|
I know what god wants, so you have to do what I want. Works every time! Atheists are so arrogant. Religious people are meek and humble. BTW I know the mind of god.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
It's the atheist inverse of a Jack Chick tract.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well the day of Judgement means the end of everything, and a new creation. I don't see how that relates to a five year old burning ants. Comrade, we actually seek the same thing. Except we are the judges, we are the gods, there are no masters above man! End the old order! Destroy the museums and cathedrals of their world! Break the chains! Unleash the floodgates and let the water sweep away the decay!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother. . . .
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother. . . . Actually Jesus brought two swords. loving Bible contradicting itself again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
The twin daggers of reason and logic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother. . . .
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Because that's exactly what a 5 year old burning an anthill does? A destructive petulant being destroys the lives of millions without batting an eye. Then the actual workers are left to rebuild things. Actually it means there would be no one to rebuild as everything ceaces to exist as we know it. Who What Now posted:If it's completely arbitrary and up to god then what does it matter that we're in the "age of the church"? Because we are. That's the whole point of the Crucifixion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Because we are. That's the whole point of the Crucifixion. How will the "Age of the Church" end? Would it end if there were no more Christians?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How will the "Age of the Church" end? Would it end if there were no more Christians? I think the idea is that there is a Church because God wants there to be, and he ensures that it endures, when God wants the world to end, he'll allow the Church to disappear, possibly by rapturing all the Christians. The idea that you can't speed up or slow this down is just that you can't control the world better than God can, it's not a super difficult idea to grasp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think the idea is that there is a Church because God wants there to be, and he ensures that it endures, when God wants the world to end, he'll allow the Church to disappear, possibly by rapturing all the Christians. Jeez, I absolutely cannot imagine why the actual left would think this is retarded ideological garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Jeez, I absolutely cannot imagine why the actual left would think this is retarded ideological garbage. I can see why an atheist would but there isn't much of a leftist argument against it, if you grant that God exists then, well, he's God, there's gently caress all you can do about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually it means there would be no one to rebuild as everything ceaces to exist as we know it. Christian end of times philosophies are so loony. Why couldn't another species take our place within a few hundred million years of evolution even if God did rapture all humans away? The rest of the Earth would be just fine. Or do you think God will take every paramecium, cockroach, slime mold, sea urchin, dog, etc. into heaven along with humans? When you start to get into any factual details about religious poo poo it always falls apart. The rapture would absolutely be a kid on an anthill arbitrarily deciding who would be "saved" and gleefully exterminating the rest. But oh wait God is actually worse because instead of the sweet release of oblivion you get tortured forever instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Christian end of times philosophies are so loony. Why couldn't another species take our place within a few hundred million years of evolution even if God did rapture all humans away? The rest of the Earth would be just fine. Or do you think God will take every paramecium, cockroach, slime mold, sea urchin, dog, etc. into heaven along with humans? Because if you believe that God created humans you probably don't think that they could evolve on their own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I can see why an atheist would but there isn't much of a leftist argument against it, if you grant that God exists then, well, he's God, there's gently caress all you can do about it. There is in fact a leftist argument. God is the ur-king and like all kings is undeserving of either worship or obedience. I question how much of a leftist you can be if that doesn't jump in your face straight away. Power to the masses is completely incompatible with obedience to a celestial sovereign. Because the whole thing is basically millenia of accumulated crud to give ideological backing to the birth of kingship and priesthood as social forms of control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:There is in fact a leftist argument. God is the ur-king and like all kings is undeserving of either worship or obedience. Yes but kings are humans, they draw their power from the obedience of their subjects. So the concept of overthrowing them is not absurd. Whereas God is God, the nature of the relationship is rather different. God doesn't need humans. A definitively materialist system of thought designed to criticize mundane human actions and relationships is not applicable to literal God Mode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Christian end of times philosophies are so loony. Why couldn't another species take our place within a few hundred million years of evolution even if God did rapture all humans away? The rest of the Earth would be just fine. Or do you think God will take every paramecium, cockroach, slime mold, sea urchin, dog, etc. into heaven along with humans? Did I ever mention that heretical idea, the rapture? Also if there are others out there I am willing to consider God has let them know of God's presence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Religious garb for women that covers them "sexually" has always been a huge sore spot in meshing religion with progressive ideology. Whether it be nuns, hajibs, or just a head scarf there is a not subtle implication that women are sexual objects. You can't group nuns in there. No one (at least nowadays) is forced to be a nun and take the habit. It is a symbolic piece of clothing that a nun wears as part of her vows. Male monastics have similar rules about clothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because if you believe that God created humans you probably don't think that they could evolve on their own. Yes I get that it's why it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. At this point it's not about belief in evolution but acceptance of evolution. We are basically 100% sure it happened over the scope of hundreds of millions of years. We are more sure of this than we are sure that the Earth revolves around the Sun. All that apologetics and long-building theological philosophies are literally at odds with the observable universe. Which is why religious thinking is fundamentally flawed and poses a roadblock to progress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:You can't group nuns in there. No one (at least nowadays) is forced to be a nun and take the habit. It is a symbolic piece of clothing that a nun wears as part of her vows. Male monastics have similar rules about clothing. How does that line of thinking work? The overwhelming majority of women in veils and headscarves are not forced to wear them either, that's only in a few regressive places. The habit is absofuckinglutely a piece of clothing thats intended purpose is to desexualize the female body. Monk robes are supposed to be more about staying simple and not crazy guilded expensive clothes like the Pope and Cardinals could be criticized for wearing. The symbolic gesture of hiding the tatas, leg skin, and hair is that women's bodies are a sinful temptation and hiding that makes one more "holy" or "open to God" or "chaste" or whatever. It has the exact same sexist implications as Muslim garb and Hindu garb that covers women. Trying to say nuns aren't literally doing the exact same thing with the habit is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
While you can make the obvious comments about the difference because of patriarchy, monks are expected to be chaste, as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:While you can make the obvious comments about the difference because of patriarchy, monks are expected to be chaste, as far as I know. I think all Catholic Church positions take vows of chastity, and they are all stupid. Men shouldn't wear anything "chaste" or be sex shamed either. But funnily enough having these weird sex hang ups inevitably affects women more in worse ways. The historical track record is always double standards for men, and using the idea of purity to keep a stranglehold on women's sexual agency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:weird sex hang ups Maybe the person with weird sex hang-ups is the one frustrated by others voluntarily committing to abstinence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
I don't think any political affiliation really has a position on sex that I would call great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think any political affiliation really has a position on sex that I would call great. I mean, except any actual leftist ideology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:I mean, except any actual leftist ideology. No actually I don't wholly like that either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Tell us what you fodo like then
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
I think that in looking to oppose sexual repression, some positions seem to come rather close to mandating public sexuality, which I think should be entirely elective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
That's a nonanswer to the question I asked
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
If you want to wear a habit, that's fine. If you don't that's fine. You shouldn't ban either. I think nuns are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what they want to dress like and do with their lives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that in looking to oppose sexual repression, some positions seem to come rather close to mandating public sexuality, which I think should be entirely elective. "Not controlling women's sexuality is the same as mandatory public sexuality" - very serious christian apologists in tyool 2017 You're one of these people who thought slut walk was about the right to walk naked in public are you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
I think that banning women from wearing certain things is somewhat at odds with "not controlling women's sexuality"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that in looking to oppose sexual repression, some positions seem to come rather close to mandating public sexuality, which I think should be entirely elective. how is this contrary to leftism? state enforced public commie sex right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that in looking to oppose sexual repression, some positions seem to come rather close to mandating public sexuality, which I think should be entirely elective. This is actually a very good point. In fact some of those who may take up some sort of monastic vocation may be Aesexual. (I have a friend who is helping me throuighsome of my own demons, who is planning to commit himself to a monastic life, he says he thinks based on his own life that he isn't sure he swings either way). So then saying that their bad for doing so is actually arguably as oppressive as someone advocating banning gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:how is this contrary to leftism? It isn't, I just said that I didn't think it was an ideal position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that banning women from wearing certain things is somewhat at odds with "not controlling women's sexuality" I don't think any leftist actually advocates for this (besides dumbass french people) and you've mostly made up this narrative in your own head, probably from some form of "slippery slopes" argument
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that banning women from wearing certain things is somewhat at odds with "not controlling women's sexuality" There is no actual scriptural support for mandatory veils in islam, the first countries to ban it were middle eastern countries decades ago, and the mainline sunni authorities consider the niqab to be the result of a heretic taking his sexual hangups for a divine revelation. poo poo, there wasn't even a need to ban it for women in socialist afghanistan to stop wearing it, while its wear in the Balkans is deeply tied to the increasing influence of saudi money in the region. There is no need for bans either, but "it's a choice for most women wearing it" is ignoring that there is heavy pressure in some families leaning on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:This is actually a very good point. In fact some of those who may take up some sort of monastic vocation may be Aesexual. (I have a friend who is helping me throuighsome of my own demons, who is planning to commit himself to a monastic life, he says he thinks based on his own life that he isn't sure he swings either way). So then saying that their bad for doing so is actually arguably as oppressive as someone advocating banning gay marriage. Erghg, individually yes but probably not systematically. I would probably argue it more from the position that I really don't like enforcing sexual behavior on people, nor do I see the need to. It is one of the few issues that is materially, entirely irrelevant to other people, but very relevant to the individual, thus I find it to be one of the few positions where I have zero desire for any sort of collective enforcement of a standard. I see no compelling point to it, if you're wanting to address gender inequality then I don't see what passing laws about women's dress standards is going to do unless they are laws to guarantee the individual's right to wear whatever they want. Even if the laws have majority female support then, well, you're still telling women what they can and can't do in a way you aren't telling men, you're just getting other women to do it for you. The end result is still a pretty profound inequality. If you want to address that inequality you really need to find another solution. Tonetta posted:I don't think any leftist actually advocates for this (besides dumbass french people) and you've mostly made up this narrative in your own head, probably from some form of "slippery slopes" argument "Nobody on the left thinks this except for that one quite major secular western nation that thinks exactly this enough to pass it into law." It is not a trend I want to see spread. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Nobody on the left thinks this except for that one quite major secular western nation that thinks exactly this enough to pass it into law." You're loving delusional if you think the French government, which has been ruled by a procession of neoliberals and outright conservatives since the fall of the fourth republic, and whose socialist party is disintegrating because an actual leftist won the primaries, is in any way representative of the left. But whatever is good for apologetics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Erghg, individually yes but probably not systematically. How is anyone on the left "enforcing sexual behavior" besides saying that everyone involved gets to consent?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:30
|
|