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

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Holy poo poo people are seriously arguing the "ended slavery" point? :psyduck:

I stopped punching children recently, anyone wanna come congratulate me about that??

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 15:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 06:59

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

VitalSigns posted:

Y'all know abolitionists and slaveowners were different people right?

Abolitionists fought against slaveowners sometimes at great personal risk. It's not like all they had to do was let their slaves go and then ask for a medal.

Sure but both of those groups followed the religion that people are trying to give credit to. How about "My political party lifted its ban on black members this year, aren't we great"

And even if we look past that this is still an absurd argument on the level of those stupid Facebook posts where people compare WHAT CHRISTIANS/WHITES HAVE ACHIEVED to WHAT MUSLIMS/BLACKS HAVE ACHIEVED.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 15:24

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Only you only came to that realization after creating the most widespread and brutal system of child abuse ever, and using that to get rich as gently caress

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 16:32

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

I don't think anyone has taken the opposite position, I'm not saying that slavery is a black mark on Christianity or anything. I guess my first post could be read like that but the idea is to challenge the basis of what is fundamentally a really stupid argument (hence the comparison to other non-sequitur "Look how great this arbitrary group was historically compared to this other one" arguments).

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 17:13

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

vessbot posted:

Human intelligence and emotions are quite different from other animals (close evolutionary ancestors notwithstanding) so it's a well-founded assumption that "human biology is the only thing that can produce intellect and emotions similar to ours."

I don't get why you think this is a relevant argument. Like firstly it only applies to people with a very literal and weird reading of the Bible so it's not remotely universally applicable (I don't think anyone on this forum would subscribe to that kind of interpretation in the first place), and secondly even if people were to accept it for some bizarre reason you haven't really gotten anywhere because there's nothing to stop them from having faith in a supreme being that has a biological component.

It's also not a very good argument even if you do establish its relevance but I don't think that even matters.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 07:53

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Or alternatively he stop making dumb theological arguments altogether because it has no meaning to him as an atheist

# ¿ Feb 13, 2015 02:50

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Agag posted:

Also, the most repressive regimes in the history of mankind have all been officially atheist. But of course terrible government abound, if not predominate.

I agree, the Nazis weren't so bad really

# ¿ Feb 16, 2015 06:13

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Your original claim was that "the most repressive regimes in the history of mankind have all been officially atheist". I provided the obvious counterexample and you seem to be moving the goalposts rather than acknowledging you were wrong.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2015 06:53

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Agag posted:

I'm not familiar with any regime more repressive that Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, or the DPRK. Though I'll concede that some of the finer details are down to technology.

Agag posted:

As I told CommieGIR, if you concede that, historically speaking, both theistic and atheistic regimes have been utterly immoral then we are in agreement.

That's obviously a factually correct statement that I have never once contradicted. I don't know why you're demanding I agree with it though, considering that you're the one who raised this argument apropos of nothing.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2015 07:02

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

In shocking news most ideological movements had members of the world's most widespread religion in them

# ¿ Feb 18, 2015 14:52

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Barlow posted:

Here's the thing with Christianity, you can always find a verse that supports the interpretation that you want. You want to subjugate women you quote Ephesians 5:22-24, you believe in equality you can cite Galatians 3:28. The community interprets the text, spouting off lines from scripture doesn't prove much.

So in other words the OP is correct and biblical scripture is irrelevant, since it just tells you whatever you want it to? I get this same feeling with a lot of apologist arguments - yeah you can entirely dodge consistency and evidence based criticisms by making your position more vague, but it serves to completely undermine the purpose of making your argument in the first place.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2015 01:26

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Series DD Funding posted:

The fact that religion is becoming less relevant in the (American) political sphere is obvious. But that isn't because we suddenly gained the ability to read verses out of context.

I don't see what this has to do with the argument I was making - I'm challenging Barlow's evasive argument in the abstract by pointing out that scriptures under his model aren't really saying anything at all. I am not making any statement about how politically relevant religious organizations are in America or anywhere else.

Barlow posted:

The mistake here is to believe that the core of the Christian faith is its scripture alone, for most the core is about Christ. This isn't Islam where a central text was sent directly by God, some communities will interpret the text through continuing revelation, others do so through a church hierarchy.. The text is hardly irrelevant, it is the central touchstone that enables communities to discern their course.

That may sound evasive, and indeed it serves the needs of communities and not apologetics. I would hope ideas would change over several thousand years, especially if revelation is ongoing.

This explains why communities find the scriptures important, sure, but I put it to you that it's not useful as a source of teaching if it's vague enough that any interpretation is possible. Communities will simply arrive at an interpretation that suits them through whatever means they choose.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2015 04:04

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Barlow posted:

It can be source of moral views but it's also important as way to ground existing teaching in something beyond a personal commitment or a political community. When applied well trying to "love your neighbor" as Jesus commanded can be an inspiring and demanding ethic, even if the phrase sounds banal. Discipleship is a tough business if taken seriously.

I'm confused - are you saying there is an objectively correct way to be a Christian with your "when applied well" comment? That wasn't what I was getting from you before.

In any case though the problem I see is that you're pretty much putting any views reached via religious interpretation beyond criticism. Like let's say someone decides that the Bible is telling them to hate gays, how do you challenge that when you're not willing to attack the basis of their belief in the Bible or their interpretation of it?

Series DD Funding posted:

What is truth?

I refuse to accept your argument unless you explain basic words and concepts to me!

# ¿ Mar 3, 2015 19:54

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Series DD Funding posted:

I'm talking about morals. If someone claims to have had a religious experience and that everyone has a moral obligation to speed through intersections (or do anything else), that's an unfalsifiable claim. Most other people won't be happy with our lawbreaker, and they would be right to be angry in their own moral framework. But that doesn't make the would-be prophet objectively wrong.

So in other words your "individual realities" that aren't based on any kind of external evidence can directly endanger other people and we must be able to challenge them?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2015 20:35

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Series DD Funding posted:

Being religious doesn't directly endanger other people.

In the majority of cases, yeah. But if you put up a barrier and say "you can't question someone's unfalsifiable beliefs, it's true to them!" then you're helping to protect people with harmful unfalsifiable beliefs, be they religious or otherwise. To use a more real-world example, how about those who think their children should not receive blood transfusions because they think it goes against god's will?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2015 21:56

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Disinterested posted:

Monogamous relationships are predicated on individuals only having sex with one person, not never having sex at all.

To make a more minimal case: the desire to have sex with people of the same sex is intrinsic to the nature of gay people. To try to portray condemning those desires, and the acts that often follow, as a mere condemnation of the act of doing something, and not a condemnation of a person, is intellectually dishonest. It is to condemn a person for who and what they are, plain and simple.

Is your argument that religious belief is also intrinsic to the nature of a religious person?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2015 01:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 06:59

Irony Be My Shield: Jul 29, 2012

Disinterested posted:

No, I don't even suggest this, and I wonder what the purpose of the question is?

It seems to me to be a stupid question. Religious people are defined as people with religious beliefs. So I think your question must be mistakenly phrased.

I misunderstood what you were saying after you brought up "love the sin, hate the sinner" in response to someone saying they respected individuals rather than their beliefs. Although I don't see why you'd bring up that comparison at all if you don't think it's valid.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2015 02:16

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