Total posts: 2,627
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Judaism began 4k years ago that was actually later than the onceptual origin but when they formally began scribing it, announcing it. Other than Hinduism, it is one of the oldest religions ever to still properly exist today
Jewish messianism did not develop until centuries after that. You're smooshing all the periods of Judaism together.
Jews didn't start envisioning "THE" messiah until they lost their home and struggled with their faith and got shoved like cattle from one empire to another.
Jesus did bring world peace and spread the faith around the world. He did it via his followers.
Where is this world peace? Regardless, we were talking about the sell-by dates on prophecies, not which religion was more popular. You suggested the prophecy of the Jewish messiah was past its sell-by date; I said that if it is, then so is the prophecy of the Second Coming.
In fact, Judaism is anti conversion, it codn't spread ever how Christianity did.
Why does that matter? Is it wrong that they are not a very proselytizing religion?
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Jesus was the Messiah.We are 4k years or so from the origin of Judaism's claim of a future Messiah. Who was it?
Not sure where you're pulling 4k from. It's more like 2.2k years or something, I believe. Late Second Temple period.
We could as easily say "We are 2K years or so from the origin of Christianity's claim of the Second Coming. Where is he?"
The boxes the Jewish messiah has to tick are pretty clear and I ain't seen anyone ticking 'em, so I guess the prophecy goes on.
The boxes the Second Coming has to tick are also pretty clear and I ain't seen anyone ticking 'em, so I guess that prophecy goes on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's pretty hard to get everyone in a faith to agree that a prophecy has been fulfilled, in modern times.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
How is a future messiah a "plothole"? That's like saying Jesus's second coming is a gaping plothole. The Jewish faith is older than messianism anyway. Not all Jews even see messianism as central to their faith, and that's okay.
The ethnocentrism of Judaism is a topic I'd like to discuss more but I have to pop off to the store.
Created:
It's been my experience that Jews rarely bring up Christianity unless prompted but Christians almost never shut the fuck up about Jews.
I have no idea why this is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Are you still in high school?
Ey I'm not the one throwin around words like "slavery alone is neither good or bad"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
It is believed by those that slavery itself alone is neither good or bad .
Tf is this supposed to mean, you psycho
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
The only trans Catholics fully support even more than seculars even, are intersex. We encourage them to become women or men.
This deserves its own thread, honestly. Why change them from what God made them? Why does "you are the body you're born with" not matter if you're born intersex? Etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Denying yourself that because of a book written at a time when slavery was okay is just pure and utter nonsense, persisting only in the minds of those who value dogma over people.Slavery is apparently ok now, as there continue to be slaves in the world.I don't know why atheists bother to talk about morality. What is there without God? Why should we bother trying to be nice? You think it is wrong if homosexuals are judged...why? Have you invented these morals?Why should I value people over dogma? Dogma cannot be changed; it is NATURE.
Dogma changes constantly. The dogmas you worship now are not the dogmas the Hebrews did. They are not even the dogmas the early Christians did. Over the centuries, believers have unceasingly renegotiated with the Bible.
And slavery is almost universally condemned in the modern world; in the ancient world it was so normative that God himself condoned it.
On atheists and morality, I guess this is where vertical vs horizontal morality comes in. Theists have vertical morality; something is only wrong if a power higher than them says so. Morality is based on hierarchy and authority. Atheists have horizontal morality; they look at the people around them and what harm could befall them. Morality is based on empathy and humanist values. (To ridiculously over-generalize. Both theists and atheists are individuals with widely varying perspectives.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I don't think the Bible's authors were aware of the concept of trans people, but we can be pretty confident they would have been dicks about it, I think.Trans people usually wear clothes of opposite gender.
I mean, this is where it gets a bit confusing, isn't it? They're wearing the clothes of the gender they identify with, which isn't technically crossdressing. The Bible just wasn't meant to address the complexities of modern gender ideation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I admit Paul is an odd one, how that oddball ended up founding a huge chunk of our Scripture is an example of austistic savantism in my opinion. Most will takr that as blasphemy. I mean it as a neutral observation, no insult.I am somewhat heretical to him on banning all females from clergy and politics. I will not say he was entirely wrong on sex though. He and St. Augustine did take it a little too far. The reality is celibacy is fine and admirable but not suoer admirable sucj that parenting is evil. Sex inside marriage is fine too, within parameters.
I regard him as wonderfully eccentric. Our earliest source on Jesus and a truly passionate chap, if quirky.
And if you're referring to 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, the good news is that the scholarly world widely considers it to be a fraudulent passage or interpolation. And if you're referring to anything in 1 Timothy, scholars don't think he wrote it. I think on the whole Paul was probably quite accepting of women, for his time.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh yeah, Deut says it's abhorrent to cross dress. I don't remember it saying crossdressers shall be killed though.
I don't think the Bible's authors were aware of the concept of trans people, but we can be pretty confident they would have been dicks about it, I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
What? You mean Bible God telling people to kill gays, trans and zoophiles isnt fair? And Christians having death penalty for these for 1000 years isnt fair?
Wait, where does the Bible say anything about trans people?
Created:
Posted in:
Could you please tell me the passage where the Bible identifies the serpent in the garden as Satan.
Created:
Posted in:
I feel like people just miss the main thrust of Paul's sexual ethics. The man thought there just wasn't time for all that shit -- sex, attachments, marriage. Jesus is about to come back, and so soon that worldly concerns will soon be irrelevant. Married life just keeps you more distracted by worldly matters: pleasing your spouse, the household, the finances, whatever. So he says if you're married, stay married, but if you're not, it's better you stay single and celibate. Devote yourself to God; that's what is really about to count when Jesus returns. Listen to what he's saying. "Time is short." "The present form of this world is about to pass away."
Created:
Posted in:
Shrug. The way to "fulfill life" is to pursue what brings you joy and meaning. If that is your relationship to another consenting adult -- of any sex -- then of course you should be with that person, regardless of whether the pair of you can procreate. Denying yourself that because of a book written at a time when slavery was okay is just pure and utter nonsense, persisting only in the minds of those who value dogma over people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
That is the best way to make it fair on all sexualities. It is why married or worse, fornicating, protestant or orthodix pastors/priests are complete hypocrites when telling gays, sluts andnothwe sexually immoral people not to have sex and to avoid masturbation.It is as if you want to singke out the naturally non typical.hetero and say "you cant have sex but the rest of us can easily have fun doing it". Wrong.All should fight the urge but marriage and being parents is the reason God gave us the urges.
I'm five pages late to say this, but lol. The Bible is anything but "fair on all sexualities."
Paul encourages everyone to be celibate, but heterosexuals may marry and engage in sex to take the edge off. Homosexuals may not; the very idea of them taking spouses or having sex according to their orientation is an affront to God and a violation of the natural order. Leviticus dictates it is punishable by death.
Keeping in mind that this is all a modern discussion of the text; the Bible was written before sexual orientations were yet a concept. There were no "gay" or "straight" people, as thought of then -- there was just gay sex and straight sex, and gay sex was forbidden.
BUT if you're dead-set on basing your modern sexual ethics on the Bible (a highly questionable decision, but okay) then a reasonable takeaway is "don't have sex, but if you have to, marry hetero and have hetero sex, never divorce, and only have gay sex if you want to be put to death." Fair on all sexualities indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Saint Paul says to avoid unlawful sex 'let every man have a wife' and vice versa. That doesn't necessarily mean the only way to avoid unlawful is through marriage.
Saint Paul would rather us all not have sex at all. Idk why no one talks about that. His sexual ethic is to be celibate. Marriage is only for if you can't hack celibacy.
All his directives on marriage are given with an air of disapproving reluctance, like, "Well if you have to fuck, I guess marry and fuck only that person, and as little as possible, just enough to keep Satan from making you do worse... you should really be completely sex-free like me, though... Sigh... not everyone has my gift of self-control..."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
that doesn't necessarily mean all becoming one flesh sex has to be marital sexHow do you become one flesh with multiple people?*raises hand, thinks about it, lowers hand*
Were we all thinking Human Centipede or was that just me
Just me? Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Interesting. But people who do not live by the values of love and compassion have been around for millennia even since Jesus's coming, without being "sent to other primitive planets" to start over. So when did Cayce think it was going to happen? Or is Earth the primitive planet in question? Like Earth is Remedial Love and Compassion for Dummies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Cupid
After the pain that mf has caused us all?
Created:
Posted in:
Did the Jews pray to Jesus during the Holocaust?
Did Christ pray to Jupiter on the cross?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I'm wondering what sexual orientation has to do with worship?Why would a man worship a man?I prefer to worship girls, because I am not gay. Plus, kinda more dedicated when worshipping someone you naturally really like.
Granted, an atheist is not the best authority on this, but I was thinking worship had nothing to do with sexual attraction? I just don't get the impresh that my Christian friends are jerking it to Jesus. Unless I'm reeeeaaaally not reading the room.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Why cant God be female? Like, whats up with "God must be a man" opinion?
"Man strong. Woman weak. God strong. God man."
I think that's mostly it, traditionally.
I would actually prefer to worship female God because I am not gay.
I'm wondering what sexual orientation has to do with worship?
What happens when our sun runs out of hydrogen, burns out, and becomes a white dwarf?It wont happen*.
*in the next few billion years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Well, does new Maleficent count as religious?"Sleeping Beauty's Maleficent is an explicitly satanic figure: “mistress of all evil,” in league with “all the powers of Hell.”"
Was kinda confused by "new" Maleficent, as I thought you were referring to Angelina Jolie's Maleficent, who is portrayed sympathetically.
Traditional Maleficent in the 1959 Sleeping Beauty was classic evil, though I'm struggling to remember any satanic references. Her pet raven was named Diablo, though. Regardless, I argue she cannot compete with Frollo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I’ve never seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame but I imagine Quasimodo has at least some kind of faith.
Nearly every character in Hunchback had some kind of faith afaik.
For anyone else who's never seen the movie, here is "Hellfire", sung by Frollo. This song is just peak villain. The arrogance, pious superiority, lust, wrath, possessiveness, guilt, deflection, and blamethrowing in this -- *chef's kiss.*
"Beata Maria, you know I'm so much purer than the common, vulgar, weak, licentious crowd."
THE SUPERIORITY.
"Protect me, Maria, don't let this siren cast her spell
Don't let her fire sear my flesh and bone
Destroy Esmerelda, and let her taste the fires of hell
Or else let her be mine and mine alone"
This was a kid's movie mind you.
The real title of Hunchback should've been Everybody Wants Esmerelda tbh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Like fi're, hell 'fi're, this fi're in my skin.Catchy song.Might have been better off going with animated religious characters than Disney, I can't 'think of all that many explicitly religious Disney characters.I think Kekata, the long haired old guy in Pocahontas, is a shaman. Has some good lines, but I'd put Friar Tuck above him, Friar Tuck just had a lot of energy and a fight scene.Tzekel-Kan from The Road to El Dorado was pretty good, but it was a DreamWorks movie, and they cut his song.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw4cMDVytnM - Trust Me. . . Oh! The Prince Of Egypt! Wait no no, another DreamWorks Pictures.I agree with you ranking Frollo number 1 though, has a lot of screen time, lot of character and impact, has a good song, has a sword swinging scene.
You've convinced me, we need to open this to all animated movies. DreamWorks, Pixar, whatever.
Lol I loved Friar Tuck's fight scene, gentlest dude in the world just totally loses his shit on the sheriff. Remember, the two little church mice put their last farthing in the poor box, and the sheriff comes and takes even that. Friar Tuck is overcome by Christian rage. Great scene.
Tzekel-Kan was a great villain, suuuper creepy. But Frollo had a song... and it was a banger. Pity Tzekel-Kan didn't get one, but they could've given him a better song than Trust Me, imo.
Prince of Egypt! Man I loved the melody from the River Lullaby in that. Which character from it would you nominate, though? Moses?
Created:
Posted in:
It's Frollo from Hunchback of Notre Dame. COME AT ME.
Frollo was peak villain, you can't change my mind. Straight up singing about how he's gonna condemn a gypsy girl to hell because he can't have her and the lust is burning inside him. Disney had balls back then. I didn't even know wtf he was talking about when I was a kid, I just watched the song and was like "wow this is intense, he mad fr."
For non-villains I'll have to go with Friar Tuck from Robin Hood, but -- damn are we counting like Pocahontas and Moana? Native American and Polynesian religions... okay, okay, so like Grandmother Willow and Maui are on the table, I guess. Shit, what about Hercules. If we include the ancient Mediterranean religions I feel like James Woods' Hades sweeps the floor with everyone.
NOBODY SPOIL SOUL FOR ME I HAVEN'T WATCHED SOUL.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
That right. Picture him.( picture him swaying side to side reallll slow like and his fucking spittng on his fingers and like rubbing each one of his 6 nipples .As he occasionally gasps to gather his breath.
You have some unique ideas about Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
Could any of you perhaps explain the following?Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV):If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.The punishment for rape is paying a fine and then perpetually raping the victim? That is messed up.There is also some stuff about slavery. Take Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV):Anyone who kidnaps someone and either sells them or still has them when they are caught must be put to death. Anyone who kidnaps a man must die. Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a result. However, if the slave recovers after a day or two, they are not to be punished; for the slave is their property.Right from the word of god: people=property. Don't tell me that literal god had to bend his command around the acceptance of mortals. He's god. Also, even if you weren't going do condemn slavery, why do you have to validate it?
A good time to remember that organized religion rarely ever attempts to overturn existing social conventions, only validate and preserve them.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's cuz simply elevating your serotonin or dopamine levels doesn't change everything. Your brain is still wired the way it's wired. Rewiring it will take more than a pill. In my experience, the pill lets you get your head above water. But you still gotta swim to shore.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do whatever's emotionally regulating for you, bruh. Pills and science help considerably, but they can't help you find a grounded belief system to build your peace upon.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The best case for polytheism-satanism and God soldiers of God Satan is here.You cannot believe in God if you yourself arent a God.This is because the only way to determine something as God is to be greater than or equal to it. For example, system for determining truth must always be greater than or equal to the truth it determines. Likewise, the system for determining God must always be equal to or greater than God.For example, the only way to observe a whole object is for observation to be greater than or equal to object.Likewise, it is logically impossible to consider God as the only source of truth. For you to determine that God is the source of truth already by tautology requires you to be able to determine truth, thus negating God as the only source of truth.People can either determine what is true or they cant determine what is true.If they can determine what is true, then God isnt the only one who determines truth.But if they cant determine truth, then they cannot determine God as truth.This applies to morality as well. Humans can either determine what is morally right or they cant. If they can determine what is morally right, then God isnt the only one who can determine what is morally right. But if humans cant determine what is morally right, then they cannot determine that God is morally right.
Am I going crazy or are you actually starting to make sense.
Created:
I really enjoy Reiki. I mean, it's bullshit. But it's, like, calming bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
This is really dumb. You don't rank religions based on how well they keep to some arbitrary subjective understanding of "natural laws."
You rank them based on how good their food is when you attend one of their gatherings.
Created:
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: