|
Tesseraction posted:They aren't central to the faith, they're central to the specific groups you're focusing on while ignoring the others. I'm honestly not aware of any Christian groups that reject Jesus's existence, birth, death, resurrection, and divinity as having some kind of importance or meaning for their faith.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:Right and they came later after the traditional interpretation was normalized in historical churches. I'm not saying that every sect believes the same thing, I'm saying the original foundation of Christianity as we know it in broad terms relies on Jesus and certain aspects of Jesus, namely the son, divinity, and the trinity. Yeah, and you're wrong. You've said enough poo poo that's wrong that you can't spin this, I'm sorry. The trinity is literally the most contentious concept of the early church. quote:My point isn't that its always been true for ALL sects but that its been true for the traditional sects that help define why the other sects are different. Man, is that your point? Why haven't you bothered to say it until now? So let me get this straight, your claim is that some sects believe in some things, and other sects believe in other things, and they draw a dividing line between them based on this? Astounding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Please take New Atheist chat to another thead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yeah, and you're wrong. You've said enough poo poo that's wrong that you can't spin this, I'm sorry. The trinity is literally the most contentious concept of the early church. I did say that, you focused on the trinity thing and extrapolated it to my entire point. For example, most resources I find seem to point to the trinity being a Pretty Big Deal. Its always addressed in some way shape or form in the most early aspects of the church. From Wiki: The Trinitarian doctrine is considered by most Christians to be a core tenet of their faith. Nontrinitarians typically hold that God, the Father, is supreme; that Jesus, although still divine Lord and Savior, is the Son of God; and that the Holy Spirit is a phenomenon akin to God's will on Earth. The holy three are separate, yet the Son and the Holy Spirit are still seen as originating from God the Father. Even if its contested, its still considered canon and true by a significant portion of Christians. I'm not denying that it was contested, I never said that. PLUS, the original post was in response to Pain Mainframe in that there have always been aspects of faith that were taken literally. I think thats still the case, if you want to be super easy about it we can just leave it that "god is real". Thats pretty much taken literally, we can agree on that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:PLUS, the original post was in response to Pain Mainframe in that there have always been aspects of faith that were taken literally. I think thats still the case, if you want to be super easy about it we can just leave it that "god is real". Thats pretty much taken literally, we can agree on that? Not every Christian would follow you on that one. Bryter fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Would you consider them Christians though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Please take New Atheist chat to another thead. This isn't New Athiest chat. It's actually pretty relevant: People have hosed up ideas about religion and ascribe all sorts of magical effects to it, as Jastiger does. It becomes this overwhelming force that pushes people to irrational ends, in some unique, spooky way. The way Jastiger views religion in general is the way that most Americans view Islam. Never mind that if you sociologically analyze even most Muslim fighters you find pretty normal reasons for doing what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Would you consider them Christians though? If they identified as Christians, sure, I wouldn't argue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This isn't New Athiest chat. It's been pages of quibbling over how inconsistant Christianity is, after the generalized "all religions are toxic" tripe. It's like watching a Fishmech attack, but you're the only one egging him on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Bryter posted:If they identified as Christians, sure, I wouldn't argue. A contentious point I think. Obdicut posted:This isn't New Athiest chat. Honestly i think we view it the same way, you're just upset about tiny academic points. I think their important, sure, but it HAS become quibbling and isn't really relevant to the OP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's been pages of quibbling over how inconsistant Christianity is, after the generalized "all religions are toxic" tripe. It's like watching a Fishmech attack, but you're the only one egging him on. What do you mean by me being the only one egging him on? For more actual Islamaphobia stuff: http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/petition-congress-to-halt-muslim-immigration-now/ Muslims murder a Christian every five minutes guys. What I want to know is: are we doing better than that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:My point isn't that its always been true for ALL sects but that its been true for the traditional sects that help define why the other sects are different. So your point is that some major religions interpret some parts of their religion literally, and that sometimes we distinguish between religions on the basis of these interpretations. Yea, totally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Lame Devil posted:So your point is that some major religions interpret some parts of their religion literally, and that sometimes we distinguish between religions on the basis of these interpretations. I didn't think it was contentious, I thought it was obvious, but someone did, so......
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I agree but with one caveat about your part about the historical interpretation: Certain parts have always been considered canonical and literally true, namely the existence of Jesus, Jesus being the son, and the existence of some form of trinity. A lot of the rest has risen and fallen, but its important to note that there has always been (and almost has to be) a literal interpretation of religious texts. The difference in sects is often not so much interpretation but rather how much you consider to be literal. More a sliding scale than a modular choice.  the trinity has always been canonically true, way to pick the most divisive issue in early Christianity, followed by the second most divisive issue (whether Jesus is the literal son of god and what that means or just a dude god liked a whole lot)So are you an Objectivist or something, the blathering about epistemology and the need to make confident pronouncements on things you know nothing about has a distinct Randian vibe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I didn't think it was contentious, I thought it was obvious, but someone did, so...... Your point that all religions take some part of their holy text literally is contentious. Ascribing the literal meaning of a religion's holy texts to the belief system of all of that religion's followers can fuel discrimination against them. This is on topic in the Islamophobia thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Lame Devil posted:Your point that all religions take some part of their holy text literally is contentious. I totally agree with that and I think its relevant. I wasn't saying that though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I agree but with one caveat about your part about the historical interpretation: Certain parts have always been considered canonical and literally true, namely the existence of Jesus, Jesus being the son, and the existence of some form of trinity. A lot of the rest has risen and fallen, but its important to note that there has always been (and almost has to be) a literal interpretation of religious texts. The difference in sects is often not so much interpretation but rather how much you consider to be literal. More a sliding scale than a modular choice. There are plenty of sects that have taken issue with even those basic facts - the most well-known probably being Unitarianism, which rejects the idea of the Trinity and (depending on the particular Unitarian sect) sometimes the divinity of Jesus. Disputing his existence would be pointless, since it's a fact with some historical evidence behind it, but his divinity and relationship to God have been disputed and disagreed upon by many different groups. Also, different sects may have different forms of the text - aside from the whole question of transcription errors, translations, and later edits, there were plenty of tales and stories and works and gospels written about Jesus and his teachings and the apostles in early Christianity, as well as plenty of dubious Old Testament-ish stories, and no real, wide-ranging statement of which ones were canon until the 4th century or so, when the centralized religious organizations that had risen by that time began to enforce a fixed canon among the entirety of their religious hierarchy - though various weaknesses in those religious organizations led to differences. The Catholic Bible is different from the Orthodox Bible (and there are even regional differences in Orthodox Christian canon as well), and naturally the Protestants just did whatever the gently caress they wanted with canon. For example, Martin Luther made at least one change to the original text when he wrote the Luther Bible, as well as dropping several books of Catholic canon completely and relegating several more to the back of the book. On the other hand, the Czech Bible has a couple of books that other Catholic and Protestants Bibles don't, because the translators included a couple of books from the Orthodox Bible. Jastiger posted:Right and they came later after the traditional interpretation was normalized in historical churches. I'm not saying that every sect believes the same thing, I'm saying the original foundation of Christianity as we know it in broad terms relies on Jesus and certain aspects of Jesus, namely the son, divinity, and the trinity. Aren't you tired from moving those goalposts so far? Isn't it easier to just admit that your original assertion that all Christian sects interpret those parts of the text in the same way was ill-informed, instead of tacking on a million caveats and trying to sneakily replace all the "all" with "most" and trying to exclude everything that doesn't fit your claim as a meaningless outlier? Why not just say "oops, I didn't know about that" and move on? Jastiger posted:Would you consider them Christians though? Would you consider Christians to be Jews?The difference between "a sect of another religion" and "a new religion entirely" is an entirely subjective line to draw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:A contentious point I think. As is the question of whether Catholics are Christians. What is and isn't foundational to Christianity is not unanimously agreed upon, and your definitions are as arbitrary as anyone else's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Jastiger is this you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LHU-tMSJEo
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There are plenty of sects that have taken issue with even those basic facts - the most well-known probably being Unitarianism, which rejects the idea of the Trinity and (depending on the particular Unitarian sect) sometimes the divinity of Jesus. Disputing his existence would be pointless, since it's a fact with some historical evidence behind it, but his divinity and relationship to God have been disputed and disagreed upon by many different groups. Also, different sects may have different forms of the text - aside from the whole question of transcription errors, translations, and later edits, there were plenty of tales and stories and works and gospels written about Jesus and his teachings and the apostles in early Christianity, as well as plenty of dubious Old Testament-ish stories, and no real, wide-ranging statement of which ones were canon until the 4th century or so, when the centralized religious organizations that had risen by that time began to enforce a fixed canon among the entirety of their religious hierarchy - though various weaknesses in those religious organizations led to differences. The Catholic Bible is different from the Orthodox Bible (and there are even regional differences in Orthodox Christian canon as well), and naturally the Protestants just did whatever the gently caress they wanted with canon. For example, Martin Luther made at least one change to the original text when he wrote the Luther Bible, as well as dropping several books of Catholic canon completely and relegating several more to the back of the book. On the other hand, the Czech Bible has a couple of books that other Catholic and Protestants Bibles don't, because the translators included a couple of books from the Orthodox Bible. I knew it was contested but not to the point it was sure. I was wrong to list out such specific points, though from what I see, it still seems to be a majority view of Christians that they matter to some extent. My main response to you was more that they still consider the words in the Bible to be Canon and they each drew from that book. They were for the most part working from the same source material. Perhaps it was wrong to go further than that, but in reference to YOUR post before hand, thats where I was going with it. quote:Would you consider Christians to be Jews?The difference between "a sect of another religion" and "a new religion entirely" is an entirely subjective line to draw. Bryter posted:As is the question of whether Catholics are Christians. What is and isn't foundational to Christianity is not unanimously agreed upon, and your definitions are as arbitrary as anyone else's. I agree it is subjective to a point, but there has to be some point where we can say "you're closer to this faith or that faith" when analyzing view points. This is why I started talking about Islamophobia in the first place, it IS subjective, but not completely amorphous to the point of "Well you're a true Muslim, no YOU'RE a True Muslim" etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I agree it is subjective to a point, but there has to be some point where we can say "you're closer to this faith or that faith" when analyzing view points.  I'm sorry, you scored a 5.2 on the CHRISTSCALE, clearly you're not a real Christian. Records indicate your neighbor possesses an exceptional score of 2.1, ask him for the correct Christian viewpoints on things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Anyone seen this? Let's just say what is forbidden, and what the CNN coverage is dancing around: the schools have been closed because of Christian terrorism threats. Christians have been threatening to kill the teacher and her students.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:42
|
|
poo poo THEMSELVES
|
Jastiger posted:I knew it was contested but not to the point it was sure. I was wrong to list out such specific points, though from what I see, it still seems to be a majority view of Christians that they matter to some extent. My main response to you was more that they still consider the words in the Bible to be Canon and they each drew from that book. They were for the most part working from the same source material. Perhaps it was wrong to go further than that, but in reference to YOUR post before hand, thats where I was going with it. Which Bible? There isn't just one! The core material does in fact contain significant differences between sects, and its importance varies widely by sect as well. How important scripture actually is happened to be a major factor in the Protestant Revolution. There isn't such a point, and fundamentally there can't really be such a point because there is such wide-ranging diversity of theology and such denials are often part of theological conflicts. Different sects have different ideas of what it means to be "Christian" or "Muslim" or even "Jewish" and what fundamental points of faith must be agreed on to fall under their umbrella. The reason that Christians are not Jews, even though they originated as a Jewish cult, is because Christians themselves did not want to be called Jewish, and managed to amass enough influence to make that stick among Romans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Islam is pretty drat schismatic down many, many lines. Even down to the founding of the faith, and after the death of Muahammad there were many, many different teachers who professed that their understanding of Islam was more in line with the truth than others. This goes down to the levels of individual mosques, many of whom will have different interpretations. This is actually pretty hugely encouraged in the faith itself because of the way its structured. Ironically, if there's any formal power structure in Islam at all, it's probably closer to the academic framework than it is the hierarchical systems present in other religions. Fatwas are the "papers", if you will, that are written by the various scholars using their own research into the Sunnah and the Quran and put forth, and every other scholar uses their own research and insight to determine if it is supported by the evidence or not, as the case may be. So if we take, say, a very controversial Fatwa (calling for the Death of Salman Rushdie, for example), this isn't actually the work of the religion as a whole, not even any particular school, it's purely the work of a small group, possibly an individual, and there were many, many people who challenged it, and rightly so. Comparing it to Christianity is pretty ignorant in some of the basic facts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Islam is pretty drat schismatic down many, many lines. Even down to the founding of the faith, and after the death of Muahammad there were many, many different teachers who professed that their understanding of Islam was more in line with the truth than others. This goes down to the levels of individual mosques, many of whom will have different interpretations. This is actually pretty hugely encouraged in the faith itself because of the way its structured. Well, that's similar to how the original distributed churches worked, the original protestants who were against hierarchy and whose officiants, if any, weren't an intermediary between god and man but interpreters and preachers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Near where I live there's a Unitarian Church right next to a Salvation Army church which I imagine makes for fun weekend trips.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:which rejects the idea of the Trinity and (depending on the particular Unitarian sect) sometimes the divinity of Jesus. Does Santa Claus need to punch some more motherfuckers? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Does Santa Claus need to punch some more motherfuckers? He shits in the stockings of every Unitarian at Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Gods don't exist, Jastiger, it can't be true or untrue that they're the same god. There's this game you're playing where you try to simultaneously insist that there is no such thing as 'Islam' so any claims anyone else makes about 'Islam' are a priori false while you also want to make your own sweeping and definitive claims about what Islam is or is not and I don't think you're doing it very convincingly so you should probably pick one or the other. Also Superman doesn't exist but it's still true that Lex Luthor hates Superman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Allahu akbar, big kids will pay for saying Santa isn't real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:while you also want to make your own sweeping and definitive claims about what Islam is or is not I don't do this, though, so what are you smoking? edit: If you think i do, show it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Allahu akbar, big kids will pay for saying Santa isn't real. Santa was real. He also punched Arius at the Council of Nicea because he was poo poo-talking the Trinity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Santa was real. Saints are some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Never mind that if you sociologically analyze even most Muslim fighters you find pretty normal reasons for doing what they're doing. What is your evidence for this? And what is normal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Bryter posted:If they identified as Christians, sure, I wouldn't argue. The Rachel Dozeal test.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:He shits in the stockings of every Unitarian at Christmas. Not every Unitarian. He pushes the alleged "pastors" down flights of stairs and into doorknobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Santa was real. Jehovah drat you, my joke isn't funny if people explain it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
BigBoss posted:The Rachel Dozeal test. Was my first thought too lol. Literally everything is a false flag.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Bryter posted:What is and isn't foundational to Christianity is not unanimously agreed upon, and your definitions are as arbitrary as anyone else's. Just to underscore this point, consider how recognizably different the theology of, say Mark and John are - these divisions have always existed in Christianity, and many Christians are the first to recognize this (much of the best close study of the bible and it's various contradictory viewpoints having been done by Christians) But maybe trying to explain religious studies 101 stuff is a little bit reductionist when Islamaphobia is a big enough topic on it's own
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:What is your evidence for this? And what is normal? A shitload of scholarly works, and you're right 'normal' is dumb. I mean political and secular, rather than simply 'god wants me to'. Here are a few papers to get you started: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10576100801993347 This one analyses how political ideals become 'sacred' even though actual religious tradition doesn't support them, and how nationalism and perceptions of humiliation at the hands of the West were predictive: http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/medin/documents/GingesAtranSachdevaMedin2011AmPsyAuthor.pdf This is a great book analyzing the separatist movement in the Philippines and, among other things, noting that nationalism is not a real motivating part of the discourse there, but instead reactions to historical political positions This book is a good single source about the sociologial motivaitions for terrorism: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Lutz3/publication/46293362_Democracy_and_Terrorism/links/5450ef090cf24e8f7376ac58.pdf#page=130
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 10:39
|
|