I think it's been hijacked by conservatives moreso than Christians. It takes a very specific reading of the Bible to oppose gay marriage and not hold all sorts of weirdly bizarre beliefs like not looking at a woman while she's menstruating, and killing your child if they swear at you. I'm sure there are plenty of progressive Christians who can hold their faith while understanding that the bible was written in a completely alien culture.Sutton Dagger said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusGAF IV - A No Hope, Government - Double the price, region locked and now adults
- Thread starter VOOK
- Start date
Sutton Dagger
Member
Kerrby said:
I'm not calling you out for being a Christian (I should have used the label fundamentalist Christians hijacking the term marriage), I'm calling you out for being a bigot.
Ruthless_Barbarian
Member
I'm glad that I'm an Atheist. Living with 3 housemates who are all Catholics. Oh the fun times I've had.
The first pastor I ever knew tought us from day one 'Yup, just ignore the old testament, especially Leviticus' and posited that all we should get out of Christianity is to not be a dick. I liked that guy - he taught us a bunch of neat shit about buddhism too. Pretty sure the school asked him to leave. Just as well they got in a younger albeit far more fundamental pastor to replace him. Virtually guaranteed that a sizeable chunk of my class graduated completely blasé about spirituality and contemptuous towards organised religion.Fredescu said:
I'm not a Christian, but if you strip away all the supernatural elements and the possibility that Christ was just a charismatic that liked attention, the core message and accompanying examples of 'Don't be a dick to each other' holds value for pretty much anyone regardless of background. That core philosophy runs counter to this entire anti-gay marriage movement.
Surely the supernatural stuff is an inbuilt part of religion anyway? If you strip all that away you're pretty much just left with a philosophy.
Had an interesting conversation with some... can't think of what to call them. Evangelists? Wandering campus the other day. I asked them about this whole morality thing and they said their deal was God first, Morality second, since Morality was just a way to get closer to God. I'm paraphrasing of course so I'm probably missing some subtleties, but that seems to be to be a dangerous way of thinking.
The fuck does that even mean
Had an interesting conversation with some... can't think of what to call them. Evangelists? Wandering campus the other day. I asked them about this whole morality thing and they said their deal was God first, Morality second, since Morality was just a way to get closer to God. I'm paraphrasing of course so I'm probably missing some subtleties, but that seems to be to be a dangerous way of thinking.
Kerrby said:
The fuck does that even mean
Bernbaum said:
That's what we got taught at my catholic highschool, old testament are stories of creation, like dream time stories. New testament are parables to give you guidance in life, simple rules for life: dont steal, dont be a jerk and so on.
we also spent time learning about other religions and their histories.
Catholic High School.
Even if you don't strip it away it's still a form of philosophy.Jintor said:
Yeah, Christianity is all about the primacy of the new testament and WWJD and all that. It's only the power mongers that fear social change that refer to the old testament as if it meant something. If you take the new testament at face value, Jesus was all about social change.Bernbaum said:
I went to one (1) youth group meeting when I was younger, it was with a friend + family member who regularly went, although it was 'my' family church I suppose. We were told flat out that homosexual people were wrong.
Lutheran church, shit yeah. I have no time for intolerance.
And my mother was hurt when we said we weren't getting our child baptised. Heh. He can make his own choices, I am not imposing anything on him.
Lutheran church, shit yeah. I have no time for intolerance.
And my mother was hurt when we said we weren't getting our child baptised. Heh. He can make his own choices, I am not imposing anything on him.
hamchan said:
Yeah, I think it'd be safe to assume that you wouldnt need to subscribe for 1p mode, unless the sub is what nets you all the extra content.
Still, the fact you can "100% the story in solo mode" is the quote that I wanted to hear to assuage the mmo fears. The "also on Wii U" quote is the one that came as a surprise.
in my defence random vince when I posted that first it hadnt been said it was for WiiU ... and the graphics were clearly not next gen lol.
But I'm going to assume it will only come out outside of japan for wiiU, and i'll be keen to give it ago.
p.s. they need to change the WiiU name or risk a 3ds level bomba.
TRUEFACTS.
But I'm going to assume it will only come out outside of japan for wiiU, and i'll be keen to give it ago.
p.s. they need to change the WiiU name or risk a 3ds level bomba.
TRUEFACTS.
Fredescu said:
I'm not going to get into an argument in here, but people who flat out ignore the Old Testament are disingenuous in their beliefs. Obviously a correct reading based on context is hugely important, but simply ignoring it is, as I said, disingenuous, considering Jesus and the authors of the NT quoted it all the time.
I wish GhaleonQ was in AusGAF. He argues this stuff better than me.
Isnt 3DS tracking ahead of DS atm?
Ive heard a few different views on the OT, but I'll short-form them here.
1. Written in Hebrew initially (or whichever languages, some now dead), the OT was and is a lot more 'allegorical' than it is since KJV. So when they mention stuff like power over water and fire etc, they are saying those are traits a godly man would have - not that they literally happened.
2. Didnt Jesus say he was here to fullfil the OT prophecies and was not acting in contradiction of it? ie he wasn't condemning any of it that we rightly find unsavoury nowadays.
3. People who ignore the OT are disingenuous - you don't get to pick and choose what the religion says, but people who believe in the OT and as a whole agree with it are holding dangerous ideas. The OT is full of despicable acts and is quite frankly, morally reprehensible.
But this is only going to end in an argument I have neither the time nor interest in. Not here at least. I'll just leave with one quote which sums up my thoughts on beliefs in general.
"If you have faith, you don't need proof. But if you cannot prove something, why should you believe it?"
Needless to say I find all religions, organised or otherwise to be philosophically and intellectually hollow
. I hold the same ideas about tarot, astrology, scientology, psychics etc.
legend166 said:
Ive heard a few different views on the OT, but I'll short-form them here.
1. Written in Hebrew initially (or whichever languages, some now dead), the OT was and is a lot more 'allegorical' than it is since KJV. So when they mention stuff like power over water and fire etc, they are saying those are traits a godly man would have - not that they literally happened.
2. Didnt Jesus say he was here to fullfil the OT prophecies and was not acting in contradiction of it? ie he wasn't condemning any of it that we rightly find unsavoury nowadays.
3. People who ignore the OT are disingenuous - you don't get to pick and choose what the religion says, but people who believe in the OT and as a whole agree with it are holding dangerous ideas. The OT is full of despicable acts and is quite frankly, morally reprehensible.
But this is only going to end in an argument I have neither the time nor interest in. Not here at least. I'll just leave with one quote which sums up my thoughts on beliefs in general.
"If you have faith, you don't need proof. But if you cannot prove something, why should you believe it?"
Needless to say I find all religions, organised or otherwise to be philosophically and intellectually hollow
broadly speaking - this isn't a statement about moral character of individuals
RandomVince said:
Given a brand new 3ds is ONLY $50 more RRP than a brand new dsi.. you'd sure hope so...
Ydahs said:
If you get up to the bit where you get sealed out of the future time zone (where theyre in the sky) by the queen.. can you tell me what to do after that.. ive walked around for hours lost
I'm suggesting that instead of accepting Christ as a figurehead of a religion (along with all the supernatural trappings) that it's still possible to merely follow the example of someone who was selfless and taught to think of your common man. The fact that someone (son of god or otherwise) held strong altruistic values 2000 years ago speaks volumes about the inherit goodness of the human species.Jintor said:
Despite identifying as 'Christian' up until I was 16, not once did I believe the creation story (a sentiment paralleled by my Lutheran school, family and church) and I never quite understood the chief value of the faith - Christ's sacrifice. The death on the cross was always treated as this amazing event that still affects people emotionally to this day but it went right over my head. No-one has ever explained to me the logic behind how the death of a single figure results in the wiping clean of the slate and all I get are convoluted answers. In the end, that didn't matter to me - we'd go to chapel and the lesson every time was "You're going to do some dumb shit in this life, try not to hurt anyone" and that was a great lesson.
It wasn't until we got a genuine fundamentalist pastor on the scene who scrapped all of that and said 'Nope, all that magic stuff really happened' that I realised I wasn't really a Christian anyways.
I used to think so until I learned he was a pretty bad anti-semite.Omi said:
I was being overly simplistic, mostly based on my ignorance of the subject. If you feel like explaining why there's lots of crazy shit in Leviticus that can be ignored, but others that are relevant, I'd be interested to hear. Do you think that taking the general "Jesus was a cool guy" philosophy, while accepting that stuff like Creation and so forth can't be taken completely literally, is necessarily disingenuous? That is, does your faith require you to agree with the whole framework, or one particular interpretation thereof?legend166 said:
I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just interested!
Maybe. Some would argue that ritual and tradition define religion rather than being necessarily super natural. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanismJintor said:
Bernbaum said:
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that if you don't accept the religious trappings of it than, as you say, you're not really a Christian anyway. The core moral values of Christianity, of do unto others as you would have them do unto you and so on, that stuff's awesome. But without the religious trappings it's not, well, a religion.
What I'm saying is that if you're all up with the moral teachings and not so hot on the mythology then you're probably not a Christian.
I'm actually writing a paper on the High Court's view of this at the moment > >
Well, as an atheist I ignore both testaments in roughly equal measure but one of those tomes clearly has a higher proportion of everyday magic; boring extended family trees; lists of rules about what animals/objects/family members you can't have sex with; and fire and brimstone than the other.legend166 said:
Not sure if I was paying enough attention or not, but Lutherans seem to be all about the New Testament so maybe my experience in the matter is biased in that respect.
Exactly, I'm not. That said, there's lessons in Christ's teachings not because he was sent from heaven but because a core part of his message was forgiveness and kindness to your common man. That's about all I got that I wouldn't have gotten from a state school education.Jintor said:
-
As for a serious chat on religion that is conducted in a respectable manner, I think AusGAF is totally mature and capable of rising above the usual bucket of vile that brings down these discussions in the OT
LOL COCKS
elfinke said:
With bony hands I hold my partner
with soulless feet we cross the floor
the music stops as if to answer
an empty knocking at the door
It seems her skin was sweet as mango
when last I held her to my breast
But now we dance this Grim Fandango
And will four years before we rest.
Ruthless_Barbarian
Member
Who's excited about the Samsung Galaxy Note? The S2's ugly look returns but on a 5.3" S-Amoled dual core 1.4ghz cpu.
Q1 2012 release. No idea when AU will get this.
Q1 2012 release. No idea when AU will get this.
DeathJr said:
Q1 2012 gives me plenty of time to pack on the 50KG I'll need to go up in size of pants that will fit that thing in. /donotwant.
Neither tablet nor phone sized, like the POS Dell Slate or whatever it was.
Galaxy II/iPhone is just about perfect for a phone as far as size is concerned.
Similar threads
- Locked