|
Randarkman posted:Okay, I can kind of accept this one. But really haven't people been bigoted and superstitious for a long time both before and after the Middle Ages? As a person interested in the history of the Middle Ages I tend to overreact when people represent the Middle Ages as the prime example of backwardness and poo poo, which I feel is really ill deserved, but enough on that. Also the Church in the Middle Ages and afterwards tended to be very much against supersition and such, if you discount the fundamentals of their religion such as believing in a God, Jesus's presence at Mass and miracles performed by the Saints (Which I guess is discounting quite a lot). It's a continuation of the "Dark Ages" bullshit that started during the Renaissance.
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The "and Muhammad is his prophet" seems like a pretty relevant bit to include, since the God is shared with two other major religions. Muslims don't like to admit that they really do worship Muhammed as god (plus Ali if they're shias) just like Christians don't want to admit that they worship Jesus Christ as a god, trying to hide it beneath all this "Holy Trinity" claptrap. And if they're Catholic or Orthodox Christians then they also worship saints, icons and pieces of toast. Monotheism my rear end. ...but none of this is relevant, for Satan's sake. You can't argue about nuances of religion with armed fanatics, they would just behead you. Miltank posted:early christianity is a very positive thing to wish to emulate. This is like saying that Judaism ca. 1942 Poland is a positive thing to emulate. Sure they were sympathizable while they were being oppressed, but now they are the oppressors. - With Mosul dam apparently under Kurd control, will they try to reach Sinjar now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Okay, I can kind of accept this one. But really haven't people been bigoted and superstitious for a long time both before and after the Middle Ages? As a person interested in the history of the Middle Ages I tend to overreact when people represent the Middle Ages as the prime example of backwardness and poo poo, which I feel is really ill deserved, but enough on that. Also the Church in the Middle Ages and afterwards tended to be very much against supersition and such, if you discount the fundamentals of their religion such as believing in a God, Jesus's presence at Mass and miracles performed by the Saints (Which I guess is discounting quite a lot). The difference is that modern fundamentalists are attempting to recreate an earlier version of the church that never actually existed - so they just made some stuff up about what they thought the early church should have been like, and then emulated that. Hence the Medieval church was much more thoughtful and insightful, while limited by their culture. Modern fundies are not limited by their culture, they're just deliberately stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Setting aside specific practices, the basic assumption of fundamentalism, that the meaning of scripture is entirely accessible and upfront from a literal sense of the text would have been totally foreign to a medieval sensibility. Fundamentalist Christianity is basically a twentieth century phenomenon born in America, a reaction to what they perceived as the declining role of (protestant) Christianity in American culture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's a continuation of the "Dark Ages" bullshit that started during the Renaissance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
JT Jag please stop posting about the middle ages since you clearly know nothing about them. Unfortunately Jacques Le Goff recently died, but his books are still a great read if you want to dispell some false myths that are still, however, too popular and ingrained in the popular culture.Nenonen posted:just like Christians don't want to admit that they worship Jesus Christ as a god, trying to hide it beneath all this "Holy Trinity" claptrap. And if they're Catholic or Orthodox Christians then they also worship saints, icons and pieces of toast. Monotheism my rear end. You're wrong about pretty much everything: 1) Christians openly worship Jesus Christ, they don't "try to hide it". 2) The Holy Trinity isn't "claptrap". It simply means that Jesus Christ is God himself, and also the Holy Spirit. It's not hard to understand. 3) Catholics and Orthodox don't worship saints or icons. They pray for intercession to God. You're welcome. Cippalippus fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Setting aside specific practices, the basic assumption of fundamentalism, that the meaning of scripture is entirely accessible and upfront from a literal sense of the text would have been totally foreign to a medieval sensibility. Fundamentalist Christianity is basically a twentieth century phenomenon born in America, a reaction to what they perceived as the declining role of (protestant) Christianity in American culture. Nah, it goes back a bit further than that, it is pretty much a continuation or revival of the Evangelical revival movement that rose to prominence in Britain and the US in the early to mid 19th century. Bigoted evangelicals brought about quite a change when they became very influential in the East India Company in 1830s-1840s for an example. Before that Company Officials had readily married Indian women (as much as 1 in 3 at a point, and many of those had multiple wives), were fluent in Hindi, Urdu and Persian and regularly abstained from both Pork and Beef, some even brought up some of their children as Muslims or even converted to Islam. With the arrival of the evangelicas this pretty much seized and the British and the Indians became almost completely segregated, and many firebrands began acively prosletyzing (I have no idea how to spell that word..) in an attempt to convert the locals. JT Jag posted:The fall of the Western Roman Empire was a fairly big deal and did stagnate technological development in Europe for several centuries. That said to call the period the Dark Ages as a whole is short-sighted and eurocentric as progress continued elsewhere: Constantinople continued to be strong for quite a while and of course the Islamic world was extremely wealthy and influential until the hordes showed up. Actually there are some arguments to be made for there being more technological innovations made during the High Middle Ages in Europe (roughly 1000-1400) than during the entire Roman era. And the Islamic world did not cease being extremely wealthy and influential with the hordes, not even the parts most adversely affected. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Yeah, come to think about it, it wouldn't be bad to have an ISIS equivalent in the Christian world. As far my understanding of Christianity goes, Jesus was allowed to drive the bankers out because he was the Son of God and his moral judgments were unquestionable. Christian followers would just grin and bear it until they die and get to go to heaven, as evidenced by Paul advising slaves not to rebel against their (presumably sinful and hellbound) masters. Similarly, Christians shouldn't persecute homosexuals for being sinners, but only because that God's place. It's not because of any inherent kind of Christian tolerance you see in more liberal churches. As far as Islams 'warmongering' and imperialism, Christianity had a whole bunch of that once the Roman Emperors adopted it as the state religion. It's just that the empire building had already happened and so they were doing forced conversions on their own citizens instead of recently conquered ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:As far my understanding of Christianity goes, Jesus was allowed to drive the bankers out because he was the Son of God and his moral judgments were unquestionable. Christian followers would just grin and bear it until they die and get to go to heaven, as evidenced by Paul advising slaves not to rebel against their (presumably sinful and hellbound) masters. Usury was actually a major topic of contention about 500 years ago. It's why the stereotype of Jewish bankers exists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Nah, it goes back a bit further than that, it is pretty much a continuation or revival of the Evangelical revival movement that rose to prominence in Britain and the US in the early to mid 19th century. Yeah, the Great Awakenings did play into it, certainly and one can look at various threads that fed into the movement. I tend to date "Fundamentalism" as a more or less coherent, self-identifying group with the publication of The Fundamentals in 1910. It's a convenient watershed for the narrative, not a definitive eruption of something entirely unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:As far my understanding of Christianity goes, Jesus was allowed to drive the bankers out because he was the Son of God and his moral judgments were unquestionable. Christian followers would just grin and bear it until they die and get to go to heaven, as evidenced by Paul advising slaves not to rebel against their (presumably sinful and hellbound) masters. Well, it's more delicate. In some translations, Jesus drove out "merchants" and not just "bankers". Especially Matthew, who is considered the "socialist Gospel", and also Marc, talk about it in detail. Matthew specifically mentions sellers of doves, which were the cheapest sacrifice available. Homosexuals: Jesus said when the people were about to stone the woman who committed adultery "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her", meaning that only God can judge moral actions; so yeah, technically, a good Christian should be above all tolerant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Homosexuals: Jesus said when the people were about to stone the woman who committed adultery "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her", meaning that only God can judge moral actions; so yeah, technically, a good Christian should be above all tolerant. The thing with that is that even though it prohibits people from judging, it still implies that homosex, or any sex not for procreation yadda yadda, is a sin before god and will be punished appropriately. Like you're basically saying the religion can't have any moral prescriptions in that case, technically not even the good ones like give to the poor, etc. The only good Christians in your view are the ones who focus 100% on personal repentance and salvation. There is something to that. This is one of the Protestant complaints about the Catholic doctrine of good works, that the only thing that matters is repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ, and that actions don't count, not even the good ones. In that case it doesn't really matter what specific actions the Bible lays out as being sins. But the usual perception of religion among religious people, and with Christianity in particular, is that it is morally prescriptive, and in that case then yes, the Bible does in fact say (or could be reasonably interpreted to say) homosex is bad, like any sex outside of a heterosexual marriage. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Usury was actually a major topic of contention about 500 years ago. It's why the stereotype of Jewish bankers exists. This is true but it is also the result Christianity moving far beyond what it's early followers expected. Early Christianity is marked by a strong obsession with the end times and how Jesus will be back ANY DAY NOW. The 1000 year old institution that debated usury is, well, I wouldn't say unbiblical but I would say completely unforeseen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The thing with that is that even though it prohibits people from judging, it still implies that homosex, or any sex not for procreation yadda yadda, is a sin before god and will be punished appropriately. Did you quote the wrong post? It doesn't imply anything, the only thing it says is that you have no right to judge. You also aren't God, so you don't get to know the rules of the universe. In the end, only your faith will save you. This is what the early Christian communities believed, anyway. To know more, read about St Paul, St Augustine and read the chapters about the ancient Christians in the History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon's analysys was wrong in several points, but as far as factual accuracy goes, his book is still excellent, especially for the history of the early Christians. icantfindaname posted:But the usual perception of religion among religious people, and with Christianity in particular, is that it is morally prescriptive, and in that case then yes, the Bible does in fact say (or could be reasonably interpreted to say) homosex is bad, like any sex outside of a heterosexual marriage. Most religions are morally prescriptive, if that's the case. Indus don't eat certain animals, Muslims don't eat pigs, Christians shouldn't have sex before marriage. The Bible indeed says that homesexual intercourse is bad, among other things. It says that you shouldn't eat pigs, a prescription still valid for the Jewish. Christians don't care, in fact this very reason is quoted by many as a ground to take all the hateful parts of the old Bible and simply ignore them. Technically sex before marriage is a deadly sin, yet not even in the most catholic countries (Italy, Spain, France and Switzerland) people self-identifying as Catholics will give a drat about it. Cippalippus fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:
Why did Jesus let her go instead of stoning her?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Did you quote the wrong post? It doesn't imply anything, the only thing it says is that you have no right to judge. You also aren't God, so you don't get to know the rules of the universe. In the end, only your faith will save you. So your point is that theology is completely irrelevant? I mean that's a perfectly valid opinion, but the fact is that according to the Catholic Church's official doctrine gay marriage is bad, and according to Islamic doctrine conversion by force can be interpreted as as good. There's a tendency among liberals, especially in America with Christianity, to claim that somehow hateful people aren't being good Christians, or that ISIS aren't being good Muslims, but that's wrong both as judged by self-identification and by theology. It's enough to just say they're awful people. The theology exists, and acting like it doesn't and getting mad at anyone who points out it does seems unhelpful to me. It's possible IMO that the theology/prescribed religion itself can be bad. I suspect the origin of this tendency is that people want to avoid saying a religion is bad, but if the scripture and doctrine says gays and adulterers should be executed I can't really see a way around that. Obviously most people don't actually follow the doctrine strictly, but it still exists. People self identify as adherents of an ideology. Belome posted:Why did Jesus let her go instead of stoning her? Because he's not god, and the punishment should be given by god icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Belome posted:Why did Jesus let her go instead of stoning her? He was way more mellow than Muhammad. Edit: Wait, what was Jesus's stance on cats? This is important.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Because he's not god, and the punishment should be given by god Many people have died for saying this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Because he's not god, and the punishment should be given by god Jesus is God according to pretty much all flavors of Christianity. God decided that this woman should not be stoned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Jesus is God according to pretty much all flavors of Christianity. That's not the whole story. God decided that the woman should not be stoned, and instead should be sent to hell on Judgement Day if she did not repent for the adultery among other things, and accept Jesus Christ as her savior. Look, this is the attitude I'm talking about. The reaction to simply stating what the actual theology/ideology is is pretty much to scream NUH UH and plug your fingers in your ears.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:That's not the whole story. God decided that the woman should not be stoned, and instead should be sent to hell on Judgement Day if she did not repent for the adultery among other things, and accept Jesus Christ as her savior. This is mental masturbation at its finest. He sent her back home and told her to repent, and that's the end of the story. What you're doing is precisely what thousands of people have done before, adding words to a simple text to further your own agenda, and I think you're doing it with a malicious intent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Cesar Cedeno posted:He was way more mellow than Muhammad. Jesus really didn't like fig's either, too much fibre? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursing_the_fig_tree
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Yeah, she didn't even repent, he told her to leave and not sin any more. And Jesus is 100% god, he just is also 100% man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:This is mental masturbation at its finest. He sent her back home and told her to repent, and that's the end of the story. What you're doing is precisely what thousands of people have done before, adding words to a simple text to further your own agenda, and I think you're doing it with a malicious intent. Well, I guess you should go tell the Catholic Church and all Islamic scholars in the Middle East that what they're doing is mental masturbation, because that's what you're saying here. Literally the entirety of organized religion is adding words to texts to further an agenda, sometimes done with malicious intent. You realize the Muslim clerics and scholars who came up with Wahhabism are doing the same thing that the Catholic Church's theologians are, right? Like I've said a few times now, religious people identify with an ideology, not just a random bag of beliefs. Their actions might not live up to that ideology, but they still identify with it. I'm always fascinated by the utter refusal to engage with religious ideology, or even acknowledge that it exists and is influential. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well, I guess you should go tell the Catholic Church and all Islamic scholars in the Middle East that what they're doing is mental masturbation, because that's what you're saying here. Literally the entirety of organized religion is adding words to texts to further an agenda, sometimes done with malicious intent. You realize the Muslim clerics and scholars who came up with Wahhabism are doing the same thing that the Catholic Church's theologians are, right? And why should I care? You're greatly overestimating their influence. So, a bunch of people of my religion waste time thinking about stuff with which I don't agree. I'll lose my sleep over it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:And why should I care? You're greatly overestimating their influence. So, a bunch of people of my religion waste time thinking about stuff with which I don't agree. I'll lose my sleep over it. Because that is in some part what's influencing people to side with ISIS? You're literally saying "why should I care why other people think what they do?" You're literally refusing to understand other peoples' motivations. I don't see how that does anything but harm you, as it leaves you with less understanding of the people you're trying to engage with. You can argue as to how big exactly an influence it is, but to say it's completely irrelevant is ridiculous and you're handicapping yourself for no good reason Like I said earlier I'm pretty sure this whole thing stems from a mortal fear by people who think self-identification is everything (critical theorists, SJWs, I know this is really not the best language but I'm not trained in philosophy, I apologize) of saying any kind of religion, or ideology at all, is bad, because that would necessarily imply people who identify with that ideology are wrong, and you can't do that because wrong is subjective and if some people identify that way well who am I to disagree icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Because that is in some part what's influencing people to side with ISIS? You're literally saying "why should I care why other people think what they do?" You're literally refusing to understand other peoples' motivations. I don't see how that does anything but harm you, as it leaves you with less understanding of the people you're trying to engage with. You can argue as to how big exactly an influence it is, but to say it's completely irrelevant is ridiculous and you're handicapping yourself for no good reason You're wrong again. Refusing to accept other people's motivation and thinking doesn't make me less able to understand it, if anything, Socrates and Plato would argue that your understanding of a matter is greater if you aren't directly involved in it. Being a Catholic doesn't make me hate homosexuals, and even if the Pope himself said that it's the duty of a good Catholic to hate homosexuals I wouldn't change my opinion on the matter. Your view on the matter is deeply flawed, in that you think that Catholics are a tight-knit group with a hive mentality. I intervened in this discussion just to correct your, and others', huge mistakes in the field of history and theology, not to have a multi page derail about what I or the Pope think about homosexuals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:
Its not in your position to decide what is right and wrong, thats what ISIS does. Actions speak louder than words and are more effective for making a point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its not in your position to decide what is right and wrong, thats what ISIS does. Actions speak louder than words and are more effective for making a point. So I'm not allowed to decide whether ISIS are right or wrong? What? Cippalippus posted:You're wrong again. Refusing to accept other people's motivation and thinking doesn't make me less able to understand it, if anything, Socrates and Plato would argue that your understanding of a matter is greater if you aren't directly involved in it. The Catholic Church unambiguously disagrees with gay marriage and abortion. If you're a good Catholic you agree with that. Are you saying otherwise? You're redefining words to mean whatever is most convenient for you at any time so you don't have to confront reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So I'm not allowed to decide whether ISIS are right or wrong? What? I prefer to let the group's actions speak for themselves. If you have to say ISIS is wrong, you're engaging them on their level. It should be assumed that everyone worth your time already holds that view of their actions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The Catholic Church unambiguously disagrees with gay marriage and abortion. If you're a good Catholic you agree with that. Are you saying otherwise? You're redefining words to mean whatever is most convenient for you at any time so you don't have to confront reality. I'm glad that my Priest, or my local Bishop or even the Pope can't say wether I'm a good Catholic but a dipshit over the internet claims this right. Go gently caress yourself, ignorant peon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Scapegoat posted:Jesus really didn't like fig's either, too much fibre? I just started reading the New Testament for the first time a couple weeks ago, and Jesus flipping out on some fig tree really stood out to me. That, and Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Jesus was a bit of an rear end in a top hat, as I'm discovering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I'm glad that my Priest, or my local Bishop or even the Pope can't say wether I'm a good Catholic but a dipshit over the internet claims this right. Go gently caress yourself, ignorant peon. Okay so you don't have an argument and are just poo poo slinging. Got it Your friendly neighborhood priest isn't going to tell you you're a heretical fucker who's going to hell, but for the tenth time the actual doctrine says- ahahahhaha who am I kidding you're not going to face the facts ever icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I just started reading the New Testament for the first time a couple weeks ago, and Jesus flipping out on some fig tree really stood out to me. Jesus also used a lot of hyperbole. The above statement simply means that lots of people were going to get real upset about what he had to say, which was accurate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
This sounds like a topic (religion and religious self identification) for its own thread! What is the FSA doing right now? Just trying to hold on? Also, can I request a brief breakdown of the various Kurdish groups? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Yes, let's end this derail (that I played a role in starting, I think) by answering my obviously important question from a couple pages ago:Gregor Samsa posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:Yes, let's end this derail (that I played a role in starting, I think) by answering my obviously important question from a couple pages ago: Horn? For a generalist narrative, I'd recommend Martin Meredith's The State of Africa: 50 Years of Independence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
The Kurdistan Regional Government has told Bloomberg TV that they've spent $70 million fighting ISIS and $40 million providing for all the refugees. Their Economy Minister is claiming that the crisis is bankrupting the KRG. EDIT: Guy in Baghdad on Twitter took a picture of his thermostat at 51 degrees Celsius, which is 123 degrees Fahrenheit. There are lots of Iraqis who are sleeping in tents outside. Sergg fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I'm glad that my Priest, or my local Bishop or even the Pope can't say wether I'm a good Catholic but a dipshit over the internet claims this right. Go gently caress yourself, ignorant peon. You are losing your Shiite-like patience by the minute. Be careful or you'll lose your cool like a Sunni barbarian 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
People who've been claiming that the crimes of ISIS are similar to the crimes of Muhammad should realize that there is little evidence to support this. The Quran (the words of God) hardly mentions Muhammad and doesn't support slavery or mass murder. Most stories about Muhammad come from various Hadith, which were based on oral transition and written down generations after Muhammad's death. Furthermore Hadith scriptures are often contradictory; you could use quotes from Muhammad to denounce violence / be mercifull as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 02:02
|
|