|
SHISHKABOB posted:I disagree that that is a fundamental difference between the two. In fact that is a fundamental similarity that all organized groups share. They exist, and then they don't exist. The fundamental difference is that Christianity is a spent force. This is a good thing. Unfortunately, we can't say the same about Islam.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The fundamental difference is that Christianity is a spent force. This is a good thing. Unfortunately, we can't say the same about Islam. Oh yes it also was a spent force in the 18th century.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The fundamental difference is that Christianity is a spent force. This is a good thing. Unfortunately, we can't say the same about Islam. Go back to your Dawkins and Hitchens, and let the adults talk. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhSx2yMRrG0 At 36:45 Do has a nice illustration of how God's truth comes to you versus the constant violent immediacy of the material world. Here is a related book I am reading - http://www.amazon.com/Heavens-Gate-Americas-UFO-Religion-ebook/dp/B00NTBFCGY/
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Go back to your Dawkins and Hitchens, and let the adults talk. To whom do you pray? It's a sad thing when 'leftists' would rather attack secularism than criticize religion, because Islam falls under the rubric of religion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:To whom do you pray? Christianity isn't a "spent force", whether you want to annihilate all religion or not. In any case, the particulars of my personal life are not something I wish to disclose to someone of your moral caliber. I hope you understand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
The Hebrew Bible etymologizes the name as from yisra "to prevail over" or "to struggle/wrestle with", and el, "God, the divine" From Wikipedia care of Do. Notice how it has both an antagonistic or a more constructive translation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Sethex posted:The left wing reductionism of religion to being a 'worldview' label rather than a psychological disposition that impacts people's behaviour and actions alienates a lot of people. What constitutes bad or good theology isn't your choice to make, ultimately the text you're starting from is vague enough to go both ways, meaning it's the authority figures that always get to say what is 'theologically accurate' at any point in time. They'll be disagreement, of course, as there is within Islam, so you exploit that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Could you elaborate on this? Why do we have to be of one mind? Why can't we all just point or move in roughly same direction and remain ourselves. Why do different groups and individuals have to resolve their fundamental differences? Those differences may not be resolvable anyway. There might not be a single universal way to look at the world that can be arrived at through discussion, the honest exchange of ideas, science, reason, or by forming some synthesis out of contradictory ideas. But there might be a underlying content, a substantive reality in our being human that we all participate in and can move towards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Christian-motivated terrorism definitely still exists--way much more in the U.S. than Europe--but it's easily missed because it takes a different form than suicide bombings. The flip side of that is the U.S. military can cause way more civilian deaths through collateral damage or embargos than someone strapping black market C4 to themselves and walking onto a bus. Although the collateral damage done is out of better intentions than ISIS (a hella low bar) such as presumably bringing freedom to the world or whatever, that doesn't make kids vaporized at a wedding by a Predator any less vaporized. The label of being Christian-motivated applies if the policy was ultimately motivated by a fear of a vague "them" fundamentally changing "our" culture, if that culture is indelibly associated with Christianity in the voters' mind. For many of the people in the U.S. who voted for Bush Jr. twice, it often is. And yet none of that justifies changing the legal status of any American Christians, even the Christians who explicitly said after 9/11 we should invade their countries and convert "them." Even if those same people then directly voted for the actions and leaders that led to hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq (and ultimately ISIS as well, kinda ironic really). The same is true of any other religion because others' rights aren't dependent on what's bothering you at the moment. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 04:48
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Why would an 'underlying content' exist without the ability to resolve differences? And how could humanity as a whole move in roughly the same direction yet still remain isolated & alone, on a 'fundamental' level? The probability of that happening has to be very low, you may as well expect to quantum tunnel through the earth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Why do we have to be of one mind? Why can't we all just point or move in roughly same direction and remain ourselves. The idea of resolving differences isn't "we all need to think the same thing". It's figuring out a way to coexist without strife.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Go back to your Dawkins and Hitchens, and let the adults talk. Would you recommend The God Delusion or God Is Not Great?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Why do we have to be of one mind? Why can't we all just point or move in roughly same direction and remain ourselves. First there are a couple illustrations of what I mean by 'one mind' - the first is the Holy Spirit, or the community of believers - the ideal that if everyone was in the same faith/sect/political persuasion then we wouldn't have problems and society would just work. The other illustration ties in to your point that there might not a single, universal world-view that all humans can accept - this is the curse of Babel - humans cannot ever be of one mind because they are always speaking different languages, whether literally or in the sense of 'selective hearing'. This is part of our flawed/constrained existence. The underlying content, the substantive reality, is the objective material of creation and the cosmos, beyond our limited perception as humans here on Earth. We participate by forming our minds and choosing to either embrace or overcome sensuality. Your mind/soul then moves away or towards service to the Creator. You always have free choice and the ability to make up your mind, but you move in one of 2 directions - self-service or crew-mindedness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What constitutes bad or good theology isn't your choice to make, ultimately the text you're starting from is vague enough to go both ways, meaning it's the authority figures that always get to say what is 'theologically accurate' at any point in time. They'll be disagreement, of course, as there is within Islam, so you exploit that. Actually, Christianity is very nice in that certain things are very clearly spelled out. This is one of them. There is not a single instance of a Christian martyr in the Bible who died opposing his/her killer. Jesus literally stops a follower from violently opposing his arrest and subsequent crucifixion (and heals the wounded man from the fight) stating that "those who live by the sword, die by the sword." You can have people claim that they are dying for their faith by killing others, but Christ himself set the example, and there is no arguing with it. He literally tells His followers to "take up their cross and follow [Him]" so the command to imitate his life, even to death, is clearly stated. He is called the Lamb of God because he accepted death for our sake; likewise if a Christian is do die for their faith, they accept it because Christ did - we don't go out guns blazing. Thankfully most Christians these days have no need to die for their faith, but it still happens in some parts of the world, sadly. Yet still we are called to "love [our] neighbors and pray for those who persecute [us]." If you think these texts are vague, then I don't know what to tell you. Compare that to passages in the Koran about subjugating the unbeliever, make them pay a tax, etc etc, where you need to do some fancy hand waving arguments to make that sound like anything other than what it is. As a side note, you may be confused with Christianity and "authority figures." While some denominations, like Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, have a more structured, tradition-based doctrine (Catholics have the Catechism), Protestants follow the idea of "Sola Scriptura" which means "only scripture." The idea is we can all use the Bible to seek the will of God, because the important parts are all rather straight forward. A lot of the Pauline letters are very well written as doctrinal explanations. Thus, most Christians (even Catholics and Orthodox) generally make up their own minds and won't blindly follow your nebulous "authority figures."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I think that religions like Christianity (and Islam, so far as I can tell, but I'm less familiar with Islam) are noteworthy for making the supposed "Truth" of their beliefs so central. There's no evidence that ancient Romans particularly cared about the sincerity of your belief in Jupiter or the Emperor, provided you made the correct public sacrifices. The Greeks didn't knowledge of the Truth about Apollo would liberate your soul. Ancient pre-Christian peoples treated their Gods almost like another set of capricious and arbitrary real life kings and queens who had to appeased and respected. For the most part they never acted as though knowing 'the Truth' about the Gods would influence your destination in the afterlife. As a Christian, I am comfortable viewing Zeus as a mere shard, a shadow, a reflected image of the one and true almighty God, but worshipping that as God is certainly idolatry
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
McDowell posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhSx2yMRrG0 Christians are encouraged to pray and listen for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but not to simply sit around in a trance waiting for God to reveal his Word to you, it's already been revealed and it's been written down. Someone trying to engage in mysticism without a form grounding in the Word of God leaves them very vulnerable to their own ego, delusions, and some would argue demonic forces It's like the way doctors can develop a kind of intuition over time and they can learn to trust it, but they still must primarily rely what thy learned and read and practiced in medical school, I wouldn't want a doctor who simply trained on he job using pure intuition Commie NedFlanders fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:For example, going back to Ephesians 5:22, the only reason so many people try to somehow twist that into "Men shall DOMINATE WOMEN!" is because...well, almost ALL cultures seem to have a bad habit of belittling their women. Even China, which has historically been opposed to the Abrahamic faiths, seems to treat its women as a nuisance. You can't really say that, though, since you don't know about the majority of cultures. The ones you know about, the ones that have survive to become major dominant cultures in the modern day, are male-dominated, but that doesn't mean all cultures are or were - especially since various historical cultural interactions tended to result in one culture taking on the cultural values held by a powerful country, not always willingly. For example, many Native American societies were matriarchal...until the Europeans arrived and started trying to "civilize" various "barbaric" practices like that out of them. With only three real options in the first place ("male-dominated", "female-dominated", and "gender-neutral"), the fact that male-dominated societies ended up dominating their regions and imposing those values on other cultures could very well have just been random chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:For example, many Native American societies were matriarchal...until the Europeans arrived and started trying to "civilize" various "barbaric" practices like that out of them. Matriarchal doesn't necessarily mean what you believe. Remember that in theory, Jewish women are more highly valued because they pass down the lineage of the Jewish people (for Muslims it's the father). In practice, they were about as bad as anyone else. There are also lots of indications that (like other people) Native American records were distorted. For example, the Iroquois constitution makes them sound like great and peaceful people. That is, until you realize that it only applies to "citizens" under the domain of that constitution. For anyone else, they're as bloodthirsty as you'd imagine. computer parts fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
You could also go a bit  ey and suggest that a society based on dominance is more likely to be based on male dominance because men tend to be beefier and more able to rule through force on a physical level. The argument then becomes against the use of dominance as a basis for a society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Matriarchal doesn't necessarily mean what you believe. Remember that in theory, Jewish women are more highly valued because they pass down the lineage of the Jewish people (for Muslims it's the father). In practice, they were about as bad as anyone else. That's "matrilineal", not "matriarchal". They're not even remotely the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's "matrilineal", not "matriarchal". They're not even remotely the same thing. I'm just wary to trust a noble savage narrative when cultures from all around the world have all turned out otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:It's like the way doctors can develop a kind of intuition over time and they can learn to trust it, but they still must primarily rely what thy learned and read and practiced in medical school, I wouldn't want a doctor who simply trained on he job using pure intuition What are you trying to say here? Are you advocating the material/political authorities of the madrassahs, synods, and synagogues? Do's message is well informed by scripture if you want to make a sola scriptura argument. Earthly science is just intuition with ever-improving controls and record keeping. In an ideal world you could always be acting with telecommunication/telepathy so you are always of use and don't make mistakes. This is more and more conceivable in a material way, but it would still juts be a counterfeit of the next level of evolution- where one's mind exists as a vessel for God's will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
For reference, I don't agree with McDowell here in regards to Earth Science, though I do respect his opinion. I will say why I feel this way in the following paragraphs, if anyone is curious. Regardless of whether it's accurate or not (and I have faith in our scientists), scientific accuracy was never the point of the Bible. Most of the time when the Bible describes natural phenomena, it describes it in terms of "phenomenological language" (the way things APPEAR to be rather than the way things ARE). Hence, the emphasis on a man's heart rather than his head (when actually, the heart is nothing more than a mere muscle). Or, if you want another example...then remember Genesis? Remember when God created the entire world in six "days"? Remember how he created the Sun and the Moon on the 3rd "day"? Yeah? Then let me ask you this... How in the world does "Day" and "Night" exist...IF THERE'S NO SUN OR MOON?! The answer? God obviously took just a little longer than a few "days" to create our Earth, hence why our carbon dating seems to contradict the evidence. And the ancient writers most likely KNEW this! If nothing else, they knew that day and night couldn't exist without a sun or moon. So why did they describe Genesis like that? Well, the answer is simple. Papyrus and other tools needed for writing either didn't exist back then, or were in incredibly short supply. Therefore, most, if not ALL, of the Old Testament had to be written in a way that was easy to memorize. The people relied on professional orators rather than physical writings. As it turns out, "God created the universe in 6 days" is a heck of a lot easier to understand and memorize than....ergh...whatever the truth actually is (I don't remember). In fact, this is also why hyperbolic language was such a frequent part of the Biblical writings. For example, the Book of Joshua implies that Joshua and his guys razed pretty much the entire ANE...but then you look at later books and find that, actually, they didn't do anywhere near that much. Heck, they didn't even succeed in kicking out all of the people they were told to kick out. And for that matter, conversations depicted in the Old Testament were most likely way longer and far more meandering than how they're written. Human beings don't tend to be anywhere near as stilted and direct as what's depicted in the OT, but again...they didn't have adequate writing tools back then. Their stories had to be told in a way that someone would be able to memorize the entire thing, word for word. So, there's my two cents on that whole debate, since McDowell's brought it up  .
Fionordequester fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The fundamental difference is that Christianity is a spent force.  Almost a third of the world identifies as a Christian. More than half of extant humans are some variety of monotheist. secular political theorist Jurgen Habermas posted:Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct heir of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk. The European enlightenment has always been just a variant of the Judeo-Christian thoughtscape it has so desperately tried to break away from. Islam is also a variant of that thoughtscape, and is also the fastest growing religion today. If current projections hold up, a majority of human beings will be some flavor of Muslim by 2050. Islam isn't going anywhere. Jesus isn't going anywhere. Religious terrorism isn't going anywhere. The problem isn't Islam, it's that dogmatic variants of religion (such as Wahhabism) are currently the most effective way to mobilize mass resistance against the jackboot of American imperialism. Western 'secularity' is a spent force, friends, as is the idea that there is one true 'rational' worldview that everyone will eventually get behind. Utilizing religion's enormous potential for sparking mass movements may be our best hope for rallying against a catastrophic climate change extinction event. Post-belief anti-representational non-essentialist religious syncretism with the aim of facilitating inter-religious communication is the future. Religion is going to dominate the 21st century just as it has all other centuries before it. Sethex posted:For some observing a lot of population's suffering similarly or worse than those in the middle east 'social, political or economic causes' isn't a satisfactory explanation as to why a pan-nationalist death cult intent on re-implementing Slavery and ultra orthodox religious law exists. And you think woefully inadequate English translations of select portions of a 1300 year old Arabic text taken out of context and hermeneutically reconstituted into the tiny world horizon of Sam Harris, Islamic Expert are a better explanation than the total civil chaos and destitution caused by 60ish years of Team America: World Police? The people ISIS exploits have nothing else to fall back on. It's pretty easy to have a monolithic enemy to rally against just by pointing at the sky as it shits bombs on your weddings, your families, your places of worship, your hospitals, your schools, etc etc. Material circumstances have always had an enormous role in the production of ideology. Poverty, sickness, starvation, oppression and war practically excrete dogmatism and groupthink.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Griffen posted:Actually, Christianity is very nice in that certain things are very clearly spelled out. This is one of them. There is not a single instance of a Christian martyr in the Bible who died opposing his/her killer. Jesus literally stops a follower from violently opposing his arrest and subsequent crucifixion (and heals the wounded man from the fight) stating that "those who live by the sword, die by the sword." You can have people claim that they are dying for their faith by killing others, but Christ himself set the example, and there is no arguing with it. He literally tells His followers to "take up their cross and follow [Him]" so the command to imitate his life, even to death, is clearly stated. He is called the Lamb of God because he accepted death for our sake; likewise if a Christian is do die for their faith, they accept it because Christ did - we don't go out guns blazing. Thankfully most Christians these days have no need to die for their faith, but it still happens in some parts of the world, sadly. Yet still we are called to "love [our] neighbors and pray for those who persecute [us]." If you think these texts are vague, then I don't know what to tell you. Compare that to passages in the Koran about subjugating the unbeliever, make them pay a tax, etc etc, where you need to do some fancy hand waving arguments to make that sound like anything other than what it is. There is exactly one Christian martyr in the Bible, Saint Stephen, who dies spouting what would have been considered vile blasphemies at the time, on the level of saying David Koresh really was the Son of God. Jesus also tells his followers that they must arm themselves when the time comes, because he was an apocalyptic prophet who attracted Zealots to his cause. Jesus also refuses to denounce the sections of the law which call for the stoning to death of adulterers, not only in that the story of "let him without sin cast the first stone" is an interpolation from a later period into the Gospel of John, but also in that the story doesn't challenge the law as unjust. Indeed, Jesus came to fulfill the law, and not one letter of it would pass away, he says, and though he also says that "love God" and "love thy neighbor" are the most important commandments, he doesn't tell anyone they're released from having to avoid shellfish or put witches to death. Jesus actually tightens the Mosaic law in multiple passages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
splifyphus posted:
Don't make me laugh, religiosity is declining across the west, especially in the Christian stronghold that is America and even staunchly Catholic Latin America, if you're going to bank on Religious fervor leading the way for a glorious new future, especially in the west you're in for disappointment. Its obvious this election cycle that even the evangelical Christians in America cannot control the narrative like they once did. And I don't think religion will do too well when matched up against global warming, unless you truly believe god hates you and everyone else. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Religion already dealt with climate change and the apocalypse during the migration period. It didn't really seem to have much effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Griffen posted:Actually, Christianity is very nice in that certain things are very clearly spelled out. This is one of them. You are seriously underestimating human ingenuity. Let me help you out. The following is a list of the things that people cannot rationalize:
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You are seriously underestimating human ingenuity. Let me help you out. The following is a list of the things that people cannot rationalize: The gently caress I can't 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
I don't know how you can say secularism is a 'spent force' when there's more people unaffiliated today than ever before, and there is zero loving chance that religious dogmatism is going to be any more likely to prevent catastrophic climate change than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't know how you can say secularism is a 'spent force' when there's more people unaffiliated today than ever before, and there is zero loving chance that religious dogmatism is going to be any more likely to prevent catastrophic climate change than anything else. American Christians will get to it when Planned Parenthood has been defunded forever and all mention of it has been removed from every evolution-free Texas Approved™ textbook. It might have to wait until everyone that isn't 100% straight or sensible enough to repress their shameful thoughts has been consigned to mining granite for 10 commandments monuments with all the abstinence only success babies. While you wait, help yourself to some hot dish in the church basement courtesy of the Ladies Auxiliary Club.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't know how you can say secularism is a 'spent force' when there's more people unaffiliated today than ever before, and there is zero loving chance that religious dogmatism is going to be any more likely to prevent catastrophic climate change than anything else. Oh word? Come on dude at least google "catholic global warming" or something. I'm an atheist and even I think this is weak. I'm noticing a trend in your arguments. I think I understand why you're so upset I criticize populist thought. Your entire worldview seems to be composed of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Oh word? Come on dude at least google "catholic global warming" or something. I'm an atheist and even I think this is weak. I don't really see how that goes against what he just said about religious dogmatism being more likely to prevent catastrophic climate change than anything else (or the fact that its not). By 2015 few major political figures could be expected to be silent on global warming, certainly not the guy who's expected to go 'Hey guys, don't be dicks' once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
I don't understand what exactly is supposed to be a uniquely secular or atheistic plan against global warming. It's like this is bullshit put together by people who assume that all things associated with religion must be frauds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I don't understand what exactly is supposed to be a uniquely secular or atheistic plan against global warming. It's like this is bullshit put together by people who assume that all things associated with religion must be frauds. That's how I read his post, yeah
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I don't understand what exactly is supposed to be a uniquely secular or atheistic plan against global warming. It's like this is bullshit put together by people who assume that all things associated with religion must be frauds. What religious elements should a plan to fight Global Warming entail, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Religious dogmatism, indeed any kind of dogmatism, is a fundamentally dangerous force. Naively thinking you can 'put a happy face on it', is being arrogant enough to think you can control something that can't be negotiated or reasoned with. Even supposing you can get what you want (unlikely, it's just as likely you swallow you up as well), there'll be side effects you can't predict. Getting people to think critically & rationally is the better route, both for current crises, and for the crises to come.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What religious elements should a plan to fight Global Warming entail, exactly? People from Religion A come together and through science and prayer defeat the threat of Global Warming. As opposed to Atheists/Agnostics/whathaveyou coming together to defeat the threat of Global Warming through science and reason. Both statements are absurd, there are plenty of religious scientists who put aside their beliefs to deal with poo poo happening in the natural world. Braniac is pointing out the false dichotomy that many nuAtheists are trying to propogate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:People from Religion A come together and through science and prayer defeat the threat of Global Warming. Yeah, a dichotomy nobody here was talking about, except maybe on the religious side in favor of such a dichotomy depending on how you read splifyphus's post, yet here we are talking about 'nuAtheists'? khwarezm fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 04:10
|
|