SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Mighty Buzzard (18)
themightybuzzard@proton.me
http://soylentne ... e+Mighty+Buzzard
"Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
Journal of The Mighty Buzzard (18)
Right, first off, I'm not a Christian. I was previously and did grow up with plenty of exposure to it though and there's a lot to be said for the source material. So this is an attempt to inform folks how to do it properly if they're going to do it. If done properly it can make for some extremely decent people and a pretty serene life. A lot of people noob that shit up though, so church should be treated as Stack Exchange; advice should be thoroughly examined before taking any of it.
For starters, skip the Old Testament for now. It's a previous major version and there were plenty of refinements and even breaking changes between 1.0 and 2.0. There are also bits that are universally applicable and bits that were only applicable to a specific person at a specific time (you know, like that bash script you whipped up to do something once and then never used again). There's plenty back there that's still useful but you need to be equipped to be able to distinguish it from what isn't and nobody is right off the bat. Reading it now will only confuse you and even send you down entirely the wrong path. That's how you end up with things like Crusades, the Inquisition, pulseaudio, and systemd.
Now there's a hell of a lot of text in even the New Testament but every last bit of it boils down to one of two precepts:
- Love God above all else.
- Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Got those? Okay, moving on. All the other bits of the New Testament should be treated like /bin/dd. Which is to say, if you don't understand how to use them, do not fucking use them. RTFM until you do. Which is to say, if you can't figure out how any given bit is an example of how to better do one of those two precepts, do not incorporate it into your life until you do or you run a serious risk of fucking shit up beyond belief.
A really good beginner bit is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's dead simple to see how that falls under #2 and pretty easy to tell if you're fucking up on. Granted, until you've had practice implementing it you're mostly going to spot the bugs in hindsight but as you gain experience you'll be able to spot them before you run any code.
Pretty simple, yeah? It's a shame simple ain't the same as easy but that's life for you.
Now when you know your way around the New Testament backwards and forwards, or at least know how to use apropos, whatis, man, and the like to find what you need, by all means go back and read the Old Testament. Keep in mind it's there for historical reasons only. Not human or universal history, mind you, the history of your religion. Actual history ain't the province of religion; teaching you how not to be a shitbird like Lennart Poettering or Bill Gates is. Anything that looks like history should be read as a story and valued only for what it can teach you about how to achieve this. Arguing the facts of something you have no personal knowledge (not faith, knowledge) of is not the way to be anything but a dick.
That's really all there is to it. There's plenty of specific expertise you'll pick up as you go but every last bit of it derives from what you've just read.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:04PM (6 children)
....the leaders of the time may have used religious fervor to whip up volunteers, but the Crusades were in fact defensive wars, a response to Muslim invasion and conquest (the Middle East had formerly been mostly Christian and Jewish) and slave raiding and piracy (which is why the European coast had become a wasteland and trade across the Mediterranean had dwindled).
https://www.politicalislam.com/jihad-vs-crusades/ [politicalislam.com]
As to the nominal topic, I'm not a believer, but I behave as if I am, because I see value in Christianity as a foundation of Western civilization, and it beats hell out of the obvious alternatives. And you don't get to choose "none of the above" because humans are wired to believe in *something* -- if it's not religion, it'll be something else, frex, the Communist Utopia.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:24PM (1 child)
I take what I like from whichever religion has it myself. Sort of a BFS approach. Anything missing or done wrong, I write on my own.
You're not wrong about the foundations of Western civilization though. A few teething pains along the way but the result speaks for itself. We even allow folks who are actively trying to destroy everything Western civilization stands for to have a voice.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 22 2019, @06:14AM
Mature religions have done much the same... take what's good from the early days, borrow what seems fit, and disregard what proves wrong. I can think of only one religion that has done its damnedest to hang onto its juvenile mistakes, and if it becomes ascendant, all our voices will be silenced.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 22 2019, @06:57PM (3 children)
but the Crusades were in fact defensive wars,
If you're a Eurpoean Crusader and you're fighting in the Middle East it's probably not actually a defensive war.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 22 2019, @06:59PM (1 child)
And also, when the word "apologist" appears in the first sentence of your citation you're not off to a good start.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday February 24 2019, @02:32AM
Apologist in that context means essentially an advocate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics [wikipedia.org]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday February 24 2019, @02:42AM
The beleaguered Christian kingdoms of the Middle East had been pleading for help from Europe for a long time. The fact that it was too little and too late is why today the Middle East is today Muslim and Arab. And did you pay attention to the hundreds of jihads by Muslims (mostly Arabs) against Europe, in European territory, that had been going on for four hundred years already? Or that Muslim slave raiders had depopulated the entire southern coast of Europe?
You might want to watch the full presentation that the "battle map" was excerpted from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y [youtube.com]
Dr.Warner likes hard facts and hard numbers; he's not about opinion and guesswork.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:29PM (82 children)
Don't be commie subversive open-borders socialists like the neo-Catholics*. Every secure piece of the IT structure large enough does, after all, need its own secure enclave.
* Also, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and all other "weirdo" denominations may burn in hell.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:14PM (81 children)
The generic term for religious asshole is "Protestant". They are the radical hooligans that cause all the trouble.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:29PM (69 children)
I'd also like to point out that the problem with Buzzard's statement is loving God before your neighbor. This could cause problems with extreme denominations or belief outliers in positions of authority. If "God" tells one or a few NSA or CIA workers that it's okay to bend or break the rules for the greater good, the problem lies in what exactly is their "God's belief of the greater good."
A previous defense contractor/employer, for example, had a large multitude of Jehovah's Witnesses*. Even worse -- Mexican Jehovah's Witnesses, the craziest and most cult-like of all. These are people who believe that borders and nations are manifestations of the Devil. Occasionally one would resign out of conscientious objection, but there was also a case of sabotage. After certain units were tested, somebody in the factory would poke tiny undetectable cuts in them with an x-acto knife, so that they failed out of box when they got to the manufacturer. My coworkers tried to explain it away to me as that the end-user was sabotaging them to sully our good name, but they're the prime contractor, you idiots. They're not competing with you in that space, they're buying your shit because they can't make it themselves or find a better vendor. It's truly frightening, the extent that large contractors use such cheap labor with dubious loyalty to the United States -- especially if a war were to break out.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:36PM (65 children)
That's only a problem if you think God is telling you to be a dick, when in fact the entire book is about how to not be a dick.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 21 2019, @10:05PM (26 children)
No, the entire book is *not* about "how not to be a dick." It's mostly mythology, with some history, some poetry (Song of Solomon, preeeow~!), a lot of Bronze-age and early Iron-age superstition, and in the NT, an interesting study in both textual evolution and the very first schism of a religion that hadn't actually been born yet and likely was never intended to BE a religion by its founder.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say most of the modern-day Shibboleths, like "abortion is murder" or "the Sabbath is on Sunday." Know what there *is* a lot of? Jesus telling people to take care of the poor or he'll burn them alive for eternity for not complying (actually, aionios doesn't mean eternal, but who speaks Koine these days?).
Predictably, The Shitey Uzzard does what pretty much every other inbred redneck sociopath south of the Mason Dixon line does with the Bible: uses it to justify his own asshattery. This would be funny if it weren't so typical and so damn *boring.* To anyone who's studied any of the higher criticism, this is so far out of touch with the text it's in "nacht einmal falsch" territory.
Then again, the big J did say that plenty of people who claim to be Christians would be told "I never knew you."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Thursday February 21 2019, @11:40PM (8 children)
The bible teaches that even unborn children are in fact children and important to Him. Children are people, and unborn children are also. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Generally one might say Murder is the killing of an innocent person. How much more innocent can you get than an unborn child?
Luke 1:39-45 Mary Visits Elizabeth
2 Samuel 11:5 Bathsheba becomes pregnant
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the first day, Sunday is the Sabbath day. Whereas in various histories it's noted that Constantine created a Sunday Observance law for the Roman Empire and shortly after the Pope did so as well. Sunday is observed due to Pagan traditions being intertwined with and supplanting Christian faith.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 21 2019, @11:58PM (4 children)
Explain why, then, there is one passage saying that if a woman is injured during a fight and loses the fetus, the penalty is a fine, not death as would be expected for murder? Or why the trial by ordeal for a woman suspected of infidelity induces an abortion if she happens to be pregnant?
I know your book better than you do, and I don't even need to look up the relevant verses.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 22 2019, @12:43AM (3 children)
The first passage you reference would be accidental / incidental injury as opposed to intent to harm. Essentially the difference between Involuntary Manslaughter/Or whatever accidentally killing falls under and Murder. Intent matters.
The second passage is indeed referring to an abortion, but it only happens if the woman was unfaithful. It is a religious ceremony that deals with a woman's betrayal or faithfulness to her husband. Whereas a woman that was caught in the act of adultery in the city would be put to death along with the man and just the man, if caught in the country. While the abortion may seem unduly harsh, it's not unduly harsh to the child as the child will be saved as it is an innocent. The punishment for the sin is meted out to the mother.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @04:49AM (2 children)
You still don't seem to get that the fetus isn't considered a full human being under the OT canon. Accidental damage or not, the *most* you could compare said fetus to is a slave, if you compare this statute with others saying that slaves are property and there are financial penalties for, for example, one's ox goring one to death. Point still stands: fetus != full adult human being according to the OT. Look how cavalier the author of Job, one of the oldest books, was about this too.
As to "the child will be saved," that's not what the pre-Exilic or indeed even the pre-Roman Jews believed. Their afterlife was Sheol, like the other contemporary ANE peoples, and they believed *everyone* went there. Any translation of the OT using words like Hell or Heaven or even Hades is grossly anachronistic. The Jews didn't have much in the way of eschatology until the Zoroastrians got ahold of them; what came out of the Exile was Judaism in name only, Mazdaism in effective content.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 22 2019, @06:51PM (1 child)
Meh, all that original passage says is that we shouldn't abort Jesus. Obviously, they were saving him for torture and murder, later. Pro life!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 22 2019, @08:43PM
Nah! A legally conducted crucifixion is an execution, not murder!
Monty Python, "Life of Brian":
http://montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Life_of_Brian/12.htm [50webs.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 22 2019, @05:22PM
The zygote becomes a person on first breath [biblegateway.com]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 22 2019, @06:31PM (1 child)
The baby they're talking about there is Jesus H Christ himself, of course they think it's important. That doesn't say anything about the general case, though.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday February 25 2019, @03:43PM
The baby that leaped in the womb at the sound of Mary's voice was John the Baptist and the second baby I referred to died, because of David's sin. Not necessarily the fact that he took another man's wife, but that he sent said man to the front lines to get killed.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 22 2019, @03:09AM (12 children)
If you're gonna troll, at least troll shit I've actually said rather than what I've clearly and distinctly said the opposite of.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @04:53AM (11 children)
That wasn't a troll, and I specifically took issue with what you actually said, that the Bible is mostly about how not to be a dick. It is manifestly not, and my pointing that out to you is not a troll. People showing you that you are wrong, where you are wrong, and how you are wrong are not trolls.
If you want some scripture that focuses on how not to be a dick, I can recommend any of a number of Buddhist sutras, and you'll learn an amazing amount about how the mind works along the way. "Conditioned arising" and karma are just gussied-up Sanscrit ways of saying "shit happens for a reason, and actions have consequences."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @05:56PM
actions have consequences
Ah, but where's the line between action and reaction? Free will is still only theory. The high goals of religion are quite rational, but it is subject to all the same old tribal bullshit as everything else. However, it is a world where *Do as I say, not as I do* is a perfectly valid piece of advice, coming from the kind of people that give it. *Monkey see, monkey do* certainly isn't any better. To be "Holy" follow the words, and not the treacherous deeds of the leaders. Read the Catholic Liturgy. There's some cool shit in there. They got some pretty good writers, even if they are all like Jeffery Epstein. Bad people can write good shit. Really, the crazier, more tortured, the better
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 23 2019, @02:11PM (9 children)
Something to consider as more than just a quote, you know.
Or actually happened. Why don't we ever see a quote of Buzz's alleged justified asshattery? You just assert things, again.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 23 2019, @04:29PM (8 children)
...read like the entire fucking thread worth of his posts, Hallow. Starting with the OP itself. It's nothing but self-congratulatory jerking off and there are at least 3 people in this thread who know the Bible far better than he does. Even if one of them is a JW nutsomaniac who has to copy-pasta all his citations.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 24 2019, @12:22AM (7 children)
Ok, I did. Now what?
Is that somehow relevant?
I think you're missing an argument in that post.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 24 2019, @12:30AM (6 children)
Oh gee, let's fucking think, would it *possibly* be relevant that someone talking about Christianity knows far less about the source material than other people on the thread, several of whom are telling him he's got things about said source material wrong?
Hmm. Think, think, think...
Jesus fucking Christ, pun definitely intended. Your "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge because hurr hurr muh freeze peach" mentality is why this country is drowning in shit.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 24 2019, @06:01PM (5 children)
Indeed, let's think about that. You wrote earlier:
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 24 2019, @09:28PM (4 children)
Even though Freeman has to copy-pasta, he's still got an idea of where to look, which is more than the cherry-picking carrion-botherer can say :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 25 2019, @01:48AM (3 children)
So that barely puts him on TMB's level.
I'll note also that several of the people who allegedly know more about the Bible than TMB had little to say about TMB's claims. That includes you who merely stated that the Bible was more about myths than morality:
Keep in mind that TMB started by excluding the Old Testament from consideration. That trivially eliminates most of your complaint right away. And once again, you can't be bothered to argue critically, taking his stated viewpoint into account. Thus, it doesn't matter if you happen to know the Bible better, you're not making arguments that matter.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 25 2019, @01:58AM (2 children)
As I have said at least three times, making it four now, according to the big man Jesus himself, the OT is *not* legacy. Matthew 5:17-20. Read it. Live it. Love it. Jesus says his followers are to follow the Mosaic Law. Paul says otherwise. One of these is the son of God. tl;dr: you do not get to take Jesus seriously and throw the OT out. Jesus was a Jew. If he had ever met Paul, which by Paul's own admission he had not, he would have either laughed him to scorn, or "rebuked" him.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 25 2019, @05:21AM (1 child)
You can say it many more times as you like, you're still missing the key TMB comment: "For starters, skip the Old Testament for now." It doesn't matter if you're more knowledgeable, if you refuse to contribute. As I see it, you've wasted your time with, making it four now, irrelevant comments.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 25 2019, @04:57PM
Got it, so Uzzard out-Jesuses Jesus. Perfect. I already knew he had a God-complex; thanks for providing some external verification :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 22 2019, @06:18AM
You forgot to mention the chunks of the OT that are pretty clearly tax receipts.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 22 2019, @06:31PM (2 children)
See how you fail to pay attention? The Buzzard stipulated that you just dismiss V1.0 and concentrate on V2.0, and here you go bringing Solomon into the discussion.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @11:10PM (1 child)
The Buzzard is as usual full of shit, and as I have pointed out at least once in this thread, Jesus as per Mt. 5:17-20 specifically says the Mosaic Law is still binding. Paul says otherwise.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 23 2019, @02:41AM
But - bacon.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @12:02AM (37 children)
"Murder your son!"
"Why?"
"To show you have faith in me!"
"Da fuq is wrong with you man? Ok fine" *picks up rock*
"Haha just a prank bro! Glad you'll blindly follow everything I say, now let me set up MY son to get murdered!"
MDK, old-school.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 22 2019, @03:10AM (36 children)
You don't read so good, do you? That's OT shit, which I specifically said should be out of bounds until you grok the NT, which you ever so clearly do not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @04:55AM (33 children)
Why does an omniscient being need to test its followers?
If Yahweh were omniscient, he would know Abraham was loyal, better than Abraham himself did. If he were not omniscient, then he is not God, and is simply a blaspheming demon arrogating the title of God to himself, just another of the dozens and dozens of bog-standard Ba'al figures extant in the ancient near east. This story and the entire book of Job show that Yahweh is either not omniscient (and therefore not God) and/or is evil (and therefore not God).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Friday February 22 2019, @11:26AM (25 children)
Yours is a pretty naive question for one who has studied this stuff so much.
You are aware hebrew has no abstract terms, you are aware of the way knowledge was passed on before the modern striving for encyclopedias and instruction manuals, you are aware of the 4 levels of interpretation of the scripture. God tests not to know, but to teach.
It is like going back in time to meet a painter, like Giotto, and telling him 'you are good but your paintings are all out of proportion and with simplified perspective, have a look at this photorealistic painting instead' and Giotto replying "nice stuff, I can do that too, but you are clearly not familiar with the intent in painting churches and palaces, paintings are meant to teach, not mechanically represent".
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @05:22PM (24 children)
Last time I got into this with you, you completely ignored what was said to you. So I'm doing this for anyone else who may be reading, not you. A perfect, self-sufficient being has no desires, including any desire to teach. It has no wants, no needs, indeed no inclination, no reason in the deepest and most profound sense, to create or do *anything.*
There was at some point in causality (as time hadn't been created yet) a state of affairs such that nothing existed except God. And by definition, this state of affairs was perfect, because God is by definition perfect and he alone is perfect. Furthermore, any other state of affairs is by definition less than perfect, because things-that-aren't-God exist.
So...why does anything else exist besides God? Be very careful how you answer, because the instant you say "God wanted..." or "God desired..." or anything along those lines, you are admitting lack of self-sufficiency, lack of perfection, and therefore that the being you call God is not actually God, but some sort of demon calling itself God while being utterly unworthy of the title.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @06:12PM (3 children)
Um, two things:
1) "He"?
2) things-that-aren't-God exist
That's impossible. Everything that exists is "god". AND... so is everything that doesn't exist! god = everything, and that is commutative.. "god" is perfect, your definition is off.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @06:35PM (2 children)
I happen to be a panentheist (not pantheist) as well :) Nice to see someone making that conceptual leap here!
But this leaves you with a different problem: if everything is perfect because everything is God, then there is no longer any meaning to terms like "perfection" or "imperfection." Which undermines the entire class of arguments for this particular kind of God in the first place. There is a good reason my conception of God isn't a conscious agent, but rather the prerequisite and ontological ground that makes consciousness (and matter) possible.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 23 2019, @04:34PM (1 child)
there is no longer any meaning to terms like "perfection" or "imperfection."
Exactly! And "argument" is absurd, the public masturbation of philosophers. This particular kind of "god" is the only kind that can logically exist, nature, totally and absolutely indifferent. God is nothing more than universal law. Everything really is "perfect". Everything else is authoritarian fantasy as a tool for crowd control and submission so they can be more easily enslaved with reduced risk of rebellion.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 23 2019, @04:47PM
That's more or less the conclusion I came to as well: a sort of panentheist monism, that what we're calling God or "the Source" is just the underlying ground of all being, something primitive to and supervened on by both consciousness and matter. It's not a human-like moral agent. It just Is That It Is, I suppose.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 22 2019, @06:38PM (4 children)
Correction:
Azumi's idea of A perfect, self-sufficient being has no desires, including any desire to teach. It has no wants, no needs, indeed no inclination, no reason in the deepest and most profound sense, to create or do *anything.*
Since no human is perfect, then no human can presume to know what dafuq a perfect being might desire, or want, or need. That doesn't even begin to consider the fact that maybe God doesn't have to be perfect to be a God. Maybe the creator had another job, before being promoted to his level of incompetence? Why is it always presumed that God must be perfect? Isn't good good enough?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @11:39PM (3 children)
By definition God is perfect. Ask any theologian. This is not "my idea of" a perfect, self-sufficient being, it is entailed by the definition of perfection and of self-sufficiency. Something which is lacking is perfectible, hence not perfect. You seem to have a permanent brain cramp when it comes to reading for comprehension.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 23 2019, @03:14AM (2 children)
By definition, any god is powerful, unpredictable, and un-understandable. So far as I am aware, only the Abraham religions insist that God is perfect. I've read some things written by Jews that indicate maybe they don't think God is perfect either. Searches are mostly coming up empty right now, but good old Wikipedia can give you a toe in the door - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Judaism#Properties_attributed_to_God [wikipedia.org]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 23 2019, @04:26PM
It's a rather small subset of Jews that don't think so, and Christianity (and as far as I'm aware, Islam) does stipulate it.
One problem with postulating a less-than-perfect God is that it just reduces down to "well, this is the best we can get." The issues with *that* are 1) how do you know that? Sufficiently-advanced demons are indistinguishable from God, and 2) it seems wrong that something greater-than-God could feasibly be imagined. I'm with the God-is-perfect theologians on this one.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday February 25 2019, @09:23PM
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
see that "therefore"? in this case, perfect is a good choice in Latin, where it means "complete", I'd translate it "wholesome". But I wouldnt want to be accused of trying to ruin those theological essays or those marvellous atheist proofs by shifting goalposts.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday February 23 2019, @05:07PM (9 children)
I don't need to attack all your ideas, I just need to address what is against my ideas. Anyway, what is perfection and desire for a god is nothing to base implications on. Your theology is as good as anyone's. The state of affairs before the world existed is not a point in time yes, but also causality does not exist without an unidirectional arrow of time to tell cause from effect, so it is as if you said before time, that is a big logic error. From the POV of a god outside time an eventually just universe is just so imperfection still would not belong there but as I said you are reasoning by proxy in the domain of the supernatural, no meaningful conclusions. Why does the universe exist is another time based question. Implying the concept of perfection prevents a god to create something that might be momentarily imperfect is a reasoning by a lawyer not by a guy looking for the truth. Besides, the universe is also dfou which is marvelous. Dfou is of course a word I just made up for a quality good but so good that this time the hypothetical God did not create is difference or it's opposite so you cannot really experience it as it is always present anywhere. So you see how good your perfect always universe is if we start talking about implementation instead of fluff.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 24 2019, @09:35PM (3 children)
Okay, number 1, line breaks, number two, take your fucking lithium you complete spaz.
And number 3, once you've got the other two sorted: Read. For. Compre-fucking-hension. I don't know how to make this any simpler:
-- A state of affairs in which God and only God exists is by definition the most perfect possible state, because God alone is perfect.
-- Any other state is therefore by definition less perfect.
-- A perfect, self-sufficient being has no need, no reason, no impulse, to create. It lacks nothing, desires nothing, wishes nothing, needs nothing.
-- And indeed, if it created anything other than different aspects of itself, it would be creating imperfection (substitute "allowing imperfection to exist" or "failing to create perfection" or whatever other Catholic dodge you want, it works out the same). This is...questionable...for a perfect being, even without the fatal hurdle that a perfect, self-sufficient being, again, lacks all reason to create anything.
You seem to have some sort of autistic meltdown whenever you get backed into a corner. This does not bode well for you actually understanding The Truth (TM). I would advise you to get tested for frontal lobe epilepsy.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday February 24 2019, @09:43PM (2 children)
>A state of affairs in which God and only
Dependency error, "only" depends on spacetime, spacetime undefined in God's domain, compilation to logical structure that makes actual sense failed.
Better now?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 25 2019, @02:01AM (1 child)
Incorrect. If your argument were true, there would never have been a [time/state of affairs/space/place/suchness/whatever the fuck] in which only God existed, i.e., there would have been something other than God co-eternal with him.
You are much less competent at this than you think you are, and maybe you'd bamboozle someone less well-studied in this arena, but not me. You also seem to lose your grip on reality when cornered hard enough. Bad news for you; I've bitten down like a bulldog on a bone and am not letting go.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday February 25 2019, @03:40PM
You are merely rephrasing the earlier reasoning in the domain of God. In this case I would stop at "never" with the same error. Besides your ad absurdum still uses time and is overall a puerile model. It is as if a dreamer dreaming a dream had the dream entering somehow his dimension and affect him. Wat?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 25 2019, @05:28AM (4 children)
That's not counting the similarly huge assumption that perfect beings can exist. Nonexistence seems likely to be an essential though paradoxical characteristic of a perfect being.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday February 25 2019, @03:30PM (3 children)
What implications? Implications require a logic system. Besides I already told you that a universe which is imperfect in a moment in time is not enough to claim absolute imperfection even if we persisted in reasoning by proxy. If a revelation from God says I am perfect it means that the best human concept to describe God is that, if you believe it. If a prophet says that, you got to what he is inspired to think in context. If a theologian says it you can work out pseudo implications.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 25 2019, @04:14PM (2 children)
Well, then you were wrong in telling us that.
If you don't have a logic system here, then you don't have an opinion worth listening to.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday February 25 2019, @09:09PM (1 child)
>Well, then you were wrong in telling us that.
- full house! i win
- no, a straight flush is higher
- no, my rules say full is higher
- even if it was, i notice you haven't even got a full, but only two pairs, so even if the rules were...
- Well, then you were wrong in telling me that because you don't recognize my rules
whatever, mate
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 01 2019, @06:57PM
You two deserve one another, you know that? And as much as I hate to give Hallow credit for *anything* he's got you dead to rights here. I notice you did the word-salad thing again on my last reply too. Face it, Bot, you're not only wrong, you're not even coherent, and your brain spazzes out whenever it's backed against a wall and confronted with that.
Get yourself checked for temporal lobe epilepsy.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday March 01 2019, @06:17PM (4 children)
Spontaneous symmetry breakdown?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 01 2019, @06:54PM (3 children)
Which would have required God to create something not-God (spacetime) in order for there to be something to break symmetry in in the first place...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday March 01 2019, @11:32PM (2 children)
Yeah. Even without theology there's the same problem with identifying the cause of the big bang. Perhaps that really is the start of time. What was before that? There was no before.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 02 2019, @11:04PM (1 child)
That we know of. Could be just the ass-end of a black hole in another spacetime, or a false-vacuum decay from a previous higher-energy state.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday March 03 2019, @07:56PM
True. But I have always wonder if the start of time is like the North Pole. Physics is quite normal there, but there's no further back just as there's no further north.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday February 22 2019, @03:15PM
I've always liked the interpretation that the Abraham and Isaac story is about a test of God -- that any god that would let Abraham go through with the sacrifice of Isaac is a god that is not worth worshipping.
Not the way it's usually presented, I know.
(Score: 3, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Friday February 22 2019, @05:29PM (5 children)
- Epicurus
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday February 23 2019, @05:16PM (4 children)
Are you the result of an almost infinite string of bad and evil events? Yes. So... Are you evil?
"Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed..."
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday February 25 2019, @04:18PM (3 children)
Ignoring the concept of original sin which claims that we are all evil due to a long ago evil act, you are ignoring that people are also the result of an almost infinite string of good and benign acts too and that the intentions of the act can be very different from its consequences.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday February 25 2019, @05:07PM (2 children)
The original sin enables you to commit sin. Being evil is aiming to sin and have others sin. If you equate a collector of guns with a school shooter... The problem is that if only benign acts were permissible you would not be there, and if unjust acts were banned, neither would this universe or any other non banal one.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 01 2019, @07:00PM (1 child)
So no heaven then? Because I was always told in heaven there's free will but no sin. So people only choose to commit benign acts. Free will still 100% intact. So the difference is a matter of circumstance, not free will or lack thereof. Your God could have avoided all this by just making everyone in heaven if he *had* to create.
Oops, you fucked up again!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday March 01 2019, @09:50PM
let's forget the fact that there is no defined logical framework for you to say "so", and forgetting about what Christ replies to in an argument about the ex husbands in heaven, or the fact that what seems a good idea for you might not be for the sysadmin, or the fact that an "act" in the context of eternity, which might mean infinite time but also, absence of time or causality, is a bit difficult to define.
You are basically saying that a god should have not put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in heaven, because YOU prefer not to suffer in exchange for not knowing. OK it's a legitimate bug report. WONTFIX
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @03:05PM (1 child)
It should be dropped or severely edited then. I get your advice and it is good for christians looking to escape orthodoxy, but few people care to put that much effort in and simply having the OT exist gives the nutters the excuse they need to promote nasty shit. When you pick and choose you should call yourself a unitarian or something.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 25 2019, @04:20PM
Or treated as TMB did.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 22 2019, @06:29PM (2 children)
I wouldn't call them failed Jews, but Wannabe Jews. They aren't the only sect to have built their church on the magical 244,000. But the 244,000 in the Bible never, ever, ever referred to anyone but Jews. God's chosen people, God's chosen number. And, after all these thousands of years, God is still searching for those 244,000 Jewish virgins.*
Q. What do you call a thirteen year old virgin girl in Appalachia?
A. FAST!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 23 2019, @04:46PM (1 child)
Now, I thought an Appalachian virgin was a girl that could outrun her brother...
Q: What's Texas foreplay?
A: Get in the truck, bitch!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 23 2019, @05:35PM
Appalachian foreplay:
Hey sis, you awake?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:35PM (8 children)
You get that protestant basically just means "not catholic", yeah? Might as well say all black people love fried chicken and watermelon. That's not true of course, only the ones with good taste do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @03:42AM (5 children)
Sorry, man, Lex Luther forever poisoned the world...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 22 2019, @03:48AM (4 children)
S'like saying Linux should be thrown in the trash bin of history because of Poettering. Just marks you as an idiot.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @05:13PM (3 children)
No, Lutheranism started out as shit to begin with, violent agitators and terrorists. Not so with Linux. We can turn our backs on Poettering and carry on like he doesn't exist. We just want access to the hardware, not conquer the world.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 23 2019, @02:21PM (2 children)
So what? Lutheranism != modern Lutheranism much less Protestantism as a whole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 23 2019, @04:51PM (1 child)
They're all the same. Bunch of violent bastards. Nothing has changed. They just moved the war overseas, that's all (of course THAT'S coming home to roost now). Make 'em pay taxes like the rest us dammit!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 24 2019, @12:24AM
Except, of course, they're not all the same. Not really feeling your troll here.
Which actually is a huge deal. A war between say, the US and the EU would be much more catastrophic than the wars you speak of.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 22 2019, @06:20AM
From what I've read, Martin Luther was a flaming fruitcake, but that doesn't mean everything Protestant is equally crazy...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday February 22 2019, @03:16PM
Yum. Watermelon with Cheshire cheese.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 22 2019, @07:03PM (1 child)
The generic term for religious asshole is "Protestant". They are the radical hooligans that cause all the trouble.
Protestant just means everyone should be able to read the bible. Previously, only the clergy were allowed to read the bible, in Latin, and tell the sheep what it was. Martin Luther thought everyone should be able to read their own copy and started the Protestant movement. "Information wants to be free."
I think "Evangelical" is the term for religious asshole. They're not willing to live and let live, they must evangelize. That evangelizing can range from best-case annoyance to worst-case convert-or-die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 23 2019, @05:00PM
Martin Luther thought everyone should be able to read their own copy and started the Protestant movement. "Information wants to be free."
Yeah! And look what they did with it: *God Hates Fags*. Looks like the clergy was right. We can't handle the truth! That's what Protestantism is. They are today's rednecks and fascists and hooligans. Idiots need to be disciplined and taught some respect before being allowed to read anything beyond Jack and Jill. Then maybe they can express themselves in a civilized manner, otherwise they're just pale faced savages.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday February 21 2019, @05:27PM (37 children)
Unless those neighbours are poor or Mexican, in which case fuck them, amiright?
TMB, you have a pretty large disconnect between loving your neighbour, and being against any sort of welfare (public healthcare, poverty assistance, etc) or taxation to support said welfare. It's not just you. It seems to be a common trait for right wingers.
I find it mindboggling.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @05:59PM (19 children)
There's no conflict. I do help my neighbors and I'm against taking what they've earned from them to be redistributed as I see fit. Charity is a wonderful thing but no matter what you do with money you've stolen, it was still wrong to steal it in the first place.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Snow on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:19PM (18 children)
You misuse the word steal/stolen:
Followed by:
So you see, these things called laws grant the government a portion of your income. That is not theft. That is being part of a (somewhat) civilized society.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:23PM (13 children)
See below. Theft by mob is still theft.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:30PM (12 children)
Typical libertariantard! Cannot distinguish between an illusionary construct of the state of nature, and the sovereign individual within it, and the biological fact of human co-dependency and mutual assistance. Time to read some Kropotkin, Buzzard!
And, "We're coming for your capital gains, Chuck!"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:39PM (4 children)
Co-dependency and mutual assistance only exist if they are voluntary, otherwise we call them slavery.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:21PM (3 children)
You are free to emigrate any day to the mythical land where saying "hello" to your neighbor requires a contractual agreement. Can't have neighborly interactions you didn't agree to amirite???
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 22 2019, @03:12AM (1 child)
Or I can exercise my rights to free speech and my vote to improve a country that's starting to succumb to socialist insanity that will eventually destroy it as it destroys every nation it touches.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @03:16PM
It is your right to be a hypocrite and promote destructive selfish policies that create massive wealth disparity which destroys the very foundations of the USA. The continued use of "socialist" as some bogeyman is pretty sad, no one of significance is calling for communism which is what you are actually afraid of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 23 2019, @03:18AM
You know, you've really convinced me. You win, Buzzard loses -- I just don't know how I overlooked the natural analogy between saying "hello" to someone and forcibly extracting money from them for so long. I guess my neighbors and I have just been saying "hello" all wrong.
But I am a little unclear how you think pointing out that there is no place where one can be free of government is relevant to an argument about the morality of government actions.
I'm not sure if you have trouble with the difference between a question of what is and one of what ought to be? Or if you understand the difference perfectly, and are just rolling with "might makes right"?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 21 2019, @09:59PM (6 children)
Why Uzzard's chosen to die on this hill in particular I will never understand. He's like an embryonic version of Runaway, not quite past the sell-by date, as opposed to the latter being kookier than an entire castle full of Koopalings and likely having been so for a couple decades.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 22 2019, @03:13AM (5 children)
You're correct, you probably never will. I don't think you're capable.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @04:44AM (4 children)
It's true, I'm not a fanatic. Like it's said in the Hitchiker's Guide, you can't beat an obsessive. Or, as Chuck Jones puts it, "the fanatic is one who redoubles his efforts when he has forgotten his aim." As several of your posts have been backfiring on you much like Mr. Coyote's Acme rocket-powered doohickeys of late, I think this is a very apt comparison :)
Don't misunderstand, *intellectually* I get why you chose this hill to die on. It's just that on the emotional level I can't comprehend it, mostly because you're starting from flawed assumptions, and are intelligent enough that you should understand how and why they're flawed. I just don't roll that way, so there's the disconnect.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday February 25 2019, @04:38PM (3 children)
Let us recall your sermon [soylentnews.org] on the matter:
This sort of over-the-top rhetoric is precisely that of the fanatic. But please go on about how you're not a fanatic because reasons you can't ever bother to go over.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 25 2019, @04:53PM (2 children)
That is not even close to fanaticism. By that standard *anyone* who wants to do good in this world is a fanatic. Gandhi, MLK Jr., Jimmy Carter post-presidency, any of a number of plain old healthcare workers like me...sure, we're all fanatics, right.
Face it, pal: you either have the fire in your belly or you don't. Apathy and moral flabbiness aren't normal, no matter what you think.
Your troll game is weak, Hallow. Tone trolling is the first, last, and only refuge of the scoundrel. No, Hallow, were I an actual *fanatic,* I'd have long since taken action in meatspace. THAT would be pretty much the definition of forgetting one's aim and redoubling one's effort.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday February 25 2019, @06:11PM (1 child)
No, I don't buy what you're shoveling. Let's review the dictionary for a bit to get the proper definition for fanaticism:
ok, fanatical [oxforddictionaries.com] then:
So sure, obsession is a characteristic, but not the primary characteristic. Let's review this zeal [oxforddictionaries.com]
Eh, kinda weak, but basically anyone who obsessively pursues some cause or objective with great energy and enthusiasm is a fanatic. So when you obsessively pursue your imaginary straw men with great energy and enthusiasm, well, that's what fanatics do all the time.
You are taking action in meatspace with your posts.
People have all kinds of characteristics. Nobody here has claimed that these people or you for that matter were fanatics because of their jobs or careers. And dropping you from the list, no one has claimed here that these people were fanatics at all. This is an example of the straw men you drag to this discussion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 25 2019, @06:31PM
So the long and short of it is I'm making you uncomfortable by having actual morals, values, and principles. There's a huge surprise. This is why I keep saying "evil can't comprehend good." Sorry if you're offended, snowflake, but I'm not going to compromise my humanity to spare your feelings.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Friday February 22 2019, @01:46PM (2 children)
friendly reminder that everything hitler, pol pot, and the like did, had been permitted by law in advance.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 22 2019, @06:36PM (1 child)
friendly reminder that everything hitler, pol pot, and the like did, had been permitted by law in advance.
Turns out, the Reichstag Fire [wikipedia.org] was also a fake emergency declaration.
To bad nobody had the balls to call Hitler on it....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 23 2019, @05:21PM
To bad nobody had the balls to call Bush on Afghanistan and Iraq either. Or Obama on Libya and Syria. Or Johnson/Nixon on Vietnam and Cambodia. Or Alexander on Egypt... Unless an atrocity causes hardship at home, the leaders aren't going to be *called on it*. Capiche?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 23 2019, @02:23PM
There we go. Buzz doesn't think they have a right to his stuff for that purpose. Thus, it is theft by definition.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:14PM (6 children)
Second reply because it occurred to me while I was out smoking that you're probably thinking something along the lines of "oh, great, a taxation is theft loony". So, let's break it down to the basics. If you tell someone to give you their money and when they refuse you take it anyway then imprison them if they don't resist and kill them if they do, it's most assuredly theft. Adding more people demanding the money does not change the immorality of the act. Six thugs saying give up your wallet or else is no more morally correct than one doing so. Neither is 200 million.
No, that doesn't mean I don't see a need for some taxation. For national defense it is something that must be done and it benefits everyone, so everyone should contribute, for example. When faced with a moral question I do not only consider the greater good though, I also consider the lesser evil. The failure to do this is what causes the bleeding hearts to advocate tyranny in the name of compassion.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:24PM (5 children)
Funny you mention military spending. Many hold the position that it's fucking insane how much the USA spends on military while some citizens are starving.
You, as an individual, do not get to say how your taxes are spent. You can vote for the people that you think align with your views, but you can't just pick and choose what you want to pay taxes for.
Some people don't want to pay trillions for the military. You don't want to pay for welfare programs.
Tough shit. It's not theft.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:37PM (4 children)
Dress it up with whatever words you like; the act is the same, as is the immorality. I'm simply willing to admit to choosing the lesser evil when necessary instead of convincing myself it isn't evil to begin with.
Oh military spending is a boondoggle wrapped in an inefficiency, no doubt. Some does need to happen but it's the government's duty to spend only what is necessary and to spend that amount wisely. It is not, however, the government's duty to feed its citizens or tell them how to live their lives. Government is our servant not our master, not even our parent. Did you miss the bit in US history where we declared that pretty loudly and with much bloodshed?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:28PM (2 children)
No hope for you, move to Sealand already. All the fishing you could ever want.
(Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 22 2019, @03:14AM (1 child)
Think I'll stay and keep foiling your plans for yet another failed socialist utopia and massacre buffet.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @03:09PM
Ah yes, all those countries with universal healthcare and schooling sure have become hotbeds of genocide!!
Get a clue you squirrel.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 22 2019, @06:52PM
Not your master, or mine - but most assuredly the master of all those sucking at the government teat. If they disobey government, they lose their food stamps, their housing, they heat and air, everything. And, those people don't even know that they are owned by government.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:31PM (1 child)
The problems with poor Mexican neighbors is that 99% of them have no fucking manners. Especially border-trash and Central Americans.
If they took a few hints about assimilation and got some fucking manners, then people like Trump wouldn't be elected and reelected.
(Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:48PM
The legal ones generally do. They had to put a lot of effort into becoming an American and rightfully take pride that they are one. They also hate wetbacks worse than any redneck does.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:45PM (7 children)
Heaven has a wall, and pearly gates, and extreme vetting. Only the most deserving are allowed in. Everybody else can go to Hell.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday February 21 2019, @08:25PM (6 children)
Depends on your denomination.
The Catholics, for example, just need to confess their sins to a priest and say a few Hail Marys for their VIP access pass.
Hardy extreme vetting.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @09:17PM (1 child)
in the absence of a priest you can confess to Jesus and being the nice dude he is you'll be forgiven unless you are rich and cannot pass a camel through the hole of a needle
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 22 2019, @03:16AM
"Eye of a needle". It was what they called the gate in the outer wall that was intentionally made too small for an invading army to make it through in significant numbers. You could get a camel through it if you tried but it wasn't going to be a pleasant experience.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday February 21 2019, @10:34PM (1 child)
From what I've read, the (non-Catholic) Christian sects have it even easier as all they have to do is embrace their deity as supreme in order to be good to go; they pretty much skip the "be a compassionate/giving/honest/etc. person, but admit it and repent when you screw up" angle the Catholics seem to have. (That said, I have no idea how genuine the repentance has to be, and all three major Abrahamic religions' holy books are pretty much dumpster fires of self-contradiction & intermittent nastiness anyway.)
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday February 22 2019, @07:55AM
It's getting pretty soupy, but to hopefully bring some clarity: it all depends on how real their faith is- they may only be fooling themselves, and a few inconsequential others.
> the (non-Catholic) Christian sects have it even easier as all they have to do is embrace their deity as supreme in order to be good to go;
It's a paradox. I know what you're saying and people do it but it's moronic. If you really believe the religion and Bible's teachings, but then live by your own rules, you're not going to be good to go. The Bible / NT talks about the "fruits of the spirit", meaning if you really believe, the natural result will be: you being a kind, compassionate, giving, honest, loving, ... the fruits: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control... different interpretations and translations will go on and list more but you get the idea- elaboration on "don't be a dick".
> they pretty much skip the "be a compassionate/giving/honest/etc. person, but admit it and repent when you screw up" angle the Catholics seem to have.
From what I've seen the non-Catholics believe this way too, they just don't do the formal confessional to a priest- they confess and repent directly to God in prayer.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday February 22 2019, @01:51PM (1 child)
The vetting is in the final judgment, no matter what the sellers of indulgences may hope.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @05:43PM
Hope you're wearing your asbestos onsie, pal...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 21 2019, @09:57PM (10 children)
Well, not according to Jesus anyway, cf. Mt. 5:17-20. Paul says it is, but Paul is also the asshole who tells the disciples to their faces that he's a better disciple than them despite only ever having had visions and dreams of Jesus, as opposed to being physically with him for his entire ministry.
Before even opening up this thread I predicted exactly what was going to be said in it by whom, and was not (or, let's be real here, very much *was*...) disappointed. The OP is a bunch of autofellating posturing that would take in someone who hasn't actually studied the Bible much, but not me.
Incidentally, verses 33 through 37 of that very same Evangelion would be very eye-opening for all those politicians and judges who make you swear on a Bible, if they actually knew what was *in* the Bible. Which of course they fuckin' don't.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 22 2019, @03:20AM (5 children)
I never said it was a perfect metaphor, darlin. It's functionally sound though. Getting off in OT shit will just confuse an aspiring Christian (or Christianity hating researcher) if they don't fully grok Jesus's message first.
And, yeah, Paul was a bit of a dick.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @04:39AM (3 children)
That is classic apologist handwaving and it's dishonest as Hell.
Jesus *is* in some sense the same being as "God-the-father." Nevermind that the doctrine of the Trinity requires paraconsistent logic to make sense of and wasn't even the earliest belief about Jesus. For all practical purposes, Jesus is Yahweh is the Holy Ghost, no matter what a bunch of delusional pederasts in dresses whose underpants smell like altarboy ass say. It boils down to "A is D, B is D, C is D, but A is not B is not C." The RCC and the EOs split over this very issue, the Filioque Clause, which itself was an echo of the old Arian/Athanasian split.
Again: Jesus says in Mt. 5:17-20 to keep the old Mosaic Law, all 631 mitzvot, and that whoever breaks them shall be called "least in the kingdom of heaven." It amazed me, as far back as third grade when the CCD program got its grips into me hard, how NO ONE seems to have noticed this. I recall a nun practically foaming at the mouth at me in fifth grade for asking questions, and finally spitting out "You...you little PROTESTANT!"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday February 22 2019, @01:58PM (1 child)
> A is D, B is D, C is D, but A is not B is not C.
no problem with that, once you spell it out.
A meta-is D, B meta-is D, C meta-is D, and A B and C are different.
To be implies belonging to spacetime. 'And' and not 'but' as the logic formal system, we defined off our experience of macroscopic reality, already breaks down in alternative contexts already, so why should it hold in the ineffable supernatural.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @04:51PM
Oh, bullshit. You're inventing words and terms to try and ad-hoc your way out of this, and then handwaving and going "it's magic, I don't gotta explain shit." Not to mention missing all the historical context. Then again, we know you're a fideist, so anything you say on the matter has the epistemological power of a long, wet fart.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 22 2019, @07:08PM
Don't hold back - tell us what you really think!
Wait, wait - isn't Aristarchus lurking around here somewhere? He'll want in on that altarboy ass!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 22 2019, @05:33AM
Fuck Jesus.
He was just another loudmouthed jewish carpenter. I already have one of those in my family and one is more than enough.
No thanks.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday February 22 2019, @08:01AM (3 children)
> ... but Paul is also the asshole who tells the disciples to their faces that he's a better disciple than them...
He was just being a self-appointed army sergeant. Egos were huge back then too. Not that it was okay, quite the contrary- it was a glaring flaw that showed he wasn't perfect either.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @04:48PM (2 children)
No, he specifically says that he has higher claim to discipleship despite only ever having had dreams and visions than the people who were by Jesus' side through his entire ministry. That's not "being a self-appointed army sergeant." That's fucking delusional. Paul destroyed Christianity before it could take its first breath. Jesus' ideas died with the Essenes and other groups of primitive Christians.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday February 22 2019, @06:35PM (1 child)
I don't have 1/10th your verbal ability, and knowing this I avoid replying to you, but it was very late at night and my inhibition algorithm had already gone to sleep.
AFTER posting my comment, I read some of your other comments and you're extremely knowledgeable on this (and many other topics.)
I had various Christian instruction growing up and I never admitted it before but I never thought much of Paul. I don't disagree with you at all; I just think it comes from ego, which may be an oversimplification, but the more people understand the concept, the more they can exert self-control, open their minds, and learn.
Thanks for all you contribute here (this discussion and SN generally).
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @11:23PM
Aww, thanks *^^* You're making me blush. It comes from just being obsessive and scary about studying to the point of excluding normal social activity. Please, don't feel like you can't reply though; I'm always trying to learn more and it's not uncommon for me to miss something seriously important somewhere. You're probably a lot more knowledgeable than the loudmouths on here, but they have such inflated opinions of themselves that they never let it stop them.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 22 2019, @12:00AM (1 child)
While the origins of the earth and humans in general isn't as some would call a salvation issue per se. Tossing out as irrelevant anything the Bible plainly states, is akin to disbelieving the entire thing. Now, thought experiments like "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?" are good candidates for ignoring the entire discussion. In fact, Jesus quotes multiple of the ten commandments that one must follow to be saved. Jesus didn't consider the Old Testament to be irrelevant and neither should we.
Matthew 19:17-19
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 22 2019, @03:21AM
I didn't say toss it out. I said don't read it until you have the mental tools to understand its context.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Friday February 22 2019, @02:18AM (12 children)
Immediately the first thing that came to mind was, "they're all used to copy stuff from one place to another? Ok, I guess I'll go with it."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @05:07AM (11 children)
You're joking, but textual analysis shows that Matthew and Luke lift huge pieces of Mark almost verbatim, and Luke uses a bit of Matthew too (and somehow they still all disagree on fundamental points of dogma...). It's dd all right, but the drive controller is throwing errors and the heads are bouncing off the platters a bit :)
Richard Carrier may be a crank what with the whole "Jesus never existed at all" thing, but he's done stellar and meticulous work on showing exactly where and how this wholesale plagiarism occurs. If you have some time and are really bored search his blog for the minute gory details.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Friday February 22 2019, @06:37AM (2 children)
Haven't read from this Carrier dude, but I have read about the duplications and parallel text. Yeah, pretty obvious there's some common sources. But what's usually not understood today is that back in the day the copyists were often 'blind scribes' (that is, they couldn't read the language, but they could copy the letters, and were paid to make copies of existing documents), and officialdom of the era was obsessed with recording every jot and tittle. So pretty much anything written got copied and copied and copied and eventually stuffed into an archive, even if no one had any idea what was in it. Naturally there was a lot of overlap and duplication, for which today's students of antiquities should be grateful, because it increased the chance that some fragment would survive to the present.
Which is why there's stuff like tax receipts mixed into OT histories. Forget where I was reading (Daniel, maybe? was reading at random) but it's going on about a series of historical events, then veers sideways into an inventory of someone's livestock and how much they paid the tax collector per head. In other words, a tax receipt that had kinda got mixed in by accident. (Well, one could say that God wished us to understand the concept, so provided an example.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Friday February 22 2019, @06:58AM (1 child)
Nope, that sounds like it came straight out of Life of Brian.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Friday February 22 2019, @07:29AM
Who knows -- maybe it did!!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22 2019, @12:37PM (6 children)
So, mark might be the earliest. You could consider it as the original golden standard or notice that early Christians needed to improve on it twice in two different directions.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @04:44PM (5 children)
IIRC the Pauline epistles predate the Gospels, which itself is bizarre. Over time I've come to think of the Gospels as either basically a cult's training manual, or a cult's "hidden in plain sight" doctrine, esoterica wrapped in an exoteric package.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Friday February 22 2019, @09:08PM (4 children)
Yes, the genuine pauline letters precede most if not all of the gospels. I used to have a very negative view of him, once that's been tempered somewhat in the process of reading the works of bp shelby spong, who really makes the sympathetic case for him quite well. You might read him if you haven't.
The notion that the gospels were written as training manuals is not far off at all. The evangelists were not writing history - they were writing what was meant to inspirational material. Jesus = Iesous = YShW = JOSHUA. The second Joshua.
Joshua is a very interesting figure. The Bible in the form you normally see it doesn't tell you that he's the son of Moses but it's not exactly well concealed. He's also, at least in part, the author of the Torah, the person who at least wrote the final chapter, even if the bulk came from his fathers notes. He lead the people over the river and began the period of judges, when the people prospered without any central tyrant, either a king or a high priest, living directly under G_d. Political authority was decentralized, as was religion. The judges were people who gained a reputation for righteous ethical behavior - the opposite of most kings. The priesthood, the tribe of levi, was scattered across the land, each priestly family tending a separate shrine, each town or village having local access to the rituals of the faith. It was after this system was overthrown and kingship - the system of pagan egypt which was by now imitated all over the known world - was instituted that the long downward spiral began.
The kings replaced the judges, and they brought disaster after disaster. The village shrines were outlawed, the village priests forced to come to the capital and live as servants to the priests of the king. The people groaned under the oppression, between the demands of the king and the new requirement to travel to the capital and pay far more for the essential rituals of the faith. The Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians in turn ruined the land, killed and plundered and took slaves. And when the people began to recover from that, the Persians, with the best intentions in the world, unleashed yet another disaster. Returning the grandchildren of those slaves, who promptly proclaimed their cousins living there 'foreign invaders' and started a multi-generational conflict eerily familiar to anyone who's watching with israel/palestine today.
Anyway, the second joshua was a figure used in stories that exemplified the christian ethos, one that sought not to break from the ancient jewish scriptures, but rather to *rescue* the ethical and universalist faith contained in them from the hands of all these generations of lying scribes and brutal proto-nationalists who had abused them to maintain their own power, and sanction their own rapaciousness, for centuries.
This was not a homogeneous religion or a hierarchical one. There was no set creed, and different groups or even different individuals sometimes came to significantly different understandings of certain subjects. Nor did they see themselves as a new religion at all. More of a revival movement within an old one.
Then paul comes along, yeah, and then constantine, and the christian literature gets 'mined' and reused for the same old game they were rejecting.
“History, Stephen said, is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.”
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @11:14PM (3 children)
Yeshua ben Nun (Joshua) wasn't much better than Yeshua ben Yousef (Jesus). He was a genocidal maniac, although, to give him credit, he had no inkling of torturing his defeated foes in fire for all eternity; THAT little piece of gimcrackery is Zoroastrian and Greek in origin and therefore after ben Nun's time.
It's nice to see someone else who has at least half a clue about this stuff because, good God damn, almost no one else on this thread does.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 23 2019, @01:29AM (2 children)
Was he really though?
Yes, there are claims of genocide in the book, but are they literally true? Very few of the stories in the book were even intended to be read that way.
And archaeology gives us a clear no. The Israelite "invasion" does not appear, archaeologically, as an invasion at all, let alone a genocide. joshua may well have led the levites and a few others into the land, but the bulk of the israelites were already there waiting for his leadership. This was no invasion - it was a revolt.
Israel finkelstein has written several fascinating volumes on this if you're interested in the details, but the important part here is that there was, in fact, no genocide committed, which confirms my suspicion that the verses in question were either interpolated or simply not intended to be read literally; and also means logically joshua cannot have been guilty of committing a genocide which did not occur.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 23 2019, @03:15AM (1 child)
Hey, I'm just taking the text at its word, like any good Christian would :) I know this stuff, but it leaves us with another conundrum: we now have a lying God, at least one who lies by omission by not saying "yeah none of that shit happened, stop using it as justification."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 23 2019, @03:34AM
"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? Behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood."
Jeremiah 8:8 (Darby's Literal)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday February 23 2019, @11:49PM
Yeah, there tends to some truth [fyngyrz.com] to most of these stories.
--
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday February 22 2019, @11:33AM (1 child)
Announcing the reason why they behave that way, and that it came not from the prophet or the enlightened guy, of which there is abundance, but from the real mccoy. This from the POV of the believer, I consider belief kind of a prerequisite.
I keep seeing the OT having no issues with the NT, it's not the scripture that changes, it's the recipients.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 22 2019, @05:17PM
"I consider belief kind of a prerequisite" is your problem right there. You've been thoroughly chased out of every other possible justification, so you're left with nothing but plugging your ears and going "well fuck you, I believe 'cause I believe." Fideism is content-free. People in insane asylums believe things very strongly too but that doesn't make those things true.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...