-
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.
Is it outrageous for me to feel that God would have done far better waiting until Modern times to do the Jesus/Muhammad stuff?
- Thread starter PleaseDontBanMe
- Start date
haxan7
Banned
Not sure if I agree 100% with that. It sounds like a way to get duped into believing any random interpretation of events. When you go with the construct of religion you’re trusting generations of your ancestors.
ÆMNE22A!C
NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
That's very sweet and wholesome but also naief af.
haxan7
Banned
You must not be very familiar with me if you think I'm sweet and wholesome.
ÆMNE22A!C
NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
He has to serve his Lord. It's not a Lord WE know though.
QuantumZebra
Member
I'm not sure how to break this to you... but Jesus wasn't white.
QuantumZebra
Member
That's what gets me about religion and the concept of an omnipotent god, yet adhering to the Bible.
If god is all-seeing/all-knowing, how come he set all this stuff in place in the Old Testament era and then went "aw shit it's not working out, floods didn't work, etc... gonna have to create a magic son to get murdered by these folks so that everyone who believes him is saved" - at best that's insanity. At worst, also insanity.
(FYI I'm not an atheist, I believe in a god-consciousness - a gendered god makes no sense as a god doesn't need to reproduce sexually)
ÆMNE22A!C
NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
I don't want to drop the P word in regards to people getting systematically duped. But it's more or less the same thing regarding religion. It's a construct based on being knowfully selective (stemming from a myriad of reasons, none if mostly not benovolent) interpretation of their initial teachings (religion) to keep a certain deeply ingrained mindset for their people that would benefit their respective narrative to profit from. To think the passing down ie reinterpretation of the initial teaching hasn't been fucked with throughout all the years no matter the reasons behind said eventual altering is very naive.
Thanks in advance to whomever that try's to read my post beyond experiencing my lack of base grammar ☆
To be clear, I adhere to no relegion. I just like to think and in this case comment about stuff I've thought about. Nothing personal at all. Just farting thoughts.
Last edited:
haxan7
Banned
I gave up on the idea that I'm capable of figuring those kind of big picture things out a long time ago (and I don't want to). I take comfort in knowing that no matter what I believe, it doesn't change what's real or not real.I don't want to drop the P word in regards to people getting systematically duped. But it's more or less the same thing regarding religion. It's a construct based on being knowfully selective (stemming from a myriad of reasons, none if mostly not benovolent) interpretation of their initial teachings (religion) to keep a certain deeply ingrained mindset for their people that would benefit their respective narrative to profit from. To think the passing down ie reinterpretation of the initial teaching hasn't been fucked with throughout all the years no matter the reasons behind said eventual altering is very naive.
Thanks in advance to whomever that try's to read my post beyond experiencing my lack of base grammar ☆
To be clear, I adhere to no relegion. I just like to think and in this case comment about stuff I've thought about. Nothing personal at all. Just farting thoughts.
mango drank
Member
ÆMNE22A!C
NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
Sure, that's very much out of our hands. That's why I called you wholesome, not for who you are (like you mentioned I wouldn't know) but for your seemingly subconscious trust you mention to go by. And that's not a dig at you. We should be entitled to those we trust to have the (general) evolution of humankind as a priority. Sadly that's not the case as we all can see.
Also,
haxan7
naive wasn't meant in a negative way. I myself am naive in the way that I expect people have sincerely good intentions when in the end they don't.. It's more about being loving and kind and automatically expecting the same from others.. Naive is not being aware there's a bad side.
So my apologies good sir
Last edited:
Trogdor1123
Gold Member
It would be worse now... And in 2 thousand years you would have the exact same issues... But hopefully no twitter!
GeorgPrime
Banned
haxan7
Banned
Evolution of humankind looks like it's going pretty damn well to me.
QuantumZebra
Member
Yup lol
ÆMNE22A!C
NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
I've never said the opposite my friend. I feel my skill of the English language isn't adequate enough to participate further with our back and forth. Your reactions make me feel I haven't explained myself good enough seeing your responses... Anyways, you hyped about RE Village? =P JK
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
The Bible also says don't eat shrimp, don't eat pork, wearing clothes made from two different fibers is naughty, gay sex is bad, menstruating women are dirty and shouldn't be touched, and that it's okay to beat your slaves as long as they don't die from it.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If that's the case, then it's God's intention that His word is unclear and inaccessible to most humans throughout time and space (depending on your beliefs, that puts most of the humans to ever have existed into Hell through no fault of their own).
A creator that knows every in and out and possibility and is not limited by time or space knows how to craft a perfectly comprehensible and persuasive argument that is 100% effective on 100% of humans. Since that is not the case, the creator you speak of either actually is limited by time or space, or, is intentionally deceiving us AKA lying to us.
Taxexemption
Member
The left would hate him just as much if not more. John the Baptist was beheaded for complaining about sexual morals, specifically divorce. It would be the united leadership of the left and right that would crucify him. The Bible is very clear, God hates divorce. He wouldn't be okay with all of this contraception either.
There are more options. You have to study a well developed theology like Catholicism. God judges what is on a person's heart, and it's not a completely clear cut and dry thing. Alternatively, he knows what is on your heart, so if you reject correct moral teachings for selfish reasons rather than what you believe to be right logic/reason than you will rightfully be judged for it.
Catholic moral teachings are based on natural law, and if you ask the simple question of "what is good" and apply logical principles to the natural world you can come up with secular arguments for the churches teachings.
daveonezero
Banned
I'm super new to this but my understanding and way of thinking it is it was never supposed to be perfect. It is just supposed to BE or just exist.
And also I don't think that the floods and things were a punishment. It is just what happened, I don't know if the Bible is actually saying God said "oh i fucked this up start over". Or if it was "this shit is going to get fucked up Moses and I planned the start over and you have to do some crazy shit"
Is it unclear? How do you know it is wrong to violate another human being? It is never ok to rape murder and steal . So what is unclear and wehre is that message coming from?
I for one don't know the answer to the "if you aren't aware of Christianity can you be saved" issue. That is something I struggle with.
That would require knowing what happens when we die.
Last edited:
jufonuk
not tag worthy
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Like what?
Why would you need to do that to understand the perfect word of God? Shouldn't it be perfectly understandable? This goes to the point I was making in my post.
How do you know that's true? Other Christian denominations might not agree on that. Are they not following God's word? Are they not Christians? Are they wrong? How do you tell the difference?
Hydelol
Banned
If you couldn't tell, I was referencing one of the 10 Commandments, which are a pretty good standard to live by even if you are not a christian. And it seems you cannot grasp the concept of a sarcastic undertone, since people put belief and covid in the same sentence. But do continue and pray to your virus overlords.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
There’s a sense of gods in Dragon Ball super all you see is god level fighters
Taxexemption
Member
You don't really need to understand every aspect of it. You do need to study a well developed theology if you want to understand something like "God doesn't judge everyone by exactly the same standard because we aren't all capable of exactly the same things, and our life circumstances may make us more or less likely to understand something." You have to study if you want to have a nuanced and accurate take on morality.
I came to consider the Catholic church when I was an atheist and was studying deeply different theories on sexual morality. I came to believe that what the Catholic church teaches is objectively right, and then I found out that it was the only Christian church that had a consistent teaching on the issue, and there are very old writings giving logical explanations as to why what the church teaches is correct. Knowing that only one organization had the correct teaching in the modern era piqued my interest, and so I started to study the history of the church. What I learned convinced me that Jesus Christ did in fact found the Catholic church.
Other people with different beliefs may be Christian, they may be followers of Christ, but they don't have the full story.
Rat Rage
Member
Nah, the invention of religion served its purpose and helped to introduce some pretty good moral guidlines during a time when society was very primitive, all nicely wrapped into imaginary stories that induced enough fear, so a large number of people would actually obey them. It also helped people to cope with their existential fears of death, superstition, and gave them easy to understand explenations of the universe, so they didn't have to fear the unknown anymore.
If somebody went on a mountain today, came back and claimed he saw an angel or god, nobody would believe him and - for sure - nobody would follow him (except a few crazy people).
If somebody went on a mountain today, came back and claimed he saw an angel or god, nobody would believe him and - for sure - nobody would follow him (except a few crazy people).
Last edited:
arkhamguy123
Banned
He's not real. It doesn't matter. That's like asking "why doesn't green lantern just live full time on Oa? Why even bother with coast city? I don't get it!"
It's fiction.
It's fiction.
darkangel-212559
Banned
Well actually the first prophet to actually transmit the the word of G-D in a clear and revealed way to an entire nation was Moses. Let's actually give credit where credit is due shall we.
Before Moses there was Abraham and Noah, but they would communicate monotheism, ethics and morals to singular people. So while they were also Prophets, it was with Moses that G-D was actually clearly revealed.
Before Moses there was Abraham and Noah, but they would communicate monotheism, ethics and morals to singular people. So while they were also Prophets, it was with Moses that G-D was actually clearly revealed.
Last edited:
ArtemisClydeFrog
Banned
It's the internet, you can spell out god
*Nightwing
Banned
I believe the point of any religion is to have faith in those moments when you don’t have any tangible proof to guide you. Topic Kinda defeats the purpose no?
IMO Old Testament relates to the lack of civility of humans at the time, New Testament reflects the contemporary time of emerging civility in civilization, and the godlessness of today accurately reflect the hedonistic times we live in. God knows what they are doing far better than we do
IMO Old Testament relates to the lack of civility of humans at the time, New Testament reflects the contemporary time of emerging civility in civilization, and the godlessness of today accurately reflect the hedonistic times we live in. God knows what they are doing far better than we do
showernota
Member
It would be pretty incredible if the cohesive narrative and consistent internal logic of 66 books written by 40 authors over thousands of years was accidental, and based on mistranslation hundreds of years later. There are 2nd/3rd century manuscripts of the new testament (much of which was originally written, and available in Greek) that leave no reason to consider anything was changed from the original autographs.
What revisions are you talking about? There are differing translations based on the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. They agree in all cases doctrinally, nothing has been changed. You can learn Greek and Hebrew and confirm it all yourself.
Most people don't have this excuse anymore, Jesus is the most well known figure in human history. However, there is a provision:
The Hamburglar
Banned
Please dont put Jesus and Mohammad in the same breathe.
Whether Jesus had magic or not. The guy literally devoted his adult life to helping others, assuming he was real.
the other was a 7th century warlord who took Christianity and concocted a religion to further his own political ambitions, which included mass slaughter.
Hmm I wonder how a man ‘dreaming of angels’ and slaughtering to thousands, while saying but peace would go down in 2021. Not well.
Whether Jesus had magic or not. The guy literally devoted his adult life to helping others, assuming he was real.
the other was a 7th century warlord who took Christianity and concocted a religion to further his own political ambitions, which included mass slaughter.
Hmm I wonder how a man ‘dreaming of angels’ and slaughtering to thousands, while saying but peace would go down in 2021. Not well.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Pimping slavery in the current climate probably wouldn’t go down as well.
darkangel-212559
Banned
I'm a religous Jew. In Judaism we have a prohibiton to not spell out the full name of G-D, to avoid the risk of erasing it of which we have sources from in The Torah.
There are numerous sources that also discuss why its disrespectful to do so in any language. Therefore I don't spell out the entire word.
Last edited:
Taxexemption
Member
Not really. Yeah Jesus would have a lot of negative things to say about the way people treat sex and relationships, he'd also have plenty to say about how employers treat workers, and how our society treats the poor. He would be calling a lot of people on both sides hypocrites. If you think Jesus is basically just a standard Republican you have no idea.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Apparently. If the word of God was crystal clear, there wouldn't be a thousand different denominations of Christianity, or Jew and Christians existing at the same time. Either the Jews didn't get the message yet, or the Christians picked the wrong messiah.
Are you asking about me personally, or people in general? For me personally, I know it's wrong because I have a set of principles I abide by that value things like happiness, social cohesion, personal freedom/liberty, and individual rights. Violating another human being is obviously counterproductive to those goals.
According to you or according to God?
In the Bible, Lot offers his daughters up to get raped by the town.
In the Bible, the "punishment" for a rapist is to marry his victim. Or to get stoned if he raped her outside of a town, or for BOTH to get stoned if it occurred within a city.
In the Bible, God murders the first born sons of Egypt. He drowns the entire world in a flood. He commands the Israelites to murder and genocide the Canaanites.
Thou shalt not steal, but what if you are extremely poor and take something in an act of desperation? What if you are in the middle of a disaster, and loot from a store in order to feed your family in this emergency? Is it still never ok?
Apparently everything, because, as I said, we wouldn't be needing this conversation if everything was so clear.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I could tell.
Sorta, but not really.
I grasped it. Does my answer somehow not do you sarcastic undertone justice?
Um, what?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Most people do. Just because people have heard the name "Jesus", doesn't mean they've heard the gospel or even understand it. Also, tell that to the billions of humans who existed in the 100,000 years before the birth of Christ.
That doesn't solve anything. Are you claiming that you can reject the divinity of Christ, but still go to heaven, as long as you're a "good" person?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
That's convenient. Ignorance is not a virtue.
Where does it say that in the Bible?
Why? The perfect word of God should be "perfectly" clear. He knows how to make it perfectly clear, yet He does not. Why?
That's great for you, but you didn't show what it was specifically that makes the Catholics "correct" or "objectively right". Their opinions on sexuality is not a good reason. Catholics don't believe in contraception, which is objectively bad for sexual health. Gay sex is a sin for no good reason. If the Catholic way was so righteous and perfect, then why are there so many pedophile priests in the church, and why did the church try to cover it up instead of bringing the wicked to justice?
They all say the same thing about you. How is a third party neutral observer supposed to determine which one is right?
Taxexemption
Member
I'm not saying ignorance is a virtue, I'm saying that a persons moral culpability is at least somewhat dependent on their understanding of their actions. I wouldn't judge someone who is mentally handicapped and took an action the same way I would someone who isn't. In the same way, a person that understands what they do is wrong is more culpable than someone who doesn't. Or in your world is someone who does something not understanding that it is harmful just as morally culpable as someone who understands it is harmful, and chooses to do it anyways because they think the harm they cause others is amusing, or simply disregards that their actions hurt others? Is there no sliding scale anywhere that depends on what a person actually understands to be the truth?
As for where it says that in the Bible, nice sola scriptura. Can you identify your denomination?
Contraception is morally wrong. People who do not accept this from what I've seen do not do so for logical reasons, but instead because they cannot accept that it is morally wrong to coom in women they don't care about and use them for their pleasure. Contraception teaches men to see women merely as objects of pleasure. If you cared about love, truth, beauty, you would take great efforts to focus your life on finding someone that you care about enough that if you conceived a child with them you would be happy. Contraception is in complete opposition to this, and allows people to engage in emotionally and physically risky behavior because they incorrectly think there are no consequences.
Gay sex goes against natural law and in the case of anal sex, that is the riskiest sexual activity that people partake in. I could imagine a purely secular government outlawing anal sex as a way to combat HIV.
As to pedophile priests in the church, the belief that this is more common in the catholic church is a myth. Every institution that deals with children has pedophiles, including public schools. Of Jesus 12 apostles, one of them betrayed him. This was foreshadowing into the fact that people fundamentally have disordered passions, and that in the church there would be people who do not believe but are there either because of what they can gain from being in the church or otherwise because of their passions they will take immoral actions completely contradictory to church teachings. No organization run by humans is free from people who will commit gravely immoral acts.
A third party neutral observer would study this, and I believe if they were truly neutral they would come to the same conclusion.
We'd probably further along without the dark ages happening.
Are you talking about the theory that christianity made romans weak and susceptible to invasion? I'm not really sure that can be true since they evolved into the super religious byzantine empire.
That said the renaissance wouldnt have happened without the Islamic golden age and the church transcribing latin all day. So either way religion can be used to both destroy and elevate civilizations.
Last edited:
Dav-Kripler
Member
Maybe he did 
