|
This thread is for discussing Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Incarnation, the Son of Man, the Word, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Lord, the Light of the World, the Resurrection, the King of the Jews, the Messiah, the Savior, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Just to get it out of the way right now, I am posting this completely without irony. I literally believe in Jesus Christ with every fiber of my being, and there is nothing I enjoy more than talking about him. I do not in any way envy the lives of those who live without Christ; I have done my time without him, and I will never go back to that. I go to church, and so should you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap7GXu2KOmQ The reason Christ matters more than anything else, and is in fact the only thing that matters, is that he is the only hope for your salvation. Any attempt to save yourself which involves ignoring or bypassing or otherwise denying Christ is going to fail, and is in truth the work of the Devil, designed to condemn men's souls to the eternal fires of Hell. Behold the truth: That only God, who created the world, and has seen every life and knows every thought, can absolve you of your sins. Only his ineffable wisdom, his stern judgment, and his infinite mercy, can bring you from the brink of self-destruction, and help you to achieve your true self. Now I expect an onslaught of people not taking this seriously, to them I say: our calendar is dated from the birth of Christ. The greatest civilization on Earth was born out of Christ. There is no issue more important or more worth discussing than the true nature of Jesus Christ. You have to take him seriously. You don't have a choice. As a student of official Catholic teaching, the only orthodox interpretation, and as someone who has read the entire Bible, I will be happy to address any of your questions about Christ insofar as I believe you are asking in good faith or that your opinion might be convincing to bystanders. I expect a lot of responses so please be patient with me. Now, ask and ye shall receive. e: The man took down my song, so here's a suitable replacement. Kyrie eleison fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Dec 19, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Celot posted:Can rich people go to heaven? Yes, so long as they are not consumed by avarice (or any other mortal sin), and give of their abundance to their fellow man. Panzeh posted:Jesus' inability to magic himself a machine gun and conquer the world with god powers is pretty much the reason why a lot of people don't take him seriously. You are literally the son of god and you go and let yourself get killed, lol what a chump. Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert, that if Jesus should worship the devil, the devil would grant him all of the kingdoms on Earth. Jesus refused, quoting scripture, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." In another passage, Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world." Paul says that it is Satan who is "god of this world," and although the world is viewed as inherently good by Christians (due to being created by God), it is essentially a testing ground for souls, so that they may be judged in the hereafter, and the devil is allowed to accuse us and mock us for now, until the Second Coming. HortonNash posted:If God appeared to you, and you were utterly convinced it was Him or one of His messengers (it really is Him, not the Devil, not mental illness, not drug induced hallucination), and asked you to kill a child, would you? Yes, like Abraham, out of obedience to God, and trusting in his Will; and like with Abraham, God would never require evil from me, only the evidence that my loyalty is so great that I would be willing to commit evil for His sake. RuanGacho posted:Are you part of the ley people? This chapter teaches that one should not boast about his righteous deeds, lest he lose his heavenly reward for them. But Mark 16:15 says, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." AShamefulDisplay posted:For real though why did Jesus wither the fig tree. Dumbass should have known that figs were out of season. This is a direct reference to Jeremiah 8:13, in which Jeremiah uses the fig tree as symbolism referring to the lineage of the Israelites, in his prediction of their impending destruction due to their unfaithfulness. Jesus makes the same judgment here, predicting the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, similar to how he predicts the destruction of the Temple, and the coming of the Lord within a generation. Caros posted:So I have a question about the above. Why should I worship a god who arbitrarily condemns large swaths of humanity to eternal damnation, pain and suffering largely on the basis of chance. Because lets be honest, if god exists and you only avoid hell by worshiping him properly, then god is punishing people on the basis of the uterine lottery. Christ, in the fullness of his wisdom, will treat all people fairly and justly in the final judgment. God is fully aware of relative circumstance, and may judge a loyal believer more harshly for a small crime, whereas a great sinner may be loved for his small good works. Those who know of Christ, but spread evil lies about him, such as denying his crucifixion, insult him; but perhaps in his mercy he might forgive them, as he forgave his killers on the cross, saying, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." I believe it is wisest that those who know of Christ be baptized and live Christian lives rather than simply hope for mercy, which abuses God's good will, and may be viewed by him as undeserving of forgiveness. Personally, I am concerned about the safekeeping of my soul. Solkanar512 posted:Why can't God himself be bothered to respond in this thread? For an omnipotent being, it feels like such a minor inconvenience. God is here, in this very thread, in the form of the Holy Spirit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
I'm sorry I haven't been responding more, but I'm occupied at the moment. In a few hours I will reply to relevant posts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Sorry again for the delay, it was stupid of me to post this thread when I had something to do shortly afterwards. Now there's tons of posts, but I'm going to try to select from them.Captain_Maclaine posted:Remind me Kyrie, do you believe in literal demons and witchcraft, or am I confusing you with another zealot? Yes, and magic is real. Hieronymous Alloy posted:If the only thing that matters is Jesus Christ, why does the Catholic church spend so much effort on the veneration of Mary and the various church saints? Don't things like this distract from the pure worship of the Lord? All are relevant only in their connection to Christ, who is God. Venerating saints does not distract from God but rather is a form of honoring God. CommieGIR posted:Prove it. Claims of salvation and damnation without sufficient supporting evidence make little sense. How is Jesus our only salvation versus, say, the flying spaghetti monster? Why is his claims to deity-ship more valid than any other religions claims? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a silly joke that nobody believes in, whereas our religion built around Christ is the last and only hope of every person. Millions have died with Christ's name on their lips, and our species has been completely and permanently altered by his presence. He is the most important thing that has ever happened, and will be remembered for the rest of time. Nothing else even comes close. My Imaginary GF posted:The figure of jesus in christianity is one of tribal mythology, merged together as an attempt to explain the destruction of the Jewish state without damning one's ancestors to an unsavory afterlife. Jesus was ultimately more popular amongst gentiles than Jews. The Jews have their own explanation for the destruction of Judea (and the earlier Kingdom of Israel), which is essentially the same as Jesus's explanation: divine punishment for infidelity to God. They just don't see the connection between their betrayal of Jesus and the subsequent destruction of Judea. My Imaginary GF posted:Why not use the method of islam, and declare that the earlier a revelation from jesus was received, the more weight it holds and less corrupted it was by human interests? Islam is a major revision from well after the original Christian story was known, so they do not really uphold this standard. Also, my understanding is that interpretation of the Quran is the opposite... later "revelation" is considered to supersede earlier. emfive posted:I bet a lot of 4th century Romans would be pretty amazed that somebody would be flaunting an unshakable belief in all that Christian stuff here 1600 years later. (They'd probably be more impressed with TV or microwave popcorn I guess.) They would be delighted. quote:A thing that for serious puzzles me is how a non-Christian normal person undergoes "conversion" nowadays. I mean, to just decide to start believing a bunch of stuff that somebody explains, no matter how weird it sounds, and then to just accept it as real, well it seems odd and I honestly wonder what sort of experience that would be. A person becomes convinced of the truth of Christ. It seems to become more obvious for many people as they get older, and the more people study the issue with an open mind. Ardennes posted:Wait why is we taken the Roman word on the issue before all others? We should at least give equal voice to Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria. Also the Armenians and Georgians of course. I believe the Roman church has always encouraged unity amongst the church and and cohesion in their doctrine, and I think these are important virtues. Nessus posted:Kyrie, why should I believe in your established religion, when I could instead get in on the ground floor of a more compelling religion - say, Crowley's stuff, which was founded just last century and could presumably be considered more "up to the minute," a new law that supercedes the old, much like the one Jesus brought? In choosing religion, I wouldn't choose one because it is "more modern" but rather "more true"... if you do an honest comparison of their tenets, Christianity is the correct and superior religion. What the other religions get right is also present in Christianity, but the things they get wrong make them lesser. Jesus's law does not really "supersede" the old, rather it is the actual true law which was in place for all time, and will be for all time, whereas the "law" he was correcting contained moral and logical mistakes introduced by human error. quote:Can you structure an argument in this favor that does not rest on either mystical experience (though I feel that that experience can be valid) or on the implicit threat of punishment? Buddhism manages it. The actual "argument" for Buddhism is that by following Buddhist teaching you will be liberated from the endless cycle of reincarnation and your soul will be at peace. "Life is suffering," is what they teach, so essentially the act of being alive is itself a continual Hell for the Buddhist. So, there is an implicit threat that you will "continue to live" and thereby, "continue to suffer." Christ, on the other hand, promises eternal life in place of death. quote:On a lighter note, what do you think of the parallel growth of monasteries in Buddhism and Christianity? I suppose I'd never really thought of it before. Going to stop here just to break things up a bit, but I'll continue reading through the thread and writing replies to posts that interest me in another post.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Caros posted:The suggestion in your reply is that if I am a good man then you believe I can still end up in heaven by virtue of the forgiveness of god. Your initial post however clearly states that if I attempt to save myself by any method that ignores, bypasses or otherwise denies christ it is going to fail. So if I am a muslim who lives a good, pious life but still deny that Christ is the child of god, according to you I am going to end up in hell, but I am also likely to be forgiven by god. So I'm confused. It is the official teaching that we are not certain who is saved. Christians are obligated to "hope" for the salvation of all, but to trust in God's righteous judgment. The path we recommend for greater assurance of salvation is following the commandments set out by Jesus, which includes rites such as baptism. quote:More important to this I think is the arbitrary nature of god as you're discussing him. Will I end up in heaven? Maybe, depends on what god's mood is that day I suppose. God's final judgment will be perfect and permanent. Caros posted:Yeah, that is basically my view on it. When I was young a friend of mine committed suicide after she had a miscarriage. If you would say that an unwed pregnant teenager who killed herself would probably end up in hell, then I'd simply say that god is some malicious force no different from an abusive parent on a universal scale. While suicide is considered a sin, there is still no certainty that the person will go to Hell. The Church prays for the souls of those who commit suicide. ThirdPartyView posted:The best analysis of Christianity is the final scene of "There Will Be Blood". It merely confirms that Eli was a charlatan. A Winner is Jew posted:Jesus the person was a cool hippie, but the only "christian" that I've ever known to actually follow his teaching was Fred Rogers, who was also cool. He was a good man. CommieGIR posted:The thing about miracles, is that they either tend not to exist, or have an actual natural explanation. This has happened time and time again, there has never been a 'verified' miracle. I believe that the existence of nature itself, or of our conscious minds, both qualify as readily available examples of "miracles". Both are staggering in their majesty. As for other miracles, such as turning water into wine or healing the sick, or intercessory prayer through a Saint helping someone, or the Resurrection, or miracles such as receiving wisdom or strength or other gifts from God, are "worthy of belief." McDowell posted:I don't think this thread is good for Debate and Discussion, OP. You might be right, actually, the pace was faster here than I thought. quote:But I disagree strongly with any Earthly church being the one true faith. True Christianity is about rejecting the material and embracing selflessness to the mortal extreme. Any church that encourages people to live a full life on Earth is serving Earthly interests, not celestial. I'll let the most recent incarnation of the being you know as Jesus Christ explain further: That man is selling rationale for suicide to those who want to believe in suicide. Christianity teaches that life is good, and that things in life are good, but also that suffering is noble and just. The Church rejects asceticism as a teaching, instead taking a moderated position. CommieGIR posted:I think you don't understand why its an ethnocentrism. Christianity opposes "ethnocentrism" as a core argument, with examples such as the good Samaritan, or its initial appeal to gentiles. Judaism is an ethnocentric religion. Today, Christianity is less popular in Europe but still popular in other places such as Latin America and parts of Asia and Africa. It is the most ethnically diverse religion that exists, and probably the most culturally and ethnically diverse organization of any kind. But I realize you were using ethnocentrism to really mean, a prioritization of humanity over other creatures. Christianity does not teach that humans are superior to hypothetical alien species and I'm sure the Church would try to foster good relations with them if we were achieved contact. Rather, the Church teaches that humans are a corrupted and fallen species who need to be saved by the mercy of God, who has incarnated himself as a human out of his love for us, and to show us that a sinless life is possible with the support of the Father. McDowell posted:Early Christians willing went to their deaths to demonstrate their faith to the Roman world. Heaven's Gate emerged at the height of the Pax Americana and demonstrated their faith similarly. Planet Earth's recycling has begun. The early Christians were heavily persecuted and put to death by the Roman government. Heaven's Gate were a bunch of suicidal people that reinforced a bunch of religious mumbo-jumbo amongst each other to make their collective suicide easier. Zeno-25 posted:Without a literal belief in the Genesis creation story, there is no such thing as original sin, and thus no reason for Jesus. Without original sin Christianity collapses as a coherent belief system. There did have to be a first human. Original sin is our base human tendency to sin which we "inherit" just simply by being born into this species; you could consider it analogous to genetic behaviors if you like. Christianity acknowledges that we need forgiveness for our tendency towards sin, and spiritual and communal assistance in stopping particularly grave sins. OK, will move through the replies a bit quicker now, want to get caught up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
emfive posted:What's the philosophical framework that leads to Christianity (or any faith) being something that must be disproven as opposed to being demonstrated as factual? There is no proof aside for the testimony of early Christians, the success of Christianity itself, and any subsequent miracles. We believe that miracles occur at every Mass, as the bread and wine is transubstantiated to the Body and Blood of Christ before our very eyes. Any scientific analysis will reveal it to have all of the properties of bread and wine, but in a similar way, we have Dr. Manhattan giving his opinion on the materially inobservable nature of life itself:  And yet, the spiritual effect the consecrated Eucharist has on a believer is substantial in a way simple bread and wine are not. Rodatose posted:Jesus was a thug traveling with a gang who made their own thug culture. People want to glorify his death but he was no angel. Look at his rap sheet, it's filled with uppity defiance of the authorities and vandalism/blatant disregard for property rights. Jesus said that theft is wrong in Matthew 19:18, reiterating the Ten Commandments. His "disregard for property rights" in the Temple was not theft or even destruction, but rather a sign of his anger for the profaning of a holy place. Not once did Jesus advocate for any physical violence or destruction. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Christianity is a false religion that has abandoned God's commandments as faithfully passed down through the generations by his chosen people. In Mark 2:23-27, Jesus is confronted by Pharisees (who are the ancestors of the Talmudic rabbis) about people picking grain on the Sabbath. Jesus quoted Scripture back at them, referencing a time that David himself, in his hunger, had eaten consecrated bread which was only for priests to eat. And yet, we would agree that David did nothing wrong in that circumstance, as he was a holy man and was very hungry. Jesus's conclusion is that "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Sabbath is meant to be a day of rest and a holy day, but orthodox Jews take it to an extreme level which violates the intent. Generally speaking, Jesus favors the "spirit of the law" over the "letter of the law". My Imaginary GF posted:How can you reconcile 'Holy Spirit' with the 2nd and 3rd commandments? The Holy Spirit is not a purely Christian invention, but is referenced in the OT as inspiring holy men such as the prophets to speak with the voice of God, and the prophets did often speak as if they were God himself condemning and warning those around them (for which they were largely despised by others). But the prophets were right! I'm assuming you mean the 1st and 2nd commandments by the Catholic numbering. The Holy Spirit is not something other than God, nor is it a graven image, nor is it taking the Lord's holy name in vain. CommieGIR posted:Please. This is really poor thinking, even if we accept that many people in the West accept the findings of science on faith alone, the science itself is still testable and falsifiable in the end. This is the entire reason for peer review, so that others can demonstrate the validity or invalidity of a hypothesis. Its also why many scientists and scientific groups push for open access, so that the public CAN verify the science for themselves without the need for their own lab. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of science: quote:159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." Mistreatment of Galileo is regrettable, but a Catholic priest was the first to propose the Big Bang Theory, and the Church has been active in science throughout much of history, and considers science and religion compatible. There is some reason to question the "peer review" sort of scientific "orthodoxy", though, which is not as certain or uncorruptable as many of its adherents would claim. fade5 posted:Nah, there's a religious Ask/Tell thread that I read/post in that Kyrie poo poo up/trolled a while back, was probated for, and then later came back into the thread and apologized. Well I was just being too ironic and nasty but none of that is really necessary. I'm trying to behave myself reasonably well in this thread. site posted:Anyways, having been clinically dead for a couple minutes but not seeing any heaven or hell or anything (was pretty much like being unconscious, conscious before and then just waking up in the hospital), I'm curious as to whether there is some kind of minimum time you have to be dead before you can experience the wonders of the supernatural realm. Not to question your experience, but there are others who have other experiences. But it is safe to say that you were not actually dead, since you are still alive. emfive posted:How would you describe the distinction between the conversation a devoted atheist might have with a Christian friend about changing the friend's beliefs, as contrasted with how a devoted Catholic might speak to an atheist friend with hope to convert that friend? I mean, objectively, aside from your ironclad belief in your faith, how do you think those two hypothetical conversations are different? An atheist can quite rightly challenge beliefs professed by their Christian friend, for a Christian should be aware of proper theological answers to questions, hopefully not only through conversing with atheists but because of their own studies. A Christian should not fear religious discussion. Talking to an atheist constructively is mostly about trying to convince them to accept the mere possibility that a more positive understanding of human existence is possible or morally acceptable to believe, as they generally hold rather despairing views of about humanity, life, and spirituality. It's kind of like trying to cheer up a sad friend. Also, correcting widespread misconceptions about Christian teaching or history. Obdicut posted:Also how do you deal with the really obvious fact that Christianity began as an end-times religion and Jesus was very clearly stating that the end was nigh? You just deny it through a string of really improbable explanations that all the stuff about how quickly things were going to end and how everyone should give up everything, including leaving their families, that was actually meant in a long-term allegorical way even though there isn't anything that Jesus says that would ever give that impression? The traditional view is that Jesus was prophesying multiple events: the Second Coming (aka the parousia), which of course has not yet occurred, but also the imminent destruction of Judea at the hands of the Romans. He was trying to avert this outcome, only to be refused by his people. It is true that people were killed off and scattered from Judea, and the Temple destroyed, within a generation of Jesus's death. Kyrie eleison fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
This corroborates it? The priest gives him food which, according to the levitical law, only the priests are supposed to be able to eat (Leviticus 24:9). This violates the letter of the law for a higher purpose. Jesus was very well educated in scripture and cited it often. Captain_Maclaine posted:Ah, good. Thanks for answering me. Now, what specifically led you to believe that magic exists, as well as literal demonic possession and witchcraft as a something other than the empty practices of flaky Wicca types? It just seems possible for me that things can happen due to spiritual or demonic influence which go against the natural order of things. zeal posted:Kyrie eleison, how do you square the belief that yours is a just and loving God with the Book of Deuteronomy? Let's refer specifically to 20:10-18 I can tell you the real answer, but you probably won't like it. God regularly condemns entire peoples and uses other peoples to wipe them out. This scenario effectively plays out in reverse later when the Kingdom of Israel is totally destroyed by neighboring kingdoms, who are believed to be acting as agents of God to punish Israel. There's methods people use to hand-wave this stuff, but it's there and it's a recurring theme throughout the OT, so I'll just tell you the truth about it. The way things play out here is that peoples who are loyal to God and have strong, faithful societies are going to survive whereas those who are disloyal to God are going to be annihilated. And Jesus, in withering the fig tree, continues this sort of divine judgment. In essence, the religiosity of a society is the greatest predictor of its cultural and military strength. The values that accompany religious belief also accompany strong societies. At the time God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asks God whether God would destroy the city if ten righteous people still lived in it. God replies that no, he would not. This means that the peoples destroyed in this time were despised by God, even their women and children, who the Bible notes are frequent victims of such conquering; look to the book of Lamentations to see how the Israelites respond to Jerusalem being treated in the same way. If this seems overly harsh, please consider God's perspective as the infinitely wise creator and final judge of humankind. The OT tells a story of the Israelites being powerful conquerers blessed by God, and finally being conquered themselves due to their infidelity. They then try to rebuild afterwards with a stronger and more lasting spiritual foundation. I think this is an insightful look at how civilizations rise and fall throughout history. site posted:Yeah nice handwave, but I'm a little confused. You're saying that being able to be resuscitated means that you weren't dead in the first place? I think the medical profession would like to have words with you. I'm saying you were not dead, yes. The resurrection of Christ was a miraculous event that occurred three days later, I'm not convinced that's a good analogy for your resuscitation. Only death is death. But actually, since you're asking about when a soul is judged, that's an interesting question. The Catholic church holds that the soul is immediately judged after death and then sent either to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory (which leads to Heaven). Calvinists and some others argue for "soul sleep" in which souls lie dormant until the Last Judgment. Given the non-temporal nature of the afterlife I think it is possible that one could die and "immediately" find themselves at the Last Judgment. CommieGIR posted:But lets be honest: You are holding up the catholic church as a better example? This is the same church that won't even prosecute pedophiles in their midst without intense and decades long scrutiny. They praise people like Mother Theresa who LITERALLY forced people with disease and illness to suffer to 'bring them closer to god'. The same church that refuses to acknowledge that birth control and sex ed would do more than abstinence only sex ed in fighting STDs. I will give you three sentences in response to your three sentences: (1) The Catholic church is human and not without corruption, but on the whole does believe in forgiveness. (2) Suffering is considered a spiritual pursuit and people willingly went to Blessed Teresa's hospices for a spiritual death, not medical assistance. (3) The Church views sexually depraved culture as the source of STDs (and other consequences) and so does not wish to encourage it. Obdicut posted:Why, when I asked you two questions, one of which I said was really the important one, did you instead go with the one I said was 'nitpicky'? Sorry, I have a lot of replies to sort through, and this question is complicated. But Christianity I think is best because it has the full package. It has excellent wisdom and moral truth, it has the Creator, it has Jesus, it has the afterlife. Buddhism, I see as almost nihilistic (which is probably why it is popular with nihilists). Islam I see as a parody, offensively denying the crucifixion of Christ. Judaism I see as denying Christ, and a racial club that doesn't want me. I've studied the other religions, but none seemed as good as the one I grew up with. However, I did change denominations when I realized the supremacy of Catholic theology.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Nessus posted:If I can make a Tolkien analogy, the God you are outlining here sounds a lot more like Melkor than Iluvatar. He is cruel and beyond questioning, uncaring about the fate of the smaller ones - or worse, saying that great horror is justified by some long-off future positive benefit, which certainly seems like a wonderful excuse for whatever genocides, purges, social abuses and other horrible things a particular ruler or kingdom might care to inflict. Are you sure that you're backing the right horse? I agree it might appear that way since we are talking about religious justification of genocide, rape, and slavery, after all. But it is a part of all ancient religions, including Christianity, the other Abrahamic branches, and yes, even Buddhism. It is complementary to the act of war, that it be holy war, that it be total and full and put the enemy "under the ban." But an interesting thing one observes as xhe reads the Bible is the way the tone becomes increasingly moderated and self-critical. By the time you're in the "wisdom books" of the later portion of the OT, such as Proverbs or Ecclesiastes or Job, one finds a different idea of the faith than one had in the time of Moses and Joshua. And Christianity is, of course, a major self-criticism of Judaism, trying to elevate these higher values of the "wisdom books" into being the central values of the faith, in place of the strict legalism of the Pharisees. Essentially, the idea that "hey, maybe this stuff is kind of bad" was not lost on many (any?) of the descendants of the religion, even in the time of the Kingdom of Israel, where the religion starts to fall apart and multicultural values seep in, the false prophets and evil kings and traitors run rampant, institutions are no longer observed, resulting in their eventual routing. One finds it a theological problem to work around, but one can never truly deny, not if he wishes to stay consistent, that God did command his people to slaughter and enslave other societies. It is one of many puzzles as we try to understand the people of the past and their divine inspiration when doing acts that seem barbaric to us, but they saw as civilizing the world. Tolkien was Catholic, by the way. Lots of Catholic themes in LOTR. quote:As for your theory of religious belief and its values, despite your cruel words of Islam - did not the Muslims conquer huge swaths of territory within several generations, while it took the Spanish hundreds of years to merely, just, take back Spain? If religious values equal military and cultural strength, this would imply that Islam, at least, can match Christianity in its cultural effect; even if you're going to say that Spain was impious and therefore was occupied by Muslims for centuries, the opposite case could probably be made, i.e. Islamic kingdoms were founded and eventually collapsed. Islam was strong at that time, and conquering Christian lands, but Christianity renewed its strength and fought back. Today, Christianity is weak in Europe, and Islam seeps in; but, Islam is actually in decay internally. Like the rest of the world, it is succumbing to modernist fantasies that religion can be forgotten, and is not with us forever, embedded in our cultural DNA. Things like ISIS are a reaction to this spiritual decay, not a sign of strength. They are a last gasp. quote:Alternately, you're boiling down an incredibly complex socioeconomic and cultural factor into a single overall trait, which only makes sense if it's supposed to be your reputation score with God. In which case I would ask, what determines the outcome of conflicts between other civilizations, in the areas which had the severe misfortune to not be ancient Israel? A correction, and an apology for being confusing earlier: God does not directly command, say, the Babylonians to overrun Israel, rather, he withdraws his divine protection from Israel. The barbarians are always seen to be at the gates, ready to destroy everything. Only the holy war of the Israelites was truly holy, in a biblical sense. All the rest of it is just viewed as heathens killing one another for their false idols of wood and stone. War between barbarians does not appear to have any religious significance. quote:On Islam, why is this offensive? I can say as a non-Christian that the focus on the torture and death of your central figure is kind of creepy. I understand why it's important, but it seems as if Jesus's life and teachings are less important than his agonizing death. Islam does not, I gather, question Jesus's moral teachings, and in fact I believe in their apocalyptic scenarios, Jesus has a starring role - larger than Muhammad! It is offensive to the sufferings of Christ to claim they never occurred, an insulting attempt to write Our Lord's crucifixion out of history. And the justification used for it -- that God would never hurt one of his prophets -- is absurd, considering so many of the other prophets suffered as well, to the point Jesus gave parables, such as that of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, which is an allegory for the Israelites' mistreatment and murdering of the prophets, and a prophecy of his own death at their hands. Oh, but sure, Islam supposedly respects his teachings! *rolleyes* Except it doesn't, just take all of the words of Jesus and replace them with words of Muhammad (spoken as a baby in a cradle at times), change everything else fundamental to the story, and that's Isa. quote:On Judaism, what do you think about the historical treatment of the Jews by Christians? Not significantly different than Judaism's historical treatment of "resident aliens" in their society, judging by the Bible, despite plenty of kind words about how they should be treated. *shrug* People are people and culture is a real concept and generally speaking Christians prefer to live with Christians and I imagine Jews prefer to live with Jews. Having two contradictory religions in the same space will inevitably cause conflict. Just look at India and Pakistan. Lampsacus posted:Hey theists/christians of this thread. What would it take for you to stop believing? I might doubt again if the Creator of the universe revealed Himself to us and said, "uhh I have nothing to do with that Bible stuff"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
I had a nice night last night! I did some spiritual reflection and remembered just how deeply guilty I am in the eyes of God, and how everything I have is purely a result of his mercy. How all harsh judgment on my part is inherently hypocritical, because if I were to be judged harshly by God I would be cast in the lake of fire. I saw how I was responsible for all of the friendships, relationships, and colleagues that have gone wrong, and so I apologized to everyone else in spirit and absolved them of their fault; I saw the vulgarity of my lusts, and although I know I cannot control myself, I will aspire to avoid my most heinous acts. Now, there's like 350 new posts in this thread, so time to get crackin'! Nessus posted:I'm aware Tolkien was Catholic. You seem to have gotten a very different read out of the religion than he did. Then again, he actually had to fight a grinding war. Or does God only want wars that are routs and slaughters? I merely interpret the text as it is. The alternative is to say, "God didn't really do this, it was a mistaken human addition to the Bible." But that is a road that allows one to undermine the whole Bible, or whatever parts you dislike, and also defeats the purpose of trying to understand the intended meaning of ancient religious texts in a purely scholarly way. Or one can say, "God changed his mind later," but that contradicts crucial doctrine that God does not change, and implies God had faulty and evil views. Some say, "it is a progressive revelation," but this still doesn't really explain why God ordered genocide. Others say, "God is an evil fascist and if he does exist, I will not worship him," but I have more respect for my Creator and Savior than that. And others say, "The whole thing is irrelevant, because God does not exist," but this is nonsensical because God obviously exists. Suppose God is a fascist; what, then, can we learn about fascism? CommieGIR posted:1.Soooo....in other words, not as superior as you make it out to be. 1. I never claimed it was superhuman, only that it holds onto the truth. 2. She ran hospices. A hospice is where someone goes to die. 3. Before the spread of rampant sexual misbehavior, STDs were nowhere near as bad of a problem. But STDs and unwanted pregnancies and emotional trauma and other consequences aren't the real reason for encouraging people to be chaste, the reason is the virtue of chastity itself, which ennobles mankind. Paul MaudDib posted:That's a fallacy, though. A placebo can have a substantial medical effect on a believer, even though it has no actual medical effect whatsoever. For many people, believing something will have an effect literally makes it so - completely independent of the existence of any deity. There is no "community service that builds a similar emotional connection" to the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ. Chupe Raho Aurat posted:How come none of the many "lost tribes" still being discovered today, ever walk out or the jungle and say "Hi, have you guys heard about Jesus?" People have to be told the Gospel. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:That's bread in the tabernacle itself, not just consecrated bread. Like I said, making poo poo up What a stretch! But there is only one kind of consecrated showbread in Leviticus. GlyphGryph posted:Ugh, a Catholic. You, who in truth cast down god and worship the devil, represented by your human "father", are actually willing to start a thread about how Catholicism is the way to Christ? You truly think your idolatry, your usurping of the divine by those who advocated that god's love could be bought with a suitable donation, is the way to Christ? We worship God and renounce Satan. The word "father" is a term of respect used elsewhere in the Bible, to be distinguished from the Heavenly Father. There is no idolatry in the Catholic Church, only veneration of icons and relics, and God's love is not purchased, these are myths. quote:The Bible teaches that only Jesus is the source of salvation, and yet your Church argues that Jesus is not enough. It plants itself firmly between man and god. How do you reconcile the blasphemy of your "pope", who holds himself up as the equal of Jesus Christ? The Bible teaches that Jesus is the only source of salvation, as does the Church; but the Bible also teaches in some passages that rites such as baptism are essential for salvation. It is not between men and God, the church are the men and women of God. The pope does not hold himself as the equal of Jesus Christ, this is another myth. quote:Fight against those like the Church who would raise false idols. The Bible says "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Timothy 2:5,6), and yet your Church as replaced him yet again, as it replaced him as the head of the Church, has peddled the blatant blasphemies that "in Mary is effected the reconciliation of God with humanity" (On Reconciliation and Penance. St. Paul Editions, p. 139). It has risen up the Saints, mere humans, as divine agents, and it's aim has always been the same. It's the aim of transubstantiation, where the powers of the church claim to be able to command and control the Lord our Creator, it's the aim of claiming that only the Catholic Church can save your soul, their tithing is collected to insure their domination here on earth as the servant of the one who was given power here on Earth, to lead souls astray. The Saints, including Mary, are held to be in divine communion with the Lord our God in Heaven. The saints are great Christian men and women from history, deserving of immense respect by any Christian. Praying to the saints is called "intercessory prayer," in which the saint then prays to God on your behalf. Transubstantiation does not seek to control the Lord, but merely fulfills his command to "do this in memory of me." Our tithing, by which is meant voluntary donations, required by any denomination which desires to function at all, is collected for various communal purposes, including art and structures which benefit all churchmen, as well as schools, hospitals, and charities which directly assist those least fortunate. But perhaps it's better in your pocket? That's enough for this post! But I'm not done just yet tonight...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:So here's something that always stumped me. A very good question! The official Catholic teaching is that those God-fearing souls who died prior to Christ's crucifixion were held in "The Bosom of Abraham" in Hades, which is the Greek word for Sheol, the Old Testament conception of death, which is not really the same as Hell (it is not eternal fire, but simply a place without thought, or sound, or sight, etc.) When Jesus died on the cross, his soul "descended into Hell," as we say in the Creed, but in truth it is written in Acts 2:31 that he descended into Hades. There, it is believed that Jesus gathered all of the good souls in Hades, and brought them to Paradise with him, before his glorious Resurrection. BrandorKP posted:Kyrie what is the context of the four Gospels? By that I mean in direct response to what event were the four gospels written. Why does that context make what you're doing here problematic? The context of the Gospels is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, who redeemed mankind of its sin and offered it forgiveness and eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't understand your last question. GreyjoyBastard posted:Kyrie, we already know your stance on Buddhism - they should have bargained for a better offer than nonexistence (by accepting Jesus Christ into their hearts). How about the Hindus? Hinduism is the corrupted, popular version of Brahmanism. It is notable for its "acceptance of all religious philosophies", but anyone should be able to note the problem herein: religious philosophies are contradictory! It is impossible to be both a Catholic and a Muslim. Hinduism is so tolerant because it treats religion as purely a means of personal religious satisfaction, and not as an eternal, inviolable truth. It is fundamentally polytheistic, idolatrous, etc; it is a multicultural religion which does not uphold standards of reason or truth, only personal experience, and is therefore akin to feel-good new age philosophy in substance, and it is precisely its mish-mash of an assortment of beliefs that makes it "the oldest religion on Earth." It is possible for people to be very good Hindus; but although it appears kind and harmless, it seeks to convince people that Christ is merely "another path," and not the only path, which He is. ShadowCatboy posted:Seriouspost: What are your thoughts regarding the epistemology that underlies a belief in God? How do you come to know God, and how do you know you've come to know God? Or to put it another way: what are your thoughts regarding reason, faith, and their relationship to a justified belief in God? This is a difficult question to answer without giving a personal account. But I will try and abstract it a bit. Honestly, it's a whole bunch of pieces coming together; you feel His presence in moments of prayer, worship, activity, guilt, joy, and contemplation; you see the truth of His morality every day; and you reason out that He must have created the universe, and must have sent Christ here to save our woeful species, who He loves despite our faults. As for Buddhism and Islam, I have addressed my thoughts on them in other posts in this thread. I'm still pages behind, but this will be my last question of the night! One has to be well rested.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Good evening friends! I have decided to stay up a little unreasonably late to work through a few more questions. I saw some good questions I wanted to respond to while reading at work today, but couldn't respond then. Since I'm still eight pages behind, I've been searching each page for "kyrie". Going forward, I recommend you use this word in your post if there are a lot of posts and you want me to address it. Also, please feel free to re-ask questions I have missed due to the volume. Here is a melancholy but powerful (if you stick with it) little song to accompany my post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99TCWaHmWKc Malmesbury Monster posted:I'm not sure anyone has found the answer to that one yet. Obviously, it can't be confrontational. Pope Francis recently made some waves by suggesting that maybe proselytizing is rude (obviously kyrie wasn't listening). This comment, like many others by the Holy Father (especially as they are construed by the media), have caused a stir in the Catholic community! But we know that the Pope, of all people, encourages evangelism, and talking about the faith. He does it all the time! He simply likes to challenge us with comments like this. What he means by "proselytizing" is a negative form of evangelization which includes violence or coercion or rudeness or other methods of intimidation, rather than "attraction", which he says is the true method of conversion. My only goal here is to answer questions, not to browbeat anybody. You are free to make your own choice. Salt Fish posted:I was raised Mormon and attended a Mormon church for 15 years. Kyrie eleison, I find your omission of The Book of Mormon from the OP very troubling. How can you claim to be happy with your life when you have not understood the full truth of our relationship with God? You will eventually realize the error of your ways when your immortal soul burns in hell for eternity. Mormonism is similar to Islam in that it is a "latter-day" addition to the true texts, and quite a fanciful one at that! One of the members of my church is an ex-Mormon and he is a very solid person and great believer (and doubter!). I think of Mormonism as kind of a cynical American nationalism that views religion as just a political and social tool, to the extent they will accept truly ridiculous theology. CommieGIR posted:Not that I really care, but they worship Christ as the son of god and recognize the trinity. Pretty sure that makes them Christian. Actually, Mormons reject the Trinity. BrandorKP posted:I would ask the same type of questions about the OT interpretation Kyrie does. Being able to do this involves recognizing that the stories in the bible are myths: stories told by humans to communicate meaning with each other. Parts are definitely not factual. That should not be threatening to Christians. It should be especially nonthreatening to anyone who thinks Jesus is the Logos. It is a factual statement to say that the bible was written by people with agendas who occasionally made things up to try to influence the world and the people around them. Interpreting the bible as if it is perfect and directly from God is to deny a truth standing right in front of oneself. Logos-centric Christians (Kyrie) should not do that. Of course I doubt these things, but when it comes down to it, one has to accept Scripture. There isn't much point of reading the Bible if you aren't going to accept that it means what it says. I'm curious about how you interpret the conquest of Canaan. rudatron posted:That's actually a really good metaphor considering the point BrandorKP just brought up. Kyrie, troll or not, is the fan obsessed with canon, creating wired structures and performing mental gymnastics to trying to bring their stories into 'real life', whereas brandor is saying that subtext actually matters more. I consider myself a fan of both. D1Sergo posted:Kyrie makes these threads repeatedly, this is like the 5th one I've seen this year. Yes its a troll, its one that has worked countless times before. This is incorrect, I'm not sure if I've ever made a thread in D&D before, but I certainly haven't made five this year. I have, um, involved myself in other threads, though mostly last year. Phobophilia posted:I have a question. Can Madoka ever forgive Homura for sealing away her divinity, seizing the power of the Law of Cycles, and locking her within a gilded cage? This is a very difficult question. I think Madoka has the capacity to forgive Homura, if Homura truly repents, but I will understand if Madoka's judgment is more final and severe in the situation she does not trust Homura's apology. VitalSigns posted:Also I don't think Kyrie has read the Bible because the argument "Wealth is proof of God's favor and proves my faith is true" was blown to pieces in the Book of Job. You overplayed your hand here, friend. I have most certainly read it, including Job, which is really a wonderful book that is often misconstrued. You are right that wealth is not a sign of righteousness, but that was not I meant in my initial post. What I meant by it was to point out that Christianity is important to human history, and therefore the human species, for all time. There's no avoiding it. It will always be there, right at our beginning. Forever. McDowell posted:I doubt Kyrie is a gimmick. I followed a girl on tumblr who had similar Catholic morals, but her politics were Stalinist instead of Moral Majority / Dork Enlightenment. prop-d?  (not many like her!)rudatron posted:Brandor is right: 'reason' functions to these atheists in exactly the same way as 'god' does to a canonical thiest. Forget about metaphysical arguments for the moment, how is the word 'god' used by a canonical (or maybe stereotypical) believer? It's a signifier not of an external entity, but something inside the believers' head. "This offends god" should just be read as "this offends me". "God does not approve" = "I do not approve". The external nature of 'god' is simply a projection of the believers' own ideas onto reality, hence why proof or disproof of it's existence isn't necessary. A Believer is able to maintain a psychological distance from their own ideas of reality, a 'simple observer' of themselves. That's an amazing device to deflect criticism, you essentially get to act humble even when maintaining your own superiority. A constant problem for Christians, or anyone else seeking to live a virtuous life, is to not be "proud of your humility", or "proud of your charity", or anything else like that. Basically, to not take pride in your virtues! And it is a constant struggle, as pride always is. Personally, I have a very simple refrain: "I am evil." And it always helps to put me in my place. I have been blessed by God in many ways, and if I have any wisdom at all, or any virtue at all, it comes only from Him. And if he desires to take any of it away, that is his right, and I cannot complain. I signed up to be "baptized by fire," and I know this life is ultimately a test. Alright, I hope this is satisfactory for now. Let me know if you have any other questions or want me to address a question I passed over.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:It's not enough for the bread to be consecrated for it to be reserved for the sons of Aaron; it needs to be actually used in a ceremonial purpose as well, by placing it in the tabernacle. Chapter and verse, if you please. (I really need to sleep and will respond later.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:What's funny is, other gods as you say actually offer something real. Money is power, reason gives you knowledge about the real world, fame is recognition, but God offers nothing. You can pray all you like but you will receive nothing. Might as well worship the gods that offer tangible rewards, the ones closer to D&D than the bible. Other gods offer nothing because they do not exist. God offers you the best possible things: eternal life, bliss, understanding, happiness, satisfaction, wisdom, strength, absolution. I receive things from prayer every single day. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:It's not enough for the bread to be consecrated for it to be reserved for the sons of Aaron; it needs to be actually used in a ceremonial purpose as well, by placing it in the tabernacle. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Lev. 24:8-9 Consecration is a big deal. The only bread that is consecrated is used for ceremonial purposes in the tabernacle. Those verses (which are the same I linked before) do not support your claim that there is some other sort of "lesser" consecrated showbread found in Leviticus. mdemone posted:I'm certainly aware that this is the prevailing theory. Mostly I just find it suspicious that Paul never sees fit to refer to Jesus as having really existed, if just in an offhand manner, not even once. However, that is not evidence for mythicism -- but neither can Paul be used to support historicism. (The historiography of Pauline text is very interesting on its own merits, but again that's not really relevant here.) Paul never met Jesus in his life. But it is obvious from the writings of Paul that he believed that Jesus was an actual man who preached, was crucified, and resurrected. For someone who seems to stand up for the position of "the scholars," you should accept that Jesus actually existing is a nearly unanimous position amongst them. I decided to do a cursory look to find some examples of Paul's quotes regarding the actual existence of Jesus. I didn't have to look very far. Here is the opening to the Book of Romans, the first book authored by Paul in the Bible: "Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised previously through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh, but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." As you can see he was "descended from David according to the flesh." This means Paul believed Jesus was a man of flesh and blood. quote:If Jesus had so many followers and met so many people during his ministry, why do we not have any contemporary sources? The answer must be 1) they never existed because nobody wrote anything down, which I find a barely-tolerable assertion, 2) they were destroyed, which doesn't make sense for a church that would prize historical proof of their founder, or 3) they never existed because Jesus never existed. If we adopt #1, things start to get pretty sketchy because there are a few decades in the late 1st century (after the war) where not only do we not know what was happening, we don't know who was in charge of the Christian church, what they were teaching, where they were traveling, or what they thought of Jesus himself. Only afterwards do we start to see written Christian texts, and that is a major red flag even if it's not dispositive for any particular claim. We have tons of contemporary sources. They are called Christians. That they did not write things down until their later years when death was approaching is perfectly understandable. That earlier documents might have been destroyed is also totally understandable given the destruction of Judea and the absolute persecution of Christians by both Jews and pagan Rome. quote:No, the problem is that the Roman records burned twice during the first century, well before Tacitus began to write. Neither he nor Pliny the Younger would have primary records of Roman Palestine before the Neronian war, and very likely this means there was no way for him to have that information about Chrestus from a neutral source. Again, we have many surviving commentaries on Tacitus, and none that were written before the 4th century quote his mention of Chrestus, whereas the ones written during and after the 4th century do quote the text at issue. This fits with the timing of other known redactions that can be traced to the 4th century, which doesn't prove anything but certainly doesn't help Tacitus look any more pristine. His work is probably compromised, and/or almost certainly founded on hearsay. Why do you not mention Josephus, the earliest non-Christian source to write about Jesus? And just what is your proposed alternative theory for how the New Testament and Christianity came about, if not a man named Jesus? And, finally: what documentation do you have from the time to support your alternative theory? quote:Edit: I want to say that no one should take my posts as being combative or polemical. I could just talk about this stuff for days because it's so drat interesting from a historiographical perspective. It makes no difference to me whether Jesus existed or not; as a strong atheist I am certain that even if he did, he was not divine, but "merely" a good guy with great ideas who was also maybe just a little kooky about his god. It's the rise of Christianity throughout the first millennium that is such a powerful topic, for me. Really? It makes no difference to you whether Jesus existed or not? ShadowCatboy posted:One of these influences was Platonic idealism. As you guys might remember from high school philosophy, Plato held that the primacy of reality lay not in material things, but rather was rooted in their related concepts. For Plato, ideas were not mental representations of objects. Instead, objects are flawed instantiations of ideas. This led to a hierarchy of being in Plato's worldview, where ideas stood at the top (the idea of a chair, which was eternal), objects stood beneath them (a particular chair, which will suffer dents and scratches, break, and eventually rot away), and depictions of objects stood lower still (a painting of a chair is a mere representation of a chair, which is itself a mere representation of an idea. Two steps removed from the ideal reality). Sadly, the vast majority of people here in America have never studied Plato, as we do not have "high school philosophy," though I wish it were otherwise! quote:This logic naturally leads to a certain sense of asceticism, and is likely what was responsible for one of the iconic elements of Christianity: the sense of stark metaphysical dualism between body and soul, the material and divine, as well as the denigration and disdain for material life. Whereas Judaism was more concerned with daily life and ways of living, Christianity was about purifying oneself of base material needs to merge with the divine (a form of Platonic asceticism). Here you make assumptions, though. I would not accuse Plato of being an ascetic. He was a man of prestige and aristocracy, and never once preached asceticism in his works. Instead, he taught the importance of fitness and excellence in life. He did teach that the "golden souls" should not be too wealthy, and receive a public stipend, so as to avoid corrupting them with greed, but this is simplicity and humility, not asceticism, which is rather extreme. Anyway, early Christianity had a bit of a debate about asceticism, and the ascetics lost, and for good reason, as Christ was not an ascetic, but "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'" Most of the ascetics ended up being gnostics who believed the material world was evil, created by the Demiurge, not God; they are not Christians. quote:Christianity then is just Judaism interpreted through a Greco-Roman lens. This becomes more obvious as you look at other elements of the Catholic church as it evolved: the Papacy itself is just an extension of the Roman Imperial system, whereas Sainthood is just a version of Roman polytheism and apotheosis. I will make a better argument than you have for your case. Plato, in The Republic, condemns the Greco-Roman religion as a bad influence on society, and says it needs to be replaced. The religion he describes in the book is nearly identical to Christianity in its core principles. There is one God, he is the source of all good, and humanity is the source of all evil. It is no surprise the neo-Platonists saw Judaism and thought they might be able to kill two birds with one stone: create a new religion based on Judaic origin, and isolate the Jews from it simultaneously. And one surely must expect Jesus knew about this, given how important Greek oppression of the Jews was during the Second Temple period, as observed in the Maccabees, where Greeks go around forcing Jews to convert to Greek religion/philosophy and building gymnasiums everywhere. No, one can't accuse Jesus of ignorance; he was a man of his time and place, and the New Testament is written in Greek. More to come.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You're Catholic, you've got scholasticism in your tradition. Texts have multiple meanings. Yes, my Catholic Bible explains this in the introduction, but I still don't buy it. It seems a bit like modernism creeping in out of fear of critique. But we should not fear Scripture. I like to take the text as it is written, out of respect for its authors. The Deuteronomist is typically treated as an individual, not a group; and in our modern scholarship it is considered that he wrote the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings... in other words, the entire history of the Kingdom of Israel. To doubt his words on Joshua is to doubt his words on everything else. And honestly, I don't see any reason, not a bit, why Joshua couldn't be an honest record. Are we to believe it was simply beyond the Israelites to commit genocide, due to their closeness with God? Please. They were the people of God, going to the promised land, killing off the resident giants, by command of God himself. To say otherwise seems like "whitewashing the wall," and an injurious skepticism. quote:It's an state origin myth. How/why origin myths are used and formed, I personally think that's much more interesting and useful to understanding the world right now. And do you believe the Kingdom of Israel never existed, that David and Solomon never lived? (how common it is to believe such things these days!) quote:Here's the thing. Christian does mesh with neo-platonism quite well. But then again it meshes with Aristotelianism quite well (see the Catholics). But then again it meshes with existentialism quite well. It's content is independent of the philosophical vehicle. Hell there are even examples of positivism meshed with Christianity. same. mdemone posted:Acts is an apologetic fiction in the guise of an historical document, according to most modern scholarship. See the following, among others: Oh, God, here we go. quote:The MacDonald work is especially instructive. He works out the detailed parallels between Homer's Odyssey and Paul's shipwreck, in a way that makes the conclusion impossible to avoid: Acts is a literary creation without historical value. Points of comparison include, but are not limited to: Really now. An angel appearing in acts is evidence it is a copycat of the Odyssey. In addition to this, the protagonists are both two-armed human beings on a mission. Peter escaping from prison couldn't be an event because Homer once wrote a story about someone escaping. Anyone who has ever been on a boat is suspect. quote:In each of these cases, there are actual Greek words and phrases that appear identically in both Homer and Acts. This is not a coincidence, and it likely wasn't meant by Luke to be read as one. He also uses Greek vocabulary from Euripides and the book of Ezekiel, but the Homer rip-offs are the most obvious ones. Actual Greek words and phrases being in common between two Greek texts? Amazing. quote:As Burton Mack said regarding the hundreds of Jews that supposedly converted after the Pentecost sermon: "No Jew worth his salt would have converted when being told that he was guilty of killing the messiah." Simply insulting. Paul was a Jew, Peter was a Jew, lots of early Christians were Jews. Lots of them accepted that they were responsible for killing the Messiah, like they had killed so many prophets before them. It's all prophesied! "They have pierced my hands and feet..." If there is one thing the prophets of the Old Testament makes abundantly clear, it is that your typical rank-and-file Israelite has absolutely no loyalty to God, and loves to persecute those who do, because they threaten their comfort via their warnings.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDEfQq56ebc
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Lord, I am grateful for the ignore list.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:I mean what kind of goofball would knowingly choose to be a pathetic loser if they could also choose to be cool and righteous?? All kinds, evidently. (My own included)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Catholic social teaching strongly opposes racism. The far left and the far right are two sides of the same coin. Both are willing to laugh about abhorrent violence and evil against their enemies out of hate. Please remember that, although it can be good to criticize someone's behavior, and even to act against it, that we must be charitable in doing so. Let us aspire not to be violent, or hypocritical, or vulgar, which lessens us. Let us remember that our words come from our heart, and defile us. We must seek atonement only through personal change and never through judgmental hypocrisy. Let us look at our brother and sister and neighbor and see ourselves, in a spirit of love. Christ did not die for one race of people. All people are disloyal sinners in his eyes, who without his mercy would be deserving of damnation. He died that all people's sins might be forgiven, that we might correct our misbehaviors and our bad thoughts, control our tongues, and that all people might come together in a constructive union in his name. Where the church must criticize, it must only do so constructively. And it must show tolerance and understanding to those who think differently, in the sincere hope that they might come around before their death. I want to apologize for my own failures in this regard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Hey, another question, which may sound flippant, but is actually sincere. It is a sacred mystery to ponder, and you will always gain by thinking about it. Jesus, sinless, preached the forgiveness of sins. He taught eternal life, and the true spirit of the law. He was put to death for it, as he prophesied. Then he resurrected, as he prophesied. His sacrifice on the cross was instrumental to his teaching. He saw it necessary to prove, via his resurrection, that resurrection was real, and that even men condemned on this Earth were capable of it. He was doing this for our spiritual benefit, out of his love for us. Going through the worst torments, the worst injustices, so that we might observe that he is with us when we undergo the same. This is infinitely more powerful for God to do than to snap his fingers and end all evil, which he could do, but chooses not to, in his divine wisdom, and as his divine right. God did not change the rules, but upheld the same rules that have always been in place. Jesus existed at the beginning of time, with the Father and the Spirit, as they are one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Miltank posted:This is the great Catholic heresy The Church does uphold predestination, which is attested to in the Bible. It just does not reject free will, and interestingly neither does Zizek in his "nuanced" theology. You can look at CCC 600 for the official Catholic teaching on predestination and free will. fade5 posted:Universalism/universal reconciliation, the OG Christian afterlife theology, and pretty much the only one that doesn't make God into a mean, vengeful rear end in a top hat who tortures people for eternity. Universalism's cool, it's basically the backbone of the squishy, contradictory mess you could call my belief system. Universalism really should be a more popular theology/belief, but for some reason people prefer the ability to threaten nonbelievers with eternal punishment rather than assuring them that the afterlife will be better than their current one. There is a problem with it, which is that the Bible directly contradicts it. A Christian is obligated to hope for the salvation of all, but to respect God's final judgment. One cannot demand of God that he does not cast anyone apart from him into the eternal fire. God accepts only his servants and slaves into Heaven, not those who challenge his Will, which is good and just. And if it seems otherwise to you, it is because you are a mere mortal with no wisdom, as all of your wisdom proceeds from your Creator, and he can change your mind tomorrow, and very well may, if you invite him to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
The concept of eternity, which is essential to thoughts of the divine, is an interesting one, as it transcends the concept of time. For God has created time, as he created space. The world God knows, the Heavenly realm, has neither time nor space, and the best analogy we have in thinking about it would be another dimension. For him, all moments on Earth are viewable simultaneously, like all places, and all minds. And if he places you aside from him, he does it for all time; and yet, if he wishes, he can also retrieve you from that place, for all time. What does it mean that Jesus reigns for "a thousand years" in Revelation, with his most loyal servants, or that Satan is imprisoned in the abyss for "a thousand years," and yet, the beast and the false prophet are punished in the lake of fire "day and night, forever and ever"? There is something about the concept of eternity that we are not quite grasping. I think God's judgment is eternal (that is, not bound by time), but changeable; in the way a person can commit a mortal sin, and thus drat himself to Hell forever, and yet he can confess it, and be welcomed back into eternal Paradise. There is also the question of what God intends to do after bringing this world to a close, after its time has finished executing and the Second Coming ends the universe. Will he create a new world? A new Heavens and a new Earth? We get a bit into questioning the motives of God here, which also interests me; I suspect it is in no small part amusement. I wouldn't hold any of the above as proper doctrinal thinking, I'm sure it likely contains some errors, but it seems plausible enough at my current level of study. The Ender posted:Assuming that this is not a joke post: God has given me the knowledge that it happened.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
The Ender posted:How did God give the knowledge? Did you fall over and hit your head on something one afternoon, and when you got back up suddenly it was all so clear? Yes, I've read it, and it's astoundingly clear and repeated throughout the Bible that the Lord whose name you write in vain, is in fact the one true God, who created the universe, knows all and sees all, and is the giver of all wisdom. But you are not reading it with any intention of understanding its message.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If God can't take me saying "you're a bitch God," then I'm better than him. I'm his God. I assure you he can endure the insult, but you will not be able to endure the consequences.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Can you explain why the LORD, fighting with his chosen people, was unable to overcome the guys with the chariots? Because it was not His will that the army of Judah defeat the guys with the chariots at that time. SedanChair posted:So he'll punish me super hard? And what'll that avail him? Who knows? Some satisfaction, I suspect.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:An omnipotent being would experience satisfaction? Sounds like a bitch to me Why not? What would you do if you were omnipotent? So far as I can tell, the big problem with omnipotence is boredom.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
The Ender posted:The passage does not say he did not will it or did not want to, it says he could not, which is significantly different. It's within the context of several passages where Yahweh is leading onward the conquest of different territories & cities - it was very much his will & desire to drive out those people in the valley, but they had chariots, and the cavalry repulsed them. Later on Yahweh had to resort to violent coercion of city inhabitants to show his army weaknesses in the enemy defenses so that they could be exploited. Why does an all powerful super being need spies to find gaps in city fortifications? God is pretty metal, dude. Rappaport posted:I could have compassion, and empathy, for the beings in my creation? What compassion and empathy do you have for someone who insults you? Especially a being you have created? Vaall posted:God is dead, fool. Get with the times. You mean... the end times?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Someone called me a bitch once. So I set him on fire. Then I used magic to keep him alive so I could set him on fire over and over and relish the stench and the screams. Rappaport posted:The same I would have for anyone else? That I would not wish upon anyone anything but good things, a full belly and merriment, the fulfillment of their personal goals? Yeah, sure. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:A being of infinite wisdom and infinite resources would hold petty grudges and resentments, mete out infinite punishments for finite transgressions? This is what you wish to venerate and hold dear? I pity you. Why do you hate yourself?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So there's a book, which says it's the final authority and source of all knowledge... and the evidence is that the final authority and source of all knowledge says that the book is that! This seems like a syllogism. Is this another miracle? The book says that the Creator is the final authority and source of all knowledge, which is obviously true. And since the human authors of this book speak with reverence of him, and with consistency in teaching, they speak using the Spirit, and thus their Word is inerrant. quote:Also, this focus on the text of the Bible seems decidedly... protestant. Are you sure you haven't slid into heresy? Perhaps your prayers merely anger God. Perhaps he's tricked you, for the joy of hearing your eternal torment screams!! As if Protestants know anything of the text! They removed seven whole books from it, that's how much they value the Sacred Scriptures... anyway, of course the Bible and its teachings are central to Catholicism. Catholics compiled the thing! VitalSigns posted:Yes this is the sane response to... oh wait poo poo you are being sarcastic Look at this hypocrisy! You who turn away from God, find it insane that He turns away from you? You who mock God, find it insane that He mocks you? You think it isn't fair? Nessus posted:If God is so all-fired superior to us, while still being analogous to us, sending any human to eternal torment - literally eternal - would be like throwing an infant in the meat grinder because it pissed on the rug, because we literally are incapable of knowing any better. I write a post about eternity before, equating it with "timeless" rather than "unchanging". The earliest writing of "unquenching fire" comes from the prophet Isaiah, who describes it in the last verse he ever wrote: "They shall go out and see the corpses of the people who rebelled against me; For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be extinguished; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." I am open to the possibility of salvation from Hell, but only through repentance.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:If god is burning someone merely for calling it a "bitch", then god must be very small indeed. What is your reaction when one of your creation calls you a bitch? Gizmoduck_5000 posted:If it can endure the insult,then why are there consequences at all? I said that he can endure it, not that it doesn't sting. All insults have consequences. VitalSigns posted:Even if the Creator is obviously real and is the final authority of all knowledge, that doesn't mean any particular random douchebag claiming to speak for Him "with reverence" is automatically right. For an example, see: your opinion on Mohammed. Mohammad is inconsistent with prior teaching, which I listed as essential criteria. quote:Well it would be hypocritical of me, having set God on fire forever, to object to Him doing the same to me... oh wait poo poo, I didn't set Him on fire at all, yet Christians are still threatening me with burning for eternally just for disagreeing with them. Well then. Very well -- by your request, I will tune you out, and let your life play out naturally, come what may. And upon your death, I will not attend your funeral, and you can simply cease existence, and be forgotten. And if you come calling to me for help, I will say, "I never knew you."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Of course it isn't. You're proposing a being with power, intellect & morality well beyond that of a human being - a human issuing a petty insult at a deity must be about equivalent as best to a cat clawing your leg. Is it then totally appropriate to beat the cat or light it on fire because, hey, those claws hurt? Very well; I will release the cat into the wilderness where it will no longer pester me. quote:You also never really explained how this awesome deity somehow got bested by some guys with light cavalry or why he needed human spies to infiltrate a settlement's defenses. Also, why did he need to rest after claiming to have erected the firmament and pillars and poo poo? Also, why did he claim to erect the firmament and pillars and poo poo when none of those things actually exist? Because your first question is almost identical to the one before, so I hoped you could extrapolate the answer using your brain. And He rested because He wanted to. Seriously -- do you have any critical thinking ability at all?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Yes, the right thing for parents to do to their angsty teens is to throw them in a pit of fire for eternity when they talk back. That does not answer my question.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Let me guess: your first impulse when your offspring calls you a bitch, is to be really forgiving and loving of it, and to give it the privilege of eternal life in your Heavenly Kingdom. Right? Am I right here?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Like VitalSigns said, there's really no way of telling what the creature would do; a child raised in a society devoted to it would probably perceive it differently and behave accordingly, either out of fear, hope or whatever, but as a person raised without religion I perceive the hypothetical creature as a monstrosity. Any citizen of Best Korea tries to abide by the insane society they've been cast into, but if Jong-Un could actually tell who was honest in their love of him and who was not, the situation would be far more dire than it is now. And it's pretty drat dire. If you're relatively certain you can't kow-tow to the monstrous deity, why even bother trying? As you say, anyone not pleasing to the monster would go down the memory hole and/or get tortured eternally. The threat of eternal torture would sway many, perhaps including me, but history has shown that people are capable of great sacrifice in defense of their own values. I could not appease the monster, so I might as well spend my life trying to adjust to the idea of eternal tortures, since the monster has created me with the properties that condemn me to said torture no matter what I do. Or at best leaves me incapable of knowing beforehand whether the eternal torture awaits me. There are those who show great determination, who willingly suffer Hell, and try to convince others to suffer Hell with them, in their spite for God, though they know they can never defeat Him. They are called Satan and his angels. But even in this defiance, they are merely the tools of God, and he could forcefully change their minds in an instant.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It seems as though we were all created just to be the toy soldiers of a creature beyond our understanding. Even our thoughts and our dreams are not safe. How do you know you are not being guided to give such a dismaying interpretation? I am being guided to give the true interpretation, as best as I know it. How you interpret it is up to you. If one tries to whitewash religion for the faint of heart, atheists say, "but that is against the teachings!", and they are right. So I will give you the official teachings, the true gospel, and you can make your choice as to whether you would rather be in Heaven or Hell. In the meantime, enjoy this gift of life, which none of us deserve.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNtfYfYs0WQ This Thanksgiving, I am thankful for my life. I am thankful for my family, and I am thankful for my friends. I am thankful for the wisdom and knowledge I have been granted. I am thankful for the fun times and the loves I have experienced. I am thankful for the comfort and warmth and security of my home, lest I live on the street like my neighbors. I am thankful for my gainful employment, and I desire to show this thanks to my employer and to my colleagues. I am thankful for the ready availability of good food, clean water, and medical assistance. I am thankful that I do not have to regularly fear violence and physical oppression. I am thankful for my nation, its good people, and its just laws; I am thankful for the Church, that it continue to guide our species towards sainthood. I am thankful for all of the people of the world, who have made my life rich with experience, and showed me the commonality of all people, that within them all at their burning center is you, you O Lord, that you are the only thing that makes a man just and good, the only thing that makes a man turn away from sin. I am thankful for your sacrifice in Christ Jesus. I am thankful for his resurrection. I am thankful to know you, Lord; this above all, I am thankful for you. In Jesus' name I pray, amen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
It is technically the position of the Church that the Bible is "inerrant". We are not likely to back away from this line. We will acknowledge that the firmament does not actually exist, but we will still consider the Bible inerrant. I view the firmament as an (intentionally) poetic thing, and sometimes when I am outside I like to look at the sky and imagine the firmament holding back the cosmic waters.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Miltank posted:It blows my mind that Mormons call themselves Christians and people actually buy it. It would be like if Muslims called themselves Mohammed Jews and everyone just went along with it (besides the actual Jews who would be like "wtf?!") An interesting note about this: unlike Christians, who view themselves as the Israelites, the spiritual successor to the ancient Israelites of the Bible... the Muslims consider themselves Ishmaelites, and think of the Israelites as the Jews, and as a disloyal tribe to God. Ishmael is a son of Abraham, and Israel is Abraham's grandson. They view the Genesis talk as origin stories for the races of mankind, with the Israelites being a genetic lineage (Jews), and the Ishmaelites being a genetic lineage (Arabs); Muhammad is held to be a descendant of Ishmael. The whole Muslim thing is like, "The Israelites distorted the true Abrahamic word, but we, the Ishmaelites, have the real deal." This is also why they do not include the Old Testament in their Scriptures, and view it as corrupted. The reason Muslims like Jesus is that he was basically giving the Israelites trouble by teaching the "true" Abrahamic faith.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:How could you possibly hold the view "the Bible is inerrant" and "there are things in the Bible that aren't true" at the same time? I don't hold that there are things in the Bible that aren't true. I hold that the firmament was intended to be poetic. The genealogies of Jesus, the basic idea is that they are harmonious, i.e., do not contradict each other. rkajdi posted:No, everyone gets to determine themselves what religion they are. You gatekeeping for Christianity is just as messed up as some rear end in a top hat gatekeeping for sexual orientation or racial identity. That's not realistic. I'm wondering what you think of otherkin.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
rkajdi posted:Nope, sorry. We've moved towards a personal definition of identity versus having it imposed on us. Welcome to the 21st century. I'm afraid your identity politics revolution is over, comrade. We abide by the rules of the collective, and by reason, once again. rkajdi posted:Otherkin I don't get, but again I don't get what the point on worrying about it is. Also, you're better off not using arguments cribbed from the standard internet racist. I don't identify as a racist, so I'm not racist.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 22:20
|
|