|
We already have this thread and, problems aside, PJ does it better.
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Despite what Sola Scriptura folks would have you believe, there long traditions associated with Biblical interpretation and as a proselytizing tradition, Christianity has absorbed a lot of local folk traditions and is a "living tradition" that adapts to local situations and demands. Protestantism was initiated by a rising, urban and newly literate merchant class seeking to take authority away from the older property-owning noble class and their ties to the formerly exclusively literate religious estate (whose members were drawn from the noble class). In America, we eliminated the noble class the noble class earlier than in other parts of Christendom but all we really did was make the merchant class an anemic version of the noble class. This was particularly pronounced in the South, for a lot of different historical reasons (many of them relating to the Southern Institution of slavery) but you can also see it in Presidential Democracies, where the President is an term-limited elected monarch with checks on his Enlightenment Era powers as opposed to Parliamentary systems where power is a lot more muddled and the head of State is the head of the most powerful legislative coalition. A Manichaean "God vs the Devil" interpretation of Christianity within Christianity is as old as Christianity. Who cares if it has strict doctrinal support? The conservative, Sola Scriptura folks clearly don't, so why should anybody else aside from liberal Christians? If you are a liberal Christian, that kind of "got'cha" politics makes sense but given the secularization of American society, it seem to me like that is a losing argument to make.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Sure, but the noble class in England was also quicker to get on board with Capitalism and associating with the merchant class (a big reason why English nobility has lasted as long as it has). The plantation class has very much identified itself with the merchant class which is part of why the language of "economic freedom" and "property rights" is so closely tied with ultra-reactionaries (another big part is how "economic freedom" and "property rights" involve owning people or restricting them).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
To be fair, anime does seem to have a corrupting influence on those who watch it. Nobody makes GI Joe part of their adult identity.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Never underestimate the ability of goons to defend anime.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
"The limits of my language are the limits of my world." If you can't define God, then sure, I can't dispute it, but why would I bother? Does fngth exist? You can't prove fngth doesn't, so the reasonable position is to be agnostic on fngth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If you grew up with your whole life being taught fngth exists and your entire social circle believes in fngth it can be pretty hard to stop believing in fngth. That's fine and perfectly understandable but it's not a justification. People presenting agnosticism as anything other than a rhetorical device are doing the whole discussion a disservice.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What's wrong with it as a standpoint? What does "agnosticism" mean? What does "god" mean?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Broadly, agnosticism is "I don't know." It is professing a lack of knowledge about god, either not knowing whether god exists, or whether it is even possible to know if god exists. What does that mean? "I haven't made a decision on a term I refuse to define" isn't a meaningful statement. Existence (and pretty much every other possible attribute) can't be applied to an undefined term.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
While it is very strange from an atheist perspective, I don't really get the flak the Mormon Church gets for baptizing the dead. Our ancestors are important to us, they had a huge influence on our life. To me, it seems really strange not to want to help them out too. I remember there was a report of a Christian Missionary to somewhere in Germania and the prince was totally on board with it (more likely, he was on board with grabbing some sweet, sweet Roman patronage in exchange for drawing some chirhos and totally pretending to not worship the old gods while Romans were dropping off the goods) . . . but he was sincere enough to ask about his ancestors. Trying to be diplomatic, the missionary made it clear that the prince would be going to a different (better) afterlife than his ancestors. That didn't sit well and he kept probing. Eventually, the German prince decided that he'd rather be in hell with all of his ancestors as opposed to in heaven without them. I get that logic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
To me, the Mormons have perfectly good answers to those questions. That's the whole point of the "latter day Saints" thing. Mormons also have a very different conception of hell than other Protestants. I get how "weird religious practice that isn't widespread in the Southern Baptist Convention" pisses off a lot of vocal people, because anybody who isn't a Southern Baptist pisses them off. But I also see Mormons getting heat from religious moderates and even atheists. I don't get why those groups would find the practice strange.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:When the folks being baptised are holocaust victims like Anne Frank, it becomes a rather hosed up process. I still don't get what is hosed up about it. Why wouldn't someone want Anne Frank to go to Heaven? Better than being a Chick-style dick and saying she's in hell. As for Church discipline, these people are dead. It's not like they can do anything to them (and in the case of holocaust victims, do anything worse to them than they've already experienced).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Would you have a problem if they literally dug up and exhumed dead bodies to do the rites then buried them elsewhere? They're dead, why should their families care? You are talking to a guy who likes things like the Capuchin Ossuary. I mean who cares? A dead body is like a piece of trash. I mean shove as much poo poo in there as you want. Fill me up with cream,make a stew out of my rear end. What's the big deal? Bang me, eat me, grind me up into little pieces, throw me in the river. Who gives a poo poo? You're dead, you're dead! Nobody bitches about how Germans will exhume bodies if the family doesn't pay rent but Mormons say somebodys name and splash some water on somebody else and people freak out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
If we're talking real-world threats of Jewish erasure, I think shiksas represent a much bigger threat than some crazy cult in Utah.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Calling Jesus a prophet in Judaism give him a status that he very clearly doesn't have. He was just some Jew who lived a few thousand years ago in Palestine that also claimed to be the messiah. One of many in that regard but a very successful one whose followers have had a rather obvious impact on the world stage. But there is no reason anyone would award the status of prophet to a false messiah aside from, again, obvious political and politeness/ fear of persecution. Even really liberal reform Jews don't call Jesus a prophet. Edit: unless you are talking about Jews for Jesus? They are a sect of ethnic jews (sometimes) that converted to Christianity. Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Reason is the enemy of faith.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
The translation I always see is,"I should have no compassion on these witches; I should burn them all.". But I suppose they both get the point across.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift, or the Jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well I say, "Cheating is the gift man gives himself." --Prosperity Gospel 8:12
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
For some reason, Millenniallism is really attractive to the human psyche. Mishima believed that art came from the male will towards death. It pops up in all sorts of places throughout history. Id like to say it is most prevalent in authoritarians following super authoritarians or Prester Janes whole Narrativist hypothesis but part of me feels like that is overly infantilizing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
The thing with indulgences is a little more nuanced. The Church had taken some large loans from the rich Fugger family to pay for St Peters Basilica in Rome. poo poo happened and so the Church basically went into what we'd consider as modems as "collections". Indulgences had always been a small thing and kinda made sense. But because of their debts the Church made indulgences a huge loving thing and had representatives of the Fuggers collecting the debt. So you weren't even giving your money to a priest to forgive your sins but to a banker. Understandably people didn't much care fo that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Not really. Saints having an excess of virtue that you can access is pretty important to medieval Christianity. But instead of buying an overpriced candle and praying or even a piece of art that has civic value, you are just straight up trading cash to avoid having to spend time grinding in purgatory. It's the difference between micro transactions that make the game easier and straight up pay to win games.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
That's a weird modern reading of the Bible that makes intuitive sense to our modern mindset but it takes the text out of the context it was created in. It's a lazy exegesis. There is a time and a place for post modern "death of the author" intreprations but taking that approach from a believing perspective to the Bible is going to get really weird really quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:Now I'm wondering if there are any biblical literalists who think Jesus was an actual lamb. Christian furs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
I love a good gimmick.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:And this is why you should not consume psychedelics in excess. Disagree. Psychedelics in excess are awesome. But you need to have some sort of an actual grounding. If you look at ritualistic use of psychedelics in areas where they occur naturally, they have all sorts of ritual proscriptions as to their use. That way even the Shaman who is OUT OF HIS loving MIND on drugs is able to be a meaningful mystic. We all want the crazy individualized revelations of religion without the actual work that would make those revelations meaningful. And it leads to lazy new aged poo poo like this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Do and the class certainly weren't lazy or 'New Age'. They all lived without sex, booze, or drugs - and believed strongly enough to lay down their lives. If you think about it the ritual of baptism is a kind of 'brainwashing' - representing both an individual and collective overcoming of bad habits. Adult baptism is one of those totally weird things because "in-universe" it's totally insanely evil.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:OK, looking at this guy's rap sheet, I strongly suspect he's schizophrenic. Jesus Christ. I hope you are talking about me, because my rap sheet has way more cred than a loving tryhard like McDowell 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 04:58
|
|
