|
BrandorKP posted:And if we are honest and authentic we should be saying to it (corrupt religion) “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” Sounds good. Hop to it!
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:So, in other words, it ought to be made illegal but it's "special" and therefore you dodge the question. I mean if you do propose making religion illegal that would be entertaining but supposedly some people don't want that but also don't want to engage with the subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sounds good. Hop to it!  I try to irl. But moral influence often works and spreads slowly. So I'll keep plugging at it until away until I die. I don't have to tell you that I'm an irritatingly persistent fucker."Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope."
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Nobody exists on purpose, Nobody belongs anywhere, Everybody is going to die. gently caress you if you want to make someone else's life more miserable than it already is because you think some monstrous deity told you to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Covok posted:Wow, holy loving poo poo, I can feel the fedora emanating from that post. I'm sure you can. I expanded on the point because you brought it up. That's why I ended it with saying it's a terrible persuasive argument and you shouldn't use it. You know what's really fedora worthy? "Atheists are so smug. They're just edgelords trying to poo poo all over Christian people and call them stupid. I'll just call them fedora wearing elitists without addressing any actual arguments. That'll totally prove how I'm above those annoying smug atheists" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:"Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope." This is actually a pretty interesting starting point for the truly inseparable gulf between humanist Leftism (which is by no means the only kind, mind) and the Christian faith. Christianity could be profoundly liberalized to the point of barely being recognizable, we could "win" the culture war over abortion and homophobia and so on, but the level of contempt this statement contains for the human experience and human dignity -- for the scale at which we operate -- cannot be separated from the traditional Christian conception of God. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:This is actually a pretty interesting starting point for the truly inseparable gulf between humanist Leftism (which is by no means the only kind, mind) and the Christian faith. Nah, here's another way to say it: “I imagine a big seesaw, and one end of this seesaw is on the ground with a basket half-full of big rocks in it. The other end is up in the air. It’s got a basket one-quarter full of sand. And some of us got teaspoons, and we’re trying to fill up sand… “One of these years, you’ll see that whole seesaw go zooop in the other direction. And people will say, ‘Gee, how did it happen so suddenly?’ Us and all our little teaspoons.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
What the gently caress are you two even on about? People that talk in what they think are metaphors are usually assholes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
How about you knock the rocks off instead? Its faster and easier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:People that talk in what they think are metaphors are usually assholes. BrandorKP has been talking in obscure metaphor in an attempt to defend/justify his religious beliefs for at least the past 8 years. This is mild at best. Religion being the same as language, while monumentally dumb, is at least comprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:People that talk in what they think are metaphors are usually assholes. http://i.imgur.com/cTdIJCO.jpg
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
A fun thing to realize about evangelicals, which makes up a huge portion of Republican voters, is that their hoped-for end game is the 2nd coming of Christ which is preceded by Armageddon taking place in the middle east. I don't think peace in the middle east is really something they're at all interested in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:What the gently caress are you two even on about? I'm saying that humanism by definition privileges the human perspective, and that Christianity necessarily privileges God's, and that even though BrandorKP and I will probably be on the same side as long as there are hungry people to feed, there's something sick (or at least irresponsible) in taking our ability to define morality and meaning for ourselves away from us and setting it in God's lap. I'm saying that will always be a source of conflict, even if it's a low-priority one. I'm also saying -- because it's closely related -- that even small or futile acts of kindness are important. I think BrandorKP agrees about small ones, which I didn't get from the Niebuhr quote but I did get from his second post, but I'm not sure if he agrees about futile ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
If religion is a language (it's not and that's dumb) let's meditate on the wisdom of Lu Xun, "We have two choices: cling to our classical language and die or throw it aside and live.". Religion chooses death over life. Humanism embraces life while accepting death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:If religion is a language (it's not and that's dumb) let's meditate on the wisdom of Lu Xun, "We have two choices: cling to our classical language and die or throw it aside and live.". Religion chooses death over life. Humanism embraces life while accepting death. Neither of these things are true, thank god.  Christianity says that Death has already been defeated, and all we have to do is reach out to our new masters. Humanism, at least in any healthy form, is a revolt against death regardless of our chances of success. They're aiming for the same thing (as far as death goes) but have a fundamental difference in opinion about where we're starting from. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:A fun thing to realize about evangelicals, which makes up a huge portion of Republican voters, is that their hoped-for end game is the 2nd coming of Christ which is preceded by Armageddon taking place in the middle east. I don't think peace in the middle east is really something they're at all interested in. Yeah people itt like to pretend it's just Evangelicals with these crazy beliefs, but unfortunately Christians in general believe crazy poo poo. Brookings posted:Regarding the end of times and the return of Christ, 5% of Christians and 12% of Evangelicals thought it would happen in their lifetime. Most, 72% of Christians and 81% Evangelicals, believed it would happen but were not sure whether it would be tomorrow or in a thousand years. I guess it's nice only 12% of Evangelicals and 5% think Armageddon is happening now, but lol the majority of America believes in Biblical end times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I'm saying that humanism by definition privileges the human perspective, and that Christianity necessarily privileges God's, Not necessarily that privileging of God was from liberal theology before Barth. Barth obliterates it. After Barth liberal theology does respond, but not by rejecting what Barth asserts. https://archive.org/details/TheHumanityOfGod-KarlBarth "From the fact that God is human in the sense described, there follows first of all a quite definite distinction of man as such. It is a distinction of every being which bears the human countenance. This includes the whole stock of those capacities and possibilities which are in part common to man and to other creatures, and in part peculiar to him, and like- wise man's work and his productions. The acknowledgment of this distinction has nothing to do with an optimistic judgment of man. It is due him because he is the being whom God willed to exalt as His covenant-partner, not otherwise. But just because God is human in this sense, it is actually due man and may not be denied him through any pessimistic judgment, whatever its basis. (On the basis of the eternal will of God we have to think of every human being, even the most- villainous or miserable, as one to whom Christ is Brother and God is Father; and we have to deal with him on this assumption. If the other person knows that already, then we have to strengthen him in the knowledge. If he does not know it yet or no longer knows it, our business is to transmit this knowledge to him. On the basis of the knowledge of the humanity of God no other attitude to any kind of fellow man is possible. It is identical with the practical acknowledgment of his human rights and his human dignity. To deny it to him would be for us to renounce having Jesus Christ as Brother and God as Father. " And to those who would put God above humanity at the expense of and to the detriment of humanity, well, Barths conclusion as to what that act entails is pretty harsh: "To deny it to him would be for us to renounce having Jesus Christ as Brother and God as Father. " Any evangelism that is not a humanism in the face of Barth's arguement... just doesn't hold up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I'm also saying -- because it's closely related -- that even small or futile acts of kindness are important. I think BrandorKP agrees about small ones, which I didn't get from the Niebuhr quote but I did get from his second post, but I'm not sure if he agrees about futile ones. None of it's futile, we just generally don't get to see the fruit of our actions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:This is actually a pretty interesting starting point for the truly inseparable gulf between humanist Leftism (which is by no means the only kind, mind) and the Christian faith. That's a pretty humanist position to me, actually. The really big changes we want to see are highly unlikely to happen to us, but we push for them regardless because they may happen to someone in the future. Focusing only on what affects immediately us alive today is the kind of idiocy that leads to climate change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Neither of these things are true, thank god. Nah. That's still too defined and limited by death. You are describing post-Christian nihilism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Nah. That's still too defined and limited by death. You are describing post-Christian nihilism. I'm not describing nihilism at all. I do not assert that our actions are meaningless, only that their aims may not be achieved. (And that meaning does not appear to exist outside of our asserting it -- it might, but like Camus, I'm trying to see if it's possible to live only with what I know, not what I might hope for.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And to those who would put God above humanity at the expense of and to the detriment of humanity, well, Barths conclusion as to what that act entails is pretty harsh: "To deny it to him would be for us to renounce having Jesus Christ as Brother and God as Father. " Any evangelism that is not a humanism in the face of Barth's arguement... just doesn't hold up. I'm going to bookmark your link and come back and read it when I can do it justice -- I'm sorry if I've boxed your faith in too narrowly. OwlFancier posted:That's a pretty humanist position to me, actually. The really big changes we want to see are highly unlikely to happen to us, but we push for them regardless because they may happen to someone in the future. I'm not saying we should focus only on what affects us immediately today, I'm saying that even if we wipe ourselves out and that's the end of the human race, it will have mattered that we lived -- at least as we were living. I'm saying we don't need to be immortal, or apprised in the eyes of an immortal observer, to lead meaningful lives -- although being immortal would obviously be preferable. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I'm not saying we should focus only on what affects us immediately today, I'm saying that even if we wipe ourselves out and that's the end of the human race, it will have mattered that we lived. I'm saying we don't need to be immortal, or apprised in the eyes of an immortal observer, to lead meaningful lives -- although being immortal would obviously be preferable. That I certainly don't get, especially not as a counterpoint to Christianity...
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That I certainly don't get, especially not as a counterpoint to Christianity... I am envious of Christians for their certainty and their hope, but I don't think I could embrace those ideas and still live honestly, at least not through a leap of faith like they'd want me to. Because I don't embrace them, I have to deal with the fact that I'm going to die and that in all likelihood the entire human race will some day die. I have to consider the possibility that this problem is insoluble and that nothing greater than myself will every confirm (or correct) my assertions about the importance of living, as an individual person or as a species. But I'm not going to accept it, either -- to throw my hands up and say, "fine, life is meaningless." It's a counterpoint to Christianity (probably) because I'm suggesting a revolt against meaninglessness rather than a submission to higher meaning. They might not be opposites exactly, but they're very different postures. It's a conflicted and dissatisfying position but I also think it's the most authentically human one. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
I suppose I don't entirely understand the need, ability, or desire to revolt against meaninglessness. It's there, it's still going to be there however much I might prefer otherwise, I don't have the facility to convince myself otherwise, given those, it becomes acceptable after a while. But I've also never found it particularly obstructive to living.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Even Owlfancier, a shitbox troll, gets it. Don't define yourself on Christian terms. Part of what makes religion so toxic is that it ensures everything is defined on its terms. On this 4/20 free yourself from mental slavery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Even Owlfancier, a shitbox troll, gets it. Don't define yourself on Christian terms. Part of what makes religion so toxic is that it ensures everything is defined on its terms. The assumptions Christianity runs on are deeply embedded in Western culture, even in its secular forms. (It's also the vector for a lot of classical Greek assumptions.) I'm less concerned with completely escaping it than what you're suggesting, but even if I wanted to, I'd still have to understand it well enough to identify it in myself. Also OwlFancier is probably one of the most sincere posters I've seen on SA, I don't know why you think he's a troll. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
You are viewing classical philosophy through a Christian lens doe. Your fear of death and radical individualism are alien to classical thought, except maybe Aristotle if you look at him sideways. We're all culturally encumbered, sure. No objections there. But I feel you are making the same kind of mistake that r/atheists do where you basically accept a Christian worldview with a few minor objections such as the nature of God. I guess it boils down to whether you think the tool is broken or if it is wrong. If my screwdriver is broken or (very charitably) has the wrong head, what I need is a different screw driver. However, if what I've got is a nail and not a screw them what I need is a hammer. I could run through an infinite number of screwdrivers and never find one that on a nail. I think you're trying to buy milk at a hardware store. poo poo, Owlfancier is sincere? With opinions like his, I just assumed he was a gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Sarcastic yes but insincere no. I don't really see it as being particularly Christian, just generally a sort of spiritualism, touchy feelyness. Which is fine, whatever floats your boat. It's just odd for someone to advocate for it as part of a rejection of religion for seemingly being too spiritual. Also I feel like there is a thing with your metaphor because you can hit things with the blunt end of a screwdriver but I can't figure out the rest of the witty comment. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Agag posted:Around %75 of Americans identify as Christian. The country isn't %75 right-wing, so presumably there are some Christian lefties out there who could be more effectively mobilized. Seems like an untapped resource, or maybe another example of liberals abandoning yet another part of their base and letting them drift over to the other side. Oh, I agree. The thing that pisses me off the most about conservative Christians is that they explicitly ignore the foundational principles of the New Testament. They consciously ignore everything Jesus had to say about poverty, greed, wealth, and envy. In a way, you could make the argument that Jesus was the first socialist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Sarcastic yes but insincere no. I don't think my position is spiritual, or touchy-feely. There's a longing for the kind of order to the universe that religion represents, but when I talk about meaning, I'm really just talking about narrative -- "I'm going to do this with my life, and describe my life with arbitrary emphasis on these aspects, because I wish to." My edit to the bit you quoted was important -- I said that very clumsily and needed to clarify, but the tense matters. I experience my life as meaningful, even though I'm going to die and none of it will remain; I think this can be extended to the whole human species. We impart values and stories to each other that take on a seeming life of their own. I am emphatically not suggesting that there's any kind of transcendent truth outside of people deciding what matters. Maybe calling this "meaning" or subscribing to the idea of values -- even just personal ones -- means I've misunderstood the Absurdist / Existentialist authors I'd point to as my main influences, but I don't think so. Even if I have, people are such social animals it's kind of ridiculous to say you're only pretending to have a moral code -- it's the kind of thing where there's not much of a difference between performance and reality. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
I suppose I would regard that sense of meaning as an artefact, on the odd occasion that it surfaces. I can't say I have much inherent sense of it mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
I mean . . . Is that a good way to use a screwdriver? Have you ever tried doing that? It breaks the screwdriver and hurts the ever loving poo poo out of your hands. A particularly hardy screwdriver you could probably repurpose. Creating tools from tools is what man does. Best case scenario you've damaged yourself and a nice tool to accomplish something at great effort you could have accomplished at little effort using a different tool. Most likely, you've accomplished nothing and broken your tool. I'm pretty sure Christianity teaches you can't make a silk purse from a sows ear. This is just it's own logic applied upon itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Oh, I agree. The thing that pisses me off the most about conservative Christians is that they explicitly ignore the foundational principles of the New Testament. They consciously ignore everything Jesus had to say about poverty, greed, wealth, and envy. In a way, you could make the argument that Jesus was the first socialist. Who gives a poo poo? It's cool if you want to argue who would win in a fight: batman vs superman? Regardless of what would actually happen between these fictional characters, the modern market has spoken and Batman is loving crushing it. Saying seemingly cogent things like "Superman is literally invincible" doesn't matter because nobody gives a poo poo about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
I'm curious what you think I've taken from Christianity that makes a bad tool for my purposes. You mentioned my preoccupation with death, but I think that's rather older than Christianity, and in any case, a hatred of death seems to me like a natural consequence of the idea that human beings are good. The only convincing justification for mortality I've ever heard is that it makes room for more humans, and that only because we live in a universe where scarcity and limited space are a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:The only convincing justification for mortality I've ever heard is that it makes room for more humans, and that only because we live in a universe where scarcity and limited space are a thing. Not that all extant things are subject to decay, and additionally to the effects of their contact with other extant things? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "justification for mortality" here. Is the idea that absent some evolutionary justification for a short lifespan beings should have reached greater longevity? Or is this specifically in regard to the idea of a "created good" humanity (as poses a problem for YECs)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Not that all extant things are subject to decay, and additionally to the effects of their contact with other extant things? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "justification for mortality" here. Is the idea that absent some evolutionary justification for a short lifespan beings should have reached greater longevity? Or is this specifically in regard to the idea of a "created good" humanity (as poses a problem for YECs)? Nothing like that; I thought mentioning "hatred of death" would make it clear in context, but I'm talking about our attitude towards death, not "why do we die" but "why might it be good that we die" or "why should we accept death?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Other than Egypt or mystery cults that cribbed from Egypt show me a religion that was death facing. You might want to go pre rabbinical Judaism but "Abraham's bosom" is pretty cold comfort. Death is scary. Especially with things like agriculture where we aren't as mobile as we used to be. An answer to death has memetic appeal. Because of the encumbered self it can be hard to see that so instead follow wildly elaborate afterlives as the cult of Mani spreads. Since then that's been a big deal for religions. Makes sense -- it's proven a good way for a parasitic class and ideology to hang along for the ride. An old zen master points at the moon and asks "What is this?". The disciple answers "The moon.". The zen master says, "No, it is a finger pointing at the moon." You are going too far and not far enough. It's hindering your learning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Who gives a poo poo? Did your Priest father molest you or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Did your Priest father molest you or something? The weak pathological mind can't help but personalize.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 02:52
|
|