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

«‹›5 »

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Blarghalt posted:

So here's something that always stumped me.

Evidently, a lot of Christians believe that Jesus did the 'harrowing of hell' thing where he freed every good person that had died before he'd been crucified. Not really mentioned at all in the Bible and more a later invention, but whatever. What about the people that were, say, born in an area of the world right after Jesus died (say, the Amazon rainforest) where they never heard of Christianity, and indeed never could have had the opportunity to learn about it?

"Man, looks like God gave you the short end of the stick there. Sorry, I don't make the rules. Eternal hellfire for you! "

What happens is that most orthodox Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, mainline Protestants) have implicitly concluded that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not actually necessary for salvation, though it helps to get your soul into shape for salvation. Most Christians who don't accept this conclusion generally are gleeful about the possibility that more people will go to Hell for them to feel superior to.

But this was a massive controversy in the Catholic Church around the time of the Age of Discovery.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 18:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 19:01

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

spoon0042 posted:

They're still trying to sort out limbo. It's almost like the concept of original sin is bonkers.

Nah, the idea that there's a fundamental flaw in the human condition which produces human misery is one that's fairly endemic across large civilizations. There's even a couple different secular versions.

ikanreed posted:

My ancestors were money changers. Your deity whipped them for feeding their family.

Now, put in "slave traders", and watch-

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 19:13

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

SedanChair posted:

That's just coming up with stuff. Bacon said Pilate would not stay for an answer, but maybe he did. The mystical, insubstantial truth as represented by what Jesus said to the apostles wouldn't have made any sense to Pilate, and not because he was inured to it, because it's mystical hogwash in contrast to anything the dimly seen Master of the earliest texts would have said.

She was a bad person, a Mengele in her thirst to witness human suffering. Is that controversial?

You're appearing to carry a grudge against a man who died in terrible agony almost two thousand years ago. About the only thing more pathetic, IMO, is lying about yourself to win politics arguments on the internet.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 23:10

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

SedanChair posted:

Vitriol is only out of place where it says things that aren't true. Dawkins and Hitchens both got out of their depth when they were hating Islam, but just because Hitchens noticed that Teresa was worse than a murdering "mercy killing" nurse doesn't mean the rest of us are forbidden from noticing it.

Oh now what would that be a reference to?

In any case I'm not bearing a grudge, again we are faced with the gap between Jesus and his followers, and I am pointing out that the gap began as soon as they began to write the stories down, turn them into myths, and attempt to reconcile them with earthly powers.

I don't know what you're coyly referring to, but yeah, you were pretty much joyfully cackling over the agent of a brutal, genocidal state owning the poo poo out of this mystic because the followers of that mystic's message have done lovely things over the years, unlike the people who admire the brutal, genocidal state.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 23:59

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

SedanChair posted:

You're the one talking about people lying about themselves. I'm afraid I don't understand the reference?

In any case, yes, please let that be the extent of your understanding, that I was cackling about Pilate. In any case why would I gloat about the death of a man when there's not even any good documentation of when or how his death occurred?

What reference? I don't think you read the post where I called you pathetic, though, or else you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:05

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Bwee posted:

Is there a correlation between liking anime and being a Christian

Also, OP: have you seen someone cast a spell

I'm not a Christian, and I've "cast spells", in your parlance.

SedanChair posted:

I quoted you:

Can you explain what the bolded part of your comment is a reference to?

What the gently caress are you on about?

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:09

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

SedanChair posted:

Who is "lying about themselves to win arguments on the internet"?

Lots of people! Jesus, you're freaking paranoid!

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:12

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

SedanChair posted:

What is the connection to what we were discussing?

What on earth is this about? Is this a game of twenty questions? Because you're a quarter of the way through.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:15

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

CommieGIR posted:

Could you counter his argument with something that isn't a handwave?

What on earth is wrong with you? Calling someone pathetic isn't an "argument", you idiot.

Bwee posted:

What spells have you cast?

Most recently, I called upon the minor Duke of Hell Lord Murmur for assistance in exorcising a troublesome ghost for a friend. Outside of the demonological arts, my most recent pursuits of the arcane have been in the realm of electronics, specifically in the application of Apuleius to logic gates.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:20

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

SedanChair posted:

I literally am asking you "can you explain this thing you said?"

This thing:

I understand that you are trying to paint me as an edgy atheist who has a grudge against Jesus. But what is the bolded sentence a reference to? Is it completely random? Why did you mention it?

You're a paranoid lunatic and I don't think you should be posting on the internet like this, without the benefit of psychotherapy and antipsychotics.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:21

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

CommieGIR posted:

Then maybe you should not post? Because calling someones argument stupid for the sake of calling it stupid isn't actually a debate, nor can you then show up and snipe at how he can't understand you because you NEVER presented an argument other than name-calling.

I want you to take a look at the title of this forum. It says, for your benefit, "Debate and Discussion", stupid. Why should I post according to some unfathomable cretin's attempt to hijack this forum for his (or her) own ends? Why should I feed your megalomania?

SedanChair posted:

I still don't understand, you haven't said anything to explain the comment you made. What did you mean by it?

Why is this so important to you? It's a simple comment I used as a yardstick to measure patheticness. Do you think it's not pathetic? Because I have a new yardstick I can use that's even better.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:23

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

CommieGIR posted:

I think you mean for your benefit, and based on your post history, I should assume we have nothing to expect from you in the way of Debate or Discussion

Because name-calling and passive aggressive sniping ISN'T a discussion.

What discussion is possible when the tenor has been that the options are "all religions are evil" and "only religions I know about are evil" as arguments against belief in Jesus Christ?

Bwee posted:

That's pretty cool. I don't believe in magic though, but if it works for you then great.

It's not for everyone. The Goetic practice is, while not so perilous as horror movies would have it, nevertheless delicate and requires a great deal of tact and acting ability.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:32

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

CommieGIR posted:

If only you'd actually DEBATE and DISCUSS that

Fine. I think that the sort of aggressive atheism on display is calculated to reinforce beliefs about how negative religion is by ensuring anyone that's religious is alienated and people that aren't religious or in line with this sort of adolescent behavior are either shut up or treated as religious fifth columnists in atheism. I think that the world will be a better place when your kind of behavior is eliminated in ostensible adults.

SedanChair posted:

Oh, it was a completely random reference. How confusing! Maybe you should pick ways of communicating other than calling people pathetic and likening their behavior to unrelated behavior, then freaking out. That's just advice by the way. Don't feel constrained by it. Chase your dream buddy. Do your thing.

Why don't you come out and accuse me of whatever it is you're implying? Are you really too cowardly to confront someone directly over text? Afraid I really am an accomplished demonologist and practitioner in the Western Magical Tradition, and could zap you with a spell of impotence (probably a waste) if you did?

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:38

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Literally The Worst posted:

Says the man talking about casting spells.

Here I thought you'd taken your ball and gone home, Dickeye.

SedanChair posted:

I wasn't accusing you of anything, you seemed to be making a claim of some kind. You're now saying that it was completely random, so never mind. It kind of makes sense now that I realize how truly random and angry your attacks are. Pathetic, impotent etc. I get it, you're unbalanced. So there's nothing else to discuss, is there? Except, you know, the topic. For example!

We tried this, but nowadays there are scant public funds to retain official torturers and executioners as we had in the days you long to return to.

What the gently caress? Do you really think that it's healthy to think that you're smarter than Abraham Lincoln because he was a Deist and you're an atheist? Do you really think that sort of arrogance is good, and should be proliferated across the whole world? Is it good when Christians insist that only Christianity allows moral behavior?

Bwee posted:

Were you lying to me?

I'm accommodating people's beliefs.

Periodiko posted:

I think it's pretty obviously emotional, not "calculated".

I don't think that's really the case. Maybe for teenagers and young adults, but these are people that are probably in their late twenties at a minimum. You'd think that with a broad range of life experiences, they'd have to make a conscious effort to tell themselves that going to church (unless it's Unitarian) is a sign of evil. Maybe I'm wrong, though. I hope that isn't the case.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:49

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

CommieGIR posted:

Thank you.

Yes, aggressive atheism can be just as bad as aggressive religious beliefs, however that has very little with SedanChair's argument about disproving the existence of Christ being 'stupid'

However, personally I'd rather have a large group of skeptical aggressive atheists versus a group of aggressive atheists versus the already REAL group of aggressive religious societies that we have to deal with in the South both on a legislative level and a educational level.

I don't agree with militant athiests that religion needs to be wiped out wholesale, but I also at least expect religious groups to stay out of legislation and science. That is my stance, and expecting religious individuals and groups to be above reproach is not only wrong, its dangerous.

Just for posterity, can I get some examples?

I personally would rather have a world where people are generally mature individuals and there isn't a support structure that sponsors immature behavior, whether it's a religious or nonreligious one.

I also think it's unrealistic to expect religious groups to be completely noninvolved in politics, even though they've become too powerful in some respects in recent years. As for keeping religion out of science, well, there are deeper causes for why evolution has become a battleground in the last twenty years after about seventy years of irrelevance to politics.

And the USSR classifying dissidence as a form of mental illness is a pretty good example, as is American treatment of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:53

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

SedanChair posted:

Abe Lincoln, wow yeah there was a man who took solace in the mysteries of the cosmos. There was a man who believed in God.

Clearly these more subtle and cost-effective systems aren't doing their jobs then, because I have to listen to atheists call religion stupid

Do you have strong evidence that Lincoln was an atheist, rather than the Deist so many other Americans of his time were, given that his personal letters disclaim belief in organized religion rather than in spirituality as a whole? Do you recognize that Lincoln is one example, and that you can present hundreds of highly intelligent people who had religious convictions who work just as well for pointing out how arrogant claiming to be smarter than all religious people because of your atheism is?

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:56

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

SedanChair posted:

"Deism" is code for "atheism is impolite" hth

Smart people believe irrational things sometimes. It's not just religion. I'm not going to regard myself as smarter than a theoretical physicist just because they believe in chiropractic. However, I'm not going to take their belief as evidence of the legitimacy of chiropractic either.

And when it comes to cosmic matters, the permanence of death and one's own insignificance, no wonder people cop out. Heck I wish I could just have a big religious hallucination and cop out myself. That'd feel nice.

Cool. I'm not talking about you. Shut up and go back to whatever paranoia you were engaging in earlier.

Who What Now posted:

I wouldn't say that I'm smarter than all those people because I'm an atheist, but because I have a much better quality education than they could have ever dreamed of because I live in a more advanced society.

Oh, you're smarter than James Clerk Maxwell, eh?

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 01:04

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Torka posted:

I think you can believe someone is mistaken about a particular issue without thinking that you're smarter than them

Isaac Newton was unquestionably a vastly more intelligent man than me, but his belief in the efficacy of alchemy was in error

Yes. Whether someone believes in a particular thing does not say anything about its truth-value nor, necessarily, anything about their intelligence. When people hold otherwise, they are wrong, regardless of whether it's "they believe in such, therefore it is true" or "they believed in such, I am thus smarter than they by virtue of my disbelief".

CommieGIR posted:

CLARK Maxwell. James CLARK Maxell.

And that isn't what he said. At all.

This. Exactly.

Clerk, sorry. That's how everybody in physics spells it. And yeah, actually, that's what he said. He's smarter by virtue of being better-educated, which is dumb on its own.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 01:08

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

SedanChair posted:

But you were talking directly to me, you impolite person.

Are you really a Christian? If so you are a poo poo representative.

I'm not. I said this once, and probably will be saying it again. Perhaps I should add it to my signature for the duration of this thread, and enable it.

CommieGIR posted:

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

You were right, it was Clerk,

However, that was still not what he was arguing.

Does the USSR classifying dissidents as mentally ill count as punishing (secular) heresy? How about the USA (officially secular) torturing Chelsea Manning, debating over whether to assassinate Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, etc.

And yeah, whatever, it's obviously turning into a semantical argument over what intelligence is, so let's disagree.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 01:11

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Who What Now posted:

No, it doesn't, because they didn't/aren't doing those things specifically because they do not believe in a god but because their targets represent a threat to their power.

Have you been following the discussion at all, or are you just playing a ridiculous semantical trick where "orthodoxy", "heresy", "dogma", etc. are suddenly only applicable to religion rather than words derived from religious jargon?

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 01:15

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Who What Now posted:

It's a completely fair criticism if the claim is that having an atheistic view or a secular government was a direct cause of those things.

Nobody said that at any point. Go talk to imaginary friends and enemies elsewhere, please.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 01:21

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

raskalnikov_86 posted:

Serious question, what's the deal with always using the capitalized pronouns? It's really distracting and a dead giveaway that you're talking to a zealot, always with the Him and His love and He and you must believe in Him.

The same reason Nate Silver uses "Mr. Obama" and "Mr. Romney", and so on. It's a term of respect that sets things apart from the everyday world.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 01:36

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

mdemone posted:

What I've always wanted someone to address is why the 1st-century Nazorians apparently thought Jesus lived and died during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE), as the Christian scholar Epiphanius reports in his 4th-century compilation of "heresies".

The Babylonian Talmud provides independent confirmation:

To say nothing of the fact that the gospels themselves do not agree on the decade of Jesus' birth, nor the year of his death. Or the fact that at least some early Christians thought he was crucified under the reign of Claudius (41 to 54 CE), according to Irenaeus. Or the dozens of contemporary Roman authors who were writing histories of the time period and never mentioned Jesus or Christianity at all. (Marcus Paterculus, Marcus Nonianus, Pamphila of Epidaurus, Aufidius Bassus, Pliny the Elder, Cluvius Rufus, Julia Agrippina, Fabius Rusticus, etc. etc. and most damning of all, Philo himself in Alexandria.)

I mean, given that the central evidence for historical Jesus is Tacitus writing that a man named Jesus, known as Christus, was crucified by the procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, and we known when Pilate was prefect of Judaea, it's not really a strong claim in comparison, don't you think?

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 17:47

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

mdemone posted:

There is good reason to believe that the Chrestus text in Tacitus is an inserted interpolation from much later than the date of writing (around 116 CE, already late enough to imply that it was secondhand or third-hand information, possibly from his best friend Pliny the Younger, who we know was cribbing from contemporary Christians). Multiple commentaries on Tacitus were written over the next five hundred years, and none bother to quote him on Jesus until the middle of the 4th century, which coincides with the era of known redactions and insertions regarding Jesus in the texts of Suetonius and Josephus, among others.

Even if we grant that Tacitus really wrote that, how would he have known about Jesus Chrestus? Rome's library had already burned twice since the crucifixion (under Nero and again under Titus), taking all relevant records with it. More likely he heard it from Pliny the Younger, who heard it from Christians. Pliny the Elder had also written about the Neronian war, but never mentioned Jesus or Christianity, and he was an eyewitness to that war.

Tacitus isn't worth poo poo. He was playing the telephone game.

Ah, I see that we have a bold denialist here, but even if Tacitus got the story solely from his knowledge of Christian customs, that still is a story that contradicts the version you put forward, and it's one that he considered credible enough to include. Of course, given that all references to Jesus are necessarily later forgeries or actually referring to some other figure known as Rex Iudaeorum in the denialist view, Occam's Razor for you must necessarily cut against the existence of a religious radical named Joshua bar-Joseph, who was baptized by another religious radical, was crucified by a prefect noted for his brutality against the Jewish population of Judaea, and ended up with his reinterpretation of Judaism winning out. Impossibly he had disciples in his lifetime and was born in Galilee.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 18:54

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

mdemone posted:

There are no contemporary sources for any of this. And unless you think that all scholarly work on late forgery is flawed, there is no reason to assume that any texts not furthering euhemerization would have been preserved by a church that spent the next millennium redacting its own literature. Therefore it shouldn't be surprising one way or the other that only historicism remains.

What about Paul? Tens of thousands of words about the church, and not a single indication that he believed Jesus to have walked the earth.

There are no contemporary historical sources, or primary documents. There is only one primary source for the existence of Pontius Pilate as fifth prefect of Judaea, and one contemporary historical source. There's only one contemporary source for the existence of Herod Antipas as tetrarch of Galilee. Many, many people in antiquity are known from brief mentions or single sources. Jesus is singled out because of a desire to not only reject Christianity as true, but ensure that everything about it is false. Of course, this does not apply to Paul of Tarsus, who has no historical sources outside of Christianity referring to him, as you treat him as a real person. Given that textual analysis concludes that only half of the writings bearing his name were definitely written by one person...

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 19:28

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

mdemone posted:

I wholeheartedly agree that Paul was multiple people writing at different times. Still doesn't explain why the epistles treat Jesus like a celestial being that succeeded Melchizedek as high priest of heaven, and never make any reference to Jesus' earthly life.

Considering that early Christianity seems to have been oral and focused around the teachings of Jesus (and the Gospel of Thomas is potentially a contemporary source), why would he? His writings are focused on theology.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 19:39

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

mdemone posted:

Sure, I'll give you that. At the least, we can say that Paul has no evidentiary value for historicism. Although it does seem...odd, that in all the questions he had to answer about the way the church should operate, nobody ever asked him "well how did Jesus run it?" and he never referred to Jesus' earthly doings as justification for any church procedures.

Well, for one thing, there wasn't a "church" according to the gospels until after Jesus dies and no need to govern anything. Certain stories within the gospels are almost certainly the relics of power struggles as different early Christians attempted to establish central authority (e.g. "On this rock").

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 19:51

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Rodatose posted:

Like I said, it's not ideal because it doesn't get rid of class structures, but if the domination of one class were to be so complete that no chance of reordering were to be available, at least they leave some accommodation for the underclasses so that they aren't constantly suffering. I know that in that case, I'd rather not be conscious of my own death and suffering.

e: like, if you got born into a bad position in life at least you wouldn't have to constantly worry about food insecurity or about various fearmongering propaganda telling you you need to act now to not die, or be tricked into get-rich-quick schemes that make you worse off playing off false hopes of social mobility. You could just be on The Drugs all day every day, while at work, not even aware that you are working. There might not even be a 'you', because the self is a construct dependent on awareness according to others, so there might not even be a problem.

Animals are born, they eat and gently caress a bunch, they die. a rabbit doesn't care about its identity, or whether its interactions are meaningful, or whether it has the correct understanding of its actions. It does the things it likes to do and avoids the things that cause it discomfort.
I do the things I like to do and avoid the things that cause me discomfort. Kylie does the things they like to do and avoid the things that cause them discomfort. Why does it matter whether the underpinning reasoning for that rabbit's, my, or kylie's happiness or discomfort is based on a false consciousness or lack of consciousness or a true consciousness?

Is someone on a carefully-moderated heroin drip suffering?

# ¿ Nov 21, 2014 16:08

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Who What Now posted:

And he divinely elected to have the Loa Loa feed upon the eyes of starving African children.

I think it's pretty clear that God is the greatest force of evil and the devil a champion of goodness who was punished for trying to help and protect mankind.

None of that is biblical. ha-Satan is even more of an enemy of humanity than YHVH in Biblical terms, and the beasts in the Apocalypse of John are hardly friendly to mankind. Even in conventional Christian theology, Satan is hardly capable of being interpreted as benevolent. Giving him a Promethean role requires inventing your own religion.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2014 17:41

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Hodgepodge posted:

Isn't the idea, in the wider context in which the Old Testament was written, that Satan is a title that is closer to "devil's advocate" than what we think of as the literal devil? Hence Satan asking God for permission to torment Job (apart from the faithful normally being protected from his power)?

Well, no. It literally means "the adversary", so his role is more prosecution and persecution. Judaism traditionally assigned this role to angels like the Metatron, Samael, Mastema, etc. that are described as malevolent in esoteric texts. Within that context, he's the designated motherfucker of heaven. Job does have a fairly interesting alternate (almost Gnostic) reading when you look at it in conjunction with Genesis and Proverbs, but it's not a theistically Satanist one.

SedanChair posted:

What about Genesis

That's a snake, not an angel, fallen or otherwise, outside of the context of Christianity. It's also fairly clearly a just-so story serving as the outer core for the theodicy argument at the core of the Garden of Eden story, just like the Noah's Ark story and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah provide other theodicy arguments.

Who What Now posted:

God created and controls all evil acts, thus all injustices are directly his fault and responsibility. Satan in not culpable for his actions, only God can be.

Angels lacking free will is only a conceit of some versions of Islam, not of Christianity or Judaism.

Who What Now posted:

He's responsible for all good things and bad things and it just so happens that the bad things waaaaaaaaaaaaay outweigh the good things. All the cute puppies and sappy love stories in the world don't make up for war, famine, diseases, and everything else.

Actually, they do, because life is worth living. Thus, God, if such a being exists, does more good than evil. You agree with this deep down.

Rodatose posted:

1. has the drug destroyed their sense of self in a way that they are not aware of being 'someone' anymore
2. does the drug overpower the negative neural receptors so that existence in their brain is perceived as enjoyable and not suffering

An observer watching someone wash dishes might say "they're being oppressed" but that is attributing one's own perception on someone else's individual situation. I like washing dishes because I have cultivated a taste for it and find it relaxing. That observer might not like washing dishes. So being asked to wash dishes would be suffering and oppression for them but not oppression for me.

Now if the person who asks me to wash dishes gives me drugs to go along with it to make it not just relaxing but enjoyable, then that's even better.

(note: the following paragraph isn't directed at effectronica; it's more something I thought of based on my last post)
I see some online socialists carry with them a fear of what they assume to be menial tasks (even though it's necessary labor- also i'm talking about things like farming and trade skills, not factory work) and they attribute this hatred of menial tasks to things working class folks may have grown used to in places that don't have all of the conveniences of middle/upper class society. Those other folks may have grown used to daily routines and the opiate of religion has even allowed some of those folks a certain peace with their task. That's why cries from an outsider of "you're being oppressed" do not always fall on listening ears; you have to find a way to work with individuals' cultivated tastes and views so that they don't reactively oppose your aims and find the sections of society for whom the predominant culture doesn't satisfy. One individual school of socialist thought isn't the 'right way' as a universal fix-all just as one sect of religion isn't the 'right way'; maybe something might work better for a larger percentage of people but nothing will work for every local situation or every individual. (Of course, individualism requires sapience enough to distinguish the self from others).

e: just some clarifications:
I would not want to force drugs upon someone who doesn't want it; living people taking drugs would have to take it by consensual choice in a non-coercive situation. It could only be forced upon another before they are someone.

by "carefully moderated heroin drips" I was assuming you meant by the "carefully moderated" part some kind of drug regimen that can sustainably and safely upheld over time without chemical resistance developing. I put aside the actual properties of heroin for a hypothetical wonder drug that could be moderated effectively. Heroin currently does not have those qualities.

Some quote from gravity's rainbow

Well, that's a lot of thoughts, but really the basic issue is that if we define oppression or suffering in the colloquial way, I don't see them as purely subjective entities. Someone that is depressed should receive help and care. Someone that is schizophrenic should receive help and care. They are both suffering, even if the depressed individual appears publicly happy or the schizophrenic insists that they're perfectly all right. These are of course far more extreme examples than mere menial labor, but the basic question of whether someone is suffering if drugs prevent them from feeling their body rot away is still worth considering.

In fact, Buddhism, which is supposedly all about how suffering is subjective, still has half of the Eightfold Path be about the objective, physical world.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2014 01:39

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Nessus posted:

I think they mean 'why would you help out someone in a situation where you aren't likely to get some kind of return, if you are an atheist or otherwise not being told you ought to do it.' Like it's logical to help your family or your neighbors by cold Randian/evolutionary logic, but why help someone in Africa?

Of course, not all atheists are or aspire to be hyper-rational consequentialists, though utilitarian ethics is a common stopping point.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 04:30

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Ernie Muppari posted:

Cause he seems to just do whatever he wants regardless of how you behave?

This is also the point where salvation by grace begins to break down. The standard interpretation of Calvinism is that good works, righteous behavior, etc. are enabled through the grace of God. So therefore, if a pagan does a good deed, either it wasn't really good, or they've received divine grace without the Scriptures and the Scriptures are needless. You'll hear more conservative Christians saying things along the line of "only Christians can be moral", and it derives from this interpretation.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 04:48

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Only evangelicals really believe that a literal demon sticks a literal pitchfork into you in Hell. The majority of Christians believe that Hell is the absence of God. If God really is a cruel demiurge, that probably isn't actually bad to experience.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 04:59

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Ernie Muppari posted:

Well, even without taking into account the house rules of any particular Christian denomination, it still seems hella' shady. If god really existed, and the relationship between myself and him was actually as ridiculously lopsided as most argumentative internet Christians make it out to be, then why exactly would I take god at its word that there's even an afterlife?

As far as I can tell, god's about as trustworthy as my email's spam folder.

Outside of argumentation, we have Matthew 29:

"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows."

or Jonah 4:

"But God said to Jonah, "Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?" "I do," he said. "I am angry enough to die." But the LORD said, "You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many animals. Should I not be concerned about that great city?""

Of course, someone like Kyrie is going to argue that even if the Father of Jesus of Nazareth really is the guy who expects you to slaughter all the Amalekites you should still obey, but there's a consistent counter-current of universalism throughout the Bible's later compositions, once the Israelites and the Jews get religion.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 05:18

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Sancho posted:

For real though is the Jewish/christian god gay? At least the god I worship (Zeus) got some on the side with some human chicks & the Mormon god knocked up Mary. The normal old Christian god & Jesus seem to be huge closet cases in comparison. Did god break off jesus in some hermaphrodite-like ceremony?

If we accept that the disciple whom Jesus loved was John, son of Zebedee and not Mary Magdalene or Lazarus...

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 15:58

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

SedanChair posted:

I think you're going to have to blame most Christians for that then, not flippant atheists. Their god is a petty tyrant, however nice and kind yours might be.

Wow, only a lot more tenuous.

If you read the words attributed to Jesus, both in the canonical gospels and in other early writings, from the perspective of him being divine, it's very clear that he has no interest in making believing in him easy or trumpeting his power. So to that extent, complaints about how the Resurrection is tenuous (and it's much more tenuous given that the first witness was Mary Magdalene) are a bit worthless because of course it would be. Jesus, assuming his divinity, wants people to come to him through thought and faith, not through demonstrations of divine potency.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 00:37

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Torka posted:

Believing in something without evidence is behind a lot of terrible real world problems, such as racism and sexism. Why are we to consider it a virtue in this instance?

Who says it's a virtue?

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 00:42

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Torka posted:

Jesus, presumably, if it's true that he prefers that people come to him through faith rather than evidence. Maybe I misunderstood your post.

Or, alternatively, he has no desire to compel worship and so avoids direct interaction with the world except in plausibly deniable ways. This is somewhat outside of conventional Christianity, but it's a possible interpretation from the gospels.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 00:48

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

VitalSigns posted:

How is it "compulsion" to show people evidence.

Was Jesus interfering with free will when He did all those miracles in the Gospels? It seems like a bit of an unfair test if some people get to meet the Son of God and watch him heal lepers, and the rest of us have to just blunder into the right religion among the competing claims of thousands of traditions and holy men and high priests.

Imagine if supernatural intervention was a constant, visible presence in your daily life. Would you believe in the supernatural then? Jesus, down to his appearance before Thomas Didymus, praises people who are willing to place their trust in him and thus have genuine faith.

Furthermore, his miracles (apart from the ones in John that are likely allegorical) aren't very far out of line with what people did all the time. He was noteworthy for his radical attacks on both wings of Judaism and his rejection of Roman authority, which is why his followers counted multiple Zealots and possibly a member of the Sicarii. Nor did everyone who witnessed his miracles believe in him as Christ, or else you'd think the centurion who oversaw his crucifixion would have been mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.

Torka posted:

I don't see how proving the reality of his existence in an unambiguous way would be the same thing as compelling me to worship him. Satan and his followers are 100% convinced that God exists and nevertheless choose not to worship him.

Worship in the sense of acknowledging his existence.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 01:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 19:01

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah but he still appeared to him and showed him the stigmata. He wasn't like "Oh well, didn't have enough faith, hell!"

Okay, so if God, El-Shaddai, YHVH, etc. made his presence known, everyone would acknowledge his existence. You see why this is compelling worship? Faith (outside of trust in the senses) is impossible when something is a routine matter of physical reality. An entity that values people placing trust in him would lose much of that trust if his existence were undeniable.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 01:10

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

«‹›5 »