Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

The most productive religious debate I have ever got intonwas on youtube, funnily enough. It lasted 2 weeks over one video of protracted debate, and by the end the only thing we could claim was that we understood there were fundamental principles neither of us agreed on that had made argument almost pointless. In that example, at the very least we came to understand one another, here you're preaching to a choir.
Philosophy is great to discuss, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter whether we do not exist or whether we are sapient or god created the universe.  Philosophy cannot provide these answers as adequately as they could have, and we must still act as we do now with the certainty and conviction that this univrse and we are real etc.

[TD1]

Yes, and debate and learning arguments contrary to your own belief is completely pointless. No one really needs to broaden their horizons.

[Helgoland]

The whole point of the Christian religion is that it's absolutist. If the facts change what is the validity of it?

You, dear sir, are clearly not Catholic. You need to approach the bible in a 1984 kind of way - leave out the bits that don't fit your narrative, then establish that narrative as the only valid one, keeping up the pretense of absoluteness despite all the changes that are made by and by.

If it wasn't clear: I support this approach, despite the 1984 reference.

[Loud Whispers]

Yes, and debate and learning arguments contrary to your own belief is completely pointless. No one really needs to broaden their horizons.

You are still just preaching to the choir, no one is having their beliefs challenged.

[Knit tie]

Yea, "Evolving truth" and all that.

Also, there are significant "plot holes" in the bible.

Those aren't plot holes, those are the plot. It's a redemption story about how a malevolent, vengeful deity came to live as a human and learned the true meaning of friendship, only to be killed by those who had followed it back before it turned over a new leaf~

Yes, actually, the main point of Jesus's crucifixion is that he suffered so that every other human won't have to. Before that, God hated us all just because our ancestor ate that bloody apple and was significantly less willing to forgive other sins. And his modus operandi had been pretty much "test people's faith by ordering them to do absolutely counterintuitive things and then brutally punish those who fail."

The whole point of the Christian religion is that it's absolutist. If the facts change what is the validity of it?

You, dear sir, are clearly not Catholic. You need to approach the bible in a 1984 kind of way - leave out the bits that don't fit your narrative, then establish that narrative as the only valid one, keeping up the pretense of absoluteness despite all the changes that are made by and by.

If it wasn't clear: I support this approach, despite the 1984 reference.

This is what happens when you take the bible at face value.

[Tiruin]

Yea, "Evolving truth" and all that.

Also, there are significant "plot holes" in the bible.

Those aren't plot holes, those are the plot. It's a redemption story about how a malevolent, vengeful deity came to live as a human and learned the true meaning of friendship, only to be killed by those who had followed it back before it turned over a new leaf~

Yes, actually, the main point of Jesus's crucifixion is that he suffered so that every other human won't have to. Before that, God hated us all just because our ancestor ate that bloody apple and was significantly less willing to forgive other sins. And his modus operandi had been pretty much "test people's faith by ordering them to do absolutely counterintuitive things and then brutally punish those who fail."

...Err, not really. He didn't hate us. He hated the attitude :v

This is what happens when you take the bible at face value.

It can be interpreted. Many of the contexts there were for the people in their time, but it is understood if not taken literally. [Also the bible was never explicitly against homosexuality though. That was inferred by ...blatantly many people who didn't like or didn't understand it. :^]

I love the last 2 paragraphs of that article. xD

[My Name is Immaterial]

This may or may not be relevant.

[Loud Whispers]

Technically not an apple,, just a generic fruit. Its also obvious god wanted man to eat from the tree of knowledge, and all of man's sufferings have also brought him closer to the other aspect to godhood: immortality.
God be meta yo

[My Name is Immaterial]

Even that is a little iffy, because important figures like Abraham and Noah lived for 1000+ years.

[Knit tie]

Yea, "Evolving truth" and all that.

Also, there are significant "plot holes" in the bible.

Those aren't plot holes, those are the plot. It's a redemption story about how a malevolent, vengeful deity came to live as a human and learned the true meaning of friendship, only to be killed by those who had followed it back before it turned over a new leaf~

Yes, actually, the main point of Jesus's crucifixion is that he suffered so that every other human won't have to. Before that, God hated us all just because our ancestor ate that bloody apple and was significantly less willing to forgive other sins. And his modus operandi had been pretty much "test people's faith by ordering them to do absolutely counterintuitive things and then brutally punish those who fail."

...Err, not really. He didn't hate us. He hated the attitude :v

We practice different variants of Christianity, what can I say?

This is what happens when you take the bible at face value.

It can be interpreted. Many of the contexts there were for the people in their time, but it is understood if not taken literally. [Also the bible was never explicitly against homosexuality though. That was inferred by ...blatantly many people who didn't like or didn't understand it. :^]

I love the last 2 paragraphs of that article. xD

Every work of literature in general can and should be interpreted.

[scrdest]

Technically not an apple,, just a generic fruit. Its also obvious god wanted man to eat from the tree of knowledge, and all of man's sufferings have also brought him closer to the other aspect to godhood: immortality.
God be meta yo

You do know that according to Bible humans WERE immortal before they ate the fruit? And lived absurdly long for the next few generations.

[Frumple]

...Err, not really. He didn't hate us. He hated the attitude :v

I'll admit, I've never really figured out the functional difference between the two. It's always been a sort of "I don't hate you, I just hate who you are." Considering that, in practice, you and your behavioral patterns (attitude, etc.) are identical, it's... pretty much the same thing.

[My Name is Immaterial]

...Err, not really. He didn't hate us. He hated the attitude :v

I'll admit, I've never really figured out the functional difference between the two. It's always been a sort of "I don't hate you, I just hate who you are." Considering that, in practice, you and your behavioral patterns (attitude, etc.) are identical, it's... pretty much the same thing.

"I like your body, but you're a total dick."
Which gets exponentially wierder when you factor in the fact that God created us in his image.

[Helgoland]

Why? He's a dick, we are dicks, everyone's a dick. Pretty consistent, actually.


Anyways...

John 6:53-66 – You should eat Jesus, because it will make you more holy.

Matthew 25:45 – You should treat other people other people like you would treat Jesus. So, eating them is definitely an option.

Matthew 27:52-53 – Holy people broke out of their tombs, and visit the people of Jerusalem. Since it is a holy act to eat people, this is basically biblical evidence of a zombie attack.

[TD1]

Not Roman Catholic, true. I was brought up a Protestant in the Church of Ireland. Which is, to say, practically the Church of England.

If that is how the Bible must be approached, I see no reason to approach it at all. If your law must be shaped from an external source to match that of your internal thoughts, I see no point.

If religion changes, that is fine, I do not mind, and in fact believe it must in order to survive. But that very change suggests that any truth it may have had is long gone.

Yes, and debate and learning arguments contrary to your own belief is completely pointless. No one really needs to broaden their horizons.

You are still just preaching to the choir, no one is having their beliefs challenged.

If you followed your own somewhat counterproductive logic, you wouldn't be arguing with me.

As for the Bible on homosexuality (And I most certainly do not agree with the view expressed):
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet"

As for God creating us in his image, Irenaeas says it was a two stage process: first, being in the likeness of God, and only after hardship and death, becoming like God.

Edit: There were a lot of ninjas :/