|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 18:47:24 GMT
And yet the people in that religion that has evolved away from what YOU think Christianity is, consider themselves Christian. You are still make ing the same fallacy. Look I get it, Hitler was a shit Christian, it would be great if we could denounce him from Christianity but we cant chooose what Christianity is, those that profess to follow the belief system are Christian, unless of course they are actually lying for some reason. i never said something can evolve and remain unchanged, I am pointing out that you are committing the fallacy I initially described by painting yourself as the arbiter of what is and what is not Christian. I think admin believes Christianity is a whole-cloth revelation handed down from God to a few men during a short window in the 1st century. Saint Paul is the person Jesus himself communicated most with telling him how to run the church and what people should believe about him. So that is the original Christianity and it hasn’t evolved. Could be, and I guess that is the view of a lot of Catholics and of course many Christians (and other religions I suppose) deny that other people who identify as Christian are because of some doctrinal difference. I think we have spoken about this before, but I think all legit religions are simply cultural ways of telling the same truth, and often when you look into the actual thing they are describing it is often the same.
Having said that there would be no extant Christianity of the sort you describe, even catholicism has evolved, in fact papal infallibility assures it's evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 18:10:11 GMT
And yet your post quite clearly said: Which is you choosing what is and what is not Christianity. Which is the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy as I said in my first response to you. I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said it's no longer Christianity if it has evolved into something else, I wasn't defining it. That applies to literally anything that evolves into something else, and I apologize for thinking that didn't need to be said. The baby rapers and kitty burners exaggerate the point. Changing your perspective about something doesn't actually change it, and we don't determine what Christianity is. Jesus did that. (Well, sort of, IMO. See comment above about "founding Christianity.") So to say Christianity has evolved into something else (for instance, support for baby raping) is to say it's no longer in line with Jesus himself. And to say that something can evolve while remaining unchanged is to admit a complete lack of understanding of what it means to evolve. And yet the people in that religion that has evolved away from what YOU think Christianity is, consider themselves Christian. You are still make ing the same fallacy. Look I get it, Hitler was a shit Christian, it would be great if we could denounce him from Christianity but we cant chooose what Christianity is, those that profess to follow the belief system are Christian, unless of course they are actually lying for some reason. i never said something can evolve and remain unchanged, I am pointing out that you are committing the fallacy I initially described by painting yourself as the arbiter of what is and what is not Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 4:57:16 GMT
And yet your post quite clearly said: Which is you choosing what is and what is not Christianity. Which is the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy as I said in my first response to you. You can say Christianity advocates raping children and setting kittens on fire if you want to, but I wouldn't agree at this time. Maybe tomorrow when some Christian pisses me off. Missing the point, I know what I think Christianity is, and I adhere to that. What you are saying is that some people who belong to Christian sects are not Christian, which is the very definition of No True Scotsman. Or to put it another way, I think Erjen has (had) a terrible theological understanding and he advocated things that I feel no Christian would, he also felt the same about me, but I have to accept that he believes himself to be Christian otherwise I am commiting the no true scotsman fallacy. This is not a fallacy about doctrinal agreement, it is a fallacy around identification of sects based on our personal doctrinal position.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 4:47:17 GMT
I'm not one to say who is or isn't a "True Christian" or even if there is such a thing, but it seems to me that if you're raping children and setting kittens on fire and other bad things of that nature, you would probably only be considered one by those who think your actions actually square with anything Jesus said. And yet your post quite clearly said: Which is you choosing what is and what is not Christianity. Which is the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy as I said in my first response to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 4:14:02 GMT
I read from that that you think of Christianity as monolithic. The evolution has formed many sects, some I would call good, some bad, much like any person. I am not a catholic Priest so I dont pretend to speak for Jesus, but I would say he would approve of some sects and disapprove of others. I am not making moral judgements in what I said, I am simply pointing out that ideas (like religions) evolve just as much as other things, and since evolution is a natural process it is not concerned with the morality of that evolution. Like I said to Novastar above, Christianity is a simple concept: Be kind to others. If it means something else today due to the evolving ideas and religions of Man, it's no longer Christianity. More specifically, if I were to believe Christianity itself has evolved into something it wasn't to begin with, I would actually be replacing it with something else. And just for good measure, I might even berate those who say I did. And as I intimated in my first post, your stance has to devolve into the no true scotsman fallacy. Which begs the question who are you to determine what Christianity is.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 15, 2021 0:06:30 GMT
That there are of course some priests who molest children, just as there are in every walk of life, and sure it's more abhorrent if someone in the sort of power situation as a priest abuses that power like that, but I would challenge you to find a church or sect that preaches pedophilia. In the context of our conversation I would not consider pedophilia as 'church behaviour' more as individual behaviour. Having said that there is clearly some evolution of church behaviour in some sects that seeks to cover this individual behaviour up, so in that way some sects of Christianity have evolved to implicilty support pedophilia. Do you think that if Jesus himself were to show up on our doorstep today, he would be pleased with this so-called "evolution of Christianity"? I read from that that you think of Christianity as monolithic. The evolution has formed many sects, some I would call good, some bad, much like any person. I am not a catholic Priest so I dont pretend to speak for Jesus, but I would say he would approve of some sects and disapprove of others. I am not making moral judgements in what I said, I am simply pointing out that ideas (like religions) evolve just as much as other things, and since evolution is a natural process it is not concerned with the morality of that evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 14, 2021 21:31:43 GMT
I'm not really sure how that relates, I mean I understand that a lot of churches and sects are Christianity that either you or I might dislike, and I guess it probably goes both ways, but my point is that the expression of Christianity in all it's sects is a direct result of it's evolution, and (since we are using that analogy) speciation. your response did not really give me anything to work with.
What would you say to someone who says Christianity has evolved into pedophilia and presents those priests as evidence? That there are of course some priests who molest children, just as there are in every walk of life, and sure it's more abhorrent if someone in the sort of power situation as a priest abuses that power like that, but I would challenge you to find a church or sect that preaches pedophilia. In the context of our conversation I would not consider pedophilia as 'church behaviour' more as individual behaviour. Having said that there is clearly some evolution of church behaviour in some sects that seeks to cover this individual behaviour up, so in that way some sects of Christianity have evolved to implicilty support pedophilia.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 14, 2021 18:40:39 GMT
Church behaviour IS an evolution of Christianity, I feel like any other stance is just a no scotsman lite. Sure, and pedophile priests are its posterchild.  I'm not really sure how that relates, I mean I understand that a lot of churches and sects are Christianity that either you or I might dislike, and I guess it probably goes both ways, but my point is that the expression of Christianity in all it's sects is a direct result of it's evolution, and (since we are using that analogy) speciation.
your response did not really give me anything to work with.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 14, 2021 5:48:05 GMT
I couldn’t pick an option as Wiles’s theology is consistent with much historical Church behavior since this religion became the force of spiritual power in the late Roman Empire. As Christianity evolved over the next few centuries, it became less and less concerned with actual living the Kingdom of God as Jesus laid it out and became more inline with pagan attitudes of tribalism and their aggrievements and revenge against other tribes. You're confusing "Church behavior" for Christianity. If the OP is any indication, it's not an evolution of Christianity; it's a perversion of it. Church behaviour IS an evolution of Christianity, I feel like any other stance is just a no scotsman lite.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 13, 2021 22:11:06 GMT
I wanted to say that this is inconsistent with ANY Christian belief, sadly my fellow Christians are often clowns so this is not the case.
This guy is clearly very sick, he should not be out of an asylum, let alone speaking with any authority
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 12, 2021 20:13:15 GMT
"Daughter and father are now the subject of harassment, including death threats, from the highly-Christian community."
And this should surprise...no one.
At least they're just threats. Look what the nice Roman Catholic Church did to the Cathars. And they were just a different version of Christian.
OMG, yet another example of the demonization of an 'other'. How can anyone claim that any sect is the only, perfect sect? This just says to me that it is all manmade. Any one that does not accept that religion is man made is fool9in9g themselves. I mean for us as believers it is a human way of interpreting the great truth, but it's so clearly culturally informed that to suggest that the explanation is anything other than a cultural lens on observation interpreted by man is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 12, 2021 0:09:57 GMT
I don't get the one about the stuttering Jesus. Where he says 'Did I stutter'? It's a take on that trope where (often men ) say to their partners, fetch me food and shut up and they complain and the partner says did I stutter, they did quite a good one on the take on the orville
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 6, 2021 22:59:52 GMT
Im really sorry
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2021 6:39:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2021 1:02:20 GMT
I would be interested how much we have lost, like we have the gospels, but why is there not a mundane account as you say it seems like there would be. I am firmly in the camp of person who we called jesus exists, but after the fact many incorrect things were attributed to him, but it seems like we are missing the mundane gospels. and on the third day, Jesus washed his hair cos he met a chick and verily did want a date. you know? Watch this documentary when you get a chance. The theory discussed in it has been around a long time, but has generally been kept to the back of biblical scholarship. It makes plausible sense if we keep in mind people then are little different than people now. But already I do love that every single image of Jesus, is sexy white Jesus. No wonder he is famous, he would have stood out like a pork stall at a bah mitzvah in 1st century Palestine.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2021 1:00:48 GMT
I would be interested how much we have lost, like we have the gospels, but why is there not a mundane account as you say it seems like there would be. I am firmly in the camp of person who we called jesus exists, but after the fact many incorrect things were attributed to him, but it seems like we are missing the mundane gospels. and on the third day, Jesus washed his hair cos he met a chick and verily did want a date. you know? Watch this documentary when you get a chance. The theory discussed in it has been around a long time, but has generally been kept to the back of biblical scholarship. It makes plausible sense if we keep in mind people then are little different than people now. I must tell you I really want to watch that, but at an hour 46 I must fear it will be low on my list, I am on practicum as well as raising a daughter, I got 10 minutes for a quick cone before bed to myself yesterday  But I will try to remember to come back.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2021 0:42:53 GMT
Establishing the historical existence of Jesus does not establish his divinity or the Christian’s right to establish a government, either peaceful or violently, based on his divine teachings. Even if a person who generally fits the biblical description of the 1st century Jewish prophet was a real historical individual, there are a lot of historical inaccuracies written about him in the Bible considered as holy facts by the faithful, like the slaughter of the first born male babies ordered by Herod, that just ain’t so. Anything that egregious and ordered by a king would have certainly been recorded elsewhere. By Jesus’ era, written reports about such things were common, so there is no reason to accept the Slaughter of the Innocents as an historical fact. Ancient Judea was not a backwater, but a thriving part of the young Roman Empire with lots of literate people, not just Jews, living there. And they wrote shit down. Jesus was a contemporary of the great rabbis Hillel and Shammai and they are even referenced in the gospels. The historian Philo was also a contemporary and lived in nearby Egypt and even he only references Jesus obliquely. But none of them talk about the events surrounding Jesus’ life. I would be interested how much we have lost, like we have the gospels, but why is there not a mundane account as you say it seems like there would be. I am firmly in the camp of person who we called jesus exists, but after the fact many incorrect things were attributed to him, but it seems like we are missing the mundane gospels. and on the third day, Jesus washed his hair cos he met a chick and verily did want a date. you know?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2021 0:21:57 GMT
Gosh. "He" is me. I have a Masters Degree in English. I'm also a published writer, with work in the Sydney Morning Herald, Slate, Huffington Post and Bloomberg. So, what exactly made you think I write and argue "like someone with no formal education"? Details please. I'm not your editor, if you're happy with it then more power to you. I was really interested in this exchange, tell me please what formal qualifications allow you to render this judgement?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 28, 2021 22:35:37 GMT
NO... As part of the people's "Freedom Of Religion" rights... They have a right to believe in Jesus if they want, whether you like it or not... And you don't have the right to MAKE them think otherwise... So stop being a bigot against those who are religious... and go stuff your Anti-Jesus Anti-Bible thumping shit, back where the sun don't shine. I think you missed the point, the part you are quoting is saying we should dump the idea that Jesus was in total a myth, and that the evidence suggests that the bible Jesus narrative was at least inspired by a real person.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 28, 2021 22:00:14 GMT
Yes i belive that Jesus was an historical person that did exist. And as far as i know most historians does think Jesus did exist. But i don`t belive he was the son of God and did miracles and stood up from the dead after three days. That is exactly the case, historians largely agree that a prophet (lets call him Jesus) was chugging around palestine in the 1st century (or thereabouts) and that his teachings inspired the religion of Christianity. This speaks nothing to the claims of miracles or the like attributed to the (almost certainly ) fictional character of Jesus as portrayed in the bible.
|
|
