|
Leftists should convert to radical Christianity and work to win converts.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
As a leftist, I think Calvinism is insanely good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Just catching up on the thread but whoah whoah whoah, hold your horses there. Your fundamental supposition is incorrect. Christianity was most certainly not founded on the Bible, but rather the Bible was something that grew out of Christianity after a couple of centuries. This is important. Yeah, this is actually a hugely important distinction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Full communism is inevitable, thanks be to God.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:It explicitly says love thy neighbor, I read that as people who are part of your community, not some randos living on the other side of the mountain. Presumably they were free to hate those others. Read the parable and you'll see this is explicitly wrong. E: Jesus' listeners would have considered the Samaritans as cultural enemies: a group of mixed-race heathens. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Mar 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
"Not all who say to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Look to the previous verse though: quote:15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. The key in verses 22-23 is "in your name." I think "mighty" is value neutral but I'm not sure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
As long as you are extremely careful about what you choose to consider a "religious authority."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Why can't things be sacred if they were struggled for? That isn't self evident.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Religious communities are not simply collections of metaphysical statements. People do not kill themselves over that. They die over what that symbolically represents to them - community, in-group, out-group & power. Coming to that realization is a necessary part of an honest analysis of the role of religion in society. So what's the problem? How is that different than a political movement?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
What are the similarities between religion and paternalistic racism?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
I disagree with your premise that religion is a necessary evil. Religion is extraordinarily good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
We don't actually live in a deliberative system where power and freedom are rationally justified. I think it is desirable to limit certain freedoms on the basis of religious dogma. Calvinst Far-left.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
The verse cited in that Chick track is a major self own. Why would you point to the story of the rich young man as a defense of capitalism?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
We'll ask him again on judgment day.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Nobody serious refers to the early Middle Ages as the "dark ages" anymore. The Catholic Church was the only institution that kept the old knowledge alive in Europe and there were many technologic advances made during that time. Religion is not the biggest killer of people on the planet and it is not the biggest "global stress." Climate change denialists would absolutely exist without religion because capital would simply adopt a different rationale for their propaganda. In fact I doubt the majority of climate change denialism is rationalized in religious terms. America would absolutely support Israel regardless of religion for the same reasons America also supports brutal secular and Islamic states. Al-Qaeda would still exist on secular terms for the same reasons that nationalist terrorist groups also exist. It is just as easy to justify slavery on secular terms as it is on religious terms. Contemporaries of the American abolitionist movement considered them a bunch of crazy religious zealots. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
John Brown was a literal prophet. As was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Interstellar colonization is not a priority because capital determines the goals of our society.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Literally nothing happens in late-stage capitalism without a profit motive. But religion is the real problem because of reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Here's the deal about Calvinism: It's insanely good so long as you trust God to not be an rear end in a top hat about who gets saved.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why would you ever trust god to not be an rear end in a top hat about who gets saved? Because its better than the alternative and it makes no difference either way?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Tonetta posted:I would rather not. They're full of whack jobs who believe that some invisible man in the sky made everything that you see, and suddenly two thousand years ago sent his brown son down here to be ravaged by his creations in order to give flawed people an excuse to never work on their flaws.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
God is radically egalitarian and was executed for dissent. He could have been gay.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
God the Son could have been gay or straight or transsexual and it wouldn't change anything theologically. God the Father is something radically outside of our ability understand.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for insentience.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The metaphor explicitly casts the attainment of knowledge as a bad deed deserving of punishment. The snake is the good guy. The snake tempts mankind with knowledge of its death.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Willful ignorance is immoral. That's simply not true. A society that doesn't know how to wage war would be a moral society than our own.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
The Catholic Church was absolutely an enemy of the Left.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Does the technical inability to commit evil absolve someone of the intent to commit evil? I don't think so, if you're willing, then you're just as bad as someone both willing and able. A society that doesn't know how to wage war is necessarily one that doesn't have the intent to wage war. I'll take the metaphor one step further and say a society that doesn't know about war is as moral as a society that knows about war but never wages it. E: the "knowledge of good and evil" includes knowledge of the concept of war.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
A society that doesn't have a concept of war is a good society. Such a society would never be willing to wage war because they had no idea it existed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Knowledge of a concept is separate from the approval of a concept. If, theoretically, they would approve of war after learning the concept, they were always bad, even if they do not know. In that scenario, if Adam had no conception of rape before eating the apple, then he was a better person before eating it. You can't have the intent to do something before you have knowledge of what you intend to do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Not if you don't have knowledge of evil actions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
It doesn't matter because if there is no knowledge then there is no rape. E: and no, I would call "Q" intent. I'd probably think of a more appropriate word that doesn't require knowledge. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Shooting at someone is evil. If you didn't know about shooting then you would never be a person who shoots at someone.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
A society that could never rape is exactly as good as a society that knows about rape but nobody is ever raped.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The first post on this page contains the word "tempt". Kingpin says a society which has no means to consider war should be praised for not considering war. It's not about "praising." A society that has no concept of war is an objectively moral society in the area of war. As moral as a society that knows how to wage war and chooses not to.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
If I had to guess I would say they don't know anything at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother. . . .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
The twin daggers of reason and logic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 17:51
|
|