|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 30, 2024 13:34:17 GMT
|
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 30, 2024 23:40:00 GMT
The problem is that the most laudable qualities demanded by Jesus are the ones generally ignored by so-called christians under the pretext that "it's in the old testament." . Take a look at Jasmine for example. So like all good intentions, the Christian dogma usually paves the road to hell.
|
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 30, 2024 23:43:40 GMT
As a Fyi, I was being allegorical, as a fan of the Bible I think you'll appreciate that.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2024 0:39:43 GMT
The problem is that the most laudable qualities demanded by Jesus are the ones generally ignored by so-called christians under the pretext that "it's in the old testament." . Take a look at Jasmine for example. So like all good intentions, the Christian dogma usually paves the road to hell. But, but what you are describing is not "religious dogma," or, to be more precise, "Christian dogma."
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2024 0:40:29 GMT
As a Fyi, I was being allegorical, as a fan of the Bible I think you'll appreciate that. Not all symbolism is allegory. I don't think there's actually much allegory in the Bible, although there's a whole lot of symbolism.
|
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on May 1, 2024 1:09:10 GMT
As a Fyi, I was being allegorical, as a fan of the Bible I think you'll appreciate that. Not all symbolism is allegory. I don't think there's actually much allegory in the Bible, although there's a whole lot of symbolism. All right, mister nitpicking.😁
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2024 1:10:20 GMT
Not all symbolism is allegory. I don't think there's actually much allegory in the Bible, although there's a whole lot of symbolism. All right, mister nitpicking.😁 Precision in language. Guilty.
|
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on May 1, 2024 1:12:45 GMT
The problem is that the most laudable qualities demanded by Jesus are the ones generally ignored by so-called christians under the pretext that "it's in the old testament." . Take a look at Jasmine for example. So like all good intentions, the Christian dogma usually paves the road to hell. But, but what you are describing is not "religious dogma," or, to be more precise, "Christian dogma." The Christian dogma demands that Christians behave a certain way but it's only partly successful, not the best part though.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2024 1:16:15 GMT
But, but what you are describing is not "religious dogma," or, to be more precise, "Christian dogma." The Christian dogma demands that Christians behave a certain way but it's only partly successful, not the best part though. It's very successful in many cases. Usually doesn't make the news though.
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 2, 2024 16:05:00 GMT
Apologist for Christianity, tied to a biased over-importance of the Christian religion being exclusively capable of conferring morality, is how I read this. I liked when the author commented about the possibility of Jesus actually existing as a regular person, and saying that at a minimum, his message was, 'In common with other rabbis, he expounded Scripture, enjoined his hearers to observe the central elements of Jewish law, and emphasised God’s love for the outcast.' And yet Christians do NOT follow Jewish law. His most basic ask, is not followed. Worse, given the translations of the Testament, which result in misinterpretations of the original text (which Jews still train our children to be able to read), they are not even aware of what those laws actually are. And to see Christianity alone, instead of religion in general, as the sole conferrer of morality through the ages, is a bias and conceit that devout Christians are known for (and identical to the same conceit in Islam, and many other self-important religions). But I do appreciate the author's message that religion is not, and should not be, used to understand the physical universe. It is a misuse of religion. Religion is for our relationship with G-d, and that is all. And what the author does not acknowledge, is that only someone of the author's education, and philosophical open-mindedness (and therefore, not 99.9% of his fellow Christians), do NOT use religion appropriately. They DO use it to understand the physical world. I see you doing so regularly. If the author's message was that RELIGION, and not necessarily Christianity, was a positive, I would agree completely. But you self-proclaimed devout Christians cannot get past the idea that Christianity is somehow beneficially special and unique among religions. It's not. The ONLY part of Christianity that IS special and unique, is the degree of atrocities in history, the amount of suffering it caused, as compared to other religions. That's how it dominated. That is the price you Christians were willing, and are still willing, to pay to be number one. If you cannot own that most basic aspect of your Religion, then you are hypocrites who do not seek the salvation of your fellow person, but instead seek the proliferation of your Religion as a business. Freon
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 2, 2024 16:47:47 GMT
Apologist for Christianity, tied to a biased over-importance of the Christian religion being exclusively capable of conferring morality, is how I read this. I liked when the author commented about the possibility of Jesus actually existing as a regular person, and saying that at a minimum, his message was, 'In common with other rabbis, he expounded Scripture, enjoined his hearers to observe the central elements of Jewish law, and emphasised God’s love for the outcast.' And yet Christians do NOT follow Jewish law. His most basic ask, is not followed. Worse, given the translations of the Testament, which result in misinterpretations of the original text (which Jews still train our children to be able to read), they are not even aware of what those laws actually are. Jesus' primary message was "the Kingdom of God is here," and with it came the expectation of a "new covenant." The early Jesus-followers were not unique amongst 2nd Temple Jews in the expectation that the coming Kingdom (along with its new covenant) would end the law requirements of the first covenant. Jesus claimed to "fulfill" the Law, which was a statement not just of true interpretation, but of embodying the telos of the Law. The expectation Jeremiah offers is that the "Law would be written on human hearts." It's weird that you read in this the claim of exclusive capability of conferring morality. I wonder if you could offer specific quotes that would support your perspective... 1+1=2. There are infinite wrong answers to 1+1. As for "sole conferrer of morality," I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation. This might be the most historically ignorant claim you have ever made on this site. And that's saying something.
|
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on May 2, 2024 17:04:31 GMT
The Christian dogma demands that Christians behave a certain way but it's only partly successful, not the best part though. It's very successful in many cases. Usually doesn't make the news though. Do you believe that jasmine is a true Christian?
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 2, 2024 17:26:14 GMT
Apologist for Christianity, tied to a biased over-importance of the Christian religion being exclusively capable of conferring morality, is how I read this. I liked when the author commented about the possibility of Jesus actually existing as a regular person, and saying that at a minimum, his message was, 'In common with other rabbis, he expounded Scripture, enjoined his hearers to observe the central elements of Jewish law, and emphasised God’s love for the outcast.' And yet Christians do NOT follow Jewish law. His most basic ask, is not followed. Worse, given the translations of the Testament, which result in misinterpretations of the original text (which Jews still train our children to be able to read), they are not even aware of what those laws actually are. Jesus' primary message was "the Kingdom of God is here," and with it came the expectation of a "new covenant." The early Jesus-followers were not unique amongst 2nd Temple Jews in the expectation that the coming Kingdom (along with its new covenant) would end the law requirements of the first covenant. Jesus claimed to "fulfill" the Law, which was a statement not just of true interpretation, but of embodying the telos of the Law. The expectation Jeremiah offers is that the "Law would be written on human hearts." It's weird that you read in this the claim of exclusive capability of conferring morality. I wonder if you could offer specific quotes that would support your perspective... 1+1=2. There are infinite wrong answers to 1+1. As for "sole conferrer of morality," I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation. This might be the most historically ignorant claim you have ever made on this site. And that's saying something. Well, it looks like when you said this author represented many of your views, you did not fully read what their views actually are. Because you are not arguing with me, here, you are arguing with them. As to my perceived ignorance, it's only of the dogma you have embraced so completely, Mercy. You view historical perspectives just like you view the Bible; One version as authoritative, rather than as a possible interpretation. Zero critical thinking that MAYBE, the version you know is just one perspective, but others of equal merit exist and are worth studying and understanding. Your belief that you KNOW the answers of things you cannot possibly know (because no one could have that assuredness unless they were actually there), is what makes your positions so weak. You can share with us what is BELIEVED to be true, what is generally accepted to be true, but not what actually is. They are, for the most part, best guesses. Freon
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 2, 2024 18:56:18 GMT
Jesus' primary message was "the Kingdom of God is here," and with it came the expectation of a "new covenant." The early Jesus-followers were not unique amongst 2nd Temple Jews in the expectation that the coming Kingdom (along with its new covenant) would end the law requirements of the first covenant. Jesus claimed to "fulfill" the Law, which was a statement not just of true interpretation, but of embodying the telos of the Law. The expectation Jeremiah offers is that the "Law would be written on human hearts." It's weird that you read in this the claim of exclusive capability of conferring morality. I wonder if you could offer specific quotes that would support your perspective... 1+1=2. There are infinite wrong answers to 1+1. As for "sole conferrer of morality," I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation. This might be the most historically ignorant claim you have ever made on this site. And that's saying something. Well, it looks like when you said this author represented many of your views, you did not fully read what their views actually are. Because you are not arguing with me, here, you are arguing with them. As to my perceived ignorance, it's only of the dogma you have embraced so completely, Mercy. You view historical perspectives just like you view the Bible; One version as authoritative, rather than as a possible interpretation. Zero critical thinking that MAYBE, the version you know is just one perspective, but others of equal merit exist and are worth studying and understanding. Your belief that you KNOW the answers of things you cannot possibly know (because no one could have that assuredness unless they were actually there), is what makes your positions so weak. You can share with us what is BELIEVED to be true, what is generally accepted to be true, but not what actually is. They are, for the most part, best guesses. Freon What is that dogma again? Specifically? I know there are perspectives on history…there isn’t just “one authoritative timeline”…but not every perspective is true. Napoleon was not born in New Zealand and Einstein was not Nigerian. Even given infinite historical figures perspectives (and there are), both of those particular perspectives are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 2, 2024 19:06:50 GMT
Well, it looks like when you said this author represented many of your views, you did not fully read what their views actually are. Because you are not arguing with me, here, you are arguing with them. As to my perceived ignorance, it's only of the dogma you have embraced so completely, Mercy. You view historical perspectives just like you view the Bible; One version as authoritative, rather than as a possible interpretation. Zero critical thinking that MAYBE, the version you know is just one perspective, but others of equal merit exist and are worth studying and understanding. Your belief that you KNOW the answers of things you cannot possibly know (because no one could have that assuredness unless they were actually there), is what makes your positions so weak. You can share with us what is BELIEVED to be true, what is generally accepted to be true, but not what actually is. They are, for the most part, best guesses. Freon What is that dogma again? Specifically? I know there are perspectives on history…there isn’t just “one authoritative timeline”…but not every perspective is true. Napoleon was not born in New Zealand and Einstein was not Nigerian. Even given infinite historical figures perspectives (and there are), both of those particular perspectives are wrong. Great, now show me even one historical perspective that posits that Napolean was born in New Zealand, or Einstein, in Nigeria. That gross distortion of known history is not what I'm referring to, and you know it. It is more subtle interpretations, or ones from different perspectives, not overt lying, as your example suggests. As to your primary question, what possible answer can I provide that will satisfy you? In essence, what you are asking for is impossible. But you are asking BECAUSE it is impossible, lol. It's a tactic, because you know that whatever I say will intrinsically have holes in it, and you will attack those holes as an argument that my point is not valid. Except it is valid, and your question does not adequately challenge it. You ARE a lover of dogma. What proof do I have? Over seven years of listening to you spew it. Thousands of posts from you. To which you will now ask me to list them for you. Which brings us right back to your original tactic. You are so consistent in your argumentative techniques, I could probably have this conversation with myself, and represent you better than you could. Freon
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 2, 2024 19:34:48 GMT
What is that dogma again? Specifically? I know there are perspectives on history…there isn’t just “one authoritative timeline”…but not every perspective is true. Napoleon was not born in New Zealand and Einstein was not Nigerian. Even given infinite historical figures perspectives (and there are), both of those particular perspectives are wrong. Great, now show me even one historical perspective that posits that Napolean was born in New Zealand, or Einstein, in Nigeria. That gross distortion of known history is not what I'm referring to, and you know it. It is more subtle interpretations, or ones from different perspectives, not overt lying, as your example suggests. Claiming that Christianity is unparalleled as a religious belief in its atrocities is straight up wrong, but you're welcome to try to support the claim...you know, with facts and data. “The more you live in the minds of the Romans, and I think even more the Greeks, the more alien they come to seem, the more frightening they come to seem. And what becomes most frightening really is a kind of quality of callousness that I think is terrifying because it is completely taken for granted. There’s a kind of innocent quality about it, nobody really questions it…Caesar is by some accounts slaughtering a million Gaul’s and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career and far from feeling in anyway embarrassed about this, he’s promoting it, and when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed. This is a really terrifying alien world and the more you look at it, the more you realize that it is built on systematic exploitation… In almost every way, this is a world that is unspeakably cruel to our way of thinking and this worried me more and more.” - Historian Tom Holland
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 2, 2024 19:37:01 GMT
It's very successful in many cases. Usually doesn't make the news though. Do you believe that jasmine is a true Christian? She certainly has perspectives that don't line with Jesus (in my opinion). I will offer the following from the article, though "Human beings are naturally rapacious. We display a dangerous thirst for unreality, which is another way of saying that we are sinners. Often misconstrued as a spurious notion based on moralising dogma, sin is the basic empirical reality that Christian teaching responds to and makes sense of. That is why the correct definition of a Christian is not a good person, but someone who acknowledges their failure to be good."
|
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on May 2, 2024 19:50:57 GMT
Do you believe that jasmine is a true Christian? She certainly has perspectives that don't line with Jesus (in my opinion). I will offer the following from the article, though "Human beings are naturally rapacious. We display a dangerous thirst for unreality, which is another way of saying that we are sinners. Often misconstrued as a spurious notion based on moralising dogma, sin is the basic empirical reality that Christian teaching responds to and makes sense of. That is why the correct definition of a Christian is not a good person, but someone who acknowledges their failure to be good." Everybody does that. So that means that we're all christians? Sarcasm included are... I think it's a rather weak definition of Christianity. It's as if he wanted to make absolutely sure he wasn't leaving anybody behind. Like those politicians who want to appeal to as many people as possible and end up mildly displeasing everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 2, 2024 20:00:14 GMT
She certainly has perspectives that don't line with Jesus (in my opinion). I will offer the following from the article, though "Human beings are naturally rapacious. We display a dangerous thirst for unreality, which is another way of saying that we are sinners. Often misconstrued as a spurious notion based on moralising dogma, sin is the basic empirical reality that Christian teaching responds to and makes sense of. That is why the correct definition of a Christian is not a good person, but someone who acknowledges their failure to be good." Everybody does that. So that means that we're all christians? Sarcasm included are... I think it's a rather weak definition of Christianity. It's as if he wanted to make absolutely sure he wasn't leaving anybody behind. Like those politicians who want to appeal to as many people as possible and end up mildly displeasing everyone. That's not a definition. It's one tiny chunk of the entire article. Maybe...everybody does that. But everybody didn't used to do that. The author, though, is responding to a typical challenge that "Christians think they're so good." Most people, even if they acknowledge themselves as imperfect, still self-identify as "good enough."
|
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,390
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on May 2, 2024 20:03:06 GMT
Everybody does that. So that means that we're all christians? Sarcasm included are... I think it's a rather weak definition of Christianity. It's as if he wanted to make absolutely sure he wasn't leaving anybody behind. Like those politicians who want to appeal to as many people as possible and end up mildly displeasing everyone. That's not a definition. It's one tiny chunk of the entire article. Maybe...everybody does that. But everybody didn't used to do that. The author, though, is responding to a typical challenge that "Christians think they're so good." Most people, even if they acknowledge themselves as imperfect, still self-identify as "good enough." I don't.
|
|