|
Quorum posted:It's important to note that even within (say) the Southern Baptist Convention, there's a fair amount of diversity of opinion because the central organization has no power to compel congregations to do anything, and Baptists have a strong tradition of making decisions at the local level. There are congregations that would literally burn the gays alive right now if they wouldn't all get arrested, and there are congregations with female ministers ( Really? There was a recent (past year or so) story in Kentucky where a Baptist church allowed gay marriage ceremonies to be performed, and because of that decision, the Baptist convention cut them off. Declared they were no longer a Baptist church. I guess it depends on what you mean by "power to compel" but there's definitely a central body that makes decisions about individual churches. found the story: http://www.kybaptist.org/2014/11/11/louisville-church-voted-kbc/
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 15:04
|
|
) and acceptance of teh gheys also. From what I understand, the Convention isn't very happy with the latter churches, but as many of them are urban and wealthy, they can't do very much about it.
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:They can be kicked out of the main line but that doesn't really stop them from doing their own spinoff either. "Baptist" is kind of a loose conglomeration more than anything. Hmm. I guess the moment you decide to perform functions not approved by the convention, you also decide you don't care about still being part of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Idiot Kicker posted:The only person I've seen that tried to actually "prove" the absence of God was a douchelord philosophy professor who quite obviously had tenure. His textbook was his own book, so we were essentially paying him for a book of other peoples' writing (Kant, et al). You can't disprove God as a concept, but I think it's reasonable to assert that certain versions of God are disprovable. For example, there are those who take the problem of evil as proof that a tri-omni God can't exist. "Supernatural being" can't be disproven, but once specific claims start being made about what this God is or does or wants, you can at least make a solid counterargument.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:Depends on what you meak by "disprove", really. Can we demonstrate 100% that Odin is not battling frost giants in Jotunheim? Well I'm not contending that every conception of God is disprovable. But certainly some are, and they are disprovable the same way anything is disprovable: by comparing hypothesis to reality. Take the version of the Christian God where every statement about him in the Bible is true. This God is impossible. Why? Because 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God wants everyone to be saved, and Ephesians 2:8 says that people are saved through faith, which is a gift from God. God wants all to be saved, and saving them is purely his own doing. Of course, we see in the world that more people than not don't have that "gift of faith". So either the Bible is wrong about faith being a gift, or it's wrong about God wanting all to be saved. Either way, this specific God is disproven.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:*looks at post* Right. It's the hardliners - of whom there are many, especially in the US - who consider the Bible to be the True Word of God, on the same level as the Quran. I've met these people, I've asked them about their faith. One girl I knew was of the opinion that if she found any part of the Bible to be untrue, she would likely stop being a Christian. Of course those verses that she didn't like, such as "women can not speak in church", had clever explanations as to why they didn't have to be followed. When you think about it, though, this isn't too insane an opinion to have. In a sense, it actually makes more sense than a more liberal view where the Bible is a vague guidebook at most. I mean, if Christianity is the true religion, and the Bible is that religion's book, then wouldn't it be flawless? Wouldn't God's Word be without a single error? Or ask it from the other direction: why would God provide a book with his desires for human action, but muddy the waters so that we can't know for sure whether something Biblical is actually God's will? If the Bible is just a collection of musings from men, then fine, but if that's the case then something else has to validate the Bible's supernatural claims. If the Bible saying the Jesus is God made man is not enough to prove that claim to be true, then something else claiming that has to be brought in to verify it, and nothing of the sort exists. The best we can do is read Josephus's history of the Jews, which states the Jesus existed and had followers, but nothing more. So Christianity kind of falls apart, at least as an objective, verifiable claim.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
I've waffled myself between the labels "atheist" and "agnostic" quite a bit in my life. I think agnostics make the mistake of seeing "atheist" as a strong statement about there being demonstrably no God, while atheists make the mistake of seeing agnostics as wishy-washy and intellectually dishonest. I think there's two sides to the question: the philosophical and the practical. On the philosophical side, there is essentially no way to call oneself an Atheist and be intellectually consistent. The atheist demands proof and evidence, yet declares there is positively no God? That type of statement is by its very nature unprovable. This is further confounded by the fact that most conceptions of God mark him as hidden and mysterious. So your lack of evidence is even less of an indicator of his nonexistence. Thus, if we are not to accept a God, there is only one position that makes sense: we don't know if God is there, and we don't know if we can know if a God is there. However, practically speaking, if you don't live your life as though there is a God, you are an atheist. The question of "do you act according to any God's will?" can be answered with a yes or no - if yes, even if that "God" is a vague, mother-Earth spirit type God, then you are not an atheist. But if no, then you are one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Darko posted:A lot of that is Paulism, if we're talking about the same types of stuff. Paul specifically states in his letters to the congregations that women are subordinate to men and should not teach or speak out in the congregation, and a lot of that gets absorbed into the Evangelical side. That's also tied into original sin (Eve was cursed more and directly and also made as a compliment to Adam) and how women were treated in Israel. Yeah, from the letter itself (1 Timothy 2:11-15), Paul seems to be suggesting that women can't be trusted to teach in church because Eve was the one deceived by the devil, not Adam. So like, women are less trustworthy than men when discussing spiritual matters.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Why do you think that? I mean really? I've looked into the issue and there was an problem, at the time, of many people from other belief systems converting and trying to bring in other religious elements. And the church in question, Corinth, was having an issue with some women being loud in assemblies because that was expected/encouraged at other god's temples. I've heard this defense too, by evangelicals who want there to be some convoluted way to get around that verse because if it were true then hey, Christianity, and therefore God, is sexist, and that clearly can't be. Look, if Paul was addressing some specific problem at one specific church then why does he A) command similar things across multiple letters, B) call out women generally rather than women who are causing these problems and C) defend this command with an example of women being inherently defective (e.g. discussing Eve in relation to Adam)? Lastly I've yet to see compelling evidence that there was this pagan holdover or some Earth Mother cult or whatever is usually described as what was really going on. It's exactly like icantfindaname said: it's the Eye of the Needle bullshit all over again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Blurred posted:Big post on Paul I'm glad you've showed up, I really enjoyed all the big Bible threads you've done in the past. I think, yes, obviously we must understand that Paul was a product of his time, as anyone is a product of their time, but I think the actual criticism or complaint here isn't that Paul should have known how we'd feel in the 21st Century. From a historical-critical perspective, that's obviously an unreasonable demand, and his position when viewed this way is far more reasonable, though still not laudable. And the disputed authorship of the pastoral epistles muddies the waters still further. The problem, of course, comes when people view the Bible as divine and unchanging. I don't personally care what a first century zealot thought about women; it doesn't inform my own views much and there's really no reason it should. But for many, these writings are equivalent to the highest possible moral authority, and if it's in the book, it's right, now and always. For them, there is no historical-critical lens, there is no reading in-context. 1st century morals are 21st century morals, because why would God have changed his mind just because human society did? So it's not that the posters in this thread have forgotten that Paul is an ancient figure with ancient ideas, it's that a large swath of Christians think that he was speaking on behalf of an unchanging God. And in this context - the context where his writings still apply just the same today as they did back then - it is perfectly reasonable to criticize what Paul says by 21st century standards. Despite the prevailing thought of the day, is a declaration that women, by virtue of being women, are subordinate to men and should not be permitted to speak, misogynistic? Yes. I don't see how you could argue otherwise. And of course, if you want the scripture to still be authoritative, but it leaves a bad taste in your mouth to think of God as sexist, then you have to decide that the text says something other than what it plainly says. I suppose if what Blurred said is right - that Paul didn't actually author the Timothies and was generally willing to say or do anything to get people to be Christians - then the accusation of him as misogynist is lessened somewhat, but then that would also throw out the idea that what he commanded was authoritative and from God. GAINING WEIGHT... fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The issue is that if you let Mormons declare dead people as Mormons then also let them declare all relatives of Mormons, past or present, as Mormons then the religion becomes viral. It will get to the point where they'll consider literally everybody a Mormon. Notice that Scientology tries to recruit famous, prominent people. It's similar to that. Suddenly if they can say "hey here is a list of names you recognize that are Mormons!" it becomes a good marketing tactic. It's also thoroughly ridiculous because how the hell do they know that a person they baptized while they were dead converted? They loving don't. Well I suppose there's nothing stopping other religions from pulling the same stunt, which would equalize the field. "Hey, Abraham Lincoln is a Muslim! We posthumously anointed him as such!" "Nuh-uh, he's a Wiccan! WE'VE claimed him!" Then it would be a matter of which religion he was professing at the time of death, much as it is now. Mormons only get to win the wacky dead-claiming if you let them. But I think the point is, if none of the religions are actually true, it really doesn't matter, does it? I can understand why a denomination might have a problem with another "claiming" the dead, because there might be a tangible detrimental effect on reality: they're not in the one true religion anymore! They might end up in hell! But if it's just a group muttering useless magic words and pouring some water, what's the big deal? Nothing is actually being physically affected, provided they don't actually exhume and tamper with the remains, of course. Morroque posted:I sometimes wonder if the rise of what we call "atheism" is not due as a reaction to that. Even among the people I knew who went through a bout of "atheism," their beef wasn't exactly the existence or non-existence of God. It might have come up at some point or another, but it wasn't the primary motivator. Often they had problems or criticisms with their churches, or had issues with the the actions of other parishioners; but, they were not in a position of power, so they could not seek or spur proper redress for those issues or criticisms. Eventually, there's a final straw or you just can't take it any more. "Atheism," then, becomes a means to an end; both a way of voting with their feet, as well as openly taking a position which allows for the airing of their concerns. In some cases that I know of, it is often their deep faith which is the mechanism that forces them down that path. It really hurts when you see something you hold in high regard, like the Gospels, be ignored, construed, or applied to corrupt ends. I have a huge problem with this, because it's exactly the kind of caricature of atheism that Christians assume is representative of most of the group: those atheists aren't really atheists, they just have a problem with the church! They're just angry at a God they know exists! Yeah, no. Atheism is exactly and predominantly about the existence or non-existence of God at its core. Problems with the church might be the first step on the path, but only insomuch as it provides a person with the recognition that just because a church or the people within it say something doesn't mean it's necessarily true. This leads to wondering how we can know what's true, which generally leads to the conclusion that there really is no good evidence for God. Those who go "through a bout of atheism", but still believe that there is a God and that Jesus is his son, are not really atheists, and that's not me playing the No True Scotsman card, it's definitional: they don't disbelieve in God. All that's happening is that they are unsure of which specific doctrine to follow. The rise in "what we call atheism" (which is to say, atheism) is due to an openness and availability of information on a global scale unprecedented in human history, and along with that, the ability to see and understand other ways of life in ways we couldn't before. Seeing this helps us put our own experiences in context, and combined with trading ideas with huge numbers of others, it lets us see that our God or gods are just as mythological as so many gods that are sincerely believed in by millions of others. What we call "New Atheism" may well be a reaction to lovely Christians/religious people, but only because in these cases religious belief is used as justification for horrible and stupid actions, and we can either try to combat their ability to take those actions, or the belief that motivates them to do it in the first place. Anti-theism takes the latter option.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Do It Once Right posted:The real-world tangible effect is the institutional erasure of jewish identity. This exists even if no jews acknowledge the ritual as valid. First of all - unless you have statistics to the contrary, and then I'll retract this - the LDS posthumous baptizing isn't directed solely at Jewish people, or at least there's no reason it has to be. Second, there's nothing stopping the Jewish people from turning right around and claiming say Joseph Smith as their own, which would be just as pointless an exercise. Lastly, how is Mormonism "claiming" others an erasure of any kind? Other than the Mormons, who actually accepts their claims as valid? Like, who give a poo poo what some wacky Utah cult thinks about the religious identity of the dead? So Mormons "claim" Anne Frank...are any other groups going to recognize this as legitimate? Much more relevant to Jewish erasure is the number of living practitioners of that faith today. Not about whether Mormons think Anne Frank was really one of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Do It Once Right posted:The context of what they're doing gets more complex due to the LDS's hosed up attitudes toward judaism. Their history teaches them they are the spiritual descendants of a lost tribe of Israel. Some mormons consider themselves to be jews. They're also rabid dispensationalists. They 'love' Israel, so like other fundies they feel a paternalistic need to tell jews about the correct way to be jewish in the lead-up to their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their personal savior. I wasn't aware of any ongoing Jewish discrimination by the LDS church, which does now color my argument differently. To be frank, I'm playing a sort-of devil's advocate here, which is to say I'm taking a strong position when in reality I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it. I think the issue is kind of silly, honestly. The Mormons thinking they've added another to their ranks because of posthumous baptism is just another dumb thing they do. It's not like history books are going to change to say, "Anne Frank, devout Mormon, was born 1929..." etc. etc. There will be no tangible effect. Do I think Mormons doing this baptism is a good thing? gently caress no, of course not. It's just really low on the totem pole of things to get upset about with regards to religious people. Religions teach, advocate for, and practice a huge number of harmful things, and I find it really hard to make "they've claimed other religious people as one of their own after they've died, even though no one outside of the LDS church recognizes this as legitimate" a priority when something like "religions tend to teach that outsiders are not to be trusted and may even be evil people at their core" is so much more harmful and has such a greater effect on the real world. Solkanar512 posted:Look, if you've inadvertently offended someone, is the right thing to do to argue that they shouldn't feel hurt, or do you apologize and knock it off? If a fundamentalist Christian told you they were offended when you brought up being happy about the legalization of gay marriage, would you apologize, or tell them they're wrong for being 'offended' by it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:39 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I'm not an expert here but the literal first paragraph of the wikipedia page states Yeah, "fulfillments of prophecy" means the prophecy made about the Messiah, not the requirements to be a prophet
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 16:15
|
|