|
OwlFancier posted:I genuinely thought judeo-christian just meant the combined and interrelated mythology of both religions. It mostly means whatever is needed at the moment. Typically it's used to indicate that America is culturally Christian and thus enacting theocracy is OK because we're Christian anyway. It's also deliberately exclusionary to Muslims despite Islam being essentially Abrahamic; basically the idea is that Jews were first and are God's chosen so they get grandfathered in, Christians updated the beliefs to get them right, and everybody else sucks. The base idea of the argument is that America is essentially a Christian nation because of the rules we have we just took all the references to God and Jesus out. See, if you put Jesus back in nothing will really change so just let us do it! Oh by the way kill the gays, ban Islam, force everybody to go to Church, and bomb any nation with an average skin tone darker than a paper bag. I'm sure Jesus would want that.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Oh by the way kill the gays, ban Islam, force everybody to go to Church, and bomb any nation with an average skin tone darker than a paper bag. I'm sure Jesus would want that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
This interview with Falwell Jr. was a great exercise in doublethink.quote:INSKEEP: Is [Donald Trump's] personal life or any candidate's personal life relevant to you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
The only double-think that helps you really understand God is to know that both 'all lives matter' and 'no lives matter' - but Evangelical Christianity is all about earthly life, denying history, and rationalizing the worst of human behavior by cherry picking from their dead idol. If you see through the scam I hope it won't close you off entirely to the truth of the Kingdom of Heaven. quote:If I listen to negativity in overcoming, I'm "sinning" - I'm doing something against my Father's House. I am separating from my Father's House and the appointee that He has designated. That "sin" itself has to be taken from me - another note taken by His Representative, who says, "Just acknowledge that what you're doing is self-destructive to you and acknowledge what it was and we'll get past it. Don't worry about it. Forget it - it's gone, it doesn't exist." Then we have to drop it. We have to forget it! if we expect to eradicate it. Lucifer does not want us to forget anything negative, even if we make progress and make progress. He wants us to remember it. He will even say, "It'll do you good to remember those things as lessons," so that you will say, "I learned those lessons." It doesn't do any good to dwell on the negative. When you acknowledge it, and you admit it and you say, "I want to go on," that's the same thing as asking for forgiveness. "I want to go on. Here it was, this was wrong. I can see how it was destructive to me. I don't want it, I want to go on. Will you accept me still as a student? Will the Next Level accept me"? Because all your teacher can say is, "Well, I'm afraid I've got to go ask my Older Member, and we'll see." Hope and Change isn't going to come from a Caesar - it can only happen when enough people open their hearts to a living God and are willing to lay down their lives rather than perpetuate a system of intimidation, privation, and fear. But sadly there is enormous programming - both genetic and 'psychic' - constraining each and every one of us from following Christ's example. Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jul 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Hope and Change isn't going to come from a Caesar - Cue the scene from Life of Brian where they ask what the Roman empire has ever done for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Cue the scene from Life of Brian where they ask what the Roman empire has ever done for them.  There is a Donald Trump inside all our heads He must be destroyed
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
I think it is important to remember that evangelicals are stuck in a weird epistemology of special access . Along with that temporialization of truth because it is associated with feeling , you get rid of the ability to be aware of double think. They don't really see that they are endorsing x and not x at the same time. Every claim that they make is not actually about any truth but about the ability to endorse a feeling towards something that is identified with truth. They cut up what things they think that applies to though. Political/Religious restorationists apply it to everything. More middle ground evangelicals tend to use this more on selective topics. This is one reason why dog whistles work across both but with different effects. The middle ground is more about indicating group association while the more radical view indicates when to defer to others and indicates when to be hostile and tells when it is okay to lie without them necessarily knowing that is what they are doing. The radical one basically tells you when to shut mentally down and defer to a script. The radical one also tends to have a claim of you should feel good if not you are bad and something is wrong with you. This is also why as you get more radical about how many things this applies to you end up with the necessity of psychological inoculation.Things like Rumspringa, Mormon Missions as functionally mandatory to youth, and Jehovah Witness pampletting are not about converting people as much as training the person to have the right feeling and have them face immediate contradictions, literally within moments from each other because truth becomes more and more attached to feeling, with a focus to have them feel the right way and thus find the right conclusions. Edit: An example of this in practice is the act of love bombing. They train people to be conditional in showing affection in line with the above. The association with feeling good and truth basically makes it so that they control epistemic commitments. Gaslighting is another. Ogodei_Khan fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian: 10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours. 9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt. 8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God. 7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees! 6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women. But you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life, and then ascended into the sky. 5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old. 4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend eternity suffering in hell. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving." 3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity. 2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God, or that the person who prayed had insufficient faith. 1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Sounds like the ten commandments of reddit atheism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
Yeah, the office Jesus man is currently talking about how there's some prophecy that says that Obama is the last president, and apparently it's because of gay rights 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:Yeah, the office Jesus man is currently talking about how there's some prophecy that says that Obama is the last president, and apparently it's because of gay rights Ask him when Obama is going to get around to taking everyone's guns, because he's running out of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:Yeah, the office Jesus man is currently talking about how there's some prophecy that says that Obama is the last president, and apparently it's because of gay rights Ask him for his next years raise or future bonuses. If he says no, accuse him of not trusting Jesus. Get it in writing so he won't be able to take it back in a few years time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Ask him when Obama is going to get around to taking everyone's guns, because he's running out of time. Eh, it's not worth the effort, I just a twisted amusement and sadness out of listening to him parrot whatever his church is telling him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
The best question to made a fundie's brain shut off. "If I get married then my wife dies and I get remarried who am I married to when we all get to heaven?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Joseph Smith knows the answer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The best question to made a fundie's brain shut off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
It's possible the fundamentalist won't know that either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Well of course it is. It's also possible that the fundamentalist knows it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:You do know that's literally what Jesus was asked, except it was the man dying and seven times that? And that his answer was basically a verbal facepalm. I was gonna say, anyone who's actually cracked a bible should know the answer to that one. So yeah, it's a pretty reliable way to short circuit must fundamentalists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I was gonna say, anyone who's actually cracked a bible should know the answer to that one. Yup. That and you'll hear "until death to us part" in the vows but extreme fundies screaming "marriage is literally forever and ever." ...while they tend to get remarried when one spouse or the other dies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Ask him when Obama is going to get around to taking everyone's guns, because he's running out of time. Nah, there's plenty of time for that. He's going to cancel the election and make himself President for Life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Since the biblical definition of marriage is an indefinite sex-slavery contract it's good that it gets destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Since the biblical definition of marriage is an indefinite sex-slavery contract it's good that it gets destroyed. Whenever somebody says "the entire Bible is literally true and we must follow all of God's laws to the letter" I like to point out some of the awful poo poo that's actually there. Like fathers literally owning their daughters and possessing the right to sell them. I've offered to buy a few daughters in those conversations because I mean, the Bible says it's OK, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Whenever somebody says "the entire Bible is literally true and we must follow all of God's laws to the letter" I like to point out some of the awful poo poo that's actually there. Like fathers literally owning their daughters and possessing the right to sell them. Yes, my child. And keep those donations coming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Aside from the fact that the Bible contains some anti-Babylon propaganda, is there any reason to think Babylon was a particularly evil society? These people are always accusing whichever modern government they hate of being today's "Babylon The Great," but good old Babylon seems like your standard issue bronze age superpower city-state. Slavery, capital punishment, despotic rule, but none of that is out of the ordinary for the time and place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Aside from the fact that the Bible contains some anti-Babylon propaganda, is there any reason to think Babylon was a particularly evil society? These people are always accusing whichever modern government they hate of being today's "Babylon The Great," but good old Babylon seems like your standard issue bronze age superpower city-state. Slavery, capital punishment, despotic rule, but none of that is out of the ordinary for the time and place. I think you've nailed it on the head. My understanding of ancient History is limited to Greece and Persia (and Rome I guess but for some reason I don't think of that as 'ancient'), but it all seems pretty par for the course. According to some academics the Persians didn't even hate the Greeks, they just wanted to rule them and gave up trying to conquer them when they had rebellions at home so maybe the Biblical people were really petty?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Aside from the fact that the Bible contains some anti-Babylon propaganda, is there any reason to think Babylon was a particularly evil society? These people are always accusing whichever modern government they hate of being today's "Babylon The Great," but good old Babylon seems like your standard issue bronze age superpower city-state. Slavery, capital punishment, despotic rule, but none of that is out of the ordinary for the time and place. This is true- in fact God advocated for the Israelites to do exactly the things you talked about the Babylonians doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Aside from the fact that the Bible contains some anti-Babylon propaganda, is there any reason to think Babylon was a particularly evil society? These people are always accusing whichever modern government they hate of being today's "Babylon The Great," but good old Babylon seems like your standard issue bronze age superpower city-state. Slavery, capital punishment, despotic rule, but none of that is out of the ordinary for the time and place. The relationship between Babylon and Judah was actually a little more complicated than that, and the Bible displays some ambivalence on this issue. Generally, the later texts are more hostile than the earlier ones. The reason is that Judah was always geographically located at the intersection of several different empires, which resulted in the need for complex, shifting and nuanced alliances. Before the Babylonians came, Judah was a client state of Assyria. When the Babylonians sacked Niveneh (the capital of Assyria) in 612 BC, the Judahites used the opportunity to rebel and push for independence. Egypt - allies of the Assyrian empire - didn't like the sound of that, so they attacked Judah, killed their king and then sent the next king into exile. When the Babylonians defeated the Egyptians in a major battle a few years later, the Judahites switched their allegiance to the Babylonians. Then they decided to switch allegiance to the Egyptians for some reason, and the Babylonians came knocking on the door. The king "died" (the Bible doesn't explain how) and the heir was taken into exile. A puppet king was installed (Judah was still technically independent at this point) and then he decided to rebel against the Babylonians. This really pissed the Babylonians off, and it led to the famous siege of Jerusalem depicted in the Book of Lamentations. Lots of people died, all the elites were taken into exile, and Judah was absorbed into the Babylonian empire. Then the Judahites killed the governor that the Babylonians had put in place, so the Babylonians decided to invade once more for good measure. After these three invasions in the space of about 15 years, all of Judah's political and religious elite had either been killed or sent into exile in Babylon, so it's understandable that they might be a bit miffed. But even then there is less hostility towards Babylon in some of the earlier texts than you might think. Firstly, the royal elite were actually pretty well taken care of in Babylon. The last four passages from the book of 2 Kings reads like this: 2 Kings 25:27-30 posted:In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, King Evil-merodach of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, released King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison; he spoke kindly to him, and gave him a seat above the other seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes. Every day of his life he dined regularly in the king’s presence. For his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, a portion every day, as long as he lived. All texts in those days were written either by elites or those close to the elites (as they were the only ones with the money and education to produce texts) so it's no surprise that their opposition to the Babylonians might have been muted. They had a lot to lose by pissing the Babylonians off further. Secondly, there were political reasons. An entity as small as Judah could only survive by allying itself closely with neighbouring empires, which meant - after the fall of Assyria - allying either Babylon (which would piss the Egyptians off) or Egypt (which would piss the Babylonians off). There may have been many who hated the Babylonians, but there were likely more - prior to the exile - who hated the Egyptians. The Book of Ezekiel, for example, has almost nothing negative to say about Babylon and saves most of its hostility for the Egyptians. The author even seemed to believe that God was actually supporting and strengthening Babylon, for the primary purpose of bringing down the Pharaoh: Ezekiel 30:22-26 posted:Thus says the Lord God: I am against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and will break his arms, both the strong arm and the one that was broken; and I will make the sword fall from his hand. I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them throughout the lands. I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, and put my sword in his hand; but I will break the arms of Pharaoh, and he will groan before him with the groans of one mortally wounded. I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, but the arms of Pharaoh shall fall. And they shall know that I am the Lord, when I put my sword into the hand of the king of Babylon. He shall stretch it out against the land of Egypt, and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them throughout the countries. Then they shall know that I am the Lord. Many Judahites, in other words, weren't really against Babylon in any conventional sense because they believed that Babylon was nothing more than an instrument of the will of God. Even the Book of 2 Kings seems to place more blame for the invasions on the heretical kings of Judah than on the Babylonians. There is a lot of hostility towards the Babylonians in later Biblical texts (including in the NT) but most of this seems to have been written in the post-exilic period, once the more sympathetic Persian empire (under King Cyrus, whom the Bible labels "the Messiah") had come to power. Much of the Biblical antipathy towards Babylon, in other words, likely come from authors who weren't born until after the Babylonian empire had already collapsed. As for the "slavery, capital punishment, despotic rule", that was certainly true of Babylon, and you're certainly right to say that this was all pretty much par for the course in the Bronze Age Levant. In fact, for ordinary people - the so-called "people of the land" - life likely continued on more or less the same regardless of who was in control. The clothes and accent of the guy coming round to confiscate your grain may change from time to time, but otherwise imperial city-states of the time had little means or cause to harass the peasants, and the peasants had little means or cause to rebel (though, of course, there were exceptions). Babylon was less brutally efficient than the Assyrians in imposing empire on the region, but that's because the Babylonian empire lasted only a few decades (consumed mostly by exhausting wars) and so they had little chance to develop the political machinery that the Assyrians had. So they weren't good guys, but I think I would probably have been happier living under the Babylonian yoke than the Assyrian one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
I have been reading The Nag Hammadi and can highly recommend it. If the Bible is the 'word of God' because He directed all people and events involved, is that not true of all history and culture? 'ET', 'The X-Files', and many other 'trivial' things show hints of divine inspiration just as the Gospels do.quote:Five hundred fifty days after he rose from the dead, we said to him, “Did you depart and leave us?” Jesus said, “No, but I shall return to the place from which I came. If you want to come with me, come.” They all answered and said, “If you order us, we’ll come.” He said, “I tell you the truth, no one will ever enter heaven’s kingdom because I ordered it, but rather because you yourselves are filled. Leave James and Peter to me that I may fill them.” One of many interesting examples of a Cosmic God who is beyond any human perceptions or concerns: quote:“Trust in me, my brothers. Understand what the great light is. The Father does not need me. A father does not need a son, but it is the son who needs the father. To him I am going, for the Father of the Son is not in need of you. “Listen to the word, understand knowledge, love life, and no one will persecute you and no one will oppress you other than you yourselves.” quote:Those whose names he knew at the beginning were called at the end, as it is with every person who has knowledge. Such names the Father has uttered. One whose name has not been spoken is ignorant, for how could a person hear if that person’s name had not been pronounced? Whoever remains ignorant until the end is a creature of forgetfulness and will perish with it. Otherwise why do these wretches have no name, why no voice? So whoever has knowledge is from above. If called, that person hears, replies, turns to the one who is calling, and goes up to him. He knows how he is called. That person has knowledge and does the will of him who called. That person wishes to please him, finds rest, and has the appropriate name. Those who have knowledge in this way know where they come from and where they are going. They know as one who, having become intoxicated, has turned from his drunkenness and, having come to his senses, has gotten control of himself. This one is particularly interesting, as the ~1000 year recycling period that the planet is in could be a Sabbath bookending the past 6000 year 'age' of human civilization: quote:Understand the inner meaning, for you are children of inner meaning. What is the Sabbath? It is a day on which salvation should not be idle. Speak of the heavenly day that has no night and of the light that does not set because it is perfect. Speak from the heart, for you are the perfect day and within you dwells the light that does not fail. Speak of truth with those who seek it and of knowledge with those who have sinned in their error. There is a sin in diluting, or adulterating, truth - agnostics and atheists are intelligent people who have the freedom to evaluate what is out there, make up their own mind, and perhaps take off their scarlet letter. quote:Then the Savior continued and said, “Woe to you, godless people, who have no hope, who are secure in things that do not last. “Woe to you who hope in the flesh and in the prison that will perish. How long will you sleep and think that what is imperishable will also perish? Your hope is based upon the world, and your god is this present life. You are destroying your souls. “Woe to you with the fire that burns within you. It is insatiable. “Woe to you because of the wheel that turns in your minds. “Woe to you because of the smoldering within you. It will devour your flesh visibly, tear your souls secretly, and prepare you for each other. quote:Again I warn you, you who exist. Be like those who do not exist that you may dwell with those who do not exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
I've never understood the position that interpreting the bible non literally is somehow a more intellectual approach. If the scientific consensus was that the sky is purple, the ocean is orange, and man evolved from apes, why would you ever believe man evolved from apes? Similarly, if large swaths of the bible are inaccurate, what authority does it have on the most important claims it makes? Maybe this is a relic of my own fundamentalist upbringing, but I feel like at least the "the bible is 100% accurate and literal" is a more intellectually honest position than cherry picking and going "well I'll just make up my own religion without basis and call it Christianity because it would be uncomfortable to not be a Christian"McDowell posted:The only double-think that helps you really understand God is to know that both 'all lives matter' and 'no lives matter' - but Evangelical Christianity is all about earthly life, denying history, and rationalizing the worst of human behavior by cherry picking from their dead idol. lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:I've never understood the position that interpreting the bible non literally is somehow a more intellectual approach. It's primarily because the bible (well, New Testament) as we know it was put together by agreement of bishops at a church council in the 4th century, picking from among the many, many gospels written by enthusiastic missionaries and scribes to pick out four different accounts of the same event. Meanwhile, the Old Testament begins with two different accounts of the creation, probably by two different authors, to highlight two different ideas (the wonder of creation and the origin of the fall/human suffering) The way one of my professors explained it, to the people putting this together, they never had any intention of it being 'historically' true but rather of highlighting what they believed was theologically true through telling the story in multiple ways. Also let's not forget stuff like (I know it's apocrypha) the Book of Judith being a metaphor for a Hasmonean queen who managed to barter off a conqueror long enough for him to get wrecked by the Romans and save her kingdom, told through the story of a righteous widow who seduced and beheaded an enemy general to save Jerusalem, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
People who read the Bible as the literal word of God would tell you that the holy spirit was acting through the authors and editors. But couldn't that be true of any piece of media/culture that can connect an audience with the divine? Speilberg claims the Christian elements of 'ET' were not intentional, maybe the Kingdom on God was quietly at work with the production team.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:I've never understood the position that interpreting the bible non literally is somehow a more intellectual approach. If the scientific consensus was that the sky is purple, the ocean is orange, and man evolved from apes, why would you ever believe man evolved from apes? Similarly, if large swaths of the bible are inaccurate, what authority does it have on the most important claims it makes? Maybe this is a relic of my own fundamentalist upbringing, but I feel like at least the "the bible is 100% accurate and literal" is a more intellectually honest position than cherry picking and going "well I'll just make up my own religion without basis and call it Christianity because it would be uncomfortable to not be a Christian" Because the bible itself is not literal. Jesus speaks in parables, prophets speak using allusions and symbolism. When Jesus gives the parable of the sower, he's not offering an amusing story about gardening techniques, he's using simple language and concepts to convey complex religious meanings about faith and conversion. A purely literalist standpoint would look at that parable and go "Oh, Jesus is just talking about gardening and seeds" and miss the actual meaning entirely. Or when the prophet Hosea talks about his wife sleeping around with half the country, he's not just complaining about his wife being a whore, he's making an accusation to Israel that they're being unfaithful in their relationship to God. Or Psalm 23 is not literally saying that God is a hobo shepherd and his followers walk on 4 legs, eating grass while baaah'ing. It's the main reason why literalists are comically wrong about the Bible. It's always been understood that the books of the Bible have deeper meanings than what they literally say on the surface. This is the main reason (in my opinion) that the Bible has remained relevant across a large variety of cultures, places and times. It's a book that can mean a lot of different things, depending on the perspective that you're looking at it with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
That's a weird modern reading of the Bible that makes intuitive sense to our modern mindset but it takes the text out of the context it was created in. It's a lazy exegesis. There is a time and a place for post modern "death of the author" intreprations but taking that approach from a believing perspective to the Bible is going to get really weird really quickly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:Because the bible itself is not literal. Jesus speaks in parables, prophets speak using allusions and symbolism. When Jesus gives the parable of the sower, he's not offering an amusing story about gardening techniques, he's using simple language and concepts to convey complex religious meanings about faith and conversion. A purely literalist standpoint would look at that parable and go "Oh, Jesus is just talking about gardening and seeds" and miss the actual meaning entirely. Or when the prophet Hosea talks about his wife sleeping around with half the country, he's not just complaining about his wife being a whore, he's making an accusation to Israel that they're being unfaithful in their relationship to God. Or Psalm 23 is not literally saying that God is a hobo shepherd and his followers walk on 4 legs, eating grass while baaah'ing. As an atheist who grew up trying to be Christian, there is some good stuff in there, but I think the issue is too many people can't reason out what your saying, and take things at face value, without trying to learn the "don't be an rear end in a top hat" lessons
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:As an atheist who grew up trying to be Christian, there is some good stuff in there, but I think the issue is too many people can't reason out what your saying, and take things at face value, without trying to learn the "don't be an rear end in a top hat" lessons Which is why the Kingdom of Heaven returns periodically to 'refresh' the message. They used science fiction to create parables for humans that want to overcome their animal characteristics in order to approach the divine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Which is why the Kingdom of Heaven returns periodically to 'refresh' the message. They used science fiction to create parables for humans that want to overcome their animal characteristics in order to approach the divine. I find it kind of ironic and amusing that nerd atheist communities are so steeped in science fiction and fantasy, both of which employ a mythic mode of storytelling to spin tales of a quasi-religious nature and evoke feelings of divinity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
McDowell posted:People who read the Bible as the literal word of God would tell you that the holy spirit was acting through the authors and editors. But couldn't that be true of any piece of media/culture that can connect an audience with the divine? Speilberg claims the Christian elements of 'ET' were not intentional, maybe the Kingdom on God was quietly at work with the production team. The most common arguments for Christianity being the one and only true religion can generally be applied to any religion. Buddhism not so much because the Buddha didn't claim divinity, he just said the truth was there and he found it and shared it. Even so it's a logical conclusion starting from false premises in the end. It also involves circular logic. The Bible says that God is infallible. The Bible is perfect and true because our infallible God dictated it and He can't make mistakes That's also confirmation bias at work. It's why people see the works of God everywhere. When it doesn't make much sense they just say that God works in mysterious ways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:Or Psalm 23 is not literally saying that God is a hobo shepherd and his followers walk on 4 legs, eating grass while baaah'ing. Now I'm wondering if there are any biblical literalists who think Jesus was an actual lamb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:Now I'm wondering if there are any biblical literalists who think Jesus was an actual lamb. Christian furs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 01:48
|
|