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

«‹›20 »

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

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.

This is quite a good question.

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?

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.

On a lighter note, what do you think of the parallel growth of monasteries in Buddhism and Christianity?

# ¿ Nov 16, 2014 19:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 04:56

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Caros posted:

Wow, less than a page and you're contradicting yourself. Here is what you said in your OP:

I've bolded the important part in each post.

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.

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.

I personally like to think I live a decent life. I'm not a great man, I'm not a bad man. If god thinks that this life, which I am destined to live by virtue of his omnipotence, is worth of sending me to hell then I guess I'm going to hell. I certainly have no desire to worship some great creator who thinks that eternal damnation is an appropriate punishment for quirks of personality or fate.

What I heard when I was at a Catholic college for a year and had to take classes in Catholic theology is basically: God MAY save ANYONE - even EVERYONE, except possibly Satan or other rebellious angels. Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot may get to come up to Heaven just like everyone else (if possibly after an unusually lengthy stay in Purgatory)

However, if you are a good Catholic and stay in harmony with their teachings, or at least bust rear end and show effort in trying, you WILL DEFINITELY go to Heaven.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2014 19:46

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

CommieGIR posted:

The question arises: How do you deduce the difference between a 'vision' and simple self-induced hallucinations?

Well if you scrape deep enough, everything's a hallucination. You're reading squiggles on a screen of light which, by mutual agreement, we have determined represent certain words and statements in a particular language, which we both know (if perhaps not in exactly the same way). Does this make reading a forum a self-induced hallucination?

I'm skeptical of the details the guy laid out but it certainly sounds like he had a genuine vision of SOMETHING.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2014 19:52

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

CommieGIR posted:

No, that's oversimplifying it a little too much. Regardless of my state of mind, the text and words and electronics and coding still work. Even if I myself could not deduce meaning from it, someone else could.

His state of mind can change whether or not he sees visions, hears voices, and assumes he was visited. Calling his vision genuine makes too many assumption about his mental state and his personal health at the time the visions occurred. Its another faith lesson: It was real, you just have to trust me on it.

The tangible remains tangible no matter what your state or your ability to deduce it.

I feel a Carl Sagan's 'Dragon in my Garage' moment coming on.

It seems like the same logic applies if he says he was visited by his grandmother, who brought him a brownie on a paper towel, which he ate and then threw out the paper towel, and all this was two months ago so it's all at the dump now.

When I say his vision is "genuine," I don't mean "his literal faith confession was actually objectively literally true and Christianity as he defines it is real and so on and so forth," I mean that he did probably see some poo poo and wrote down a more or less honest account of his subjective experience. To me the question here is "what fruits has this brought forth," and it seems to have brought forth a web post and random miracles, so perceived. This implies that God is capricious and likes a good joke on an ex-atheist, if God was in fact involved.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2014 19:59

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Lampsacus posted:

This reminds me of a series of honeypot threads in the civfanatics general forums. They were called 'Watch me destroy Christianity'. It was hundreds of pages of one post snipes repeating the same ruddy arguments.

hey down with slavery if you were born in a Muslim country

Would Jesus post? Would He troll?

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 00:24

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Ah, thanks for the reply.

Kyrie eleison posted:

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.

This seems tautological, because you seem to be suggesting that if you make a comparison and find that Christianity does not come out on top, you have been dishonest. I like a great deal of Jesus's ethical teaching but Jesus himself seems like a rather questionable teacher in a lot of ways - as I think Bertrand Russell said, Jesus got mad and kicked the money changers out of the temple; the Buddha would have, instead, convinced them to repent of their sins.

To me it seems like Christianity has strong, emotionally moving moral arguments which are wrapped in an excellent narrative core, but are also connected with profound dedication to several arbitrary-seeming doctrines. These doctrines then seem to be so profoundly and deeply wedded to the root of the religion that they make the entire thing seem like a farce. The doctrine of Hell is rather disgusting but is at least consistent; however, to me at least, the strange weirdness of the Trinity (and the insistent that despite this, it's a monotheistic religion) and some other details. Were these mere questions of medieval philosophy which were held to be true but irrelevant to the daily work of salvation, it would be one thing, but these appear to be key tenets of faith even into the modern day.

quote:

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.

This is actually not quite true. While this is the long-term goal, the purpose of Buddhist practice is the release from attachment to things, whether this is done by monks or by the laymen through meditative practice and other positive acts. Existence is seen to be suffering because of these attachments - for instance, the concern as to the fate of your eternal soul causes you suffering now, when you are anxious that you might go to Hell. By practice you would reduce, and eventually extinguish, the attachments that make you suffer, without necessarily smothering the emotions involved.

It would also seem that Christ promises eternal life for some people - not for all people - while the Buddha is held to have worked for the relief of suffering for all sentient beings. What's more, it would seem to be easy to frame Christ's words as saying "The best thing you can do for people is compel them into this religion, because what would - say - a year of torture and agony be compared to the eternal blessings of Heaven."

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 04:38

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Periodiko posted:

I don't know about all this philosophy stuff, seems sort of pointless speculating about things you can't know whether they exist or not, but the Catholic Church seems pretty lame. It doesn't really seem like a very good institution to build your life around if you have a choice. It's retention rate seems pretty bad too, I know a lot of lapsed or faithless Catholics. Hell, my parents were both raised Catholic and simply dropped the religion as adults before I was born.

Also I'm not a Muslim, but Mohammed seems distinctly more impressive than Jesus, so I don't know why you wouldn't just become a Muslim if you wanted to worship that kind of god.

While their sexual politics are pretty garbage, the Catholic Church actually has pretty progressive teachings about economic and - dare I say it? they do - social justice. The current Pope is in large part opting to read out of those parts of the book rather than the parts labelled "Gays," "Abortions," and "Gay Abortions".

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 07:28

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Kyrie eleison posted:

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.

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?

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.

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?

quote:

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.

To address your remarks on these other religions:

On Buddhism you seem to have a tautology. 'It's nihilistic, so it's popular with nihilists.' Have you taken a look at the A/T Buddhism thread? If nothing else, there's certainly more scope to this than you seem to be adding. That said, Buddhism is certainly a very different religious outlook as opposed to Christianity, Judaism, Islam and perhaps vague ideas of some Greek and Roman pagan beliefs, which are probably what you get exposed to in the West. I'm certainly not going to blame you for not knowing, but it might behoove you to look at their stuff, if only for the curious parallels that exist in a lot of material.

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!

On Judaism, what do you think about the historical treatment of the Jews by Christians?

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 08:50

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Lampsacus posted:

Hey theists/christians of this thread. What would it take for you to stop believing?

Only a sufficient density of "gently caress yeah science" image macros, Sagan/Tyson quotes, and missionary activity could shake my faith in some kind of supernatural stuff being out there in the cosmos. What would be especially helpful is innuendo that I'm stupid, psychologically deficient, emotionally impaired or some other similar negative personal trait. I imagine if I was subjected to a barrage of this sort, of sufficient density, I would profess "there is no God, and Carl Sagan is his Prophet" and change my heart. Or possibly silently resent and avoid the missionaries - it's kind of a crap shoot.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 08:56

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Kyrie eleison posted:

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.

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 mean it sounds like you're saying "any civilization that stops murdering and enslaving its neighbors wantonly will inevitably decay and collapse." You're even kind of drawing a connection between 'when the religion's adherents start going "hm, maybe we should consider not just slaughtering and enslaving our neighbors"' and 'multicultural bad thing decay'. This seems very close to the celebration of militarism and violent action for its own sake in certain 20th century political movements. Have you considered that? Is God, in your view and your theology, a fascist?

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 10:59

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

spoon0042 posted:

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

Original sin seems sort of like a corruption/simplification of the idea of karma, which when understood in a more broad sense does not necessarily represent 'your past sins,' but rather 'the results of past actions, good and bad.' By this theory, seen through the lens of biblical stories, our human world derives from the original acts of Adam and Eve, leaving aside the question of who Cain married. In this sense we would be seen to still be dealing with their karma.

However, it seems like creating an image of an all powerful, all loving, all seeing, all wonderful super-Father, who incidentally despises you and won't let you into his house (because his house can't have things like you in it) unless you fulfill some checklist needed for grace, is not; and the fact that the penalty for failure is not oblivion or lack of reward, but rather eternal punishment, starts to make it look like a rigged game.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 19:17

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Yeah, this has been Kyrie's gimmick as long as I've been aware that he exists.

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?

(Trick question, Hindus are about as non-monolithic as it's possible to get, but I'm in part curious about your perception of what's fundamentally Hindu, and in part curious about why that is fundamentally wrong.)

I want to know, is the peace Christ brings the peace of everyone being completely unified and similar because all competing options and different perspectives have been successfully suppressed?

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 19:34

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

EasternBronze posted:

The real reason people levy these criticisms is because Mother Theresea is on the other team. If she was an avowed Communist or something the same people would be singing her praises from the rooftops.

While I think there's a certain amount of point-scoring it does seem like her charitable work, while not bad, had several major problems. I don't expect any Catholic group to focus on contraception, given the whole Catholic Church thing (and there's a creepy undertone to 'the absolute best thing you could do for the poors in all situations is mass contraception distribution', sometimes) but frankly, being worried about making a junkie out of a terminal cancer patient is missing the point.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2014 21:15

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I think recent history demonstrates adequately that an avowedly irreligious state is just as capable of torturing and killing the heretic as any religious state.

As a non-atheist it does sometimes seem like there is this abrupt leap to 'do you believe in anything other than very vague Deism? Well, why are you not seeking treatment for your mental illness?' I recall one thread a while back that said any religious belief beyond 'very vague deism' was an existential threat to the existence of Every Good Thing, Ever.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:45

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

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 community 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.

I think in the South, a certain degree of the atheistic stridency gets in the way of forming effective anti-shithead coalitions. However, at a certain point this is rhetorical tactics, and yes, annoying smug atheist posters are merely annoying.

That said, is it OK for a church to volunteer to be a polling place, or to operate "souls to the polls" programs to use their church bus to get voters to polling places? I would agree that there should not be pulpit advocacy, though this seems like a gray area. As for science, I have no problem with them sponsoring research in an above-board way (which I presume happens at Catholic and other large colleges with religious backers somewhere in the back room.) I will certainly agree that 'religious' or 'a clergy man' does not win you automatic 'good guy' points.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:51

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

CommieGIR posted:

Just for posterity, can I get some examples?

I'm mostly referring to the various abuses of purportedly-socialist regimes throughout the 20th century. My point is not that they are somehow inherently bad for their avowed atheism, but that the motivation to purge the heretic (even if you call him a dissident or whatever) seems to be more "an aspect of the human political condition" than "a disease of the Christian faith."

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 00:57

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

CommieGIR posted:

Name some. I mean, yes, you have Stalin, but even he eventually let up on the Churches during World War 2. But who else?

I'm speaking more generally and metaphorically of 'intolerance of dissident beliefs to the point of imprisonment and torture'. While the Soviet Union eased up a whole hell of a lot, they did not completely stop, and various other states had similar unpleasantnesses.

America did it too, during the same period, but the victims tended to be poor racial minorities and it was generally not organized on a large level.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 01:05

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

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.

Considering he was talking about the evocation of a demon earlier, I would say he is, shall we say, not on that team or in that league.

Miltank posted:

Mao, Kim, Pol Pot..

Right, like, I'm talking about the phenomenon of 'torturing/killing those who disagree with your ruling ideology for political gain.' This did not suddenly appear with the Spanish Inquisition.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 01:08

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

CommieGIR posted:

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

Yes, to add another post to the fire, I am not saying atheism "caused" these things, I am saying that atheism "did not prevent" them, and that the absence of theistic beliefs, or the presence of ideologically atheistic beliefs, does not necessarily prevent them. In other words, torture does not slur atheism, but neither can atheistic beliefs be claimed to prevent torture. Unless we're going now into a "well, they obviously weren't REALLY..." which starts verging into the libertarian argument that since no fully libertarian society has existed, libertarian ideas cannot be judged for harms they have caused in other environments.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 01:11

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

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.

Do you think the various inquisitions and so forth were rooted in just deciding one day, with no consideration for political, economic, or other reasons, to go "Hm, you know what we need to do now? Torture the heretic and expropriate his lands!"

The Spanish inquisition was an office of the Spanish monarchy, although there had been a previous Papal Inquisition, mostly aimed at the Albigensians.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 01:18

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

CommieGIR posted:

He won't burn in hell, remember? He'll just be stuck in eternal darkness.

Ex-mormon.

Couldn't he be baptised retroactively and at least reach the telestial kingdom?

# ¿ Nov 18, 2014 05:11

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Kyrie eleison posted:

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?

Are you wearing a cotton and polyester blend garment? Did you eat shrimp or pork? Did God's opinion on those matters change?

It seems like two different things to say,

On the one hand: God, in the past, endorsed genocide, and seems to have moderated His stance later. How can we reconcile this with the concept that God does not change, or that God cannot order evil? (Or whatever.)

Or on the other hand: Genocide makes a nation strong, and failure to ruthlessly suppress neighboring cultures makes a nation weak, as ordained by the Bible.

If I am one of the people who God ordains to be genocided, is God my Savior? Does my horrible death at the hands of whoever God is bossing today somehow redeem me? Am I supposed to take solace in my murder, knowing that at least these other people will be able to make use of my land, goods, and female relatives for the sake of their religion? How do you reconcile the concept of human personhood with your implicit prospect that it is necessary to ruthlessly annihilate and suppress some number of other humans, lest the weaknesses of "multiculturalism" and "peace" plague them? If there is ever one ultimate human monoculture, how will you prevent the return of dissent, tolerance, and irreligiousness? (Also, how does this reconcile with the Tower of Babel?)

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 09:52

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

On the fruitful topic of genociding dissident religions and other nations: Would it be a moral act in the eyes of God to genocide, say, Indians who refused to convert to (presumably Catholic) Christianity, in order to suppress their irreligious behaviors? If it would not be OK, how do you reconcile that with those Old Testament stories?

For that matter, is it acceptable to harm unbelievers in your day to day life, if so doing might guide them to the one true faith - say, by threatening to burn their house down if they won't renounce their idols?

If the Roman Catholic Church were to be driven to extinction by some other religious group (say, militant Unitarianism), and God showed no sign of intervening in the matter, would that just indicate that the militant Unitarians were stronger and more faithful, therefore more deserving of rulership of Rome?

# ¿ Nov 19, 2014 10:05

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

My Imaginary GF posted:

Yeah, they're conjecture. They're the best conjecture we've had, and their value lies in the traditions of jurisprudence, educational, and social service institutions which developed to interpret, debate, and implement them.

If the 613 mitzvot are the best and ideal social system, why are Gentiles only exhorted to follow seven much simpler ones? For that matter, do you think modern jurisprudence, education, and social services are modelled on Jewish institutions?

# ¿ Nov 22, 2014 05:38

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I also really like Sagan but there's sometimes this weird strand of "obviously we've basically got everything figured out, meaning all previous ideas that don't fit our current situation now need to be brought into harness with our One True Way, and if they aren't, gently caress 'em" which don't work out so well when you aren't in a hegemonic position like the Catholic Church was in Western Europe. (And even there, I gather the Orthodox roundly critique the RCC for its wholesale adoption of pagan philosophers.)

This does not, of course, mean that the scientific method is somehow wrong, or that rational inquiry is somehow bad, but to date everyone who's predicted the end of history has been pretty wrong. It would be awful convenient, and very flattering, if it DID occur while we were alive, of course...

# ¿ Nov 23, 2014 05:45

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Berk Berkly posted:

Because humans as a whole are pretty loving sinful. We literally had to receive a whole revelation(Jesus) and spend centuries developing and integrating that revelation with both the empirical and metaphysical tools needed to help ourself slowly become slightly less sinful over a long period of time. But on the whole, we are still really sinful.

What I kind of wish to see is what kind of social and cultural narratives a genuinely atheistic culture would develop over centuries, just to see if they'd abandon the same drat patterns of biblical narrative or not. Call it a... scientific curiosity.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2014 08:19

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Muscle Tracer posted:

When you say "biblical narrative," what exactly do you mean? I can't think of any narrative structures that originated in the Bible.

While this is true, I think it's fair to say that a lot of narratives and such are known to the general person FROM the Bible, even if they originated earlier. In this case however I mean having an ideological or cultural structure around atheism that doesn't smack like triumphalist Protestant Christianity with Science replacing Jesus, Critical Thinking replacing Prayer, and Religious Idiots replacing Heathen Unbelievers.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2014 21:40

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

This is such an old argument, that atheists are just as bad as the faithful when it comes to their "beliefs".

We don't have a separate term for non-golf players, we don't have to label ourselves as "not biologists", so how is "atheism" even a coherent group, much less one with a single creed in which to have "faith".

Of course, if you have a problem with the provocateurs Dawkins and Hitchens and the like, then I do tend to agree with you, although I'd like to point out that you really aren't against "atheists" so much as "assholes"

I'm not questioning their beliefs (or lack thereof), I'm remarking on the eerily parallel framework of a lot of the rhetoric and stuff. It isn't just an artifact of both being expressed in English; the feeling I have gotten, for want of a clearer formal term, is that there are a fair number of internet posters on atheism and so forth, who are essentially just performing (a very particular form of) Christianity with the words changed.

Not entirely related but also annoying are the people who say 'well, if not Jesus, then look, this progress graph would have totally proceded upwards in a direct linear line from the Greeks/Roman era -- and see how much higher our Sciencefinding rating would be, after an additional two thousand years of this stuff I like!' Which is just titanically historically ignorant.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2014 01:52

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

It sounds like a distinction is being made between "nature, in the sense of the greater material reality which includes us, sea otters, heat vent worms, heat vents, stars, and cosmic black holes," and "Nature, in the sense of a deistic conception of an underlying order suitable for religious epiphanies and veneration of some kind without any of this Jesus poo poo." There were real efforts to try to replace Christianity with a sort of Nature-worship in the latter sense, particularly in revolutionary France, so I don't think it is entirely incorrect to say that a parallel is being made there when someone decides to talk about "our real creator - Nature."

I do think it would be perilous to assume that rejecting religion will necessarily make one more rational and more enlightened in and of itself. (This, of course, has little bearing on whether or not the school textbooks should celebrate a particular strain of Protestant Christianity.)

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 18:52

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

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.

I suppose one problem for people is that Hell is presumably attested to in the Bible, so it has to exist, and they probably don't like the idea of purgatory because it's what the Whore of Rome believes. I liked the Mormon take which is that everyone will be resurrected and given conclusive proof of God and so forth, and you would literally have to explicitly ask God, multiple times, to obliviate you. Otherwise even your worst-case scenario is a splendid and superior afterlife. (If you are a good Mormon you get Double Super Bonus Heaven.)

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 22:04

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Kyrie eleison posted:

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.

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?

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!!

# ¿ Nov 26, 2014 09:28

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

VitalSigns posted:

Yes this is the sane response to... oh wait poo poo you are being sarcastic

Love how it only takes a little bit to get "loving" Christians to whack their cocks and cum huge loads over the thought of eternal torture for the horrible crime of...insulting someone.

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.

Extending the analogy, this does not mean the old fellow couldn't hold us responsible for our actions to some extent, dole out punishment, etc. and so forth, but eternity is a very large word.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2014 09:45

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

VitalSigns posted:

Seems pointless. A being that amuses itself by inventing eternal torments for the majority of its creations and allows thousands of false religions to exist and lead people astray into everlasting fire is probably villainous enough to toss you into the volcano for kicks no matter how much you abase yourself.

But I guess if such a being were shown to exist you may as well try the rear end-kissing and hope for the best.

Yeah, if this is unironic witnessing this is definitely the impression I get from your testimony here, Kyrie.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2014 18:48

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Sakarja posted:

Because I think imposing that limitation on an otherwise "perfect" being is arbitrary and nonsensical. Assuming god is all-powerful, how could there exist a moral standard that is independent of him and contrary to his will? This makes no sense to me. And why would this god create literally everything except moral rules fit for his purpose? Unless, of course, the purpose is to allow his creations to present valid judgments concerning his infinite capacity for evil. That would be a very strange god to me. This brings us back to the very beginning of our discussion. When people assume that god exists for the sake of argument, they include just enough to allow them to criticize him. But what remains after their arbitrary mutilation can no longer be called God. And they seem to choose which parts to include on the basis of the argument they're trying to make. That, I think, is cheating. They imagine not God but an angry man who lives in the clouds. He apparently has the power to kill and torture, but none to prevent them from exposing truthfully his unspeakable evil, according to standards as valid as his own.

That is why I think it makes sense for an atheist to say "God does not exist" (even if I disagree), but not "God is evil."

I do think you can say "the way in which you present God, makes God out to be evil." For instance, Kyrie's conception seems to be dangerously malicious and inclined to be a cruel and punishing father-figure, who is beyond criticism for what are generally evil acts due to (in essence) being so incredibly more powerful than you that you can't question him. This turns Christ's message celebrating the meek and the generous of spirit into, essentially, a gigantic effort to undermine human self esteem to, presumably, evoke worship. The argument in this Christianity, therefore, is "you have absolutely no hope of any good conclusion to your life save by undertaking this ritual; therefore, worship in fear, but call it love, because part of it is he wants it to be called love." It requires very little imagination to interpret this as a maltheistic horror.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2014 20:04

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

VitalSigns posted:

Well, He says that He accepts bribes in the form of self-abasement, but if He's a capricious rear end in a top hat God, He may just as well enjoy loving with people by offering out hope then sending the faithful to Hell anyway just for kicks. Maybe He actually likes a fighter and only rewards the SedanChairs of the world who call Him a little bitch.

If we assume a malevolent sadistic deity, there is no rational way to behave because there's no way to predict what might get you out of Hell, if anything, especially if Divine lying is all part of the fun.

If he hardened Pharaoh's heart, we can't even trust our own emotional reactions to things.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2014 20:21

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Kyrie eleison posted:

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.

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?

# ¿ Nov 26, 2014 23:50

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Kyrie eleison posted:

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.

guided... by who?

:regd10:

# ¿ Nov 27, 2014 00:40

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

The Ender posted:

I feel it's worth mentioning that Taoist boxers during the boxer rebellion thought that honing their bodies to this great universal energy would render them immune to western weaponry / bullets.

It didn't turn out so well for them.

What ideology do you believe was represented by the opposing forces to the Boxer Rebellion?

Do you think those opposing forces are correct? If so, is it because of their adherence to a materialistic viewpoint, or is it purely because they were more powerful?

# ¿ Nov 28, 2014 06:31

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

I mean, you're really arguing that you get to say whether Mormons are or are not actually Christians. You. You, the arbiter of all that is truly Christian. Not the millions of Mormons who would very much equate their view of Jesus as the true Messiah with being Christian. You.

I do think that seen from an external viewpoint, it would be fair to say that the Mormons represent a new branch point in the development of Christianity, and they have enough novelty in them that those choosing to define Christianity strictly might say they are not really Christians any more, in a way that they couldn't about (say) Baptists vs. Methodists.

Religious cladistics ain't easy.

# ¿ Nov 28, 2014 18:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 04:56

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

SedanChair posted:

In other words, as I said, you're giving in to church lady sect-policing bullshit.

If you mean in the sense of 'this proves that Mormons are objectively not REALLY Christians,' I agree, but at some point this is just a descriptive distinction. I think it would be fair to say that if someone founded a Jewish-sounding group that nonetheless said 'eat some bacon-wrapped shrimp at our Sabbath work parties and incidentally don't worry about the mitzvot', it would be fair to say, "This group has diverged substantially from the main body of Jewish practice."

# ¿ Nov 28, 2014 18:35

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

«‹›20 »