There is one thing that doesn't matter, and that is Jesus Christ

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > There is one thing that doesn't matter, and that is Jesus Christ

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

vessbot posted:

I used to think that Daniel Dennett was being somewhat of a pompous prick when he said that religion, in order to survive, requires the maintenance of a veil of ignorance to shield itself from reality. After seeing the reactions to my posts here, I now fully agree with him. A defensive taboo is being raised against fact-checking religion, and being partaken in by non-believing academics who appreciate it.

You have killed the God, but he doesn't realize it yet :emo:

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 21:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 05:03

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Presumably none of them are itt (even kyrie doesn't believe in the literal creation myth, I hope) so using literal factchecking makes as much sense as, I dunno, critiquing Brave New World based on the fact that none of the characters actually existed.

Also in Summa it's stated quite clearly that the Bible contains both literal truths and allegorical / analogous truths.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 21:23

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

vessbot posted:

For example, the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is not literalist and yet still believes in a god who is a person and therefore succumbs to my refutation)

lol. God, according to Catechism, is a being the essence of which is equal to its existence. It isn't a person, because a person also bears a substance, and therefore is composed of accident as an additional component, which can't be present in God.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 21:27

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Specifically:

Descriptions of God having bodily parts refer metonymically to his operative power, not to a factual, physical body. This is not a theological peculiarity, it's an every-day sort of turn of phrase, and not being able to comprehend it doesn't speak well of the "critic".

Furthermore, when we consider that God made man in his image, and made man to excel above other creation, we must consider what essential property is present in man and not in other things, and which therefore is the cause of man's superiority and likeness to God. It is, in short man's reason and free will. However, these faculties are only present in man in a delegated form, derived from the more perfect abstract forms into the concrete form of an individual person. So what we can say based on this - not much. Only that God's faculty is at least partially similar to reason, but pure and undiluted - and that there is no reason to consider HIm as having a body. However, we can't positively describe His essence in any certain terms, He remains largely unknowable.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 21:52

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

vessbot posted:

I gotta take a break and will come back with a full reply later, but basically all the non-fact checkable word salad that's left after fact checking, amounts to this.

Yes, and Christians are open about it. That's not a scathing criticism, that's a cornerstone of their faith, you moronic troglodyte.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 22:04

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

Let me try a different take on vessbot's argument.

There has been a great deal of research done on the link between the brain and personality (which I'll define loosely as a person's emotions, reactions to things, interests, desires, etc). I'm sure most of us have heard of Phineas Gage, a man who suffered severe brain injury that changed who he was as a person. And it seems to be a trend that altering the physical brain - not just by traumatic injury, but also with chemicals/drugs/what have you - alters the person, to some degree. People who say, for instance, "I'm just not the same person when I'm on Prozac" actually mean that literally.

We're said to be made in the image of God; perhaps that is not meant that he looks like a human, but certainly that the way we operate reflects the way He does. He's ascribed all sorts of human emotions: anger, jealousy, love, and he is said to desire certain things, like the redemption of the world, and hate certain things, like sin. So I think even Christians would agree that the "image of God" descriptor of humans indicates, at least in part, his "personality" (as defined above).

But personality is tied closely with the physical brain, right? I mean, altering the brain alters the personality, and we have no evidence to think it comes from anywhere else. So does this mean God has a brain? I know it seems like a dumb question, and one easily answered by theology: no! God is not made of physical matter like you and me. His "mind" such as it is exists the same way souls exist, separate from the material world. Does that mean, though, that the soul is the essence of who a person is, and not the brain? How can that be, when the brain is seen to effect who someone is as a person so directly? Is the brain, an object of physical matter, somehow able to interact with and effect the soul, an object of nonphysical matter? When we die and the soul is separated from the body, does any "brain-changing" get reversed? To what? What is our neutral, non-affected state? What about a person born with, say, down syndrome, who has never had the "neutral" brain? Do they get "repaired" upon death? To what? Can we really even say it's the same person, then?

And what is a "mind" anyway? Is it separate from the brain, or merely an activity the brain performs? All evidence seems to point to the latter - one's mind, like one's personality, is affected by the physical brain. So how can we say God has a "mind" without having a brain? How can we say he has a personality without having a brain when our only conception of personality is a direct product of something physical?

Of course, there are also parts of the Bible that clearly indicate the God is meant to have certain human features, like a back, hand, and face, which certainly aren't human-exclusive features, but naming them in that way certainly seems to imply they are human-esque.

All this to say that God, at the very least, is meant to be anthropomorphic. Which, to a Christian, is no big deal: God made us to be the top dog of all creatures on Earth, why wouldn't we look like Him? But from an evolutionary perspective, it is quite a perplexing claim: God resembles a species of ape that, in their present form didn't even exist until a scant quarter million years ago? This is what, I think, vessbot is getting at. It seems much more likely that we invented Him. What's that quote? God created man in his image, and man, being appreciative, likewise made God in his?

Even ancient people knew that there was a relation between the physiology of the body and the functioning of the soul. They used therms such as humours, or ascribed changes in spiritual disposition to various changes in levels of physical suffering. They also understood diminished spiritual capabilities due to mental disorders. But in the end, they realized that man isn't perfect in that his soul could function independently and optimally. Furthermore, man is a collection of a limited set of essential properties modified by particular accidental properties of his person, and as such is inherently imperfect even without possible dysfunctions of his body. God, on the other hand, is the ultimate abstraction of all beings, and the origin of all substances. It is crucial to realize that as the origin of things, He is more general than any specific being. When people use terms such as "will" or "hand" in relation to God, they use concepts appropriate for the level of specificity they inhabit. So we have tendency to understand them as if we were describing things on our level, or below it. But in the case of God, we are talking about the most possible generalized meanings of these words.

In short: When we say that God" has a hand" we do not say that God has a human quality. It's the very opposite - man has a quality derived from the original essence, which is God. God is the origin of the concept of hand, but in Him it is not demonstrably manifested on the same concrete level.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 22:19

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

vessbot posted:

Well no that's complete bullshit, because Christianity professes a whole host of things it claims to know about God. On one hand the burden of proof is on me to provide those things, but on the other, I'm getting tired and they are trivially easy to look up, and are also ingrained in Western culture. Only someone under delusion, or not arguing in good faith, would claim otherwise in the face of so many overwhelmingly easy to recall examples.

Why are you hellbent on arguing things of which you are utterly ignorant?

quote:

It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. For knowledge is regulated according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Hence the knowledge of every knower is ruled according to its own nature. If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower. Now the mode of being of things is manifold. For some things have being only in this one individual matter; as all bodies. But others are subsisting natures, not residing in matter at all, which, however, are not their own existence, but receive it; and these are the incorporeal beings, called angels. But to God alone does it belong to be His own subsistent being. Therefore what exists only in individual matter we know naturally, forasmuch as our soul, whereby we know, is the form of certain matter. Now our soul possesses two cognitive powers; one is the act of a corporeal organ, which naturally knows things existing in individual matter; hence sense knows only the singular. But there is another kind of cognitive power in the soul, called the intellect; and this is not the act of any corporeal organ. Wherefore the intellect naturally knows natures which exist only in individual matter; not as they are in such individual matter, but according as they are abstracted therefrom by the considering act of the intellect; hence it follows that through the intellect we can understand these objects as universal; and this is beyond the power of the sense. Now the angelic intellect naturally knows natures that are not in matter; but this is beyond the power of the intellect of our soul in the state of its present life, united as it is to the body. It follows therefore that to know self-subsistent being is natural to the divine intellect alone; and this is beyond the natural power of any created intellect; for no creature is its own existence, forasmuch as its existence is participated. Therefore the created intellect cannot see the essence of God, unless God by His grace unites Himself to the created intellect, as an object made intelligible to it.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 22:22

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

You are remarkably dense, I can only hope it's willfull on your part.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2015 01:11

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Twelve by Pies posted:

I get what you're saying and it's true to an extent. When the Bible says God "stretched out his hand" or something was "the hand of God" it shouldn't be interpreted as God having an actual physical hand he was using, it's metaphorical. Sure.

The problem with that is that there's a conversation between God and Moses in Exodus 33 where Moses asks to see God's glory. God agrees, but says no one can see his face and live. God then tells Moses to go into a cleft in the rock, and while he passes by, he will cover Moses with his hand until he has passed, at which point he will remove his hand and Moses can see his back, but not his face.

This bit makes no sense if God doesn't have some sort of physical body. There isn't really any easy way to interpret this as metaphor, maybe his hand is clouds? Maybe sunlight is his back? Is staring directly into the sun "looking at God's face?" But staring at the sun won't kill a man, just make him blind, so that doesn't work well.

God is a character in a yaoi manga?

First, interpreting God extending a protecting hand to Moses seems pointlessly literal. It's the exact thing I was writing about in the post you replied to. To make an analogous example: If I say that a state flexed its muscle to protect its citizen from persecution, I mean it used a degree of power in the realm in which it is endowed with it, not that it used power of actual muscle.

Second, Catholics, starting with Augustine at the least, hold that there are three kinds of visions: Sensual, intellectual and imaginary (i.e. vision of the eye, mind and soul). Imaginary vision is subdivided into dreams, ecstasies and waking visions. Moses' story is interpreted as him experiencing imaginary visions of various kinds: "Secondly, as regards the imaginary vision, which he had at his call, as it were, for not only did he hear words, but also saw one speaking to him under the form of God, and this not only while asleep, but even when he was awake. Hence it is written (Exodus 33:11) that "the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend."" What is important to point out is that according to the Catholic doctrine these imaginary visions are still inferior to pure intellectual comprehension because visions of the supernatural that transform it into corporeal counterparts are merely allegorical guidances that are meant to inspire the reason to understand the supernatural as it is in its true, non-corporeal nature.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2015 08:43

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

Is Jesus's morality actually "good"? Our models of what constitutes "good" acts and behavior are based on Jesus's teachings, but isn't that horribly arbitrary? If the Roman's master morality had won out would we not be framing morality in entirely diffrrent terms?
What if Jesus told us to crush the weak and aggressively seek our own self-interest?
Christianity has the popularity it has because of the powerful spreading it, usually in ways Jesus would not condone. You could say that, despite Jesus rejecting Satan's offer for control over the Kings of the world, his followers gladly took up the offer themselves, and made us give a poo poo about this Jesus.

Man, if Jesus was a completely different person, that would really throw a wrench into your religion, sheeple.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2015 08:45

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

On the other hand, you really have to pre-decide that the passage is metaphorical for it to make sense that way. That is, there is nothing in the text itself to suggest it meant anything other than "Moses saw a guy, who was God, from behind". Again, it's a satisfying answer for someone already inclined to believe it, but not convincing for someone on the other side of things.

The standard for determining which Biblical things are to be taken as metaphor does seem suspiciously aligned with "whatever would be a big problem for our theology if it weren't".

Theology is based on the assumption that knowledge that isn't dependent on sensuality, i.e. intellectual, rather than cognitive knowledge, to use the traditional terminology, takes precedence in studying any subject. So the standard method of interpreting the Bible is to interpret the parts that use language of cognitive experience as being less than literal if their literal reading contradicts elements of pure intellectual knowledge contained elsewhere in the Bible or learned through previous study of other allegorical passages. It's objectionable, but it's a consistent, structured method of reading the scriptures, and justified ideologically.

E: Basically, the deeper you get into the Bible, the more abstract truths you uncover, and the more abstract truths you get, the more allegorical passages can be translated into abstract truths.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2015 20:40

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

CommieGIR posted:

I'm sorry, what?

Uh? If you start reading with acceptance of certain basic axioms passed in the text, you can use them to gain understanding of why certain passages are allegorical, and to further refine your knowledge of the general, abstract sacred doctrine. In turn, these refinements uncover new meanings previously hidden in the text. It is claimed by the Church that all passages of the Bible are consistent with each other, but one needs to understand that they are linked together in a hierarchical manner where some parts play a supporting role, and you need to know the method for determining purity and excellence of individual parts to establish this hierarchy.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2015 20:57

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

CommieGIR posted:

Yeah. Right. So what about the Books that didn't make it into the Bible?

I don't know?

# ¿ Feb 13, 2015 21:02

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Probably.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2015 21:04

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

V. Illych L. posted:

Jesus dude what happened to your avatar?

There's somebody who periodically buys avatars for anti-Putin posters in the Eastern European thread.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2015 22:48

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

vessbot posted:

http://www.pewforum.org/2008/06/01/chapter-1-religious-beliefs-and-practices/#ii-religious-beliefs
There are also differences in the way members of different religious traditions conceive of God. For example, nine-in-ten (91%) Mormons think of God as a person with whom people can have a relationship. This view of God is shared by large majorities of Jehovah’s Witnesses (82%) and members of evangelical (79%) and historically black (71%) churches. Fewer members of mainline Protestant churches (62%), Catholics (60%) and Orthodox Christians (49%) share this conception of God.

This is exceedingly vague and the fact you take it as meaning "physical person of a genus related to apes" reveals conceptual insufficiency. The only thing the term person necessarily signifies is the subjectivity of God, similar to the subjectivity of a legal person which is also entirely divorced from physical and biological notions of personhood.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2015 00:48

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Infinite Karma posted:

In philosophical discussion, when you're talking about hypothetical highly intelligent beings, person has a different meaning from everyday English. In common usage, humans ARE the only things with complex enough intelligences to be considered moral agents, so person overlaps with human with 100% accuracy. Via Google: Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some commonly held notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

When you're referring to God being like a person, it's the assumption that he's an intelligent being with the capacity to make decisions, and the awareness of his decisions and their repercussions that makes him able to be morally responsible for them. It's a statement that he's relatable as a social being, not that he's human-like.

Even in everyday use "person" is context-dependent and broader than human. Corporation, states, associations can have personhood - the key is whether they are autonomous subjects within the given situation.

Also it doesnt mean that a person is held to the same morality and rules as a physical person - these rules again change depending on their area of subjectivity.

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Feb 14, 2015

# ¿ Feb 14, 2015 20:34

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

There's a correlation between Christianity and Christian societies: Coincidence?

# ¿ Feb 18, 2015 15:57

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Vessbot, you are just a tedious anti-intellectual with the argumentative faculties of a fifteen year old who spent fifteen mnutes thinking about how religion makes no sense, man. There's no arguing with you because you are not capable of processing anything other posters present to you.

BTW, the Catholics don't command you to cut off your foreskin, it's a purely American (and Third World) perversion.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 01:00

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

supermikhail posted:

The paradox I have is that for some reason on SA when I visit religion threads I usually agree more with the religious, myself being an atheist. Or at least I find myself on the side of non-anti-religious posters. (Addendum: Although it seems that I apply a very strict standard to atheist posters, and so feel really disappointed when their performance isn't perfect.)

This thread seems to be a little better than the other one, so. I've been listening to a podcast in which Christians seem to often question the atheist host on the following point: If there is no afterlife, then anything you do in this life doesn't ultimately matter. I guess I've been hearing this argument so often that I've started inventing possibly farfetched replies, such as: All evidence indicates to me that good things don't last forever, so there's no reason to expect an eternity of bliss after I die. Furthermore, transience seems to be an essential component of really good things, so an eternity of bliss doesn't make that much sense. Of course, this doesn't deal with the more ancient conceptions of afterlife, or with hell for everyone.

Or, from a different tack, if animals aren't supposed to have eternal souls, is there no point to my affection for my cat? What about my efforts to create the most comfortable home? Or, in fact, people's efforts to improve the condition of their country or the planet in general? Unless the afterlife is exactly like this life, and we bring everything with us. But in that case, what's the point of having death inbetween?

...Phew. I think I'm done for now.

Oh, Herd Mentality! Anyone?

I probably could write in to the show with these comments, although those episodes are kind of old. But this is sort of relevant to the thread, right?

You could make a Platonic / Socratic argument that longevity / eternity of a thing is a necessary component of perfection, and that happiness, too, can only be perfected by bringing it closer to the unchanging, eternal world of ideas. Anything good that lasts for a discrete amount of time is just a glimpse into the desirable. The problem is, what does it mean to be happy, or blissful? It certainly isn't a bodily experience, and it seems to me quite possible that it is effectively a negation of one's individuality as we understand it, because if we achieve a state of true perfection, how could we distinguish individual parts of the whole body of the Church? The Catholic doctrine teaches us that souls have a matter, but is that enough to keep them distinguished in the afterlife, or is it more accurate to imagine it as some sort of singularity (for instance, imagine that the purpose of the soul isn't to be propagated for eternity as an entity in itself, but rather to contribute to the development of a universal spirit which matures thanks to the activity of the soul, but isn't identical with it)?

Your concern for the temporal should be, from the Christian point of view, motivated by the well-being of the soul, which is a subsistent part of the human being and as such deserves cultivation and protection so it can receive God's Grace. And because you seek to be part of the Church, aka the community of Christian souls, and because you obviously depend on the actions of others, you are also interested in ethics, politics etc.

If living according to Christian principles means leaving behind some of your possessions, that's fine. From a religious point of view poverty can be uplifting.

Things that don't have soul of the human kind are important because through them we refine our understanding of the world, and of God's plan. All things are good, and all things hold some value for personal development.

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Feb 27, 2015

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 01:12

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

vessbot posted:

Disagreeing with you, therefore must be an anti-intellectual

You might have heard of this religion called Judaism, which Catholicism is an outgrowth of, that commands circumcision both historically and currently.

Well what was the gist of your question? You didn't give me much to go on, but from context assumed that you were trying to make the argument that since it's possible for beings with non-human nervous systems to have intelligence, that undermines my argument that only humans can have intelligence. And my quote that I referenced directly addressed that objection, by raising a lot of necessary nuance that it misses (or at least that everybody else who raised it so far missed).

A few others made that argument, but fell silent after my rebuttal. Then they all complain that I just don't understand, make empty insults and single-emoticon shitposts, then call me the anti-intellectual.

If that's not what you meant, then what was it? I can't guess at your thoughts and accept blame for not answering them.

What did you say that you feel like I ignored?

Then I gave a citation, also from the largest Christian denomination on the planet, which instead says I'm right. What then?

Theologian: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/january-web-only/god-watches-big-game-william-lane-craig.html?paging=off

^--- specifically about football plays

Random Christian from the internet: http://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-have-emotions.html

You have, and that argument fails because it necessitates that God is totally different from us. (If it wasn't totally different, we'd have no need to anthropomorphize it to represent it.) However, that contradicts the central Christian position that "All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God." (CCC) While there is plenty of allegory and metaphor in religion, the connection between God and humanity is said to be real.

This is far from the first time the other side has tried that line of argument, and respectively it's far from the first time I've made this objection. The first time you ignored it I chalked it up to an innocent oversight from a busy thread, but now that's getting hard to maintain. Are you just hoping that the next successive time I'll forget my objection and be likelier to accept your argument, or what?

If you ignore my arguments and merely repeat yours, you've got no basis for acting exasperated at the other side... it's you, you're the problem.

You are literally mentally challenged.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 01:14

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Vessbot, I think your attributes are rat-like. You make noises like a rat, you use your appendages like a rat. Your heart beats like a rat's, you have the faculty of perception, like a rat, and a capacity to make certain decisions, and to engage in cognitive processes - like a rat. I think you are a rat, a filthy plague-carrying rat and nothing more. People who claim you aren't a rat are merely trying to rationalize their previous relationship with you, and are probably rats also.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 01:19

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

supermikhail posted:

Your reply reminds me of something, though. Namely, Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials and the conception of the afterlife there. I read the books in my late teens when I still was a Christian but my ideas were, I guess, rather basic, and I thought it was already un-Christian to depict souls as dissipating into Dust which combines with all the other souls. From your reply it seems to me that some people would subscribe to this image quite readily... By the way, I'm assuming here that you're a Christian, and it would be rather embarrassing if you were simply building even more hypotheticals here.

I'm not a Christian, but I don't think I'm building hypotheticals at all. The bit of my previous post in parentheses was meant to channel Hegel, who is a major Christian modern influence, but who is also arguably representative of the sort of intellectually detached thinking that is so far removed from Christ and from the basic messages of the Bible that I understand why to a lot of people it may not appear Christian at all. The ideas about using one's will to seek greater understanding of the eternal through Grace, and about living in accordance with metaphysical laws are rather orthodox across Catholicism as well as reasonable Protestant denominations.

Anyway, even in these threads you'll find a VERY wide range of opinions on what exactly is the afterlife and how to "deserve" accession into it from believing Christians.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 08:55

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

steinrokkan posted:

I'm not a Christian, but I don't think I'm building hypotheticals at all. The bit of my previous post in parentheses was meant to channel Hegel, who is a major Christian modern influence, but who is also arguably representative of the sort of intellectually detached thinking that is so far removed from Christ and from the basic messages of the Bible that I understand why to a lot of people it may not appear Christian at all. The ideas about using one's will to seek greater understanding of the eternal through Grace, and about living in accordance with metaphysical laws are rather orthodox across Catholicism as well as reasonable Protestant denominations.

Anyway, even in these threads you'll find a VERY wide range of opinions on what exactly is the afterlife and how to "deserve" accession into it from believing Christians.

To elaborate on some things that I find contradictory, and to perhaps indulge in hypotheticals:

Catechism makes some important points about the Heaven: "To live in heaven is "to be with Christ." the elect live "in Christ," but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name." At the same time: "He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ." And "This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description." Also in Heaven the souls of the true believers gain the capacity to behold directly the true visage of God, which is explicitly made impossible for living human beings.

So it would seem to me that in order to make these doctrinal conclusions true, one must admit that some change takes place in the process of purification / ascension:
- The property of living man which prevents him from seeing God face to face must be removed.
- Any properties which make crucial difference between Christ and man must be removed (i.e. only a "common core" of their identities can be left after the incorporation into a single body)
- I find it plausible to say that in order to satisfy the above, the accidental properties of man's substance are not necessary or even desirable for his life in Heaven. Accident in a being is a differentiating, imperfect aspect which has the opposite role of the unifying essential properties. It is what moulds man into flesh and soul, and what inhibits his ability to achieve perfect understanding (vision) of God (due to the substantial qualities of human reason) on par with the angels and such, and what makes one man stand apart from another in every possible sense.
- So in conclusion, is it possible that when it is talked about people finding their name and identity in Heaven, it refers to their loss of a part of their former substance and embracing an identity which is the same as their essence?

# ¿ Feb 27, 2015 09:15

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

OwlFancier posted:

He can be as needlessly complicated as he needs to be.

An interesting view indeed.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2015 00:13

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

vessbot posted:

Remember that I qualified the requirement with "to maintain coherency." Without that, you're right that there is no requirement and the person can just tell me to go pound sand instead.

You're also right that when religious arguments have their feet held to the fire, they often are forced to escape quandries with "it's just too complicated to explain to you " or, even more laughably and more revealingly, "because magic."

Whether the above is a coherent position is, as another poster put it, in the eye of the judge. But at the risk of putting words in people's mouths, I would venture to say that most religious defenders would not accept that standard when it comes to any other topic. So I think it's important to force the issue in order to reveal that level of their so-called reasoning, and, thereby, reveal their hypocrisy.

How do you even type your posts with a giant fedora obscuring your view.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2015 01:08

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

vessbot posted:

Remember, I'm the anti-intellectual.

Can you even process what I'm presenting to you?

No, because it's complete gibberish. I've seen homeless smackheads making more cogent points in their rants than what you are offering.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2015 01:17

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

For some reason I have no trouble understanding why ~~religious~~ people avoid answering vessbot's obnoxious questions.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2015 01:23

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Miltank hasn't said anything wrong, and has been neither verbose, nor obnoxious about his points. These ideas are unproven if you will, but proving them has never been the point of this discussion. The key is: They are the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, and are internally consistent and based on a set of unchanging axioms which, by definition, can't be relativized without moving the argument entirely outside theology. It's the same as any ideology, I don't understand why so many people have trouble understanding that.

Posters who pretend that theology is shifting goalposts or whatever only think that because they aren't willing to accept the axiomatic foundations of theological constructs, and are frustrated that theology, instead, doesn't move to accept their ontology.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2015 09:17

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

CommieGIR posted:

Maybe you should treat them as unproven ideas versus established facts if you want that?

Does the word faith ring a bell? You are the bad poster here for constantly enforcing your own notions of authority on a discipline which derives its value from something completely different. It is an apologetic / hypothetical science, not a natural science. Stop returning to your trite little points.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2015 09:25

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

blowfish posted:

As an unbeliever I consider this argument won then (), and lose interest at this point.

Well, good, it's not like anybody was asking for your approval. The world would be a much better place if less people whined about things that don't affect them.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2015 11:01

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

You can argue that Mary being the holy mother is a sign of an exalted position of women in the religion, or you can argue that it only contributes to the establishing of femininity as a reproductive force in service of masculinity, and to its discursive subjugation. It doesn't really prove anything

# ¿ Mar 2, 2015 23:02

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

CommieGIR posted:

So Mary get's to be exalted among women, but all others better be submissive and non-exalted.

But to be honest, there are so many other significant women that if you are not a Christian, Mary seems rather unimportant other than giving birth.

Yes, that's my point. Giving birth has hardly been treated as an exalted act in any meaningful way, no matter what the Church may say.

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 2, 2015

# ¿ Mar 2, 2015 23:19

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Who What Now posted:

*bong rip* You can't, like, share realities maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan. Like, what if, like... no, no, hear me out, ok. What if, like, in my reality my blue is your red, man? Like, dude, dude! Dude.... Think about it man. And then pass me the Fritos.

lol

# ¿ Mar 3, 2015 19:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 05:03

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Who What Now posted:

Considering that very few line up with any significant regularity, no, not at all. Find me 49% of Americans that have had the same religious experience and can accurately describe what, exactly, it entails then you'll be on to something. Until then a warm and fuzzy feeling doesn't mean poo poo.

Thank you, mr. pedo anime avatar, for telling us what means poo poo.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2015 20:31

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > There is one thing that doesn't matter, and that is Jesus Christ