningless and unhelpful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Explain why your super special beliefs in old stories and/or My beliefs aren't causing you any harm, and they motivate me to do things that I think you would agree are good. I'm a potential ally of yours on a lot of issues, but you're dead-set on attacking me because I have the temerity to believe in a benevolent deity. That's a really narrow-minded worldview, if ever I saw one. Potential BFF posted:I did forget to qualify some posts with "conservative" or "evangelical," those are the people I take issue with. There are plenty of good and decent churches and the majority of churchgoing people and other believers are just as screwed by the nutball theocrats as the rest of us. Thanks for making that distinction, it's appreciated. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:My beliefs aren't causing you any harm, and they motivate me to do things that I think you would agree are good. I'm a potential ally of yours on a lot of issues, but you're dead-set on attacking me because I have the temerity to believe in a benevolent deity. That's a really narrow-minded worldview, if ever I saw one. In Real Life™ I will let you be right for the wrong reason to get poo poo done, but since religion (being only a belief) can never be the evidence for evidence based policy, religious arguments for doing something will always have an undercurrent of "yeah here's what we tell the plebs and other assorted useful idiots  ".
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Actually, Germany is a Western culture, and Mein Kampf was only written something like 90 years ago. That's hardly a good example. "Western" culture is an interesting term because it encompasses thousands of years and a significant geographic and demographic area. You can't possibly understand Mein Kampf without understanding German culture, the way the Reich was stabbed in the back, the ideas and the cultural mores of Germany in the 1920s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
There's no coherent definition of West, which is something that's obvious once you consider what exactly is East. If you think the term is positive, then the countries you like are Western, and contrawise if you think the West is negative. None of which changes the fact that Mein Kampf wasn't that outlandish for it's time, yet we don't use that to excuse it, instead we condemn the thought of that time as immoral, along with the ideology produced then. There's no reason not to do the same for any other text.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
So, looking at all texts in their context and making up our own minds here in the present, how do we determine our place in creation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
You use your brains. The answer was never out there, it was inside you all along. Personally, I don't think there is a 'place' in the cosmos in a normative sense, simply live as you must until either an accident, illness, or entropy kills you. You should come to your own conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You use your brains. The answer was never out there, it was inside you all along. Personally, I don't think there is a 'place' in the cosmos in a normative sense, simply live as you must until either an accident, illness, or entropy kills you. You should come to your own conclusion. Exactly - I hope anyone who sees the truth of this will also take the opportunity to hear Do's message and think about it in the context of other messages they have received.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:1. So now you are saying humans are exactly like God which is rather funny to argue considering humans are limited beings. Nope, that's not remotely what I'm saying. Genesis says humans resemble God. You have explain how this is possible in light of your claim that the worldly mechanisms underlying our characteristics do not apply to God, given that God supposedly exists beyond the scope of the cosmos. quote:2. Well if one believes in determinism one leaves one open to explaining what determines. It is not my fault your chosen explaination is undermined. Um. Determinism does explain what determines. That's the whole point of determinism. quote:3. So? Universal salvation exists for all. Yeah, thanks to the backpedaling of modern papacy as it desperately attempts to keep pace with the advances of humanism. quote:Also if you're mad at God that's between you and God. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
McDowell posted:So, looking at all texts in their context and making up our own minds here in the present, how do we determine our place in creation? Well, we can at least say that contact lenses are the work of Satan trying to steal your soul. That much is clear (ironically!). Crowsbeak posted:Ah Oh hey you're back. What's your opinion on taxes being slavery?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
IIRC Crowsbeak tends to fall into the "if society makes you do it, then that's what your rights are" which I guess make sense in terms of stating what reality looks like. But he's always short on saying what should be. He got hilariously defensive in some other thread I can't remember. I asked that since our rights are determined by might, what's wrong with a minority of society's population massacring everyone else for disagreeing with them and then saying everyone else had no right to life after all. I think it was the transgender rights thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Every thread about religion collapses into bullshit because there is a fundamental cognitive dishonesty that is almost universal among those who have faith. If you're Christian, you have to face up to the reality that every justification and reason you can possibly give to refute, say, the Qu'ran, as the one true word of God, is equally applicable to your own religion for others. You are only one god out of many away from being complete atheists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Every thread about religion collapses into bullshit because there is a fundamental cognitive dishonesty that is almost universal among those who have faith. If you're Christian, you have to face up to the reality that every justification and reason you can possibly give to refute, say, the Qu'ran, as the one true word of God, is equally applicable to your own religion for others. You are only one god out of many away from being complete atheists. Christian atheism!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Well, unless you're somehow able to dig their corpses up from the grave and throw a Phoenix Down on them, there's is no real way to know EXACTLY what the ancient writers were trying to say. And unless God himself decides to visit one of us in a dream, there's no 100% foolproof way of figuring out ALL of the EXACT details of his will for us. Mercy love and compassion as long as you are one of his chosen, otherwise get hosed. Especially if he wants your land. Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God. (Deut. 20.16-18)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Mercy love and compassion as long as you are one of his chosen, otherwise get hosed. Especially if he wants your land. I don't think you even need the Yamashita standard for this one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Mercy love and compassion as long as you are one of his chosen, otherwise get hosed. Especially if he wants your land. No, see, that was hyperbole! I know it was hyperbole because ~*~context~*~!! How do I know the context was? *mumbles and waves hands*
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Mercy love and compassion as long as you are one of his chosen, otherwise get hosed. Especially if he wants your land. A later story also recounts how the Jebusites lost their capital Jebus to an attack by not-yet-king David who then drove them off and renamed it Jerusalem. So the most sacred city in Judaism was actually a Canaanite capital originally, even according to the historically very suspect accounts of the Bible. Which makes sense since the evidence is that Judaism arose out of Canaanite beliefs sometime in the early Iron Age and not as a result of some archaeologically invisible migration of thousands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 17:57
|
|
