There is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > There is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Saw this thread and was like, no way. This is a joke thread.

Then I read and I'm like, ok cool, he's for serious.

Then I read more and yeah, its definitely a joke thread. Right? Kyrie is kidding, right?

Why you do this to me?

Maybe I'll ask a question:

If Jesus Christ is the most important facet of existence, how do we square that with things like evolution which make a Jesus figure irrelevant? How do we square entire cultures and civilizations, both living and dead, that either reject or haven't heard of Jesus Christ? Does this mean he's only important if you're a Westerner and hold Western Values, or does it mean its important to everyone and they are done hosed up for being born in the wrong place/time/way?

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 22:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 13:56

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Nessus posted:

It has kind of struck me pretty profoundly that a lot of Christians seem to be more like Paulists in practice. They use Jesus as their totem but they actually focus on what this cranky old tax collector wanted. Pretty good gig for him I guess.

Right. Christian because Jesus, but we pick and choose the rest we like.

I appreciate your response, but fail to see how Jesus Christ squares with poo poo like evolution.

Which really I think is a fundamental question: Is empirical science incompatible with theology?

The answer is yes btw, and anyone who says "Science and Religion can coexist because they support each other" is blowing smoke up your rear end.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 23:12

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

The Snark posted:

What is the point of asking the question when you are going to answer it yourself without even allowing for the possibility you could be wrong?

I am of the opinion science and religion can coexist, their incompatibility is a function of the individual such as yourself who disagrees and creates a self fulfilling prophecy in the process. But only for themselves/yourself.

You can smugly insist otherwise, but that will not make it any more true.

I'm not insisting, I'm saying this as I interpret the sayings in religious texts. Stuff like "The world is a dome", "the planet is here for mankind", Jesus is the son of God", "Adam and Eve propagated the entire human race", "Homosexuals should be put to death", "The world was created from scratch by an intelligent being and certain humans know what that being wants"...these are all claims that are incompatible with what we know about the world and about logically consistent statements. Based on what we can empirically observe, if we were to add in any of these things into our analysis of the world, we would be demonstrably wrong in some way shape or form.

Of course I allow for the possibility I am wrong. I'm just looking back over 2000 years of scientific advancement and have to conclude that maybe those people in the desert didn't have all the answers for all eternity, nor do they have any more special insight into the origins of the universe than I do.

So yeah, they can coexist, but only as separate entities with religion relegated to social mores and customs and with science actually how we approach the world. How many questions were previously answered by religious claims but changed to another with science, and how many scientific claims have been found to be wrong and substantiated with a religious one?

Nessus posted:

Well, from my understanding this is a little like saying "how can making cheese and wine square with poo poo like sanitary sewers," because they both involve microbes, sort of.

I don't think empirical science is incompatible with theology in and of itself (though perhaps with SOME DIRECTIONS of theology) because theology is much closer to philosophy than to physics. It isn't the same kind of thing. There are a lot of theological writings that overlap with empirical scientific fields in the modern day, of course.

This is not what Protestant fundamentalists in America claim, of course, and those are probably the people who you're thinking of when you think of "religion." You probably aren't thinking of, for instance, Buddhist monks, whose theology is ultimately much closer to psychology than anything involving evolution, and whose spiritual practices have been, in significant part, successfully integrated into empirical psychotheraputic practices. Similarly, even the old ridiculous statement, about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, did have a philosophical point to it - is it possible to have a thing that exists but does not occupy any space?

So I guess what I'm saying is: Science is incompatible with the ridiculous claims of evangelical fundamentalist Christianity in America in the present day, but that's not the only kind of theology there is.

True enough and I agree. But...we don't have the Buddhists coming after people and shaping policy in modernized democracies.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 23:58

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Nessus posted:

You could probably make a coherent case that the Dalai Lama's entire career in the West has been literally this, albeit in a gentle and friendly manner, and capping it with a formal statement that he will opt not to reincarnate as another Dalai Lama after this life ends means there can't be, conveniently, a new Dalai Lama that happens to support the Chinese government in all matters.

Now that said I imagine if Christian sects "came after people and shaped policy" in this manner we would likely have a higher collective opinion of American Christianity. There's obviously a receptiveness to this, look how much people like Pope Francis.

I feel like this is a dodge. It doesn't matter how we feel about it if none of its true. I think pope Francis really embodies this. Yeah he's nice and all, and I'm glad the Catholic Church likes evolution. ..but it's all dressing. It completely makes their existence redundant. So as long as we don't think about it too hard, sure, religion and science get along.

But you stop and look at it, and you're left with nothing but magic.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 00:43

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Nessus posted:

I actually don't get how evolution makes the Catholic Church in specific, or religious groups in general, redundant. Can you explain that?

If you're saying "modern empirical science" rather than just "the theory of evolution" I would still disagree but that's significantly more tenable.

The church becomes redundant because if natural science is the best and only way to learn about the world, or is st least better than theology, then there is no room for virgin births, or fear of eternal torment at a super natural entity. There is still room for philosophy obviously, but the entire existence of the church is predicated upon the unprovable tenet that Jesus is the son of god, born of a virgin, and they know what God/Jesus wants.
So if the church was serious about sciencing it up, they'd make themselves irrelevant. It's good that they do to a point from a utilitarian point of view. But they can give lip service all they want, they aren't serious, as an organization, nor as a faith, about the compatibility of science and theology. Because they aren't compatible and they know it

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 04:19

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Sorry double phone post

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 04:19

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Nessus posted:

OK, so are you talking about a specific Christian church, Christianity in general, organized religion in general, or all personal belief systems other than strict scientific materialism? How do you intend to suppress useless or irrelevant behaviors?

I think its clear I'm applying it to Christianity since the thread title is about the Jesus. But you can make the same point about any organized religion. If the reasoning behind beliefs is "because I said so" and "magic" then you have nothing. Its not that the behavior is [i]useless[/]. Its just that it isn't true, and doing things based on not-true premises usually leads to bad things (burning witches at the stake) or the unnecessary suppression of neutral or good things (masturbation causes blindness!).

It was more to the question I posed earlier: Aren't religious belief and scientific empiricism completely at odds? Apologists like to say no, they are compatible. I think that is a load of baloney.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 05:11

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Nessus posted:

Well, Buddhism isn't even strictly a religion, in the sense of being about God, philosophically, and many of its practices are pretty easily reconciled with modern skeptical materialism. They certainly keep up traditions, but there's the A/T thread if you want to see other people struggling with 'Buddhism is amazing, but my commitment to total rationalism means I struggle with even a very abstract implication of reincarnation!'

Right but that doesn't mean it's exempt from the same standards as empirical research. It's almost as if the philosophical ramifications of the reflections in Buddhism have different results than authoritative historical revisionism. I can't find it the same as Christianity in itself harm, but I also can't say the points it makes is somehow less ridiculous just because it's more agreeable.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 05:28

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Nessus posted:

Well, like... what do you mean by exempt?

It's totally fair if you find any or all religions unpersuasive in the light of modern science, but it sounds like you're appealing to some kind of a court here. Do you think there is value in intellectual or philosophical activity that isn't strictly empirical? Like at a certain point this would actually probably harm science because potentially valid or useful theories might be dismissed because they can't be verified or observed directly.

Not at all and I think if Christianity was more a meditation on morality through fable, then sure. But it's not approached that way. It's different to say 'what if' and 'god said' and then immediately act upon it as truth.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 05:39

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

All Christians are literalists. It's just a matter of degree

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 05:53

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Nintendo Kid posted:

This is literally false.

Nope. It's true, man. I dunno if you're being facetious

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 06:00

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Nintendo Kid posted:

So you don't know what a literalist is at all. Great. It's amazing you can even type.

Explain

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 06:17

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Nintendo Kid posted:

literalism
[lit-er-uh-liz-uh m]

Word Origin

noun
1.
adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense, as in translation or interpretation:
to interpret the law with uncompromising literalism.
2.
a peculiarity of expression resulting from this:
The work is studded with these obtuse literalisms.
3.
exact representation or portrayal, without idealization, as in art or literature:
a literalism more appropriate to journalism than to the novel.

Origin
1635-45; literal + -ism
Related forms
literalist, noun
literalistic, adjective
literalistically, adverb

Right and this is what I thought you meant. So like I said, its a matter of degree. Christians LITERALLY believe the Bible is true with the bits about Jesus. Jesus is the son of god, born of a virgin, ascended to heaven and came back to life, etc. etc. They LITERALLY believe that. They are LITERALISTIC about that part. Its the rest where they may not be.
So are they purely literalist about the entire Bible? Of course not. But to a degree they have to be in order to be considered Christian based on the standards put forth by the dogma itself.

Flip Yr Wig posted:

While all Christians do believe that some elements of the Bible are literally true, a literalist believes that every single word is literally true, and not in any way figurative. In practice, they don't actually believe that either, but it's what they claim to believe.

Mmmhmm, so if I'm literal about part X, but not part Y, what am I then? Aren't I just less literal than the pure literalist?

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 07:02

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

So its only literalism if they believe the ENTIRE BIBLE is literally true? Not just bits and pieces? That sounds like an exercise in futility.

I get what the term means, and I'm saying that the term shouldn't exist since first, if you take 100% of it literally, your head should explode since so much of it outright contradicts different parts of itself, and second, who can actually do that?

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 07:40

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Right. So Literalists with a capital L are few and far between and are bad news bears. Got it, that makes sense. I'm merely saying that if you're going to accept any part of Christianity you have to take at least PART of it literally, which means its hard for me to bridge the gap between someone that is a Christian bemoaning those assholes Fundamnetalist Literalists when they are simply employing the same logic. They just take it further.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 08:09

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Nintendo Kid posted:

They're not particularly few, they're just nothign like a majority.

You're still loving up usage of literalist there, because literally believing many parts of the bible means believing in moral prescriptions that are present in many other world religions and even non-religious movements. You're using it in a way that doesn't really make sense, much like using say Protestant to refer to the Eastern Orthodox.

Literalists aren't "using the same logic, just taking it further". They're actively going against what people have believed for sometimes thousands of years, and using completely different logic to get to that point. They'll do things like claim all of Genesis is literally true, even though it has two conflicting creation stories, which have been recognized as being in conflict since before iron tools were invented and popularized.

It's joke on the fact that Minnesota is full of people Lutheran by birth, weak agnostic by practice.

I think I'm just using the word 'literally' in a different way.

Yes, obviously there is conflict in Genesis. But, the Christian will LITERALLY take Jesus' existence as a thing that LITERALLY happened, and he LITERALLY came back from the dead.

But pshaw, talking snakes? Get outta town wacko.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 08:36

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Cavaradossi posted:

James 2:24 "You see now that it is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified."

Couldn't be a lot clearer than that.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Contradiction?

# ¿ Jun 27, 2015 22:25

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Cavaradossi posted:

No. Faith is still necessary. Faith AND works AND grace.

That sounds a lot more complicated than "just be nice", though.

Cavaradossi posted:

CCC 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

I believe God wants me to murder all redheaded people and to have as many children as possible without the consent of the women. I've also never heard of the Bible as I'm in a part of the world that hasn't had missionaries yet.

Am I heaven bound while the doubter down your block is hell bound?

# ¿ Jun 27, 2015 22:55

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Is it more important that the guilty be punished or that the good be rewarded?

# ¿ Jun 28, 2015 01:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 13:56

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Miltank posted:

They are both equal aspects of justice.

For the Christian I mean.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2015 02:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > There is only one thing that matters and it is Jesus Christ