Total posts: 1,732
Posted in:
-->
@Girraficus
Applying any factor or value of Christianity will improve any area of your life
In the context of the 10 commandments, only the first 2 are exclusively Christian. Suffice to say, results vary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Jews delegitimized Jesus. They should be held accountable.
Yikes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Girraficus
Thought crimes, eh? I am glad I do not subscribe to that notion.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Haha! If you say so! Im not on-board with communism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Your karma is shaped by your actions.
I'm not convinced of that claim. There are too many evil people in powerful positions for me to accept karma is a real and significant factor in reality.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Communism is a political and economic ideology advocating for a classless, stateless, and moneyless society. Its core principle is the collective ownership of the means of production (e.g., factories, land, and resources), where wealth is distributed based on individual need rather than labor output.
That's not relevant to my posts...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Bible is the history of the Jews and their struggles with their God.
That description would better fit the Tanakh. Jews do not consider the New Testamanet, famously of the Bible, to be authoritative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@UltimateTrueKorea
wrong
A need is a fundamental requirement for survival. A morally good act can be something like 'fair play'. No one *needs* fair play, but it is good nonetheless. Again, good is not the same thing as 'fulfillment of needs' . You seriously need to re-evaulaute the premises you are using to support your conclusion because it is hanging out there in open air with no support.
Tl;dr - OP premises do not lead to OP conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Girraficus
Christianity is the most archaeological proven religion
Maybe, but only if we excuse the archeologically disproven parts like Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Girraficus
Everybody has broken every single commandment in their life, perhaps even every year, or even month, I’d even push some every week
How many people have you murdered?!
Created:
-->
@Savant
Hiring is not exploitation. Getting rich while your employees scrape by is exploitation. It's not complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@UltimateTrueKorea
P1. No, it doesn't
P2. Thats not valid
P2. Thats not valid
P3. Not necessarily.
P4. No, it doesn't
P5. Just...no.
Good=/=fulfillment of needs
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
that looks like a deflection. ancient historicans did refer to him as a magician.
It's not a deflection. I'm pointing out the standard you're appealing to isn't good.
if someone is willing to die for their faith, they probably have a good reason for why they'd make that sacrifice
They *think* they have a good reason which isn't the same thing as having a good reason. Again, dying for your beliefs doesnt mean there was any veracity to them.
and the part you didn't quote which is a stronger point, is that the apostles had first hand witness to the events, not just stupid fanatics who die for a random belief.
I addressed the assumptions built into this:
1. We have no confirmed first hand accounts from the apostles. The Gospels aren't eye-witness accounts.
2. We have no confirmation all of the apostles were 'killed for Jesus'. Church tradition lays out contradictory deaths for the apostles. Some martyrdom accounts, if not all, are false.
people generally dont make mistakes in that nature that cost their lives
It's a common phenomena actually... 9/11 terrorists, Jonetown, Heavens Gate, Branch Davidians, etc.
do you think the willingness to die due their first hand accounts have anything to do with church tradition?
It is your assumption all the apostles were martyred. I do not share it. Church tradition serves the church and does not always align with history or truth.
Ultimately, these assumptions are irrelevant because martyrdom doesn't speak to the veracity of beliefs.
was jesus a cult leader
Define "cult leader".
most people aren't stupid enough to fall for cult hucksters,
I don't think people in cults are necessarily stupid. I don't think you should either.
it isn't likely that histroicans would record the cult leader as a historical figure and record the deeds the cult leader are said to have performed.
Not only is it likely - it has happened. Josephus lists several including Theudas (Also mentioned in ACTS 5:36)
were other false messiahs recorded by historicans?
I'm guessing you didn't mean to say Jesus was a false messiah! 😏
History records plenty of people who've claimed to be Jesus or the Christ.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
historians from antiquity sometimes referred to jesus as a magician
You know what modern historians don't attribute to historical figures? Magic. There's a good reason for that.
someone who is willing to die for their faith, it bolsters what they say. i understand people die for their faith all the time, and some of those faiths are untrue.. but it's still indiciative of soemthing when someone dies for their faith.
This is incoherent. You're agreeing with me AND suggesting dying for your beliefs points to factuality. You can't have it both ways.
Clearly, death for beliefs has absolutely no relevance to the truth of those beliefs. There are countless examples of people dying for beliefs that we know to be absolutely bogus. (Heavensgate, Jonestown, etc.)
it seems far fetched that someone would happen to have a seizure when as far as we can tell, they were otherwise healthy, that just happens to lead to him being a central figure in the worlds most dominate religion.
I don't think so. A seizure would explain the vision, the blindness, and the change of heart afterwards. It's certainly more plausible than the alternative.
you haven't pin pointed a good motive in why they would lie about supernatural claims.
I think maybe you didn't understand what I said. I didn't claim early believers were generally lying about Jesus. I said the opposite - early followers believed their testimony. That's not to say their testimony accurately reflected reality. Add to that legendary accretion as time passes and Jesus becomes more and more extraordinary. Again, we can see this occuring with modern figures. Who knows, in a thousand years, Elvis or Dwayne Johnson might be considered a deity.
their first hand testimony and willingness to die for their faith is compelling.
FYI, legendary accretion also applies to the apostles. The martyrdom of the apostles is a church tradition. There are multiple (and contradictory) martyrdom stories for some of the apostles - different churches have different death stories for their apostolic heroes.
Furthermore, the gospels are not thought, at least not by critical scholars, to be eye-witness accounts. That is another 'church tradition' with questionable relation to reality.
Created:
It seems OP is interested in proselytizing rather than debate. That makes this thread much less interesting for me.
there's an element of "i want to believe"
For what it's worth, faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. There is nothing faith cannot 'justify', even contradictory views, and that is the problem with it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No. We need to rewrite history so that we look like the good guys.
That's definitely not a new phenomena....
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sometimes history needs to be changed to suit today's goals.
...or to reflect what actually happened rather than an agenda of generations passed.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I wouldn't be surprised if an iterant Jewish rabbi with a devoted following was crucified around 33CE. I wouldnt be surprised if people made supernatural claims about him. That happens today with modern figures. Supernatural claims, from any time period, I do not believe.
To answer specific questions, people die for things they believe. Sometimes those beliefs have no basis in reality. I see no reason why deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus are different or special in that regard.
I don't have any strong opinions on Paul, but I have found seizure to be a compelling explanation of his Demascus road experience.
I don't tend to think the early followers of Jesus were 'lying'. Someone might have told a lie, but for the most part I accept they believed their testimony. I just don't believe their testimony, at least, not the supernatural parts. I see no good reason why it should be accepted at face value.
To answer specific questions, people die for things they believe. Sometimes those beliefs have no basis in reality. I see no reason why deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus are different or special in that regard.
I don't have any strong opinions on Paul, but I have found seizure to be a compelling explanation of his Demascus road experience.
I don't tend to think the early followers of Jesus were 'lying'. Someone might have told a lie, but for the most part I accept they believed their testimony. I just don't believe their testimony, at least, not the supernatural parts. I see no good reason why it should be accepted at face value.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Out of all the hackneyed phrases to gain popularity in the last decade, this deliberate cop out for an actual argument and a blank justification for any unsubstantiated claim is my pet peeve.
That would be a great response if I hadn't provided the historical precedents providing context. Words and phrases have connotations built on previous usage. Previous usage of this phrase ("when the looting starts, the shooting starts") is ugly.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
'When the looting starts, the shooting starts' has a well established racial component to it historically. Plus, this isn't the first time Trump has uttered this sentiment in a context where the perception was non-whites would be on the receiving end of hot lead.
This is a dog whistle.
You're too smart to play this dumb.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Lol, that would explain so much.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you say so. Maybe you should go take another look at my OR. Besides that, my response is fully relevant in that it points to groups of people in power who are vocal advocates for marginalization of out-groups.
You're railing against 'authoritarian Democrats angling for marshal law' while simultaneously cheering the notion of roving badged executioners. It looks like cognitive dissonance from here. Maybe you'll explain how you sync those views.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, that's a nice troll response (and conversation stopper).
My work is done here. 😉
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I bet I am more white than you.
I, on the other hand, am pure pale vampire white color like human is supposed to be
Lol, well, I guess you win! 😄
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm a straight white male. 🙄
Im not a huge fan of racists, bigots, or fascists though...not even the ones that look like me.
Im not a huge fan of racists, bigots, or fascists though...not even the ones that look like me.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Christian God owns humans, so everything he does to humans is good and not evil.
1. Asserted without evidence. Dismissed without evidence.
2. 'Owning humans' would be inconsistent with a god defined to be omnibenevolent and omniscient.
3. Ownership does not make everything done to property "good".
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Really? It's usual in a presidential election that candidates make promises impossible to keep
It is usual for candidates to make appeals to the desires of the electorate. It is not uncommon for those appeals to be beyond what can be delivered. What is new is that some candidates are completely willing to let their fascism flag fly.
Then, it is true that americans don't give a shit about human rights, don't they? What about black people rights to loot? :)
A subset of the Republican party doesn't give a shit about certain groups of humans that are not male, not white, and/or not Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Jesus was God. He was not "a Jew". Jesus established new law that has nothing to do with Jewish laws.
Your'e being disengenous. I'm pointing out how Jesus did not meet the contemporary standards of his religion and time period. Youre judging Jesus by an unquestionable dogma which says Jesus could do no wrong.
If you want to appeal to dogma as the standard, then you don't really need to ask any questions because the answers don't matter and the points are made up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
New Testament changed the rules for Sabbath.
Maybe for Christians, but not for Jews. Jesus was a Jew.
Just FYI, the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the life of Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So the judge is a solid Democrat? Noted.
Lol, if you say so. I'm not following the case as closely as some.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Jesus worked on the Sabbath.
Exodus 34:21 - the law
Matthew 12:9-13- breaking the law
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Poor Hunter can't catch a break. Those evil Repugs won't rest till Hunter is under the jail.
If he committed a crime, he should face the consequences. ....accountability seems to be a common aspiration on the left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Thank you for sharing your understanding of Christianity. Your version of Christianity does contradict science. I mean, take your last answer, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Clearly, you believe something that is in conflict with not just science but reality itself:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Do you want me to go through every single verse in the Bible?
No, but I would like you to answer any of my questions. You're being coy about how you interpret the Bible. From my perspective, you started the conversation and now you're avoiding it. I'm not here to force you to share you're beliefs. You either want to or you don't. It makes no difference to me. I've attached my questions below. Feel free to address any or all of them at your discretion.
how do you understand the Bible? Did the creation stories in Genesis happen thousands of years ago? Did Jacob's flock get their spots by way of colorful wood? Did the Earth really stop spinning? Can donkeys and snakes talk? Was the flood global? What is the smallest seed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The bible has many books.
Agreed.
In the verses I believe that there are certain context clues that help Christians to understand what parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and what parts are to be taken metaphorically.
Agreed by all.
But nonetheless, it is not smart to assume that the whole bible is to be either taken with a more literal approach, or with a more metaphorical approach
Agreed.
Now that we've covered all the talking points- how do you understand the Bible? Did the creation stories in Genesis happen thousands of years ago? Did Jacob's flock get their spots by way of colorful wood? Did the Earth really stop spinning? Can donkeys and snakes talk? Was the flood global? What is the smallest seed?
Any 'yes' answer would contradict what we know scientifically about the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What Christianity are we talking about?Well, why would you assume that a book has to only either be taken literally, or only be taken metaphorically?
That doesn't answer the question. Quite obviously, there are different heuristics for various Christian sects. Some prefer a more literal interpretation while others, probably recognizing irreconcilable issues this causes, lean more liberal.
Which Christianity is OP referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Whether science and Christianity contradict depends entirely on how literally the Bible is being taken. An unbending literal reading produces many contradictions. A liberal reading can be made to work with science.
What Christianity are we talking about?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Two options:
1. Heterosexual are jerks.
2. Homosexuals are trying to make heterosexuals looks bad ...I mean, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Kim Jong Un are fabulous names when you think about it. 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Absolutely - without hesitation........................you know he literally can't talk, walk, or be a normal human being, right?
He seemed to do fine at the State of the Union when he sparred with Republicans and won.
Besides that, a chewed piece of gum would be a better choice than some of the Republican candidates - it wouldn't be actively working to undermine what the electorate wants, rights in general, and/or our form of government.
'Biden can't talk' - lol, gtfo of here with that weak talking point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Republicans are much too extreme currently. I anticipate voting Dem.So, you would vote for Biden, over any Republican Canidate?
Absolutely - without hesitation.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't recall saying that in this thread. Could you provide a quote?Here's the quote:there is a natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs.We don't need to have a discussion on rights to recognize the life of the mother is of primary importance.
None of which says anything about my view of a zygote not being human or a human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Republicans are much too extreme currently. I anticipate voting Dem.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you believe a zygote isn't a human being, a lot of people believe that,
I don't recall saying that in this thread. Could you provide a quote?
The life of the zygote is secondary to the life of the body sustaining its life.This argument only works for abortion needed to save the mother's life
You misunderstand. I am pointing out that the dichotomy you've built between the rights isn't necessarily true. We don't need to have a discussion on rights to recognize the life of the mother is of primary importance. A [natural] pregnancy isn't going to succeed without a body to sustain it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is the natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs. Your hierarchy describes an extinct species.
I've not suggested the life of a zygote should always be extinguished, only that it is secondary to the life that sustains it. You are arguing against a position which I have not represented.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your pro choice and believe a zygote is a human being, you believe bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life.
There is a third option: there is a natural hierarchy between woman and zygote which requires no choices or beliefs. The life of the zygote is secondary to the life of the body sustaining its life. This is a biological fact. That being the case, a zygote's right to life cannot take priority to the life (and rights attached to that life) required for it's existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I stopped reading after the first few headings didn't support the title. The Gish Gallop is on point though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You've created a paradox. A place where people can be unnecessarily harmed is not perfect, yet you call it paradise. I think you're overlooking a crucial trait to true paradise: safety.
Being able to live together in large groups has many benefits which all become null and void if living together in groups is a greater hazard than living alone. This is the basis for morality. Group life requires a certain etiquette to work.
Being able to live together in large groups has many benefits which all become null and void if living together in groups is a greater hazard than living alone. This is the basis for morality. Group life requires a certain etiquette to work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
My position: "Everyone should abort", means that I am not causing more pain than I am removing
No, that is not what your syllogism is stating in the OP. It states everyone should abort because... pain. I'm not convinced life is pain.
As for not causing more pain than removing - How we can know a potential life is going to be more about pain than joy? Perhaps a given abortion is removing more happiness than pain.
Ultimately, if someone is an antinatalist, they should look into birth control. I mean, shouldn't the strength of their convictions keep them from potentially bringing new life into a 'world of misery'?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I see no good reason to abort because of the potential for pain in general. If you could make a case that there would be significantly more pain than happiness, then maybe I could be persuaded.
Created:
I think the alcohol makes those unattractive people attractive, hence people who drunk alcohol are actually attracted those people.
This underscores my point. Alcohol has been helping people score with those who would not be interested if sober.
I'm not sure people having sex out of loneliness is a thing. Do you have any research on this topic?
Lonely people craving intimacy are prone to lowering their standards. Wouldn't you agree?
Keep in mind that we're talking about homosexuals having heterosexual sex of their own volition, not people who are forced in arranged marriages (wherein there are probably instances of people having sex with others they are not attracted to).
Why would we discount forced marriages and cultural influences? Obviously, homosexuals forced into sex with heterosexuals will propagate homosexuality (assuming heredity).
Created: