Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Je Suis CharlieFollow

#77 Jan 14 2015 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Just because you believe in it does not make it true. See what I did there?:>


Correct. My belief in something does not make it true. The large mountain of historical evidence does create a high probability of it being true, however.


You are joking right?


No. Why would you think so? Do you actually know what sorts of moral systems were in play prior to the rise of Christianity in western civilization? The reason you view atrocities (and blame them on religion even) so negatively is because you've grown up in a world where everyone you know, and everyone they know, for dozens of generations back in time had adopted Christian moral structures (yes, technically modified Jewish), which almost uniquely among historical moral systems viewed such things negatively. Our society and its rules formed in this environment. I don't think you understand just how deep this goes. It's not about going to church and praying, it's basic concepts like "killing people is wrong".


Let me be clear. I'm not saying that only Christianity could have brought about the moral/ethical changes over time that lead us to where we are today, but it's kinda silly to ignore the fact that in our society, that's the vessel that did do this.



Do you? Do you know what moral systems Christianity introduced for that matter? You seem to be under this weird spell that makes you forget who it was that said let God sort them out. I am not sure that particular phrase resonates that well with the moral systems you seem to think Christianity introduced..

It is amusing to see you try though..

Edited, Jan 14th 2015 7:24pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#78 Jan 14 2015 at 6:41 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
He doesn't do it because of his religion. It's far more complex than that.
He does it because of his social matrix, which bound together and intertwined by his religion.

So, you're right, but for the wrong reason.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#79 Jan 14 2015 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Do you? Do you know what moral systems Christianity introduced for that matter?


Um. Yeah. I even mentioned a couple of them earlier. Things like "thou shalt not kill", and "thou shalt not steal". Do you grasp that these things were not viewed as moral "wrongs" in most western civilizations prior to the adoption of Christianity, but were seen in a more economic way instead? The very concept of actions actually being morally wrong versus just having a cost is almost uniquely Judeo-Christian. Moral rules like those in the 10 commandments seem so simple and obvious and natural to us today, until you realize that very few cultures in human history ever came up with them.

Quote:
You seem to be under this weird spell that makes you forget who it was that said let God sort them out. I am not sure that particular phrase resonates that well with the moral systems you seem to think Christianity introduced.


Huh? You're cherry picking phrases. And not ones even remotely associated with any core belief. So because one guy once said that, all of Christianity is defined by it? Wow. That's insane.

And btw, while the exact sentiment might not have been used, in pre-Christian societies, no one would have been worrying about killing some of their own people in the midst of a battle anyway. You're missing the point that the phrase in question is shocking precisely because it appears to go against the moral norms taught by Christianity. In a world without those norms, no one would need to say it, and no one would be surprised by the action itself.

Quote:
It is amusing to see you try though.


There's something amusing going on, but I don't think it's what you think.


Oh. And in case certain posters are paying attention, this is an example of facts without comparison or analysis. You can't just look at negatives from a given religion, you must also compare to what would be there if the religion was not. And while some people might like to imagine that some kind of magical secular humanist movement would have swept the western world in the absence of an oppressive religion and we'd all be living in a wonderful paradise absent irrational acts, I think that's pretty darn wishful thinking. In all likelihood, in the absence of Christianity we would not revile the replacement, not because it would be "better", but because we would never have learned to think that killing people or taking their stuff was morally wrong, and thus would not judge our objective and cruel system negatively as a result. We'd just accept our places in a world where life has little value and hope that said life was short and as lacking in pain as possible. But hey! At least you would not know what you were missing.


Edited, Jan 14th 2015 5:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Jan 14 2015 at 8:47 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Where you are not correct is the part that those feelings DO come from somewhere; they are TAUGHT that idiocy to begin with. People do not get born with pre-conceived notion about Jesus saving your ***. To say religion is not an issue in this equation is to be willfully blind.
Of course they come from some where. I wasn't denying that ideas didn't originate from religion, but that as adults, people are mature enough to believe and follow what they want.

angrymnk wrote:
No, they are not. Christianity has been mostly rendered toothless ( 'cept the good old US of A ) over the past decades, but to claim it is peaceful is to completely misunderstand its core. If you believe, and I mean truly believe, there is no grey, there is no concord with the sinner, because the wages of sin is death.

Alma, I get that you attended college course on religions of the world once to satisfy your diversity requirement, but don't me give me that silly religion is all about peace. It is not. It is about a lot things, but peace ain't one of them ( unless you mean peace we get after we kill all the unbelieving heathens... ).
Please provide a citation of Jesus that supports your claim.


Heh, you kinda walked into that one, but I will be merciful ( for angrymnk is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind ). Linky

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Also, you have a lot of faith in humans. Smash was not incorrect when he suggested that even most intelligent can be a little silly at times.


Edited, Jan 14th 2015 6:32pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jan 14th 2015 6:32pm by angrymnk


LOL, if you didn't think for a minute that I was well aware of your tactic, you're sadly mistaken. It's just much easier for me to counter whatever verse you come up with as opposed to guessing. Admittedly, I did think you were going to pull something from the OT, so bravo for not doing that.

Please look at the link below. Similar to our last discussion, I know my knowledgeable limitations and will not pretend to be a theologian. However, I will say that the bible doesn't operate off of single verses, so any attempt to summarize the Christian religion off a single verse will probably be misleading.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/matthew_10_34.htm
#81 Jan 14 2015 at 9:02 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Not "probably". "Is". The religious person knows them. The person reacting to that person often does not and thus simplifies it to "it's because of his religion". But that's a failure on the part of the second person to understand the first. And assuming our objective is to try to reduce the incidences of violent religious acts, it would seem to be critically important to delve farther than just blaming it on religion.

I didn't know that you were able to see the souls of all people.

Gbaji wrote:
What propaganda videos? The ones that *you* have seen? The snippets of those videos that have been translated and put on some web site or shown on a news program? This is what I'm talking about. I guarantee you that no one is going off and joining a jihadist organization solely because he saw a video that just told him to kill infidels in the name of Islam because... religion! No one. Ever. Years of learning a religion first are required. Then years of some perceived authority figure within that religious framework teaching a particular (violent in this case) version of the religion is required. Then, finally, you can point to others around that person, tell him that they're bad because they violate a large swath of already accepted assumptions, and spur him to action with inspiring videos.

You're looking at the very tiny tail end of a much larger and longer process.


As I said, we are mostly saying the same thing. The videos are designed to be viewed by the US, hence why US people think that it is all about religion, when it isn't. That is the point, not if people join terrorist groups because of the videos.

Gbaji wrote:
Only to those whose entire understanding is the videos and calls to violence contained within. That's you, btw. Not the guys actually answering that call. ...

...

Yes. Because you don't see the whole picture. This is my entire point. By simplifying it down like that, you are missing the really important parts and focusing on the least important.

.....
Again, that's not really correct. The expressions that you are exposed to, usually by a media that wants you to react just as you are reacting, simplifies it down to religion. That's the point. The terrorist does not do this. The media that wants you to react in the most basic negative way to the terrorist does. And while that's fine with regard to motivating people to oppose terrorism, it's a terrible method to use if we want to learn why the terrorist does what he does.


He doesn't do it because of his religion. It's far more complex than that.

That's what I said. That's the point of my statement. The average US person is not answering the call, they see a video and that's it. Everything else gets lost in translation. That's not me (or us) simplifying the picture. That's the terrorists. If their videos broke down their philosophy as opposed to "In the name of ....", then people would see the bigger picture. If you're making videos for others to watch, it's not their job to do the research, it's your job to sell your point.


#82 Jan 14 2015 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Not so confident in Alma's knowledge of the Bible and Christianity, so I'll step into this for a sec:

angrymnk wrote:
Heh, you kinda walked into that one, but I will be merciful ( for angrymnk is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind ). Linky

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."


Um... You do get that he's not actually talking about physical violence and/or war, right? It's always funny to me when people who don't actually understand the bible or its teachings pluck out individual passages and try to make a point like this (the whole "camel through the eye of a needle one probably ranks up there too). Of course, to understand what is meant, you must understand the underlying Jewish beliefs about a potential coming Messiah, and how certain words are used in context.

What he means is that he's not going to force the world to be peaceful via some kind of divine fiat/rule, but that he will lay before the world a choice to follow his teachings, or not (gasp! Free will. Oh noes!!!). The "sword" isn't a tool of violence here, but one of separation. He's preparing his followers for the reality that life will go on after he leaves, and they'll have struggles ahead of them. There's more to it, as well, but one thing I do know is that he's not remotely saying he or his religion is about violent conflict.

Great example of how those who don't bother to spend any time understanding the actual beliefs of a religion can't really accurately assess the actions and words of the followers of said religion though. So there is that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Jan 14 2015 at 10:08 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Where you are not correct is the part that those feelings DO come from somewhere; they are TAUGHT that idiocy to begin with. People do not get born with pre-conceived notion about Jesus saving your ***. To say religion is not an issue in this equation is to be willfully blind.
Of course they come from some where. I wasn't denying that ideas didn't originate from religion, but that as adults, people are mature enough to believe and follow what they want.

angrymnk wrote:
No, they are not. Christianity has been mostly rendered toothless ( 'cept the good old US of A ) over the past decades, but to claim it is peaceful is to completely misunderstand its core. If you believe, and I mean truly believe, there is no grey, there is no concord with the sinner, because the wages of sin is death.

Alma, I get that you attended college course on religions of the world once to satisfy your diversity requirement, but don't me give me that silly religion is all about peace. It is not. It is about a lot things, but peace ain't one of them ( unless you mean peace we get after we kill all the unbelieving heathens... ).
Please provide a citation of Jesus that supports your claim.


Heh, you kinda walked into that one, but I will be merciful ( for angrymnk is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind ). Linky

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Also, you have a lot of faith in humans. Smash was not incorrect when he suggested that even most intelligent can be a little silly at times.


Edited, Jan 14th 2015 6:32pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jan 14th 2015 6:32pm by angrymnk


LOL, if you didn't think for a minute that I was well aware of your tactic, you're sadly mistaken. It's just much easier for me to counter whatever verse you come up with as opposed to guessing. Admittedly, I did think you were going to pull something from the OT, so bravo for not doing that.

Please look at the link below. Similar to our last discussion, I know my knowledgeable limitations and will not pretend to be a theologian. However, I will say that the bible doesn't operate off of single verses, so any attempt to summarize the Christian religion off a single verse will probably be misleading.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/matthew_10_34.htm


Alma,

Unlike Gbaji, you did not ask some semi-esoteric question about the origin of morality and current standards, but decided to ask me, specifically, to
Quote:
provide a citation of Jesus that supports your claim.]
I obliged. Trying to pass it off as "well you know, bible is up to interpretation, because scholar x thinks that <something that supports what I think>" is silly now.

You could have, like Gbaji, tested the waters a little and question me whether the religion is intrinsically violent and ask for works proving that by citing experts on the matter, but you chose to ask me to provide one (a) excerpt (citation) from (by) Jesus ( Jesus ).

I am just saying.. it is the internet. You can take your time to answer. No one is timing you.

____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#84 Jan 14 2015 at 10:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Trying to pass it off as "well you know, bible is up to interpretation, because scholar x thinks that <something that supports what I think>" is silly now.

Noting that Jesus does not mean a literal sword isn't some "interpretation by scholars" but a basic act of learning to read and understanding context. Does Jesus ever present a literal sword? Does Jesus ever attack anyone with a literal sword? Does Jesus ever incite anyone to attack non-disciples with a literal sword? No? Gee, maybe he didn't literally mean a real physical sword.

That's not Biblical scholarship, that's just middle school understanding of how books work.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Jan 14 2015 at 10:15 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
Not so confident in Alma's knowledge of the Bible and Christianity, so I'll step into this for a sec:

angrymnk wrote:
Heh, you kinda walked into that one, but I will be merciful ( for angrymnk is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind ). Linky

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."


Um... You do get that he's not actually talking about physical violence and/or war, right? It's always funny to me when people who don't actually understand the bible or its teachings pluck out individual passages and try to make a point like this (the whole "camel through the eye of a needle one probably ranks up there too). Of course, to understand what is meant, you must understand the underlying Jewish beliefs about a potential coming Messiah, and how certain words are used in context.

What he means is that he's not going to force the world to be peaceful via some kind of divine fiat/rule, but that he will lay before the world a choice to follow his teachings, or not (gasp! Free will. Oh noes!!!). The "sword" isn't a tool of violence here, but one of separation. He's preparing his followers for the reality that life will go on after he leaves, and they'll have struggles ahead of them. There's more to it, as well, but one thing I do know is that he's not remotely saying he or his religion is about violent conflict.

Great example of how those who don't bother to spend any time understanding the actual beliefs of a religion can't really accurately assess the actions and words of the followers of said religion though. So there is that.


You claim yourself to be a theology expert as well? You mean studied ancient texts, history of the region, learned ancient Aramaic, history of language and all that jazz?

You see, me personally, I would be a little worried about trying to saying something along the lines of:

I think God meant this <what I think God meant when bible said X>.

I am glad that you are not worried about the level of your knowledge though; makes me feel that much better.

Edited, Jan 14th 2015 11:15pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#86 Jan 14 2015 at 10:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Trying to pass it off as "well you know, bible is up to interpretation, because scholar x thinks that <something that supports what I think>" is silly now.

Noting that Jesus does not mean a literal sword isn't some "interpretation by scholars" but a basic act of learning to read and understanding context. Does Jesus ever present a literal sword? Does Jesus ever attack anyone with a literal sword? Does Jesus ever incite anyone to attack non-disciples with a literal sword? No? Gee, maybe he didn't literally mean a real physical sword.

That's not Biblical scholarship, that's just middle school understanding of how books work.


Ahh, yes, bible is open to interpretation argument and he can't possibly be talking about genocide. God does not do genocide.

How about I interpret the sword as a ***** of patriarchy? Would that make you feel better?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#87 Jan 14 2015 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's hard to not already "feel better" when talking to someone insisting that Jesus actually meant "a sword" Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Jan 14 2015 at 11:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's hard to not already "feel better" when talking to someone insisting that Jesus actually meant "a sword" Smiley: laugh


I will admit.. it would be nice to believe what I was taught in Sunday school; would make things simple too.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#89 Jan 15 2015 at 12:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wait... more simple than "He said SWORD! That can only mean SWORD!" Smiley: confused
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Jan 15 2015 at 1:42 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Not so confident in Alma's knowledge of the Bible and Christianity, so I'll step into this for a sec:
That's why I make it known from the start.Smiley: grin

angrymnk wrote:
I obliged. Trying to pass it off as "well you know, bible is up to interpretation, because scholar x thinks that <something that supports what I think>" is silly now.

You could have, like Gbaji, tested the waters a little and question me whether the religion is intrinsically violent and ask for works proving that by citing experts on the matter, but you chose to ask me to provide one (a) excerpt (citation) from (by) Jesus ( Jesus ).

I am just saying.. it is the internet. You can take your time to answer. No one is timing you.


See post #84
#91 Jan 15 2015 at 1:53 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
The sword thingy is Jesus realizing his crazy offbeat ideas (don't be a$$holes to everyone) would create conflict; from families all the way up to empires.


And yeah, gbaji, Jesus was totally serious about the camel/needle thing because he knew that people obsessed with wealth are generally not "meek as children/unselfish/willing to put others ahead of self" which you may recall are the behavioUrs of people he described who get into heaven. I know CCD was a longtime ago but, man, did you get that one wrong.


EDIT: I hate commasSmiley: mad

Edited, Jan 15th 2015 12:57am by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#92 Jan 15 2015 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Just a bit amusing that after all the free speech hoo-hah marches and and solidarity to see someone get arrested over a Facebook post.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#93 Jan 15 2015 at 8:38 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Noting that Jesus does not mean a literal sword isn't some "interpretation by scholars" but a basic act of learning to read and understanding context. Does Jesus ever present a literal sword? Does Jesus ever attack anyone with a literal sword? Does Jesus ever incite anyone to attack non-disciples with a literal sword? No? Gee, maybe he didn't literally mean a real physical sword.

What about all of the children killing God seems to enjoy? That's meant to be literal, right? Serious question, do you people play pretend that "I'm going to kill these children" is a metaphor for "Love each other!"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#94 Jan 15 2015 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The question was providing a citation of Jesus that supported his claim (presumably because he was referencing Christianity). As far as I know, Jesus doesn't kill any children nor are any children killed in the New Testament by his disciples.

So, um, no I guess no one takes Jesus' teachings to kill children as a metaphor.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Jan 15 2015 at 9:24 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The question was providing a citation of Jesus that supported his claim (presumably because he was referencing Christianity). As far as I know, Jesus doesn't kill any children nor are any children killed in the New Testament by his disciples.

So, um, no I guess no one takes Jesus' teachings to kill children as a metaphor.


So "Old Testament doesn't count" post Jesus, we just keep it in for historical context"? I'm not being difficult, I don't really know how modern Christians explain the paradox of mean homicidal Daddy and Prince of Peace Son. I mean unless it's just "Mystery!" <throw hands up>.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#96 Jan 15 2015 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
God was a raging alcoholic. One moment he loves everyone unconditionally, the next he's drowning them.

Or maybe a Kennedy.

Edited, Jan 15th 2015 10:29am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#97 Jan 15 2015 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Are the two mutually exclusive?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#98 Jan 15 2015 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm not being difficult

Smiley: laugh

Tell it so someone who hasn't been here since the Clinton administration.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Jan 15 2015 at 9:45 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Tell it so someone who hasn't been here since the Clinton administration.

You can do what you like, of course, but an answer would be nice. If it's "just part of the mystery" that's fine. I can't acquire the POV of Christian, it's all laughably false to me. I don't know if it's ok for God to murder children because he's God, or if it's meant to be a scary metaphor, or what. It does seem to contrast with Jesus who seems less inclined to child murder, or murder in general.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#100 Jan 15 2015 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Like many adults, having a child matured God significantly. It was his/her wake up call.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#101 Jan 15 2015 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
You can do what you like, of course, but an answer would be nice

I bet. However, your sincerity is in doubt and I haven't found discussing theology here to be especially worthwhile. So I'll take a pass. I only responded to Angrymnk on it because his answer wasn't theologically unsound, it was just silly even if you take the gospel in question as a piece of standard literature.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 282 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (282)