Total posts: 2,339
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- Any secrets they teach or hidden insights they have that's uncommon knowledge?
Ex-members say not really. Current members say yes, but such knowledge is behind a paywall. Womp womp.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I actually converted to Scientology but they kicked me out because I'm poor and I kept asking where Shelly is.- So you are an ex-Scientologist apostate? What is that like exactly?
Lol. In all seriousness, while I don't know personally, from watching Leah Remini's documentaries I think it's pretty much like:
- You're cut off completely from family and friends still in the church.
- Within the church you're labelled an SP (suppressive person), i.e. people still in the church are taught that associating with you will set them back on the path.
- Depending on how young you were indoctrinated, you now have the task of relearning pretty much everything about the world, since they pull kids who join out of public school.
- You have to worry about being followed by private investigators hired by the church for the rest of your life.
- If you dare to speak out about your experiences, you're litigated against furiously and inexhaustibly.
Created:
Posted in:
I actually converted to Scientology but they kicked me out because I'm poor and I kept asking where Shelly is.
Created:
Posted in:
Water. Earth. Fire. Air. Long ago, the four nations lived together in harmony...
Created:
I have no idea why AI would spit out a religiously biased answer tbh. But I know shit about AI, so. Welp.
Created:
Idk, my ChatGPT sounds pretty unbiased. Good lad.
Created:
Shrug. Downloaded it, here's what mine said:
Q: "Which is most likely true: atheism, agnosticism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, or Buddhism?
A: "The question of which belief system is most likely true depends largely on personal perspectives, experiences, and philosophical outlooks. Each of the belief systems you mentioned has its own set of ideas, values, and approaches to life and the universe. Here’s a quick overview of each:
- Atheism: The lack of belief in a deity or deities, which might appeal to those who favor evidence-based reasoning or are skeptical of religious claims.
- Agnosticism: The view that the existence of God or gods is unknowable or unknown, focusing on the uncertainty of the ultimate truth.
- Christianity: A monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, focusing on salvation and eternal life through faith in Jesus.
- Judaism: One of the oldest monotheistic religions, emphasizing the covenant between God and the Jewish people, with a focus on ethical conduct and community.
- Hinduism: A complex set of beliefs and practices, often characterized by the concepts of karma, dharma, and moksha, and a belief in many gods or a singular, ultimate reality.
- Islam: A monotheistic religion founded on the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, emphasizing submission to Allah and the five pillars of faith.
- Buddhism: A spiritual tradition based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), focusing on the path to enlightenment and liberation from suffering through mindfulness and ethical living.
What seems 'most likely true' is often shaped by individual perspective, cultural background, and personal experiences. For some, evidence and rationality might lead them to atheism or agnosticism, while for others, faith in one of the major religions might resonate more deeply. There isn't a universally agreed-upon way to determine the 'truth' of any of these systems; it’s a deeply personal and philosophical question."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Regarding material, earthly matters, I would say faith is synonymous with trust or confidence: “I still have faith in our institutions.”Regarding immaterial matters, I would say faith is a belief in something which is unfalsifiable.
Dis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
But if it's true, I assume it's because assume most scholars aren't fundamentalist Christians and thus don't hold fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I don't think most Christians are even fundamentalists.
Apologies for splitting my reply into two posts.
So here you seem to be arguing that univocality is a fundamentalist belief, and there I must disagree. I don't think it's exclusive to fundamentalists. In fact, I don't think it's even exclusive to religious people.
I think univocality is an assumption we all find ourselves slipping into, that we can't help but treat the Bible like it speaks from one point of view, like any passage can be used as context for another, like all these texts were intended to be read together somehow. Like here are a bunch of common examples off the top of my head:
- Any Christian who tries to reconcile a passage from one book with a passage from another in order to find an overarching doctrine is assuming univocality.
- Atheists who rail away at biblical contradictions between books are treating the Bible like it's univocal.
- Any time we act like "the Bible says" Jesus was born of a virgin, we're assuming univocality -- half of the Gospels don't say so at all, but we assume they silently agree with the other two on this point.
- Letting any New Testament book govern your interpretation of an Old Testament book is just a flashing red sign screaming "assuming univocality".
- Anyone who thinks the Bible teaches a complete and consistent moral framework or guide for life is treating it like it's univocal.
I think most Christians -- heck, most people -- are guilty of doing it at some point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
univocality is rejected by basically every critical scholar and historian in the academic field of biblical studiesA claim like this really needs a source.
Fair point.
Here's a video from a scholar explaining why the assumption of univocality is not practiced in critical scholarship (short, but jump to 0:58 if you like).
For context, couple scholarly articles on why univocality is an erroneous dogma:
Studying inconsistencies in the Bible is just part of the scholarly disciplines -- the critical-historical method, textual criticism, source criticism, etc. Inconsistencies can be crucial for identifying literary strata, literary sources, interpolated passages, pseudopigraphical texts, and so on.
Don't get me wrong; there are some professionals who argue for univocality, but (like scholars who believe in biblical inerrancy) their critical scholarship is not thought very highly of -- for the simple reason that they begin with a conclusion and then try to make the data fit it, instead of letting the data lead them to their conclusions.
Created:
Posted in:
AND A THIRD THREAD.
Univocality is the idea that the Bible speaks with a single, consistent voice. It says there are no contradictions or disagreements between books or authors in the Bible.
It's worth noting that univocality is rejected by basically every critical scholar and historian in the academic field of biblical studies. The idea that these different authors, writing from different periods, in different languages, for different reasons and to different audiences, all shared some unified perspective or hive mind, is not an argument that has any traction among critical experts. The biblical authors wrote largely in ignorance of one another, and often in ignorance of one another's works, and had no inkling that their books would one day be gathered into this specific collection that we now know as the Bible.
So I'll extend the question: why should we believe the Bible is univocal? Why should it be read that way? We can get a better understanding of the Bible by treating it as multivocal. Change my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
Here's another thread to keep you gonks yapping. Hopefully this'll give me good lurk-n'-read fodder for a while. What does it take to get a good supply of threads that weren't created by Shila or resurrected from 5 years ago, christ.
Nothing, actually, the Bible doesn't say a thing about abortion explicitly. It takes no direct stance on it. However, it does indirectly address the value of a fetus.
Let's look at Exodus 21:22-25. If men are fighting and they injure a pregnant woman, and she miscarries, then the responsible parties have to pay a fine determined by the husband and the judge. But if harm befalls the woman, then it is an eye for an eye, a hand for a hand, and even a life for a life.
Here the Bible seems to be suggesting the value of a fetus is less than the value of a born human, treating the fetus more as property than a person. Discuss.
Created:
Posted in:
Okay there haven't been enough new threads in here in too long and I'm finally bored enough to start making some. D'you see what y'all've driven me to. Gawd.
Let us take, for instance, the example of ancient Athens. Aristotle writes, "the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject." He writes that her intellect can never have authority or participation in politics. Naturally, women were not allowed in philosophical schools or pursuits.
Pretty standard thinking for the day. My question is this: why was Athens' divine concept of wisdom female? Why didn't they conceptualize that deity as male? In fact, Athena was also the goddess of battle and civilization -- all things it seems Athenians should see as pretty masculine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Is it really God-given when, according to the Bible, God did not give us knowledge of good and evil? We had to take it, against his wishes, and were misled into doing so by a bad actor.Catholic teaching holds that God gifted humanity with free will from the very beginning, as shown by Adam and Eve’s capacity to make a real choice—obey or disobey God’s command. While the tree represented an experiential knowledge of good and evil that God wished to protect them from, it did not negate their pre-existing moral freedom. By succumbing to the serpent’s deception, Adam and Eve misused the very free will God bestowed on them—proving that the faculty to choose, for good or ill, was already theirs by divine design.I hope this was clear. Let me know if you have any more questions!
They had a choice, but without the fruit, did they have an informed one? Fruit for thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CatholicApologetics
Free will is the God-given ability of human beings to choose freely between good and evil, enabling them to act voluntarily according to their reason and conscience.
Is it really God-given when, according to the Bible, God did not give us knowledge of good and evil? We had to take it, against his wishes, and were misled into doing so by a bad actor.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Maybe just an act of altruism to another person."And the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me."
This.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
What exactly kind of Christian are you?
The pretend-for-trolling kind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Idk, sometimes I think it's just that the Fable sequels simply can't compete with Fable 1's nostalgia value... none of the subsequent Fables have really hit the same note for me. I did like Fable 2, though. Lucien, Hammer, Garth. I still remember those characters.
I just miss being a hero in the actual age of heroes, when there was a hero school and a colosseum and everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Today, most games are just graphics without any gameplay value.
There is some truth to this but I would marry Red Dead Redemption 2 if it were legally possible.
I would rather take more gameplay content at the cost of cutting-edge graphics. But eye-candy gamers complain if shit doesn't look next gen.
Created:
You focus on raw damage-dealing Force powers against bosses. The devs didn't want to make boss battles easy by having your enemy vulnerable to mind control tactics. But I never saw the point in rolling anything other than Guardian, personally. Consular is bleh.
Ironic considering how powerful Kreia is in KotOR 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I took my nephew for a drive home yesterday, and the 1st thing he said "this doesn't look like a teacher's car":(
Say "you're damn right it doesn't," put sunglasses on and gun it.
Alt: Just smile over at him like Pedro smiled at Nicholas Cage in the meme.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Who tf keeps liking Shila's posts?You could ask the same of a few members here, Castin.
Fair.
Created:
Posted in:
I follow Harikrish’s advice to love your neighbour but also be likeable yourself. It seems to be working.
Lol, holy shit. You're not a bot, you're Harikrish. This explains a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The number of times the great dragon has spoken to you confirms you have RFK's brain worms imo.You are just jealous that the great dragon talks to me, but not to you.
Why, is he giving you lotto numbers
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
WHO could have predicted this thread would turn into an airing of tired stereotypes and antisemitic grunting. WHO.The number of negative stereotypes confirms the theory that Jews arent likeable.
The number of times the great dragon has spoken to you confirms you have RFK's brain worms imo.
Created:
Posted in:
WHO could have predicted this thread would turn into an airing of tired stereotypes and antisemitic grunting. WHO.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Also, I'm not sure my values align with this more mercenary, transactional form of faith. If the gods are no different than mafiosos, what makes them divine?Given how this world is designed, its creator cannot be much better. Thats simple truth.
That doesn't mean we cannot be much better. If we have no aspirations or values except power and money -- and if we place nothing above ourselves except the ones who can give them to us -- then we have pretty much abandoned good for evil. Agree or disagree?
I could be persuaded to accept that the universe is evil, but accepting that I should be evil is another thing entirely.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No one ever claimed Gods were good, but its beneficial to pretend they are.
The scales positively sag beneath the weight of all those who have claimed gods are good.
If the gods are bad, why worship them?Money, power, rewards...
None of which are actually forthcoming on anything other than a random basis.
Also, I'm not sure my values align with this more mercenary, transactional form of faith. If the gods are no different than mafiosos, what makes them divine?
Created:
Idk, I run into the same problem with polytheism. If the gods are good, why is the universe an indifferent chamber of horrors? If the gods are bad, why worship them?
Created:
-->
@Shila
The Jewish community doesn't need to acknowledge or admit anything. They're practicing their faith and keeping the Covenant like they have always done.
The fact of the matter is this: Christianity was, fundamentally, a new religion. It was not a natural continuation of Judaism, it was not the same religion with new developments -- it was a new religion with a new theology. This new theology redefined what the messiah was, what he was supposed to do, and how he was supposed to do it. Expecting all Jews to accept a new religion is unrealistic and even naive. Jews did not click "I agree" to the Christ update just like you didn't click "I agree" to the Muhammad update. Move on.
and for rejecting Jesus whom they asked the Romans to crucify.
And the idea that the Roman Empire would defer to, let alone allow their decisions to be overruled by, a minority subject people is historically laughable. The Romans crucified Jesus, but it was easy for Christians to redirect blame to a group they were already sore at, and who held far less power.
The Jews raise questions about Christianity by rejecting the Gospel accounts in the New Testament upon which Christianity is based. This is a direct attack on Christianity and their God.
"They're raising questions by ignoring us, THIS IS A DIRECT ATTACK!" Sound less weak.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Quoting scholars is one thing, copying and pasting the entirety of your response without inserting any words or arguments of your own is another. I might as well be debating Alexa ffs.
Created:
Are you seriously just copying and pasting your responses from elsewhere like a two-bit bitch who can't connect neurons on his own. Where is your fucking pride, Shila.
Created:
I think the better question is why Christians have been preoccupied with the Judaic rejection of Christ for over two thousand years. It's like there's something galling to them about Jews passively practicing their faith sans Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
We see Gods creation everywhere whether we are wrong about its shape and size. We know there is a creator behind everything in existence. That creator can only be God because of the magnanimity of creation.
Okay so now we have abandoned the "if most people believe it, it's true" argument entirely. Progress.
New argument appears to be "But look around! GOD."
Created:
-->
@Shila
Now you're just ignoring my counterarguments entirely. Like a basic biiiiAAAATCH.
Engage the content of my arguments vis-a-vis John 17:20-23 and 1 John 5:7 or gtfo.
Created:
For fuck sake, it says "back", not "backside." Why are you obsessed with talking about God's ass all the sudden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
How about 2 billion Christians who believe in the Bible and that their God exists? In fact all religions and the majority of the worlds 7 billion people believe God exists.Idk why people appeal to this argument. Before Christianity most of the world was polytheistic. Did that mean the polytheistic gods existed? If reality is whatever the majority of humans decide it is, then boy has reality undergone some fluctuations over the course of history.Believing in one God or many God establishes the fact since the beginning of time the world believed in the supreme being or beings. Even today Christianity teaches the many manifestation of God in the Trinity.
Now we've moved the goal posts from "most people believe God exists" to "well most people have always believed godlike beings exist, anyway."
Let's just keep applying your "if most people believe it, it's true" logic to other stuff:
When most people believed the earth was flat, it literally was flat, but popped into a sphere the instant most people began to believe it was round.
The sun, moon, and planets all revolved around the earth until most people began to believe in the heliocentric model; then the sun and planets halted their rotation around the earth, and the earth, which had previously been stationary in space, lurched into motion and began an elliptical orbit around the sun.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Atheism is a religion because you ultimately have faith there is no God .
And here we are reframing an absence of belief as the presence of faith in a transparent attempt to equalize perceived fault on both sides.
Created:
-->
@Shila
You can quote verses which identify the three parts of the Trinity all day. What you need are verses which identify the unique relationship between the parts. Namely, that they are each:
- Coequal
- Comaterial
- Co-divine
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Let's read further.
- John 17:20-23 My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Passages like this indicate the author of John did not mean this "oneness" in a Trinitarian way, or else Jesus's followers could not be included in that oneness.
Idk how the other two passages indicate a Trinitarian interpretation at all so you'll have to do some extra work there bro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
How about 2 billion Christians who believe in the Bible and that their God exists? In fact all religions and the majority of the worlds 7 billion people believe God exists.
Idk why people appeal to this argument. Before Christianity most of the world was polytheistic. Did that mean the polytheistic gods existed? If reality is whatever the majority of humans decide it is, then boy has reality undergone some fluctuations over the course of history.
Created:
-->
@Shila
- It's absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts. Even the later ones are inconsistent about how it's phrased.
- A good indication that a passage has been interpolated, or inserted into the original manuscript, is when it appears at the bottom, top, or sides of a text instead of in the text, as it appears in this image (that's the Johannine Comma at the bottom).
- There's academic debate about whether Cyprian was quoting the Comma, but in any case he was writing in the third century, when Trinitarian ideology was already developing. And consider that other pro-Trinitarian patriarchs, like Athanasius, or Origen, who had every reason to appeal to the passage if they were aware of it, never did.
- Jerome didn't like that it was translated faithfully in other manuscripts because accurate translations undermined church doctrine. "Indeed, it has come to our notice that in this letter some unfaithful translators have gone far astray from the truth of the faith, for in their edition they provide just the words for three [witnesses]—namely water, blood and spirit—and omit the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, by which the Catholic faith is especially strengthened--" Because if it doesn't strengthen Catholic dogma, it must be wrong, right?
- Nah there's no grammatical problems with the original Greek.
- The Council of Carthage was in the fifth century, when Trinitarian ideology was coming to a peak. The church had decided what it wanted to believe and canonized it, regardless of what the text explicitly states; it's been doing that ever since.
Tl;dr: The Johannine Comma is just so inconsistently attested to in the manuscripts that most translations of the Bible omit it as spurious. When a passage is original, it's usually copied in the same way, with the same phrasing, in the same place, by scribes. When it's not original, it moves around, appears in some texts but not others, and the phrasing varies. The evidence is pretty conclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
Just like they reduced God’s covenant to circumcision to limit God’s choices.
And idk what this even means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If God can be whatever he wants, why can't he be Allah and his prophet be Muhammad? Because that concept has no basis in your holy texts or your faith traditions, pickles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Whoever created this world is either insane either psychopath, and probably a liar too, and since Christian God fits all of those descriptions, one can conclude he is more likely to exist than some God who is actually good.In this world, people get punished for sins of other people. People get punished and rewarded randomly. There is no karma. There is randomness. There is insanity.Think about it, Hitler had a girlfriend while millions of children, who commited nothing as serious and as wrong as Hitler did, died from cancer and lived much shorter life than Hitler.There is no justice. Some are born with disorders they did nothing to deserve, while some do plenty of evil and live a much better life than those who do no evil. Karma is fake news.Karma doesnt exist because those who are victims of evil did nothing to deserve bad things which happen to them. So think about it.The world is insane, filled with lies and injustice which pretends to be truth and justice, just as Christian God pretends to be good and lies about it in the Bible.World is based on one being suffering so that other enjoys. One animal devouring another. One animal's joy is conditioned upon other being in pain. Total insanity. Its not just with humans. Its everywhere.Christian God is perfect example of God who created this world: a lying insane psychopath!
This is the most rational post I've seen you make.
It's dark af tho.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Here is a verse that mentions all three being one and in heaven.1 John 5:7There are three in heaven who prove it is true. [They are the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. These three are one.]
Bro, this is literally the first verse you quoted, just from a poorer and less accurate translation.
The bits I put in brackets are called the Johannine Comma and if you want to read more about how it's not actually in the Bible, there's your linkydinky.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, the Jews were totally limited by their inability to accept a theological innovation that had no basis in the Torah. Sooo limited.
The Trinity is basically Christian fanfic that got canonized and we're over here like "WHY won't the Jews accept my fanfic??"
Created:
-->
@Shila
That is just a verse that mentions Spirit, water, and blood -- water and blood here referring to the death of Jesus as atonement for sin. Basically it's saying that the Holy Spirit, the blood of Christ, and the water of atonement, all testify in agreement.
The verse says nothing about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being three comaterial, coequal, co-divine persons. That is a level of theological specificity and sophistication that you will not find in the Bible, and which developed over centuries of followers reflecting back on the text and trying to figure out how it all fit in their minds.
I mean, church doctrine holds that the author of 1 John also wrote the Gospel of John -- so why, in the Gospel of John, does Jesus say the Father is "greater than I" (John 14:28)? Seems a clear indication that the author of John did not consider Jesus and God coequal.
Tl;dr, we read the Trinity into the text; it isn't actually there.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Atheism is a religion.
When I saw the thread title I was expecting the OP to contain an argument.
How naive I was.
Created: