The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Chinking your glasses and highfiving is physically communicating and celebrating with real people in the real world and has social purpose.

The openly cannibalistic theme of communion is appalling and yuck. The real stupidity of it is the irony of how disrespectful it is to Jesus and degrading it is to the followers. It's all very disturbing. I mean it's literally a cult run by a pedo hierarchy. One of their favourite forms of art is naked babies(cherubs) ffs.

Right, so its the cannibalistic aspect, got'cha.  Well shit, we live in a society that eats meat and wears dead animal skin to keep us warm so we're not ever so far from the real thing as a species, though clearly Ronald McDonalds cow farm is not populated by human beings.  Its just something that stands for something, I don't really find it objectionable.  And cherubs aren't babies, they're angels...of a sort.  Whys it anymore objectionable than an mermaid? 

[Len Cnut]

14 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I remember from mass that the pastor drinks from this big cup while he is preparing the communion, and then he gives the bread but he's not selling anything else. And I'm not one to miss free booze. 

There's fuckin' vodka and 7 UP in his one I bet. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

Chinking your glasses and highfiving is physically communicating and celebrating with real people in the real world and has social purpose.

The openly cannibalistic theme of communion is appalling and yuck. The real stupidity of it is the irony of how disrespectful it is to Jesus and degrading it is to the followers. It's all very disturbing. I mean it's literally a cult run by a pedo hierarchy. One of their favourite forms of art is naked babies(cherubs) ffs.

Ok... 

We do this because its WHAT Jesus commanded in the Gospels themselves. In the bread of life discourse (from the Gospel of John), the original Greek translations for "He who eats the flesh of the Son of man and drinks his blood will have eternal life." I'm paraphrasing, but you get my point. Anyways, that's the English translation. But in the original Greek when it says "Eat" it LITERALLY translates to gnaw. That's is why Catholics take it literally, because Christ meant it literally. It wasnt a parable (as some would have you believe). You dont "gnaw" on a parable. You "gnaw" on something literal. 

It's also why Christ was literally the "fulfillment" of the scriptures. Everything repeats itself. The Jews got manna in the desert in order to live. But they still died (in the end). We need the bread of life in order to live forever (heaven), which Jesus CLEARLY states his flesh is the bread and you need it in order to have everlasting life. It is also why at the last super when Jesus said "This is my body... This is my Blood.." etc. The Apostles didnt question it, because he already prepared them for it earlier. Which it all happened during the passover feast. I could go on and on... It's all relative man.

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Because they are proven to be a pedo hierarchy and they happen to display naked babies. They look like babies. A rose by any other name.

I don't understand how everyone on the planet doesn't find it all appalling.

What, cuz they covered up the fact that priests fucking kids, even as it got more and more prevalent?  All that means is that a lot of dirty bastards became priests and repressed sexuality can lead down some fuckin' dark paths, that don't mean to say its a pedo hierachy, it doesn't celebrate, encourage, condone or prescribe pedophilia, its something that has occured with great frequency under their umbrella that they are really embarassed and ashamed of and rightly so, don't mean to say its like a pedophilic religion, all catholics shouldn't have to suffer for the fucked up actions of the guys doin' the fucked up shit, thats just not fair. 

The existence of cherubs in catholic theology and art is as much an indicator of their being a pedophilic religion (looking back you did say pedophilic heirachy, which is two different things but either way the analogy stands) than the fact that barely legal porn is popular means that 'x' country is a nation of pedos.

[EvanG]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

There's fuckin' vodka and 7 UP in his one I bet. 

Then I'm even more bummed for missing out. If they offered the good stuff, I would have been in church every saturday evening before going out back in the day. It could work... usually you start your evening by drinking at home before going out because it's cheaper, but now kids will go to church to get the buzz going.

In all seriousness, I'm curious though, Mikey, at what point do they give wine? I've never had the pleasure of experiencing that.

[Iron MikeyJ]

@EvanG,

you can chew on it if you want to. Most people just let it dissolve, yes. But you can chew it and eat it quickly if you want to. 

Seriously where are you getting all this stuff??? Somebody has given you some false information my friend.

[EvanG]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

@EvanG,

you can chew on it if you want to. Most people just let it dissolve, yes. But you can chew it and eat it quickly if you want to. 

Seriously where are you getting all this stuff??? Somebody has given you some false information my friend.

My mom told me... and I'm sure she got it from her parents. So you're saying that for generations we have been doing it wrong in my family? Well, that's a kicker.

[Iron MikeyJ]

14 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Isn't it a proven fact they just highjacked the pagan holiday?

No. That's not true at all... That's people spreading false information as fact. 

Does the Roman Pagan holiday of Saturnalia happen in December? Yes. But it's over by Decemeber 23rd. As I said there is historical documentation that puts Christs birth sometime between Decemeber 20th and like January 5th (or so).

[Iron MikeyJ]

Just now, EvanG said:

My mom told me... and I'm sure she got it from her parents. So you're saying that for generations we have been doing it wrong in my family? Well, that's a kicker.

Like I said the LITERAL Greek translation says "gnaw". So I'm sure you can chew it if you want to.

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Like I said the LITERAL Greek translation says "gnaw". So I'm sure you can chew it if you want to.

I guess that makes sense... I remember always looking around and never seeing people having trouble with it, while I had the hardest time swallowing it, usually it got stuck to my palate, or worse, my throat.

[Iron MikeyJ]

3 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

You don't know that Jesus didn't mean it metaphorically or even that he said that since the Bible has been written and edited by many people over many years.

I would start with the Didache (written around 50 A.D.) Its literally called the "Teachings of the 12 Apostles" it discusses the Eucharists. I would also point out that the MAJORITY of Christianity believes in the real presence of the Eucharist. Catholics, Orthadox, etc, etc. Bascially it was a GIVEN that it IS his body and his blood for 1,500 years. It wasnt until the Protestant reformation that it was even challenged. 

I would also point out that Last Supper happend during the passover. Which Christ WAS the Passover Lamb (hence why he was called the Lamb of God). Which the Jewish people have VERY specific guidelines on how to prepare the passover lamb. It all connects.

[Len Cnut]

16 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

They're not too ashamed. They legally bully families of their victims and systematically protect the priests who are caught doing it.

I had no idea about that.  The legally bully bit.  Though I guess if they're fighting allegations legally then that shit can get messy.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Iron MikeyJ]

31 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

If you ever look into it you will see.

They're scum of the Earth. All the regular non-pedo Catholics are like a big distraction. If all the followers vanished suddenly people would be saying hang on...

I mean imagine if there was a building down your street that had been there since time and memoria that housed a group of people who were systemically abusing and raping kids - but lots of normal people visit.

I'm sorry you feel this way.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, soon said:

You are again applying a worldly sesinibilty like if you break a rule in a corporation they fire you.

But morality is a worldly thing! And it can be measured using worldly metrics. Like giving to charity, being kind, altruism, etc. We are not talking about what happens to christians in the afterworld. Christians are supposed to be good right now, right here on earth. They even have rules regarding it. Yet there is no evidence that suggests they are, more than the rest of us.

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

And this is funny how?

Not a fan of black humour?

The poor christians thought the bread had already started transmutating into the flesh of christ, so they ate it eagerly and got sick 

[soon]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

But morality is a worldly thing! And it can be measured using worldly metrics. Like giving to charity, being kind, altruism, etc. We are not talking about what happens to christians in the afterworld. Christians are supposed to be good right now, right here on earth. They even have rules regarding it. Yet there is no evidence that suggests they are, more than the rest of us.

As I've already said, coming to Christ is a bold admission of ones own shortcomings.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

As I've already said, coming to Christ is a bold admission of ones own shortcomings.

Amen.

Edited December 11, 2018 by SoulMonster

[Iron MikeyJ]

27 minutes ago, soon said:

As I've already said, coming to Christ is a bold admission of ones own shortcomings.

That's true

[SoulMonster]

21 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

That's true

So is seeking a psychiatrist.

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

We are a lot more knowledgeable. And generally speaking, theism, and any other belief in the supernatural, does not thrive in knowledgeable, rational societies. If you are going to believe in bullshit, it really helps if you are ignorant (or stupid). 

Back when chrstianity evolved from judaism, people weren't by far as knowledgeable as we are today, and theisms could exploit this ignorance by presenting answers to all we didn't know - the god of the gaps (in our knowledge) theory. 

As I said, christianity didn't appeal as much to knowledgeable, intelligent people (because it isn't a knowledgable, intelligent religion), but to people who wanted hope, social salvation, and identity. 

 

This is anachronistic drivel. 

[SoulMonster]

26 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

This is anachronistic drivel. 

This is typical of you when you just don't like what I write, instead of pointing out where I am wrong and presenting a better explanation, you dismiss it altogether 

1. We ARE a lot more knowledgeable today than 2000 years ago. I shouldn't really have to emphasize this because it should be obvious to anyone, but you have such an antipathy for modern society and such an infatuation with the classical period (even to the extent of once arguing that people in the Roman Empire was better off than humans in the 21st century) that I wouldn't be surprised if you would emphatically argue that people knew more in the iron age than they do today.

2. Theism, and other forms of supernatural beliefs, does not thrive in enlightened societies. That is why there is a positive correlation between how educated one is, and how likely one is to be an atheist. That is why there is an inverse positive correlation between GDP and religiosity. That is why there is an inverse correlation between Nobel laureates and religiosity. Etc. If you happen to be very knowledgeable about the world, then it is less likely you are very religious. Not necessarily because wise people see through the nonsense of theism, but because they happen to have good, natural alternative answers to many of the supernatural answers provided by theisms.

3. So yes, if you want to be a theist it really does help to be ignorant or unintelligent. Not saying it is a prerequisite, just that it helps.

4. Theisms HAVE exploited our lack of knowledge. One might argue that religions were developed to provide us with answers to questions that gnawed us but for which we had no other answers. God would be a go-to explanation for everything that was mysterious. Of course, our scientific efforts have chipped away at that, repeatedly presenting entirely logical, natural alternative explanations, and hence there are fewer places for god to hide. The gaps are closing in. And less and less people believe in gods.

5. And christianity wasn't an intellectual reformation. Christianity didn't make any more intellectual sense than its predecessor, judaism, or pagan theisms that christianity would out-compete. Christianity really isn't a religion that is known for its internal logic. As quite a few church fathers have said, and I paraphrase, it really helps if one doesn't think too much about it  The main difference was that christianity opened up for gentiles, it was socially inclusive, and that it was a religion aimed at social reform. But there was many other reasons why early christianity grew rapidly, some of which we have touched upon before like what it offered to its followers and the fact that it became persecuted.

But yeah, this is all just "anachronistic drivel"

Edited December 11, 2018 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

This is typical of you when you just don't like what I write, instead of pointing out where I am wrong and presenting a better explanation, you dismiss it altogether 

1. We ARE a lot more knowledgeable today than 2000 years ago. I shouldn't really have to emphasize this because it should be obvious to anyone, but you have such an antipathy for modern society and such an infatuation with the classical period (even to the extent of once arguing that people in the Roman Empire was better off than humans in the 21st century) that I wouldn't be surprised if you would emphatically argue that people knew more in the iron age than they do today.

2. Theism, and other forms of supernatural beliefs, does not thrive in enlightened societies. That is why there is a positive correlation between how educated one is, and how likely one is to be an atheist. That is why there is an inverse positive correlation between GDP and religiosity. That is why there is an inverse correlation between Nobel laureates and religiosity. Etc. If you happen to be very knowledgeable about the world, then it is less likely you are very religious. Not necessarily because wise people see through the nonsense of theism, but because they happen to have good, natural alternative answers to many of the supernatural answers provided by theisms.

3. So yes, if you want to be a theist it really does help to be ignorant or unintelligent. Not saying it is a prerequisite, just that it helps.

4. Theisms HAVE exploited our lack of knowledge. One might argue that religions were developed to provide us with answers to questions that gnawed us but for which we had no other answers. God would be a go-to explanation for everything that was mysterious. Of course, our scientific efforts have chipped away at that, repeatedly presenting entirely logical, natural alternative explanations, and hence there are fewer places for god to hide. The gaps are closing in. And less and less people believe in gods.

5. And christianity wasn't an intellectual reformation. Christianity didn't make any more intellectual sense than its predecessor, judaism, or pagan theisms that christianity would out-compete. Christianity really isn't a religion that is known for its internal logic. As quite a few church fathers have said, and I paraphrase, it really helps if one doesn't think too much about it  The main difference was that christianity opened up for gentiles, it was socially inclusive, and that it was a religion aimed at social reform. But there was many other reasons why early christianity grew rapidly, some of which we have touched upon before like what it offered to its followers and the fact that it became persecuted.

But yeah, this is all just "anachronistic drivel"

Absolute drivel and I'll explain why. 

Firstly, the Graeco-Roman world was indeed highly intelligent, laying down the foundations of western philosophy, science, history, geography, art and architecture - this was almost certainly the western world's ''golden age'', an age unrivaled in intellectual accomplishments until at least the Renaissance of the 15th century. If Christianity was going to flourish in the ''less enlightened'' areas of the known world, it would have sought converts in/outside the periphery of the Roman Empire, among the Germans and Slavs perhaps, not among the great cosmopolitan communities of the Greek east and Latin West! These early Christian communities were often literate and seemingly bilingual (Hebrew, Koine Greek, Aramaic and Latin), proselytizing among the Roman senatorial and equestrian classes. Secondly, you would struggle to find a more questioning world than the world in which Christianity proliferated from the birth of Christ to the Conversion of Constantine; polytheism, rather than adored with any amount of religious zeal, seemingly existed as mere patriotic state ritual (e.g., Jupiter Capitolinus); the gods and goddesses were routinely mocked in satirical verse and upon graffiti (as evident in Pompeii); Graeco-Roman gods were forced to compete with a multitude of ''trendier'' deities from the east, Mithras, Cybele, etc. Agnosticism was prevalent and atheism attested - I'm sure you have heard of Epicureans?

Thirdly - and this is your anachronism in an overly neat narrative of an uneducated world being more susceptible to Christianity (unlike our own) - the Romano-Greek world did withstand Christianity! Christianity was persecuted until the Edict of Milan 313. In other words Christianity, a religion comprising about 5% of the extent population at the time of Constantine the Great so very much still a minority religion, was actively persecuted for circa 300 years following the birth of Christ! It didn't become a state religion until 380!

The flaws in your argument are apparent, unless of course the ancients were enlightened and knowledgeable until 312, only for their education system to suddenly collapse, their brains fried by too much reality-tv and American wrestling maybe, in 313? 

It is a possibility I suppose!

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Absolute drivel and I'll explain why. 

Firstly, the Graeco-Roman world was indeed highly intelligent, laying down the foundations of western philosophy, science, history, geography, art and architecture - this was almost certainly the western world's ''golden age'', an age unrivaled in intellectual accomplishments until at least the Renaissance of the 15th century. If Christianity was going to flourish in the ''less enlightened'' areas of the known world, it would have sought converts in/outside the periphery of the Roman Empire, among the Germans and Slavs perhaps, not among the great cosmopolitan communities of the Greek east and Latin West! These early Christian communities were often literate and seemingly bilingual (Hebrew, Koine Greek, Aramaic and Latin). Secondly, you would struggle to find a more questioning world than the world in which Christianity proliferated from the birth of Christ to the Conversion of Constantine; polytheism, rather than adored with any amount of religious zeal, seemingly existed as mere patriotic state ritual (e.g., Jupiter Capitolinus); the gods and goddesses were routinely mocked in satirical verse and upon graffiti (as evident in Pompeii); Graeco-Roman gods were forced to compete with a multitude of ''trendier'' deities from the east, Mithras, Cybele, etc. Agnosticism was prevalent and atheism attested - I'm sure you have heard of Epicureans?

Thirdly - and this is your anachronism in an overly neat narrative of an uneducated world being more susceptible to Christianity (unlike our own) - the Romano-Greek world did withstand Christianity! Christianity was persecuted until the Edict of Milan 313. In other words Christianity, a religion comprising about 5% of the extent population at the time of Constantine the Great so very much still a minority religion, was actively persecuted for circa 300 years following the birth of Christ! It didn't become a state religion until 380!

The flaws in your argument are apparent, unless of course the ancients were enlightened and knowledgeable until 312, only for their education system to suddenly collapse, their brains fried by too much reality-tv and American wrestling maybe, in 313? 

It is a possibility I suppose!

 

I don't think you have understood much of what I have written  Which of my points above was this rambling post meant to disagree with? The fact that we know more today than we did 2000 years ago?  The fact that theism is inversely correlated with various indicators of knowledge? The fact that theists used to use god as an explanation for what they didn't understand? Or the fact that christianity wasn't an intellectual reformation as much as a social reformation and that is also spread because if was open to gentiles? Because it seems like you are arguing against something else than my post; maybe you are arguing against what you think I wrote or what you simply hoped I wrote?

[DieselDaisy]

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think you have understood much of what I have written  Which of my points above was this rambling post meant to disagree with? The fact that we know more today than we did 2000 years ago?  The fact that theism is inversely correlated with various indicators of knowledge? The fact that theists used to use god as an explanation for what they didn't understand? Or the fact that christianity wasn't an intellectual reformation as much as a social reformation and that is also spread because if was open to gentiles? Because it seems like you are arguing against something else than my post; maybe you are arguing against what you think I wrote or what you simply hoped I wrote?

The classic Soul, destroyed in an argument so denies the relevancy and says you ''rambled on'', riposte haha.

I'll boil it down to two simple sentences, the latter an interrogative,

- If Christianity was only successful proselytizing among the ignorant/uneducated as you claimed, it certainly wouldn't have acquired converts among the denizens of Early-Middle Roman Empire. 

- If that society was so superstitious, unsophisticated, lacking in knowledge (in comparison to our own), then why did that society actively resist Christianity for the first 300 years of Christianity's existence?

In fact, Rome, for three hundred years, was far superior resisting Christianity than today's world in which Christianity is successfully proselytizing in Asia and Africa, places like China and South Korea, in unprecedented numbers!

''Superstitious, uneducated, unenlightened'' Rome successfully resisted Christianity far better than today haha!

Your whole theory has just collapsed. 

Edited December 11, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The classic Soul, destroyed in an argument so denies the relevancy and says you ''rambled on'', riposte haha.

I'll boil it down to two simple sentences, the latter an interrogative,

- If Christianity was only successful proselytizing among the ignorant/uneducated as you claimed, it certainly wouldn't have acquired converts among the denizens of Early-Middle Roman Empire. 

- If that society was so superstitious, unsophisticated, lacking in knowledge (in comparison to our own), then why did that society actively resist Christianity for the first 300 years of Christianity's existence?

In fact, Rome, for three hundred years, was far superior resisting Christianity than today's world in which Christianity is successfully proselytizing in Asia and Africa, places like China and South Korea, in unprecedented numbers!

''Superstitious, uneducated, unenlightened'' Rome successfully resisted Christianity far better than today haha!

Your whole theory has just collapsed. 

But I haven't claimed that "Christianity was only successful proselytizing among the ignorant/educated […]". This is you not understanding what I write

As for why the Roman Empire resisted christianity? Again, entirely irrelevant to all of my five points, but okay: Well, it didn't . Early christianity spread rather quickly in the Roman Empire. It sure helped when that Emperor converted, but it spread before that too, in the underground. 

Please go back to my 5 points and tell me which one you disagree with and why, instead of paraphrasing what you think I wrote or what you think I argue. It simply doesn't work very well. There are 5 concise points. Read them carefully and then try to actually argue against them if you happen to disagree. I will even post them again for you (and if you read them carefully, which I sincerely hope you will do this time, you will see there is nothing about the Roman Empire or Graeco-Roman world):

1. We ARE a lot more knowledgeable today than 2000 years ago. I shouldn't really have to emphasize this because it should be obvious to anyone, but you have such an antipathy for modern society and such an infatuation with the classical period (even to the extent of once arguing that people in the Roman Empire was better off than humans in the 21st century) that I wouldn't be surprised if you would emphatically argue that people knew more in the iron age than they do today.

2. Theism, and other forms of supernatural beliefs, does not thrive in enlightened societies. That is why there is a positive correlation between how educated one is, and how likely one is to be an atheist. That is why there is an inverse positive correlation between GDP and religiosity. That is why there is an inverse correlation between Nobel laureates and religiosity. Etc. If you happen to be very knowledgeable about the world, then it is less likely you are very religious. Not necessarily because wise people see through the nonsense of theism, but because they happen to have good, natural alternative answers to many of the supernatural answers provided by theisms.

3. So yes, if you want to be a theist it really does help to be ignorant or unintelligent. Not saying it is a prerequisite, just that it helps.

4. Theisms HAVE exploited our lack of knowledge. One might argue that religions were developed to provide us with answers to questions that gnawed us but for which we had no other answers. God would be a go-to explanation for everything that was mysterious. Of course, our scientific efforts have chipped away at that, repeatedly presenting entirely logical, natural alternative explanations, and hence there are fewer places for god to hide. The gaps are closing in. And less and less people believe in gods.

5. And christianity wasn't an intellectual reformation. Christianity didn't make any more intellectual sense than its predecessor, judaism, or pagan theisms that christianity would out-compete. Christianity really isn't a religion that is known for its internal logic. As quite a few church fathers have said, and I paraphrase, it really helps if one doesn't think too much about it  The main difference was that christianity opened up for gentiles, it was socially inclusive, and that it was a religion aimed at social reform. But there was many other reasons why early christianity grew rapidly, some of which we have touched upon before like what it offered to its followers and the fact that it became persecuted.

Edited December 11, 2018 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

1. We ARE a lot more knowledgeable today than 2000 years ago. I shouldn't really have to emphasize this because it should be obvious to anyone, but you have such an antipathy for modern society and such an infatuation with the classical period (even to the extent of once arguing that people in the Roman Empire was better off than humans in the 21st century) that I wouldn't be surprised if you would emphatically argue that people knew more in the iron age than they do today.

 We were arguably more knowledgeable in 450 BC or 100 AD than we were in 1400. The history of knowledge does not work how you describe, upon a straight chronological trajectory from ignorance to enlightenment. Rome resisted Christianity for Christianity's first 300 years. When Rome suddenly started ceasing (to persecute Christianity) did it then pass into ''enlightenment, knowledge''? Your entire theory falls flat on its face because of its inert chronological silliness.