|
Piell posted:Hey, Jesus actually went through very little torture and mutilation, comparatively. There are many many more people who suffered more than Jesus, who had an alright life for all but the very last day of it, and even then there were two dudes who were going through the exact same thing he was going through. I'm not really sure what your point is here? Going through scourging, beatings, and then Crucifixion in the old world was one of the worst ways to die in the classical era, just because other people might have died worse deaths doesn't lessen someone else giving their life for others. That's like saying "well that soldier died jumping on a grenade, but that other soldier died jumping on a grenade after having his leg lopped off, therefore that other guy, it doesn't really matter much, he didn't suffer as much as the second." Death is death, torture is torture, dismissing one because another is more gruesome is like playing oppression olympics; no one wins. quote:Also torturing your son to show how much you love other people is a pretty lovely way to do that IMO. Except here you're purposely ignoring the Christian belief of the Holy Trinity, Jesus is both God's son and God Himself, so it is not just God's son being crucified, God is allowing Himself to be killed for us. To show His love for His own creation by dying for us. Panzeh posted:t's also not really death if you're resurrected. It... actually is though? Being resurrected does not mean you don't experience the pain, the horror, the suffering, and the fear of actually being killed. The resurrection is a promise to all that they will be resurrected, a final proof, not a get out of jail free card. The resurrection didn't mean that Jesus still didn't experience all those emotions and pains, just like a cancer patient who gets better still knows what it's like to go through chemo or other draining and painful treatments. biracial bear for uncut posted:Kind of hosed up to confuse someone murdering their own son as an act of love for someone else, don't you think? Again, ignoring of the theology of the Holy Trinity, it's not just God's own son, it is Himself as well. Thus the laying down one's life for a friend. I don't think it's messed up for someone to love someone else and sacrifice themselves for that person that they love, no. quote:Also, as far as torture goes, the Romans were hobbyists and Jesus didn't go through anything near as epic as people like to claim. Can you provide scholarly writings and evidence on this point? quote:Everything Christians like to point at that Jesus went through? They have literally done worse to "heretics" over the years. As a history teacher I am well aware of these torture methods. Yes, European society, ergo every human society, even human societies today are pretty barbaric, that does not disprove Christianity, that merely proves the point that humans are sinful creatures capable of great wrongs, and need to follow Christ's teachings all the more. Pretty sure you won't find anywhere in the Bible Jesus telling his followers to lop off people's heads who disagree with them, or quarter them?. Rather, I believe it goes something like "kick the dust off your feet and leave". That people refuse to follow those teachings do not discredit Jesus, but that individual. quote:Also? None of the Christians that executed heretics using the methods above did it out of any sort of love, and if God really did sacrifice his son it wasn't out of love either. That is your belief, and is disagreed with by every major Christian church, so there's not much here to say? You're not really making an argument, just stating what you like to hear. Who What Now posted:First, how do you define free will and how do you know (or why do you believe) you have it? Why is it important that free will not be violated? What actually constitutes a violation of free will? First off, I'm not a theologian, and if you want a much better answer I would recommend you go to the Christian liturgical thread over in the Ask/Tell subforum, but I'll say what I can. Free Will as I understand from my readings of the Catholic Catechism is the ability to choose good or evil, to choose God or not God (sin). God is love, and love does not force one to be a part of it. Think about a married couple, we would say a married spouse forcing the other spouse to stay together is not truly loving them. It's important not to violate free will because if it is violated then there's not a point in even having free at any one point. This video which I linked to in my last post does a much better job explaining why God forcing us to love Him isn't good. quote:I'm a thinking, moral person, so that's who I am to argue. Everybody should question their morality because that's the only way to actually understand it. If you just accept it unthinkingly then you're really no better than a robot and you're wasting the free will that God gave you. Perhaps I misstated my position. I'm not saying don't investigate and think on it. But, if you profess to be a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ, then it's contradictory to turn around say "well that only' true if what God says are sins are actually wrong". From what I understood, what that means is what God determines to be sin may not be sin if you don't think it is, which is essentially say God is wrong. And if you are a Christian who professes to believe in God, how can you turn around and believe He is wrong? the Christian God is not a limited God, there are plenty of pagan gods to believe in who are imperfect with imperfect rules or codes. Of course if you're an atheist then all that goes out the window. Please correct if I'm wrong and have misunderstood your position. quote:You're leaving out some key details here, like that the "indentured servitude" (which is still morally wrong, btw) only applies to Jewish men. Jewish women and non-jews were actual slaves, they were considered property of their owners for life and could be passed down to the owner's children. Sure, maybe it wasn't exactly as bad as American slavery, but it was still slavery all the same. Truth be told I'm not an expert on Biblical texts, and should probably go read over that again because I don't remember reading that women could be passed down. quote:I've never understood why anybody would ever try to defend the slavery of the bible, especially by saying "Oh, it wasn't that bad". As if that somehow made it OK. Its fine to just admit that it was hosed up and morally wrong to own slaves of any kind at any time. It's more than fine, even, it's the right thing to do! As a history teacher I'm not condoning things simply by mentioning or trying to present them in a fuller context, I'm simply trying to present them in a bigger context. Someone mentioned slavery in the Bible, I've read and discussed with folks that say it wasn't a type of slavery we understood it as, which isn't to condone it, but is simply to understand it better. I'll also mention that through my readings on slavery around the world, that type of defending as you put it goes on quite often especially in books and courses that attempt to be anti-euro-centric, especially when slavery in Africa, Asia, or the Middle East gets brought up. Again, I think it's less defending and more trying to show how slavery can take different forms and the like. As Historians people have to investigate and analyze history, not simply make moral statements on the history.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Again, ignoring of the theology of the Holy Trinity, it's not just God's own son, it is Himself as well. Thus the laying down one's life for a friend. I don't think it's messed up for someone to love someone else and sacrifice themselves for that person that they love, no. I'm not ignoring anything, the doctrine of the Trinity as God-with-multiple-personality-disorder is nonsense and has no actual backing in the scriptures used by Christian churches. It's an idea that was adopted so Christians could cling to the idea that they were monotheistic even though the actual Christian Pantheon consists of 3 distinct Gods with very specific roles. Well, four Gods if you want to accept the amalgamation of Lucifer and Satan as a single entity being the trickster/persecutor God of Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
In addition to not understanding people's objections to Christianity, you also don't understand dogs. Who's a good dog?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
A religious person, especially a Catholic, should have nothing to do in teaching, especially not history. You subscribe to a revisionist and falsificationist ideology. You believe in sin, for god's sake. That's really unhealthy. Think about the kids.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:A religious person, especially a Catholic, should have nothing to do in teaching, especially not history. You subscribe to a revisionist and falsificationist ideology. You believe in sin, for god's sake. That's really unhealthy. Think about the kids. Flat Earthers shouldn't teach geography, nor should Christians teach history. And neither should be allowed to run for public office. You just can't trust people who get their morality from a thousands year old book that condones slavery and condemns homosexuality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Soldier jumping on a grenade to save his mates is a good dude, a soldier jumping on a grenade just to prove that he's willing to do it is an idiot (and if he knows he'll somehow just resurrect afterwards - he's just a showoff). What exactly is god/Jesus dying supposed to have accomplished instead of proving something? Personally I'd be more willing to buy into his love if he spend that energy on curing cancer or ending world hunger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:A religious person, especially a Catholic, should have nothing to do in teaching, especially not history. You subscribe to a revisionist and falsificationist ideology. You believe in sin, for god's sake. That's really unhealthy. Think about the kids. Oh lol now calling for religious persecution. This is after you guys pretended the mongols were secular and turkey was never.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Oh lol now calling for religious persecution. This is after you guys pretended the mongols were secular You're the only person who did that. And then you tried to pretend you were "just joking" when you got dunked on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Soldier jumping on a grenade to save his mates is a good dude, a soldier jumping on a grenade just to prove that he's willing to do it is an idiot (and if he knows he'll somehow just resurrect afterwards - he's just a showoff). What exactly is god/Jesus dying supposed to have accomplished instead of proving something? Personally I'd be more willing to buy into his love if he spend that energy on curing cancer or ending world hunger. Since god is supposedly all knowing he must have known the entire resurrection thing was a farce. But it was a super painful farce I guess, so theres that. Like when someone walks across coals at a corporate retreat to show how dedicated they are to the company. Except they're wearing super thick boots so there's not even an illusion of risk, just some discomfort from the heat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
I'm a Christian who has stopped tithing. The institution of American christianity needs to be destroyed. We have done so much harm - harm to our own moral credibility, harm to the public perception the Bible, harm to our state - that I'm gravitating toward initiatives in my own conference and movements outside it that move toward a reset of our civic and educational involvement. I'm still registered with the VT gop and call myself a compassionate conservative. I'm just increasingly skeeved-out by what looks more and more like insidious cult behavior. My reading of red text in my bibles frames contemporary christian conservative political beliefs as Evil. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
I'd like to take take the titular thread question and counter with my own: Is the Christian Conservative mainstream in the US hostile to humanity? I an troubled by this question on a deep and daily basis, and I'm not the only Christian man asking it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Is the Christian Conservative mainstream in the US hostile to humanity? I can't imagine an argument for anything other than an unqualified "yes".
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Wow several real poo poo heads here. You going to tell us Muslims should not teach next?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Wow several real poo poo heads here. You going to tell us Muslims should not teach next? Last I checked, Muslims weren't re-writing the laws in this country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Barring Christians from holding office would be unconstitutional as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You're the only person who did that. And then you tried to pretend you were "just joking" when you got dunked on. Wait no one just said that people of certain beliefs should b banned from teaching history?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:Last I checked, Muslims weren't re-writing the laws in this country. It's mostly libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Barring Christians from holding office would be unconstitutional as gently caress. The founding fathers were wrong about a lot of things. Like slavery! Just like the fringe Bible manifesto.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Wait no one just said that people of certain beliefs should b banned from teaching history? That's already the case though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Soldier jumping on a grenade to save his mates is a good dude, a soldier jumping on a grenade just to prove that he's willing to do it is an idiot (and if he knows he'll somehow just resurrect afterwards - he's just a showoff). What exactly is god/Jesus dying supposed to have accomplished instead of proving something? Personally I'd be more willing to buy into his love if he spend that energy on curing cancer or ending world hunger. He removed the inherent taint of original sin in all of us. At least I think that's it. So Jesus potentially saved your immortal soul and you'll be glad for that when you spend infinite lifetimes in bliss, even if you went through one life time in hunger. Not a Christian but I believe this is the accepted reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
Which goes back to why did he have to do it this way rather than just... waving his hand or something (or maybe not tainting us for what our ancestors supposedly did to begin with).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Which goes back to why did he have to do it this way rather than just... waving his hand or something (or maybe not tainting us for what our ancestors supposedly did to begin with). The real answer for this is that the omnipotent God that modern Christians worship is conceptually vastly different from the times when the stories were recorded millennia ago. The ancient Israelites were not monotheistic in the way that modern practice is conceived in any of the Abrahamic religions. They believed other gods existed and that they had some power, but Yahweh was their protector and could just destroy the other puny gods of foreign tribes. This is even evident in the language of the Ten Commandments, in though shalt put no other gods before me. This is because the ancient Yahweh was the ultimate god and creator, not the only god. In the ancient stories god wasn't all powerful, just the most powerful. This is why he had to act through powerful mediums like Moses and required sacrifices. When Jesus was gaining popularity, this concept was still in place. That was why even if he basically was God, he still had to perform rituals in order affect the world, rather than just willing whatever he wanted to happen with no restraint. Of course this concept of God is far more akin to pagan magic than the modern invisible omnipotent God, so there's mountains of bullshit to explain away how this specific God could exist in parallel to our modern understanding of the universe. Also a side interesting fact, the Ten Commandments are in the same format as ancient treaties between states. Giving further evidence that religions persisted in influence because of the power of ancient governmental organizations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's mostly libertarians. LO-loving-L if you think Libertarians have any real influence in government right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:LO-loving-L if you think Libertarians have any real influence in government right now. Every single person that Trump has selected for the head of a government agency has been someone intent on destroying said agency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
Piell posted:Every single person that Trump has selected for the head of a government agency has been someone intent on destroying said agency. Yeah, but said agencies have been on Republican poo poo-lists for decades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Piell posted:Every single person that Trump has selected for the head of a government agency has been someone intent on destroying said agency. Somehow I think agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the entire military are going to be just fine. Call it a hunch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:First off, I'm not a theologian, and if you want a much better answer I would recommend you go to the Christian liturgical thread over in the Ask/Tell subforum, but I'll say what I can. Free Will as I understand from my readings of the Catholic Catechism is the ability to choose good or evil, to choose God or not God (sin). God is love, and love does not force one to be a part of it. Think about a married couple, we would say a married spouse forcing the other spouse to stay together is not truly loving them. This is all one big circular argument with a side of question begging. This pastor's argument boils down to "We have free will, and God can't take away free will because then we wouldn't have free will, and we need to have free will to solve the problem of evil". But its not like God doesn't take away free will anyway when it suits him, like when he hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he could visit more plagues upon Egypt, or railroading Jonah against Jonah's wishes. So either he's violated free will before and can thus do it again, or the bible can't be trusted as an accurate representation of God's character. quote:Perhaps I misstated my position. I'm not saying don't investigate and think on it. But, if you profess to be a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ, then it's contradictory to turn around say "well that only' true if what God says are sins are actually wrong". From what I understood, what that means is what God determines to be sin may not be sin if you don't think it is, which is essentially say God is wrong. And if you are a Christian who professes to believe in God, how can you turn around and believe He is wrong? the Christian God is not a limited God, there are plenty of pagan gods to believe in who are imperfect with imperfect rules or codes. So as a Christian I can "investigate" God's morality, just so long as I never come to a conclusion that isnt "God can do no wrong"? Then what the hell is the point? That's no different than when Henry Ford said "You can choose any color Model T you like, so long as its black", except it's not meant to be tongue-in-cheek. This position is also contrary to the bible, where man was allowed to challange God on many occasions, and occasionally won. quote:Truth be told I'm not an expert on Biblical texts, and should probably go read over that again because I don't remember reading that women could be passed down. The books of Exodus and Deuteronomy are where you'll find them. And it wasnt just women, all non-Jews were chattel slaves, not indentured servants. quote:As a history teacher I'm not condoning things simply by mentioning or trying to present them in a fuller context, I'm simply trying to present them in a bigger context. Someone mentioned slavery in the Bible, I've read and discussed with folks that say it wasn't a type of slavery we understood it as, which isn't to condone it, but is simply to understand it better. I appreciate the idea, but I already have a full context on slavery in the bible, and I'm the one who brought it up specially to make a moral statement about it. So to say "well I'm not judging whether it was right or wrong" misses my entire point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Hey, don't forget the part where God cursed Samaria in the book of Hosea and said their children would be dashed against rocks and their pregnant women ripped open to kill the children inside. You know, the same God people think believes all lives are precious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:LO-loving-L if you think Libertarians have any real influence in government right now. They just sank health care repeal. Their think tank lists are why Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed. Etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's mostly libertarians. Extremist capitalism and fundamentalist Christianity play very well together. On the national stage there isn't really a distinction between "Christian" and "FYGM economics" outside of minority churches and those have their an issues with prosperity gospel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:They just sank health care repeal. Their think tank lists are why Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed. Etc. If you seriously think that is a Libertarian thing instead of a Republican thing you know a hell of a lot less about politics than you think you do. There aren't even enough Libertarians in office for them to matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Except here you're purposely ignoring the Christian belief of the Holy Trinity, Jesus is both God's son and God Himself, so it is not just God's son being crucified, God is allowing Himself to be killed for us. To show His love for His own creation by dying for us. This is a fairly recent belief. Half the Gospels seem to regard Jesus as fully human, and Paul seems to regard him as fully spiritual. The concept of a deific Jesus has rocked from heresy to doctrine and back several times through history before finally being settled at the Council of Nicea long after the death of Christ. When much of that was written, what you're describing wasn't really a thing. Besides, no system of justice could ever include deliberately allowing an innocent person to be punished in the stead of the guilty and still call itself "just". It still doesn't make sense regardless. If the punishment for sin is eternal death and torment in Hell, and Jesus took the punishment for our sins, why is he not eternally dead and in Hell? Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Can you provide scholarly writings and evidence on this point? Got any on the death (or life) of Christ? The Bible fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
The Bible posted:
All justice systems call themselves just regardless of merit, that is kinda in the definition. Slaves were punished instead of their owners, and the local government and the people in power called it justice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:It's important not to violate free will because if it is violated then there's not a point in even having free at any one point. This video which I linked to in my last post does a much better job explaining why God forcing us to love Him isn't good. It isn't free will if you are offered a reward for one choice and a brutal punishment for the other. That's just coercion. If God wanted people to follow their free will, he would just offer himself with no other strings attached and let people choose. "Love me or burn forever" is God forcing us to love him. The Bible fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Apr 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
doverhog posted:All justice systems call themselves just regardless of merit, that is kinda in the definition. Slaves were punished instead of their owners, and the local government and the people in power called it justice. Fair point. I guess I would expect more from the greatest moral authority in the Universe, especially if it espouses love and forgiveness as its primary attributes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
The Bible posted:It isn't free will if you are offered a reward for one choice and a brutal punishment for the other. That's just coercion. If God wanted people to follow their free will, he would just offer himself with no other strings attached and let people choose. I've always found the mafia boss analogy to be very fitting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
The Bible posted:
*As defined in the accompanying several hundred (thousand?) page text, including when the passages contradict. Some text may be apocryphal, consult a professional. God reserves the right to add onto this text only when he (and yes it is for sure "he") sees fit. Except for those times when he definitely does see fit but the people who adopt the text are brown. No gays allowed. Slavery is A-okay. Terms and conditions may apply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
That is, generally, what Churches are for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Visit your local franchise today!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:I've always found the mafia boss analogy to be very fitting. Or just your standard totalitarian dictator. Seen as a perfect strongman, has the "best interest" of their people in mind with violent oppression, and won't tolerate poo poo talking from subjects.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 07:55
|
|