The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Ooh, you got me there. If there is an underlying promise of being faithful, which I suppose it is between god and his followers (like in a pact), then not being faithful is breaking that promise, and then you are untrustworthy and it will damage your relationship with others (and of course with god).

It is the same with human relation. If you have promised faithfulness, e.g. in marriage, then being unfaithful is a sin. 

And I think the word "faithful" indicates that there is such an underlying promise. And if so, any acts of being unfaithful would be a sin.

My point is is it necessarily a virtue?  I mean kindness you could call a virtue, wherever applied.  Same with joy, peace, patience, (i quite like goodness, thats very broad isn't it? ), gentleness, love, self control, I can see how these things are good, you could arguably throw them all into question actually but faithfulness I find quite an odd addition.  I guess when you're asking someone to believe in the big beardy cloud man you've got to throw that in there.  Faithful just means committed, doesn't it?  You could be faithful to bludgeoning senior citizens with their own walking sticks.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

My point is is it necessarily a virtue?  I mean kindness you could call a virtue, wherever applied.  Same with joy, peace, patience, (i quite like goodness, thats very broad isn't it? ), gentleness, love, self control, I can see how these things are good, you could arguably throw them all into question actually but faithfulness I find quite an odd addition.  I guess when you're asking someone to believe in the big beardy cloud man you've got to throw that in there.  Faithful just means committed, doesn't it?  You could be faithful to bludgeoning senior citizens with their own walking sticks.

But again, I believe " to be faithful" implicates that a promise has been made. And breaking a promise is always as in. And vice versa, keeping promises is a virtue. So it is not just "committed". At leats that's how I interpret it from the bible (because it is about the pact between Yahwhe and the Iraelites), but also in modern sense.

Edited December 11, 2018 by SoulMonster

[soon]

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Gather round boys and girls, today's text from Soulmonster's bible study group is Galatians 5:22-23. Sound like a people in the Middle East, but I suppose Galatians could equally well be an alian race in Star Wars. Anyway, the text goes like this:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. "

So it is basically a recipe on how christians should behave, to themselves and to un-christians. Lots of nice virtues I guess we all strive for, religions aside. If only christians were able to live according to this it would almost make it worthwhile, right? If christian people consistently displayed these virtues it would really act as a good advertisement for christianity. "Become a christian and be transformed into a better person!" But it is just nice talk, right, and they, like us non-believers, struggle as much with bettering ourselves. Because we all try to be better, and it doesn't seem like christians has any advantage in that regard, does it. As if having it written down in a book somehow makes it easier for them. 

Anyway, still one of the better parts of the bible. In our next gathering we will look at the more sinister parts of christianity.

Unsurprisingly, lacking any Biblical literacy, you have managed to choose a passage that is speaking to a very specific context. And about a very specific aspect of the transformation of the new person in Christ. Couldve made your point with so many other similar verses but this one isnt actually speaking to what you think it is.

Also, Christians do act in those ways. You cant just say that they dont and carry on  

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But again, I believe " to be faithful" implicates that a promise has been made. And breaking a promise is always as in. And vice versa, keeping promises is a virtue. 

No its not, you might've promised to shoot a creche but then back out at the 11th hour.  Joys an odd one too, especially since so much sin is associated with self indulgence which is often a joy.

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

No its not, you might've promised to shoot a creche but then back out at the 11th hour.  

Well, then you have SINNED! 

I think "faithful" is more about promises between men, or between man and god, not between man and creche, whatever that is 

[DieselDaisy]

That is aimed at Christians, not non-Christians. It pertains to Gentile observance of Mosaic Law. 

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, soon said:

Unsurprisingly, lacking any Biblical literacy, you have managed to choose a passage that is speaking to a very specific context. And about a very specific aspect of the transformation of the new person in Christ. Couldve made your point with so many other similar verses but this one isnt actually speaking to what you think it is.

Also, Christians do act in those ways. You cant just say that they dont and carry on  

Hmm, which christian should I believe? I will go with what Got Questions says rather than a random dude on internet who follows a somewhat marginalized denomination. And here is what Got Questions say:

Quote

The “actions” that glorify our Father in heaven are those that bear much fruit (John 15:8). This is, in fact, how we show we are His disciples. Indeed, the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23)—should be the hallmark of Christian behavior, especially love.

Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-behavior.html

[Len Cnut]

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, then you have SINNED! 

I think "faithful" is more about promises between men, or between man and god, not between man and creche, whatever that is 

No i mean perhaps you've promised...ummm, I dunno, the hippie cult leader whoose cult you belong to!   And hows kindness a virtue, what if you're being kind to someone who doesn't have your best interests at heart...like a serial killer who kills you and then later other people.  Same goes for patience, England was patient with Hitler and he ended up invading Poland.  Gentleness too, what good is gentleness if you're walking down the street one day with your bird and some tree jumper comes out of nowhere and starts shagging her...is gentleness still a virtue?

There are very few concepts that are wholly virtuous, the shit is dictated by circumstance, is it not?  A crche is a place where people drop their kids off while they go do other shit, sorta like a playgroup.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is aimed at Christians, not non-Christians. It pertains to Gentile observance of Mosaic Law. 

Got Question disagree with our resident absolutely-not-a-catholic:

Quote

Yet our tendency is to sometimes look down on unbelievers or those whose lifestyles are not in sync with our Christian faith, and this is where the Christian life can be challenging. It is easy to show love to those who walk as we do. It’s not always so easy to be kind to those who ridicule our beliefs, show contempt for our Savior, or make a mockery of the institutions that Christians hold sacred. Yet Christ taught us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. Recall how He dealt with the woman caught in adultery. Her captors wanted her dead; our Savior showed compassion even though He was the One who would have to die for her (and our) sinful behavior (John 8:11). Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), not to condemn them (John 3:17), and if Christ did not come to condemn sinners, neither should Christians.

Same source as above: https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-behavior.html

Just now, Len Cnut said:

No i mean perhaps you've promised...ummm, I dunno, the hippie cult leader whoose cult you belong to!   And hows kindness a virtue, what if you're being kind to someone who doesn't have your best interests at heart...like a serial killer who kills you and then later other people.  Same goes for patience, England was patient with Hitler and he ended up invading Poland.  Gentleness too, what good is gentleness if you're walking down the street one day with your bird and some tree jumper comes out of nowhere and starts shagging her...is gentleness still a virtue?

There are very few concepts that are wholly virtuous, the shit is dictated by circumstance, is it not? 

Yeah, you are right. Context matters. Also in terms of faithfulness. Because if the other part break the promise, are you supposed to still maintain it? Is it virtuous to be faithful to a slag who fucks around? Context must matter.

[soon]

19 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Why is faithfull necessarily a good thing? 

Faithfulness in the Jewish sensibility of the day would speak to 'staying true to the way of Christ' which is a communal experience. The beliefs of the day included an idea of a collective guilt. The Jews collectively fell short of their personhood in God (according to their scriptures) and therefore early Christian thought had an understanding of collective salvation. "Everyone be cool, like Jesus said to"

Because as I pointed out, this is one of the absolute muddiest passages one cold every think to use to present the core tenants of the Way. He is speaking about the Gifts of the Spirit, not core principles of Christs yoke. People were excited to claim the gift of prophecy and many were lying about this. So here Paul reminds them that the gifts of the Spirit arent all fishy and self aggrandizing, but keeps one humble/faithful to the group. 

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Hmm, which christian should I believe? I will go with what Got Questions says rather than a random dude on internet who follows a somewhat marginalized denomination. And here is what Got Questions say:

Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-behavior.html

Im all for you misunderstanding scripture. So you wont ever be confused for an informed authority during your misguided attacks. 

[Len Cnut]

It'd be interesting to know, from someone who knows a bit about history (go on Dies', thats your starter for 10, no conferring!) how enlightened where the places that recieved religious revelation compared to the rest of the world at the time of said revelation, be it Christianity or Judaism or Islam?

9 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I suppose if hard action needs to be taken then that's how it is, just try not to do it with hate in your heart. Like when you have to protect someone or yourself, do it for that reason, not to unleash a bloodthirst or whatever.

Thats a convenient little philsophical corridor to escape down though isn't it?  I mean like Nazi's might argue that the holocaust was an act of love...love for the Aryan race with the end goal being a near perfect world (or as close as one can get to one) ridden of untermensch and people that are a hinderance to the evolution of the human race. 

[soon]

Christianity flourished in the Hellenistic society. Very enlightened and educated people.

[Len Cnut]

What I was getting at with my question basically was were the places that recieved these revelations relatively ignorant compared to other more enlightened parts of the world?

[SoulMonster]

17 minutes ago, soon said:

Also, Christians do act in those ways. You cant just say that they dont and carry on  

As fas as I know, they don't act more in those ways than un-christians: https://www.livescience.com/47799-morality-religion-political-beliefs.html https://news.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/

Any theism that actually made their followers become better persons would get my thumbs up. I wouldn't buy into the supernatural bullshit therein, of course, but at least I couldn't argue that we'd be better off without that religion.

 

 

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Well I mean any sane person would see the contradiction of Nazi's hating and murdering for supposed love of their own.

You could apply it to just about anything.  We might sit here goin' 'yeah man, Iraq war, thats some evil shit' where someone like George Bush would say perhaps that it was driven by a love for his country/the free world/the human race.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

What I was getting at with my question basically was were the places that recieved these revelations relatively ignorant compared to other more enlightened parts of the world?

No one can answer that. Or, I am sure Diesel will 

[soon]

In Christianity the story begins with the Wise Men from the scientifically advanced East receiving revelation and using advanced tools to track a celestial event, which leads them to Christ birth. Same narrative also brings them together with the lowly, uneducated shepherds where they receive revelation together. Such is the way of Christ - for everyone.

In fact the bible asks a similar question about location of revelation. Scripture shares how when a disciple was called to Christ he hesitated because Chrsit was raised in a very humble, rural village called Nazareth. Its actually one of the few notes of Nathaniel in all of Scripture:

Jesus Calls Philip and Nathanael
…45Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the One Moses wrote about in the Law, the One the prophets foretold—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46“Can anything goodcome from Nazareth?” Nathanael asked. “Come and see,” saidPhilip. 47When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, He said of him, “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no deceit.”…

John 1:45-47

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No one can answer that. Or, I am sure Diesel will 

The reason I ask is, well, OK, I'm sitting here picking those virtues to bits right?  Well...surely cognitive thinking was evolved enough even in those days.  I mean Plato, Socrates all these people had like...really furthered human thought, surely in those days people must've read the bible and been more than well equipped to dissect some of the more broad assertions of it that don't bear scrutiny so well.  I mean I'm doing a really simplistic version of it with the aforementioned virtues and I'm thick as shit.  It seems fundamentally to be so easy to pick apart.  I guess people like Socrates and Plato etc were controversial in their day so not exactly mainstream thought but they pre-dated Christ by like, what, half a century maybe? 

9 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

So you're saying the thoughts and desires of lunatics like George Bush supersede our own? I don't think so. You go, the war is clearly evil because this, this and this. You wade through the bullshit. Badda bing badda bong.

Not much is complicated, very much is convoluted.

No, what I'm saying is that the aforestated virtues are not really virtues on the whole but rather dictated by context. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

The reason I ask is, well, OK, I'm sitting here picking those virtues to bits right?  Well...surely cognitive thinking was evolved enough even in those days.  I mean Plato, Socrates all these people had like...really furthered human thought, surely in those days people must've read the bible and been more than well equipped to dissect some of the more broad assertions of it that don't bear scrutiny so well.  I mean I'm doing a really simplistic version of it with the aforementioned virtues and I'm thick as shit.  It seems fundamentally to be so easy to pick apart.  I guess people like Socrates and Plato etc were controversial in their day so not exactly mainstream thought but they pre-dated Christ by like, what, half a century maybe? 

Oh, people back then was just as smart as we are. We know more, but they were equally intelligent.

Religions came and went, spread hither and dither. I don't think it is possible to find any particular patterns here for specific religions in relation to how advanced people were, except that as peoples moved from nomadic lifestyles that were much attuned to nature to a sedentary acricultural lifestyle they moved away from animistic theisms and adopted polytheistic and later monotheistic deities.

As for the abrahamic religions, I don't think they neceasrrily appealed more to how culturally or scientifically advanced a people was, I think the appeal was more on its social relevance, ad then I think it has just as much appeal to everyone, maybe more, in the case of christianity, to the poor and downtrodden. So I don't think there is much connection to enlightenment, really, in either sense, more that it represented a social upheaval that was attractive.

Sorry for the misspelling, got to go.

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I agree.

Which is one of the many reasons something like Christianity is a cookie-cutter crock of shit. I don't agree that you're thick btw but then again maybe I'm thick so don't take my word for it mate. 

Point being I'm not like...exercising a kind of cognitive ability that is evidence of 2000 years of intellectual evolution. 

[soon]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

As fas as I know, they don't act more in those ways than un-christians: https://www.livescience.com/47799-morality-religion-political-beliefs.html https://news.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/

Any theism that actually made their followers become better persons would get my thumbs up. I wouldn't buy into the supernatural bullshit therein, of course, but at least I couldn't argue that we'd be better off without that religion.

 

 

Yeah, thanks I'll pass on a survey that allows Muricans to opt in, self identifying as Christians (and other faiths).

Real shame that you are intent to misunderstand a scripture that is speaking far more to this issue of laissez-faire identity then the incorrect position that you put forward.

[Len Cnut]

17 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Isn't 2000 years fuck-all in terms of evolution? What makes you say that anyway? What's smart to you?

Evolution is the strict sense of the word yes, I just mean in 2000 years (i hope) we're a little more knowledgable about shit than they were back in the day.  Alls I was trying to say was that my simplistic dissection of those various virtues wasn't some kind of groundbreaking original mode of thought even in them days. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

I have a question for (nonChristians) here, not judgemental or arguementive, but rather out of curiosity... Why do you feel the need to celebrate Christmas and Easter? 

I'm sure many of you will point to the secular traditions, but even those secular traditions date back to Christian traditions. Also (before someone mentions Saturnalia and Yule) I am FULLY capable of debunking incorrect information that is being spread in regards to those (like Adam ruins everything is NOT factually correct).

Dont get me wrong, I'm all for EVERYONE celebrating the birth and death of Christ (Christmas and Easter), after all he is your savior as well. I guess my issue is secular society seems to really trying to pervert those holidays and turn them into something else. Which as a Christian I find offensive. Secular society couldn't pervert Hannuka or an Islamic holiday (forgive me I dont know any by name), without some sort of backlash. Yet the Christian holidays are very much under attack, and most dont even bat an eye. 

I welcome and encourage everyone here to celebrate Christmas. But I find atheists and others that do, somewhat hypocritical (not trying to fire anyone up, just being honest here). No matter how you try, you cant take CHRIST out of Christmas, you just cant do it, its IN the name CHRIST'S MASS. I'm not saying its inappropriate for you to celebrate something during the holiday season or buy and exchange gifts. But the putting up a Christmas tree or Christmas decorations, etc... See my point? You are STILL celebrating Christ whether you like it or not. Which is great, he is your savior, but yet you claim to not believe in him. I just dont really understand why you do it then? Tradition? Well it is a CHRISTIAN tradition. So again...

I guess my point is, as we near Christmas, I hope you all keep that in mind when you open up your presents under your Christmas tree. You are still celebrating Christmas, a Christian holiday. I dont think nonchristians have any right to put expectations on Christian's during a Christian holiday (which IS going on right now). 

I guess in the spirit of fairness, if nonChristians still want to celebrate something during the holidays, Seinfield already gave you an idea. Put up your festivus pole, and put your gifts under that. Make up your own holiday to celebrate. But I'm sorry, you cant have Christmas. You are more than welcome to celebrate it, but be respectful to those of us that ARE actually celebrating the birth of Christ. Just a thought...

[DieselDaisy]

17 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

What I was getting at with my question basically was were the places that recieved these revelations relatively ignorant compared to other more enlightened parts of the world?

Rome during the Julio-Claudians was enlightened for its time - it is one of the great ages of civilization - but opposed to Judaeo-Christianity because monotheism inherently refused to conform to state ritualized polytheism, and along with it the imperial cult. In the early stages Romans had trouble differentiating between Judaism and Christian, except Christianity proselytized among Gentiles which was seen as weakening people's loyalty to the Emperor. Early Christianity had a leveling quality which appealed to marginalized groups such as women (Rome was extremely patriarchal), slaves and freed-slaves.

I am saying Rome was enlightened for her time. It had most of the vices ancient societies possessed, slave owning, patriarchal, capital punishment. Eunuchs were beginning to appear. Emperors, who had usurped the republican constitution, were only as good as the incumbent (for every virtuous leader, there were numerous mad bastards, Caligulas and Neros). 

The Gospel was preached in the Greek speaking parts of course who possessed a memory, even if it was just a memory, of Greek liberty. Most localities were quite literate and had a degree of self-governance through municipal councils.

It was an extremely cosmopolitan world, the one in which Christianity spread. 

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Rome during the Julio-Claudians was enlightened for its time - it is one of the great ages of civilization - but opposed to Judaeo-Christianity because monotheism inherently refused to conform to state ritualized polytheism, and along with it the imperial cult. In the early stages Romans had trouble differentiating between Judaism and Christian, except Christianity proselytized among Gentiles which was seen as weakening people's loyalty to the Emperor. Early Christianity had a leveling quality which appealed to marginalized groups such as women (Rome was extremely patriarchal), slaves and freed-slaves.

I am saying Rome was enlightened for her time. It had most of the vices ancient societies possessed, slave owning, patriarchal, capital punishment. Eunuchs were beginning to appear. Emperors, who had usurped the republican constitution, were only as good as the incumbent (for every virtuous leader, there were numerous mad bastards, Caligulas and Neros). 

The Gospel was preached in the Greek speaking parts of course who possessed a memory, even if it was just a memory, of Greek liberty. Most localities were quite literate and had a degree of self-governance through municipal councils.

It was an extremely cosmopolitan world, the one in which Christianity spread. 

the plot thickens..

13 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I have a question for (nonChristians) here, not judgemental or arguementive, but rather out of curiosity... Why do you feel the need to celebrate Christmas and Easter? 

 

I don't.  But I assume its to do with a day off work, presents, an excuse to get together with family and a good ol' booze up.  You don't have to take the Christ out of Christmas to celebrate it, you can just ignore it or not give a fuck about it.  For a religion thats supposed to be all inclusive this is an awfully exclusive approach you're taking. 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Len Cnut