|
Miltank posted:You don't HAVE to be a Christian to be an abolitionist, but all the abolitionists WERE Christians. Lol you are such a troll of this thread. For the folks who aren't seeing through this one. Abolitionism came out of the Enlightenment rationalists, many of which were deists or agnostics, and for nonreligious reasons. It was largely adopted throughout Europe and Northern US long before it became popularized in the Southern US by Protestant evangelists. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Feb 6, 2015 |
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Miltank posted:John Brown obviously was just pretending to be a devout Christian in order to trick dull-witted religious folk into supporting his atheist cause. If John Brown invented abolitionism then he did it about century too late.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The abolitionist movement in Britain was led by evangelicals. Evangelicals at that time were also more likely to be political radicals; their influence was strongly responsible for the institution of free trade in Britain, as well. If you don't know that, you probably read a history book outside of bible class Ftfy I suggest you Google the names Locke, or Rousseau, or Montesquieu
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Miltank posted:It is EXTREMELY telling that atheists think that the important aspect of abolition was just thinking it up. It took action and conviction of believe more than anything else. Yes it is extremely telling. I mean obviously atheists are incapable of action with conviction since they are immoral bei ... oh wait French deists and agnostics abolished slavery with the advent of the First Republic, before the Second Awakening even happened in America. I think that your trolling is beginning to pale a bit, what's next, maybe some discussion about whether or not atheists eat the hearts of good Chrisian babies?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:Jesus matters because he is responsible for the last two millennia of Western thought, and all the good and bad that comes with it. Lol what the gently caress is this? "Jesus, the great philosopher! He who was responsible for everything and for all time, despite never writing down a single word".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:I am only putting in the effort this thread deserves. Christianity, being a religion based partly upon the philosophy and teaching of Jesus, has had a significant impact on world history. Yes or no? Bad posts are just bad posts, there are no excuses. Trying to play the "Christianity invented everything" card just displays your own lack of historical awareness. Roman pagans had a significant impact on Christianity, yes or no? QED Julius Ceasar banned slavery in America.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There's really no way to reconcile slavery with Jesus' teachings of charity and humanity and turning the other cheek and treating everyone like your family or like God. Obviously people are going to try because slavery is profitable, but those people are demonstrably wrong. Well obviously lots of Christians managed it throughout history, and instead used Jesus to justify slavery instead. Too bad the son of God didn't manage to mention "Slavery is bad" anywhere. Real oversight on his part, to be sure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:I can almost see the goalposts... moving! Your posts were the definition of goalpost moving, so I'm not surprised.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
joat mon posted:A good post. More like a moronic post. Anyone trying to separate Christianity from "The Cruel Romans" is living in a fairy tale. Christianity is essentially the Romanization of some fairly brutal varieties of tribal monotheism. It was a populist, suburban religion that was intentionally civilized and adopted by the Roman state. Oh and his idea that everyone was a bloodthirsty barbarian that only knew how to slaughter their neighbors before Jesus taught them how to be moral is huuuuuugely bigoted. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:More like took over the Roman State. Lol yeah sure, Constantine, the famous Roman emperor who engineered all sorts of alterations to Christian beliefs and then adopted it as a state religion, had nothing to do it. It was all Jesus. These threads mostly just remind me of how little Christians need to know about their own religion to consider themselves "Christian". At least the liturgical Christianity thread had mostly informed opinions. This is just a parade of bad D&D posters going 
Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:zeus and odin are finite beings that inhabit the world and so they cannot be the source of its existence. classical theism involves the belief that god is a necessary being that is the source and ground of contingent reality. if zeus and odin were to exist they would simply be creatures whose contingent existence depends upon a necessary source, ie the god of classical theism (religious and philosophical). classical theism is consistent with an infinity of zeuses, or demiurges, or whatever. the reason that zeus and odin aren't the creators of contingent reality is because its logically impossible. Zeus was not a finite being (he could turn into anything he wanted to - indeed the story of Leda and the Swan is well known), and he did not inhabit the world (he lived in Olympus). That being said, he also was not the creator of the world - not because of some hideously cribbed definition of "classical theism" but because Grecian mythology explicitly explains that while Zeus is king of the gods, he was the heir of the greater gods that created the universe. In the Hesiodic tradition, he was the son of Cronus, who was the son of Uranus, who was the son of Aether, who was the son of Erebus, who was born of Chaos, which arose spontaneously. Zeus certainly was not the creator of the world. That responsibility more or less fell to Gaia and Uranus, who lay together and bore the lands and the seas and the air, and all the lesser gods and Titans. Odin is similarly not a "finite being" (his shamanistic and transcendental origins are pretty clear) and he did not inhabit the world (he lived in Asgard). He also was not the creator of the world, though he has a significant role to play. Norse mythology asserts that there were Nine Worlds, united by the world tree Yggdrasil, which was eternally devoured by the dragon Nidhogg and eternally renewed by three sacred wellsprings. And between the branches supporting the Nine Worlds was the Ginnungagap, the yawning void. One day, in the gap between the realm of fire and the realm of ice, the giant Ymir appeared, and from his body was born the gods and the frost giants, and the race of man. Much like Uranus, Ymir was eventually slain by his descendents - Odin, Vili, and Ve - who took his body and used it to create the mortal world of Midgard. Religions are highly complex systems. There's a lot of value in reaching out and understanding other religions, and not simply interpreting them as lesser versions of your own belief systems. Zeus and Odin aren't just "Warrior Jesuses".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:of course they're finite (ie contingent) beings. a finite being in the way i'm talking about is simply a being that doesn't contain the source of its own existence. so long as that criterion is fulfilled it doesn't matter one bit whether that being has incredible powers or does not inhabit the world; it could be an immensely powerful, eternal, totally immaterial being, but so long as it is not the source of its own existence then it is contingent; the demiurge might be a good example of such a being. i only used the examples of zeus and odin because that other guy brought them up; in the context of this argument i don't care about the particular details of their roles in greek mythology. This is simply a statement that only a monotheistic god is a monotheistic god. It lacks any particular meaning since it's defined so narrowly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
vessbot posted:So you're full of poo poo, understood. He is sooooo full of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 20:23
|
|