|
Christianity is a heretical movement which rejects Judaic jurism in order to incorporate pagan mythology and spread to a wider population base. Roman and Russian orthodox christianity is, bluntly, paganistic in its practices, especially when it comes to the worship of a single human as a divine being.  You use a pagan's calendar and reject the appropriate calendar.
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:God is here, in this very thread, in the form of the Holy Spirit. How can you reconcile 'Holy Spirit' with the 2nd and 3rd commandments?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Then how am I supposed to know the dream world from reality! 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. From there, it went Byzantine.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
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. 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? CommieGIR posted:Naturally. My point being: If we are going to cling to the claims of one guy regardless of any evidence, Kyrie's claims are no more valid than say the Muslims or the Jews or any other religious group or subgroup. I hold that Judaism isn't like islam or christianity. Judaism is a legal tradition with a religious practice, while christianity and islam are religions with grand traditions and narrower methodologies allowed for critique under legal traditions. Claims must be judged upon the methodology used to reach them; to turn away when someone asks 'why' is to prove your methodology suspect. If your oral tradition is codified to promote a state agenda that enhances your transition from tribal organized ethnicity to state organized ethnicity, that's perfectly acceptable, all I say is that folks have to admit this reality in order for every else to not have to worry about them going gently caress'n nutso in an attempt to 'purify the world' of state corruption. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I am okay with that part of Islamic jurisprudence. Its one method of jurisprudence. It does, however, incentivize the destruction of any potential for evidence which precedes the practices of current power structures, and you wind up with wholesale destruction of culture and antiquity which doesn't fit your current narrative agenda. That's why its an inappropriate method of jurisprudence, because it assumes everything is known and acticely seeks to repress evidence of potential unknowns. E: One thing which rakes me is that the OP holds, "Christ is before everything else." That puts the christ figure before god, and violates the second commandment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
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. The idea of hell exists as an attempt to explain statistics and probability in an age before the appropriate mathematic concepts were developed. Get a fever and die? You'll go to a good afterlife as long as you have the appropriate cultural rituals conducted. Don't have anyone to conduct the rituals? Clearly, you're evil and did something to deserve it, so you won't go to a good afterlife and the whole community gets whatever property you had without need to send for extended family or potential heirs. Its an effective method to force homogeneity amongst a geographic region before the political development of state institutions independent from patrilineal practices. drilldo squirt posted:God is real. Deal with it DnD. When you make it one god, you make it an argument over which understanding of that god is acceptable. Monotheism requires developed state institutions beholden to an independent judicial code in order to remain stable as a belief and not descend into paganistic practices. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ok, fair enough. Ah, I see you've begun to develop the tradition of djinn. Correlation often implied causation before the modern era, and the just world fallacy was just as widespread. There does remain something to be said about the ability to 'prime' the immune system by having a patient focus upon something else, and how that relates to the need for religious tradition in order to increase a population's survival rates versus no tradition.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:It's funny how in every thread you post in you don't know what you're talking about. drilldo squirt posted:I don't think it's beyond reason to believe in a creator entity or that it would try to reveal it self to us. Tell me more about how incorrect I am without presenting an alternative methodology to explain incremental development in cultural practices. When you hold that its within reason that a creator entity would try to reveal itself to humans, you assign several anthropomorphic aspects to such an entity and lower it from 'divine' to 'human' and invite that anyone else who claims to have revelations must be taken at face value. An appropriate structure is necessary to channel just claims of revelation in order to avoid a, 'Cleanse the unbeliever' movement. drilldo squirt posted:Yeah how would it be a miracle if it was a natural process? That's the whole point dude. The line between 'miracle' and 'concept I don't understand' is extremely narrow, if it exists at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Depends government, era and school of thought, and to be honest there is always differing interpretations of already established Islamic precedent. Either way, a government can always choose to suppress culture or history regardless of if there is a precedent or not. Oh, definitely. However, its made easier when you're able to hand-wave away anything uncovered which goes against your state narrative. Hence the need for democratic systems: You can change the state narrative on the basis of evidence and data uncovered through best-practices research, and hold hypocritical political agendas without suffering the negative impacts of hypocracy. It is the old which is most intimidating to humanity, for it goes against our acceptance of political hierarchy. Issue is that to destroy history, one must destroy all that is old, including the individuals who know about the old and who are old. Hence you have the emergence of ISIS. Yes, every group will surpress culture. However, there must be limits to the surpression you're allowed to implement, with increasing rigidity the higher the level of policy. Highest repression for individuals, medium repression for community, and lowest repression for states, as an acceptable implementation of generalized state policy. You collect all the data you want on the individual and impose taxes upon them, you allow the incorporation of communities, and you allow unitary ethnicities to exist. You don't allow the individual complete freedom from taxation and responsibility for their actions, refuse to recognize community as an acceptable level of organization, and exterminate all ethnicities which refuse to submit to your individual whims.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:The fact that you think saying, why would a all powerful omnipotent being only pay attention to a single aspect of his creation, is a good counter argument. By assigning distinctly human characteristics and concepts like 'focus' and "pay[ing] attention" you are implicity degrading that which is divine by making it comprehensible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:You're argument is that it's insane for something like God to pay attention only to us. You're arguing that you can discern the nature of god. His argument is that he cannot understand god, and therefore you must follow some limitations on human freedom in order to avoid political conflicts over something which is impossible to perceive. drilldo squirt posted:I'm using language to make it easier for others to understand with the implicit expectation that most people aren't pedantic assholes. 'Pedantic rear end in a top hat' is absolutely necessary for developing proper institutions of jurisprudence which separate accumulated wealth from direct application of power. Its a mitzvot to be a pedantic rear end in a top hat when discussing the nature of religion. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:My argument is that I don't but using human limitations to disprove it is stupid. Who said I was disproving god? I'm saying you're contemptable by presuming yourself special enough to discern the nature of the divine realm, and you're saying "gently caress you maybe I can who are you to say I can't." The most appropriate way to honor god is to respect god's place as incomprehensible to human perception. To attempt anything else, has bad implications for political development and social order.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I'm not and you still don't understand what I'm talking about and I literally do submit to Gods place as the end all be all of everything. Religion should not be an attempt to submit a population to an appropriate belief in god: Religion does the greatest service in an attempt to ameliorate individuality into structured community with mechanisms separate from state authority. To "submit to Gods place as the end all be all of everything" is to violate the first commandment. Ardennes posted:Democratic systems, respect for different cultures and limits to state suppression can not exist without attention paid to material interests, in order to have a state structure that will balance these interests you need an economy stable enough to promote a civil (enough) society. I mostly agree, except I would add that organized religion with developed jurisprudence allows your ethnicity to survive during prolonged periods of economic instability with sporadic bouts of unanticipated or unintended transitions of authority. A well organized civil society can serve as a hub-and-spoke network for social order which in times of hierarchical state structures supplements and strengthens state development while during times of weaker state authority serves to ensure cultural survival. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:The answer is because that's the definition of the word faith. Belief in god originating from a basis is faith is one of the lowest forms of belief in god; in order to flourish as a species, a higher standard is required from humanity. down with slavery posted:Prove what? That geocentrism is a poor critique of Western religion? It makes sense that religions specifically deal with humans and the earth because we are in fact human. Nothing about Christain theology prevents God from acting in places other than the Earth, or on humans, so I'm not really sure what your point was in the first place. God can't act; at best, humans can have momentary epiphanies of divine nature when applied to specific issues, such as higher mathematics. The nature of god is "extremely pedantic" in the sense that religion serves to educate individuals on cause and effect which separates correlation from causation, an understanding which is not innate to human thought. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, we aren't really talking about developed or undeveloped jurisprudence but how it is formed in the first place. You can say as time as gone on this developed has "unraveled" but I believe in part it of an evolution of the process. That's the issue, isn't it? Organized religion which will survive on the mezzo-level without central state authority and be able to police its affairs with other faiths, while thriving and synergizing with developed political orders during times of state development, is hard to find in this world. In fact, there are very few that I can think of which do this. Hanifism collapsed with the collapse of centralized state authority and the exertion of foreign influence; foreign influence has a tendancy to always interact with a power vacuum, and has for all of recorded history. State authority waxes and wanes; the goal of religious institutional development must be to survive the periods of waning central authority while allowing adherants access to the necessary tools to continue jurisprudence and advance human development. CommieGIR posted:Okay, I'll give you that, I went overboard. Faith is a poor device for obedience. Far better to maintain an organized practice of religion on the basis of iterative evidence adjudicated within mature legalistic frameworks than it is to maintain organized practice the basis of faith; faith necessitates enforcement by central state authority in order to survive. Rodatose posted:in heaven, everything is fine. you have got your good things, and I've got mine. In the afterlife, the concepts of "yours" and "mine" do not apply; thus utopia can never be achieved on earth and all attempts at communism shall fail, for they attempt to merge the divine realm with the human. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I actually believe in submission to God. I think you'd do well to educate yourself on the different levels of mitzvot. Charity from submission is the lowest form of mitzvot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:I took the time to explain to you a few times why what you're doing is stupid. It was a joke post, obviously tongue in cheek, probably for the sole purpose of dragging idiots like you out of the wordwork. You still don't get it, do you? You can't just say "What you're doing is stupid," and declare yourself a winner. The first time someone says "Nu-uh," you'll end up beheading them to prevent anyone else from disagreeing. Alas, you're the real puppetmaster and all the world your stage. I take it on the basis of faith that belief in your ability to manipulate the currents of social affairs far exceeds the rest of D&D, and that you are a true and unique snowflake whose existance has meaning and greater purpose. down with slavery posted:Alright, let's start from square one. What is real? There are two realms of nature: That which is human, and that which is divine. Any concept which is "real" or could be perceived is distinctly within the realm of human nature. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Also, people don't go to church on sunday for a discussion, they go there for a harangue. The church structure is not made for serious discussion, but just as a sort of ho-hum thing. Some go to church for the discussions and debates, some go for the sense of community, others go out of family obligations and a sense of tradition, and still more attend because there's nothing else to do. Each reason for attendance is entirely individual; a properly organized religion must take this into consideration and provide appropriate outlets and channels through which the reasons for attendance may be molded into community with high rates of collective efficacy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately, if you look at the Roman Catholic Church itself, through its history it generally acted as a state if not was outright one. The Church just never collapsed like the Ottomans did or the Byzantines (although the Ottomans in that case took over the reins themselves). It took me a day to consider my response to this. The Roman Catholic church was a state in as much as the various Orthodox Churches were a state for most of their history: inseperable from the will of the largest power bloc around, hence the anti-popes and whole reformation movement. The church itself only held power above the will of its patrons for very brief periods of time, and always in the promotion of a regional power's attempts at consolidation. So when did the Catholic church separate from an institution of state control to an alternative pathway for development of political order? Well, banning priests from getting married had a large impact towards ending patrimonialism within church office-holdings. The development of political order is the story of the development of institutions to mediate human's natural patrimonial inclinations. I'd go so far to say the church only achieved this at the level of state power transitions when it eliminated inherited offices via banning priest marriage while also implementing policies which promoted the funding of jesuit universities. So why did the catholic church never collapse, versus the Byzantines' or Ottomans' systems? Well, it did collapse in some regions; that's what the whole reformation period was about, being able to secure offices for your family and using the church to expand your power base. This necessitated the chuch engage in social programs to compete for political favor and foster a class to promote its interests--mainly, its tax exemption status for its large agricultural estates--and took the roundabout way to establish law as divine in origin separated from human will through institutional bureaucracy. Far quicker to have the word of god and the laws of humanity be set in stone, with political order developing from there. Alas, the catholics took the long route to reach the same outcome upon patrilinial structures of power transition.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:We tried this, but nowadays there are scant public funds to retain official torturers and executioners as we had in the days you long to return to. Hey now--we both know this isn't true. There are always funds available for more torture and repression, depending upon your skills to play off circumstances to shift the target for surpression. We have more cost-effective systems in place than outright torture and repression; when an individual falls through the gaps in those systems, that's when force is used to ensure compliance. The focus must be upon strengthening those systems to prevent individuals from choosing actions which comply the use of force against them, rather than the current and historical use of religion to force compliance first and foremost with systems emerging from homogeneous populations with high rates of collective efficacy, because the former is much quicker and much less rapey than the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
Absolutely; a social organization which does no civic outreach is simply a more organized bar.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
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? Well, you're looking at an effect and I'm unsure whether you're familiar with the root causes. Yes, socialist autocrats were apt to repress catholics and other christians. In most nations, the catholic church has been exempt from taxation; in developing nations, the catholic church has, historically, been one of the largest landholding groups in history. What this means is that the church would own the land and be exempt from all taxation for the working of the land, so the church would rent out the property to local aristocrats and nobility in a quid pro quo system where patrons who made donations and demonstrated their fidelity publicly would be awarded large management contracts for below-market rates while the masses would be fed and indoctrinated by the church, with revenues sent to Rome and priests best able to produce reports of popular support with high profit margins relative to other churches of similar constituencies receiving promotions more rapidly than priests focused solely upon social outreach and humanitarian efforts. To simplify some trends, during the post-war era, it was common for nominally socialist rulers in newly independent or urbanizing nations to proposed taxes upon church property, be assassinated, have the opposition come to power, only to have the opposition overthrown by more radical nationalists and opportunists who understood the necessity of tax reform for the creation and continued funding of state bureaucracy, and it was during these more radical revolutionary periods when church property would be expropriated in land reform schemes in order to eliminate the church as an alternative power structure to consolidated one-party rule. This process tended to be quite messy and did often result in mass executions of devout christians, clergy, and organized group rapes of nuns. It happens; its how you play power politics and solidify your base as an absolutist dictator. Nessus posted: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. Nope! That's just a trend of what happens when you need to raise money or abdicate some power and delegate authority, and choose not to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's a completely fair criticism if the claim is that having an atheistic view or a secular government was a direct cause of those things. It all comes back to whether law is rooted in divine or human authority, doesn't it? Hence why America is a secular nation, and Russia is not: In America, law is rooted in divine authority, while in Russia, law is rooted in human authority.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Putin is trying to fix that but the harder he tries, the more he proves that the law is rooted in human authority. Well, if this were the classical world, I'd expect Putin to consolidate power and expand Russia's borders to their maximum before state collapse and the emergance of Slavic feoderati migrating westward to spread the word of the final prophet of god to the homonazi unbelievers and correct their heretical views. CommieGIR posted:....what? Even if it claims to be from divine, and regardless of what religion you believe in, HUMAN authority governs all in the physical world Except that individuals believing in the divine nature of the law and its sanction as the most proper means by which to achieve paradise is a real phenomenon and is the core of one of America's branches of government. The whole purpose of institutional development is to separate human will and patrilinial tendancies from identity politics. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well then not to be unkind, but I wonder how relevant you are to the discussion of what people and societies are or are not Christian. Everyone is Jewish, whether they've realized it or not. Therefore, the purpose of a good life is to live an example by which others may be inspired to comply with the divine law; one cannot force compliance, nor should one use force to achieve this when alternative tools exist. Therefore, converts must be discouraged, the code preserved, with civil society emerging from these roots. raskalnikov_86 posted:Serious question, what's the deal with always using the capitalized pronouns? It's really distracting and a dead giveaway that you're talking to a zealot, always with the Him and His love and He and you must believe in Him. Rhetorical method of emphasis, with connotations of anthropomorphism by using the same grammar to describe an abstract concept as you would a living person. Idolatry, the lot of it. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Atheists are only relevant in countries with functional governments. Atheists are those who don't organize their primary community identifier around a religious association. In America, due to the collapse of community following desegregation within the trends towards suburbanization, atheism has taken on an anti-social moniker of identity.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm pretty sure not believing in gods factors in there somewhere. God has little to do with the development of religious identity. Genuine belief in god is not essential towards creation of religious community. Since time immemorial, religion has been a lens through which to institutionalize power and codify best-practices of tradition. You cannot separate an analysis of religious identity and expression from an understanding of tax structures and state development. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Sidakafitz posted:"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Well, there is the whole discussion on whether the mythos of a christ figure was a mesopotamian import of buddhism
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:What would our lord and saviour Jesus Christ think of the issues of ethics in Gaming Journalism? 'Ask a rabbi' - ?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:This is a total insult to Mormonism. Mormonism is true, while Islam is false and therefore they are completely different. If anything Christianity is identical to Islam because they are both wrong. Its all idolatry anyways, which is ok 'cauae you can have your idols while I have my laws and pedantic legal interpretations also j smith totes wanted some 19th century pootytang and knew how to get it
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:I'm sorry to disturb your important discussion about popery and who dipped his dick in Mary, but I have a question: We don't want you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's attitudes like this that lead to misunderstandings. *lights torch* You reject someone twice, and if they come back a third time, you're like "ok fine we don't want you but you can come in and start learning with us" and if they learn well you can go "ok we like you, you're in."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I am an absolute atheist--as in I think even the idea of the supernatural, including god, doesn't make any sense at all--but I both don't care about the historicity of Jesus and think that religiosity is a natural human impulse and attacking people for being 'dumb' for having it. To me, the creative, logical-leaping portion of our brain which also functions to create interesting scientific hypothesis is the same as the impulse that leads to believing in religious things. The only thing I care about is whether someone thinks their religion should be made into law. What about those who mostly agree and ascribe the authority of proper law as from god, and that law should be treaty as a community obligation to uphold and protect?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That's just being a compassionate person Well, 'murder' has a very long and pedantic jurisprudence debate around how you define it. God commanded that you shall not murder; he said little about refraining from killing others.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, true. But that still doesn't make arguments like law being founded upon the 10 commandments valid. Even if the 10 commandants had never been created, murdering your neighbor and stealing your stuff is likely to be frown upon by the local community. That's how being a social creature works. The issue is defining 'local community' as something greater than those one knows. That has never evolved in human society without religion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And that's why Christianity is better than Judaism. Tell me about the christians who don't murder others and have never been tempted to kill in the name of their idols.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But it is often not defined by any ONE religion, nor are laws and social expectations founded upon religious documents and doctrine. They are founded upon basic social understandings between human beings. They are, so long as they are patrilinial. To escape the patrilinial tendancies of man, and develop more stable structures of political order, it is necessary for ethnicities to emerge with judicial codes regarded as aspects of the divine, rather calvinballs of man. DrProsek posted:Hey. The more important question is, at what mood does it become ok to start, and how do you determine that mood is legal?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
*impossible to ignore royal filth during state develooment, for they will always be assholes and absolutists or weak and groveling pawns of nobles Theres a reason why the Queen is the most important chess piece. Crowsbeak posted:I probably wouldn't be a Christian than. Of course than there would be no Christianity than. You may be interested in reading up on the concept of mitzvots
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So we have to judge Jews on their most venal representatives' interactions with the state as well? Now you're beginning to understand how America is a Judeo-Christian nation, SedanChair. Good for you, I'm glad for you. We judge everyone in accordance with a divinely inspired law, and separate the law from human hands through a series of institutional layers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:America is only Judeop-Christian because Hitler ruined calling one's nation just regular Christian. Yes, Hitler was the ultimate outcome of having a purely christian nation. Hence you have to return to Judaic values of law originating from divine providence in order to avoid future hitlers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 20:15
|
|