|
Avalerion posted:Yea, no argument here, you can definitely be irrational even without religion, but - I think you can't be rational and religious and that's pretty much the crux of my issue with it on the whole. Yes you can? Being religious does not, in my experience, mean you're literally incapable of making any decision without listening to the voice of god in your head. People are perfectly capable of being rational about some things and not rational about others.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:You're still making the assertion that mandating participation in a welfare state has a causal relationship to totalitarianism, but you haven't provided any evidence to support that idea. Every state forces citizens to actively contribute to the good of society. That is a fundamental aspect of what government is. doverhog posted:I proposed mandatory taxation in place of voluntary charity, not communist totalitarianism. (I'm not making a crazy ancap argument. Again: my model state is Sweden.) Shbobdb posted:Again, I don't see what conception of "good" allows for people supporting economic exploitation, racism and xenophobia to fall into the "good" category. Shbobdb posted:Can someone who supports the modern Republican Party be "good"? If so, how? Sounds good to me. Probably better than me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:As a Marxist anti-capitalist & practicing Christian I think this was a terrible mistake. I can definitely understand how organized religion can and has been used as a tool of oppression but I think it's a grave overreach to assume any faith is necessarily counter-revolutionary. In times like now where many of us are anxious perhaps the point is to confront anxiety requires us to become transformed. I think to be truly transformed is by loving God and neighbor, but I know that assertion is going to be very contentious here but maybe you will agree with me?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes you can? Being religious does not, in my experience, mean you're literally incapable of making any decision without listening to the voice of god in your head. People are perfectly capable of being rational about some things and not rational about others. Confounding Factor posted:I agree, I think authentic Christianity at its core is radically revolutionary and anti-capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
I care less about the vagaries of some individual's imaginary friend or metaethics and more about what they do. It isn't about the individual. Who cares about the individual? That isn't the atomic unit of society so trying to understand society on an individual level won't make sense. Liberal churches don't have appeal because religion, as an institution, is necessarily reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
So would you call the lady I described "good"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns Was Eichmann a good person? I mean, his Jewish Emigration program in Austria probably saved 100,000 people from concentration camps. Does it matter that he apolitically switched from emigration to deportation and then to extermination?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns Eichmann in Jerusalem posted:Just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations--as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world--we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to share the world with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang So what about my example, would you describe her as a good person?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:On the other hand, it's hard to ignore how readily it lends itself to reactionary ideologies. Sure and I wouldn't disagree with that. I would argue for a Christianity that is outside of the mainstream Protestant mold into something more radical, I don't think Christianity is an ideology (as I understand it). But I agree with Che, you cannot have a genuine revolution without it guided by love, however I think the kind of love required is what the Gospels set forth. True revolutionaries must go through Christianity, to put a spin on Zizek.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:So would you call the lady I described "good"? Given that she's voted R, nope. Bad person. It's an easy test. If you vote Republican you are not a good person. Edit: Just like Eichmann, she's not necessarily a "bad" person by the flawed ethics you seem to be presenting. After all, she's just going through the motions. The motions she's going through are loving monstrous though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
People believing all kinds of cooky things in general do annoy me, though most of those believes are harmless so I just shrug past them whereas the harm done by religion is a lot more visible. But yea, all good arguments so I have to concede that point, it's not as simple as rational vs irrational.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:I agree, I think authentic Christianity at its core is radically revolutionary and anti-capitalist. The worst kind of Christianity is one that breeds a kind of quietism when rather it should be about changing the world. When Christianity started it was spread by those who cared for others without any regard for their own safety (or even their family's). If every Christian today took up the same ethos, the world would change in an instant. Christians should die for atheists, Muslims, etc. The problem is that this is one of many equally valid interpretations of Christianity, and there is no way for you to legitimately assert what is "authentic" Christianity. Jesus professed caring for the poor and the sick, loving your neighbors, taking in strangers, and not killing people as the crux of his message so that's all pretty good stuff. He also said render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, that slaves should be good slaves in their roles and masters shouldn't beat them too much, and that it's cool for husbands to cheat but not wives. Also early Christians had a way, way, way different concept of monotheism and religion in general. Our modern conception of monotheism wasn't really a thing then, as early Jews and some early Christians viewed Yahweh as the overpoweringly strong God that could crush other Gods. Mysticism was a much larger component of early Christian practices as well. So while I think your version of Christianity is a much better incarnation than conservative evangelicals, one has no more validity than the other. Despite professions that you can't lump denominations together, the existence of moderate sects supports the existence of the extreme sects. It doesn't matter that one might be a more progressive influence on society, when you defend your spirituality as a valid mechanism for helping society you enable all the other interpretations that hurt society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:
Cite your sources please, in particular that last one there. As for slavery, here's a link showing how Christianity laid the groundwork for the gradual softening and liberation of slaves and the deconstruction of slavery in Western civilization: https://colemanford.wordpress.com/2014/10/06/gregory-of-nyssa-on-slavery/ quote:Gregory (regrettably) holds a unique place among the early church as one who vehemently denounces the practice of slavery. Though the New Testament does not pronounce a wholesale abolishment of the Greco-Roman culture of slavery, it does establish a trajectory of radical redefinition of the slave-master relationship. CountFosco fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Sure and I wouldn't disagree with that. I would argue for a Christianity that is outside of the mainstream Protestant mold into something more radical, I don't think Christianity is an ideology (as I understand it). But I agree with Che, you cannot have a genuine revolution without it guided by love, however I think the kind of love required is what the Gospels set forth. True revolutionaries must go through Christianity, to put a spin on Zizek. Avalerion posted:all good arguments so I have to concede that point Shbobdb posted:Given that she's voted R, nope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
She's actively enabling the Republican regime. That's not everybody. Just evil people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Cite your sources please, in particular that last one there. For adultery, Jesus said specifically: "5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" Conspicuously absent is any mention of the husband cheating, or that wives even have the option to drop their husbands. He also says it's cool for fathers specifically to abandon their families to come follow him, and these gendered differences persist throughout the entire old and New Testament. For slavery: "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) This poo poo is rampant in the New Testament and then Old specifically lays out pricing for Hebrew and non Hebrew slaves, both of indentured and chattel slavery. The render unto Caesar part is explicitly about paying taxes and following the laws of the land. This isn't a disputed interpretation at all. But this means that Jesus specifically told his followers not to challenge the state and they will be rewarded in the afterlife anyways which is more important. That link is an absolutely outrageous argument because Gregory of Nyssa was an anomaly at the time, and the prevailing dogma for over a millennia was that the Bible has no qualms with slavery. Cherry picking like this makes it seem even weaker that Christianity was the motivating force behind ending slavery. I like that Christianity gets credit for "laying the groundwork" for solving a problem it enabled and supported for the vast majority of it's existence. Truly a fair characterization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:She's actively enabling the Republican regime. That's not everybody. Just evil people. That particular example would be down to ignorance more than anything I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:The problem is that this is one of many equally valid interpretations of Christianity, and there is no way for you to legitimately assert what is "authentic" Christianity.  (I kid, I kid.) quote:Mysticism was a much larger component of early Christian practices as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:She's actively enabling the Republican regime. That's not everybody. Just evil people. what if she lives in tenessee and her vote hasn't changed anything
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:That particular example would be down to ignorance more than anything I think. So? It's ignorance that has been supported by the actively evil system that is supposed to be providing her with an ethical framework. The purported benefits of religion in this thread are: 1) Providing community 2) Teaching Ethics and 3) Hedonistic joy. The community provided is vile and xenophobic and the ethical teachings are, at best, insufficient. In the case of the "nice woman" I'd argue actively evil. And it resulted in a person supporting and aiding an evil system. What we normally would call a bad (if not evil) person. I can't argue with hedonism. Except that there are other ways to have fun that don't actively make society worse. I could see a liberal and certainly a libertarian struggling with that sticking point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:"5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" RasperFat posted:"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) Not to say this one is a paragraph I sympathize with. Ultimately, it seems to come from a very quietist spirit of converting people to the faith while curtailing the social and political aspects, to the extent that even the fact of slavery is tacitly tolerated. Shbobdb posted:She's actively enabling the Republican regime. That's not everybody. Just evil people. And again, what ethical system are you coming from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
I'm a sentimentalist. And I actively opposed Obama's drone strikes but yes, I absolutely share responsibility in their moral reprehensibility. Thankfully, I voted against Obama in 2012 and for lefty candidates in the primaries. I'm doing what I can to make the system better. The woman you are describing isn't doing anything other than deepening the poison while using making a few individual lives better as a camisole lotion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
i, too, am morally superior to hypothetical christian charity woman
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I'm a sentimentalist. in 2012 you functionally voted to elect a republican as president though
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Republicans won in 2012?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Republicans won in 2012? that was the outcome you, personally, enabled
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Have you ever considered that fighting against injustice and losing is morally the same as actively enabling injustice and winning? -- A defense of religion as a means to teach ethics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Have you ever considered that fighting against injustice and losing is morally the same as actively enabling injustice and winning? -- A defense of religion as a means to teach ethics. Not even mentioning all off the kind stuff Example Lady does after work and with her own money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How does sentimentalism get you to a place where you striving to do good, and in the end contributing first to Obama drone striking weddings and then Trump getting elected is good and my Christian Example Lady aiming for the good (all the children in the world happy, educated and well fed) and failing, bad? How am I helping get Trump elected? Obama '08 was still better than McCain '08 (downticket votes were anti-Republican Dems since I was living in Indiana at the time and while centrist Dems are bad, Republicans of any stripe are an existential threat to the country) Peta Lindsay '12 was better than Obama '12 and Romney '12 (downticket votes were for lefty single issue stuff like Rent is Too drat High and Juan Bosch legacy since I was in a Dominican neighborhood in the Brox. Juan Bosch is a cool dude and Trujillio is a bad dude so supporting his legacy was cool). Your lady is aiming for good but so what? She's actively doing evil. More importantly and in the spirit of the thread, you seem to agree with me that Churches do favor rightwing indoctrination. Rather than try to find some way I'm a hypocrite leading to a nihilistic "who cares, maybe evil is the same as good?" why not stand for something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Not Jesus' words. Also, there's probably a bunch of context. I assume this was aimed at slaves within Roman cities, whose lives were often fairly decent. You're really, really, really stretching here. There was no evidence whatsoever that there was any such thing as a popular abolitionist movement in the time of Jesus. There's equally no reason whatsoever to think that Jesus or any of his disciples would have been a abolitionists, or thought of slavery as anything other than a fact of life. Slaves show up in the background of just about every book in the New Testament. They're disposable, they suffer beatings, they're killed with no consequence, and there is no moral commentary on any of this that could possibly be interpreted as an argument against slavery on moral terms. Ephesians 6:5-8 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ Corinthians 3:22-24 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Timothy 6:1-2 - Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Peter 2:18 - Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. I mean, come on. Slavery is not "tacitly tolerated" by ancient Christianity, it's explicitly defined and enforced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
kindly reminder that the bible explicitly endorses tearing babies in half
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:[spits mouthfuls of blood] You're really, really, really stretching here. There was no evidence whatsoever that there was any such thing as a popular abolitionist movement in the time of Jesus. There's equally no reason whatsoever to think that Jesus or any of his disciples would have been a abolitionists, or thought of slavery as anything other than a fact of life. Slaves show up in the background of just about every book in the New Testament. They're disposable, they suffer beatings, they're killed with no consequence, and there is no moral commentary on any of this that could possibly be interpreted as an argument against slavery on moral terms. Cingulate posted:The opposite reading is true… The opposite reading is true. I’ve been to college.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:You're really, really, really stretching here. There was no evidence whatsoever that there was any such thing as a popular abolitionist movement in the time of Jesus. There's equally no reason whatsoever to think that Jesus or any of his disciples would have been a abolitionists, or thought of slavery as anything other than a fact of life. Slaves show up in the background of just about every book in the New Testament. They're disposable, they suffer beatings, they're killed with no consequence, and there is no moral commentary on any of this that could possibly be interpreted as an argument against slavery on moral terms. None of those are teachings of Jesus, though. Two of those are Pauline, and Paul's essential argument was an apocalyptic one- Jesus was returning soon. That's why he elsewhere advocates for complete celibacy- there is no need to have any more children, the end of the world is imminent. Slavery will be destroyed with the return of the Son of Man, so opposing it now is tertiary compared to preparing yourself to be worthy of eternal life. Timothy is pseudo-Pauline, and dates from an effort to reorient Christianity into something non-apocalyptic and that could survive in the conditions of the Roman Empire, which is why it and the other Pastoral Epistles specifically condemn the radical social arrangements of the early church. 1 Peter is also about accommodating Christianity to the Roman world. But in a larger sense, if you tried to pull this poo poo in a literature class about, say, Native Son you'd be flunked. What is being done here resembles nothing so much as arguments about whether Goku could beat Superman. Looking at the New Testament's books in terms of their overall message, what we see repeatedly is the message that the existing social order will be completely overturned. Many who are first will be last, in your life you received your good things and Lazarus his evil things, I have come to minister to the sick and not to the healthy. While Jesus probably rejected the idea of a secular solution to slavery, consider the religious imagery surrounding abolitionism and the American Civil War 1800 years later, and the question of whether people ever believed in a secular solution to slavery before it is eliminated becomes fairly questionable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Who gives a poo poo? Religion isn't a book, it's an institution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Here are 20 quotes from The Holy Bible, which is basically the bible for christians, explicitly endorsing animal abuse you can find hundreds more unpleasant bible quotes at https://www.christiantyisbad.org
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Who gives a poo poo? Shbobdb, someday your web of dishonesties will choke you to death. It would be better for you to abandon them now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Shbobdb, someday your web of dishonesties will choke you to death. It would be better for you to abandon them now. Nah. I'm immortal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
hold up let me open my .txt file of every bible quote that doesnt align with 21st century western humanist cultural values ....haha oh yeah, this snippet about adultery is really gonna knock em dead...
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Have you ever considered that fighting against injustice and losing is morally the same as actively enabling injustice and winning? -- A defense of religion as a means to teach ethics. have you ever considered that maybe every time you post something that isn't complete poo poo it's despite being dropped on the head as a baby
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
Straight to the character assassination. It's a common refuge. Go for it. Have fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 00:56
|
|