History Main / ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity

27th Nov '16 10:59:21 AM dannybeans
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Although Christians may sometimes fall into the NoTrueScotsman fallacy as a defense, what looks like the fallacy may not always be: when Christians specifically break commands they have accepted as part of Christianity (for instance the commandment against murder), they are in fact No True Christian. People who fail to follow the tenants of Christianity are not Christians, no matter ''what'' they say. Just like how someone who lives in and who's entire ancestry comes from Russia is not a Scotsman, no matter what they say.

to:

* Although Christians may sometimes fall into the NoTrueScotsman fallacy as a defense, what looks like the fallacy may not always be: when Christians specifically break commands they have accepted as part of Christianity (for instance the commandment against murder), they are in fact No True Christian. People who fail to follow the tenants tenets of Christianity are not Christians, no matter ''what'' they say. Just like how someone who lives in and who's entire ancestry comes from Russia is not a Scotsman, no matter what they say.
20th Nov '16 1:57:57 AM skadooshbag
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The classic appearance of Satan as a red-skinned, goat-hooved, barb-tailed, goatee-wearing, and horned man does not come from Scripture. It emerged around the 19th century representing [[Myth/ClassicalMythology the faun Pan]] as a symbol of pagan decadence, becoming associated with sin and then with Satan. As for the Bible, the closest it gets to describing Satan's appearance is in 2 Corinthians 11:14, which warns that: "[[LightIsNotGood even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light]]." Satan was originally created as an angel just as sinless as the others [hence his actual name ("Satan" is simply a title, akin to "destroyer of worlds") "Lucifer" which translates to "bringer of light"], so that is what his true form would look like.[[note]]Except, of course, for the fact that they are spirits, and as such their true "form" is not even a physical entity.[[/note]] In fact, Satan would likely hardly ever even take on this stereotypical form. If he needed to pretend to be an unfallen angel, he'd be in his true form (or whatever you thought angels looked like). If he was trying to tempt you, he'd appear as something you'd readily accept the temptation from (such as your favorite pornographer). If for whatever reason he needed something ''actually'' "demonic," he'd probably take on a form somewhere between "Eldritch abomination" and "living shadow with glowing eyes of doom".

to:

* The classic appearance of Satan as a red-skinned, goat-hooved, barb-tailed, goatee-wearing, and horned man does not come from Scripture. It emerged around the 19th century representing [[Myth/ClassicalMythology the faun Pan]] as a symbol of pagan decadence, becoming associated with sin and then with Satan. As for the Bible, the closest it gets to describing Satan's appearance is in 2 Corinthians 11:14, which warns that: "[[LightIsNotGood even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light]]." Satan was originally created as an angel just as sinless as the others [hence his actual name ("Satan" is simply a title, akin to "destroyer of worlds") "Lucifer" which translates to "bringer of light"], so that is what his true form would look like.[[note]]Except, of course, for the fact that they are spirits, and as such their true "form" is not even a physical entity.[[/note]] In fact, Satan would likely hardly ever even take on this stereotypical form. If he needed to pretend to be an unfallen angel, he'd be in his true form (or whatever you thought angels looked like). If he was trying to tempt you, he'd appear as something you'd readily accept the temptation from (such as your favorite pornographer). If for whatever reason he needed something ''actually'' "demonic," he'd probably take on a form somewhere between "Eldritch abomination" an EldritchAbomination and "living shadow a LivingShadow with glowing eyes of doom".
GlowingEyesOfDoom.
19th Nov '16 10:03:22 PM skadooshbag
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."--Werner Heisenberg. Yes, ''that'' Heisenberg.
19th Nov '16 9:50:40 PM skadooshbag
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Although Christians may sometimes fall into the NoTrueScotsman fallacy as a defense, what looks like the fallacy may not always be: when Christians specifically break commands they have accepted as part of Christianity (for instance the commandment against murder), they are in fact No True Christian.

to:

* Although Christians may sometimes fall into the NoTrueScotsman fallacy as a defense, what looks like the fallacy may not always be: when Christians specifically break commands they have accepted as part of Christianity (for instance the commandment against murder), they are in fact No True Christian. People who fail to follow the tenants of Christianity are not Christians, no matter ''what'' they say. Just like how someone who lives in and who's entire ancestry comes from Russia is not a Scotsman, no matter what they say.


Added DiffLines:

**And as for God's personally ordering the Canaanite's obliteration, please read this commentary from the Zondervan NRSV student study Bible:

-->"The Israelites' fighting style fit the harsh pattern of warfare in that day. Contemporary Egyptian and Assyrian reports boasted of mass executions, torture, and the systematic razing of cities. But God's involvement raises unique questions. He personally ordered the destruction of seven Canaanite nations, with no survivors. Why?The Old Testament makes clear that the Canaanites were not being uprooted on a sudden whim. God had promised the land to the Israelites over 400 years before Joshua. He had called one man, Abraham, to found a nation of chosen people. He repeated those promises often (genesis 12.1-3; 15.5-18; 17.2-8; 26.3,23-24; 28.13-14) and finnaly called the Israelites out of Egypt to take over the promised land. Almost from the beginning Canaan was a vital part of god's plan. Israel's inheritance, however, meant kicking out the Canaanites. How could innocent people simply be pushed aside, or killed? In answer to this question, the Bible makes clear that the Canaanites were not 'innocent.' Through their long history of sin, they had forfeited their right to the land. Four hundred years before Joshua, God had told Abraham that his descendants would not occupy the land until the sin of it's inhabitants 'is not yet complete' (Genesis 15.16). later, just days before the onset of Joshua's campaign, Moses stated, 'It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to occupy their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your god is dispossessing them before you' (Deuteronomy 9.5). Historians have uncovered plenty of evidence of this wickedness. Canaanite temples featured prostitutes, orgies, and human sacrifice. Relics and plaques of exaggerated sex organs hint at the morality that characterized Canaan.Canaanite gods, such as Baal and his wife Anath, delighted in butchery and sadism. Archeologists have found great numbers of jars containing the tiny bones of children sacrificed to Baal. families seeking good luck in a new home practiced "foundation sacrifice." They would kill one of their children and seal the body in the mortar of the wall. In many ways, Canaan had become like Sodom and Gomorrah. The bible records that God has patience with decadent societies for a time, but judgment inevitably follows. For Sodom and Gomorrah it took the form of fire and brimstone. For Canaan it came through Joshua's conquering armies."
19th Nov '16 9:26:50 PM skadooshbag
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* While there is naturally quite a bit of debate about the divinity of Jesus and certain specific details of his ministry (e.g. whether he had disciples, whether he ''personally'' claimed to be the Son of God), the consensus among the vast majority of scholars of antiquity, even the non-Christian ones, is that a Galilean Jew named Jesus (well, "Ye(ho)shua(h)") ''did'' actually exist, that he was baptized by John the Baptist when he was around 30, and that Pontius Pilate ordered him to be crucified. The idea that Jesus was a purely fictional character is generally considered to be refuted by professional historians.
* Although there have been Christians who believed that the Jews killed Jesus, this notion is not a part of mainstream Christian doctrine. The Catholic Vatican II document ''Nostra Aetate'', which denounced this idea, was not an innovation, but a restatement of longstanding Christian teaching. Recall that the New Testament writers were Jewish, and that their original aim, in addition to converting Gentiles, was to reform Judaism from within. Indeed, the Gospel writers portray the architects of Jesus' crucifixion as a cabal within the Jewish leadership that not only violated Jesus' rights under Jewish law, but sold out the Jewish cause. First, Jesus is arrested by night and tried before a KangarooCourt composed mostly of Sanhedrin members who have already made up their minds to condemn him. (One of the dissenters indicates that there is not a proper quorum present, and that the time of Jesus' trial is irregular.) Once condemned, when Jesus is brought before Pilate, there is a mob present, but it is not representative the Jewish people, but a handpicked gathering that has been given prior orders to call for Jesus' crucifixion. Tellingly, during the exchange with Pilate, Caiaphas and his followers state, "We have no king, but Caesar". In so doing, they have betrayed the Jewish cause. To first-century Jews, Caesar was not the legitimate government, but a conqueror, an oppressive occupier, and many dreamed of a time when they would again live under a King. [[note]] In portraying Caiaphas this way, the Gospel writers were actually following on a time-honored Jewish tradition, dating back to Nathan and King David, in which prophets called out the king and people of Israel on their wrongdoings.[[/note]] (The Gospel of John portrays Caiaphas somewhat more sympathetically, as a KnightTemplar who believes that Jesus will bring the wrath of Rome down on the Jewish people, and concludes that his death is necessary to prevent a wholesale slaughter of the Jewish people.) What about the statement of the mob that Jesus' blood was on their hands and those of their children? According to Biblical scholars, this was a ritual statement traditionally made at executions. While the mob may have said this, it has no real meaning or effect, as Deut. 24:16 and Ezek 19:20 clearly hold that the sins of the father shall not be visited unto the son, but that each shall bear his own sin. In fact, established Christian doctrine states that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity and that humanity as a whole bears the guilt for his death. (Rom 8:3 and Heb. 2:14). Note also that, in the Passion narratives of the Gospels, Jesus stated that, if he wanted to, he could have called down legions of angels to deliver him from his fate.
* Question: Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? If you answered ''only'' rampant homosexuality, you answered wrongly. [[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekial%2016:49&version=NIV See Ezekiel 16:49 for more details.]] The short answer is that they were destroyed for a number of crimes, most importantly [[RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil rape]] and failure to observe SacredHospitality.

to:

* While there is naturally quite a bit of debate about the divinity of Jesus and certain specific details of his ministry (e.g. whether he had disciples, whether he ''personally'' claimed to be the Son of God), the consensus among the vast majority of scholars of antiquity, even the non-Christian ones, is that a Galilean Jew named Jesus (well, "Ye(ho)shua(h)") ''did'' actually exist, that he was baptized by John the Baptist when he was around 30, and that Pontius Pilate ordered him to be crucified. The idea that Jesus was a purely fictional character is generally considered to be refuted by professional historians.
historians, and in fact they look at people who make this claim the same way they do people who claim the Holocaust never happened.
* Although there have been Christians who believed that the Jews killed Jesus, this notion is not a part of mainstream Christian doctrine. The Catholic Vatican II document ''Nostra Aetate'', which denounced this idea, was not an innovation, but a restatement of longstanding Christian teaching. Recall that the New Testament writers were Jewish, and that their original aim, in addition to converting Gentiles, was to reform Judaism from within. Indeed, the Gospel writers portray the architects of Jesus' crucifixion as a cabal within the Jewish leadership that not only violated Jesus' rights under Jewish law, but sold out the Jewish cause. First, Jesus is arrested by night and tried before a KangarooCourt composed mostly of Sanhedrin members who have already made up their minds to condemn him. (One of the dissenters indicates that there is not a proper quorum present, and that the time of Jesus' trial is irregular.) Once condemned, when Jesus is brought before Pilate, there is a mob present, but it is not representative the Jewish people, but a handpicked gathering that has been given prior orders to call for Jesus' crucifixion. Tellingly, during the exchange with Pilate, Caiaphas and his followers state, "We have no king, but Caesar". In so doing, they have betrayed the Jewish cause. To first-century Jews, Caesar was not the legitimate government, but a conqueror, an oppressive occupier, and many dreamed of a time when they would again live under a King. [[note]] In portraying Caiaphas this way, the Gospel writers were actually following on a time-honored Jewish tradition, dating back to Nathan and King David, in which prophets called out the king and people of Israel on their wrongdoings.[[/note]] (The Gospel of John portrays Caiaphas somewhat more sympathetically, as a KnightTemplar who believes that Jesus will bring the wrath of Rome down on the Jewish people, and concludes that his death is necessary to prevent a wholesale slaughter of the Jewish people.) What about the statement of the mob that Jesus' blood was on their hands and those of their children? According to Biblical scholars, this was a ritual statement traditionally made at executions. It was basically a formal way of saying "If our accusations are false, then may our bloodlines be cursed for all time!" or in modern words, "If the things I say are not true, then may god strike me dead!" While the mob may have said this, it has no real meaning or effect, as Deut. 24:16 and Ezek 19:20 clearly hold that the sins of the father shall not be visited unto the son, but that each shall bear his own sin. In fact, established Christian doctrine states that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity and that humanity as a whole bears the guilt for his death. (Rom 8:3 and Heb. 2:14). Note also that, in the Passion narratives of the Gospels, Jesus stated that, if he wanted to, he could have called down legions of angels to deliver him from his fate.
* Question: Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? If you answered ''only'' rampant homosexuality, you answered wrongly. [[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekial%2016:49&version=NIV See Ezekiel 16:49 for more details.]] The short answer is that they were destroyed for a number of crimes, most importantly [[RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil rape]] and failure to observe SacredHospitality.SacredHospitality (which in that hostile world was critical for a newcomer's very survival). And as for any innocent women and children in those cities, considering that the cities had ''that many'' gang rapists, don't you think death was an act of mercy? Oh, and Lot wasn't actually offering his daughters for sex. It was actually a calculated insult to the mob. As everyone knows, rapists do what they do to prove that they are the more powerful person "I'm the boss, and you're my b*tch.", and lot's daughters were unmarried girls, and remember, in that culture people were married off at the age of ''thirteen'', so these girls couldn't have been older than twelve. All in all, this would've been equivalent to the mob demanding to fight Chuck Norris, only for Lot to tell them "Nah, you don't wanna do that, here, fight these two prepubescent girls instead, they're more your speed."
19th Nov '16 9:00:06 PM skadooshbag
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* When it comes to homosexuality, Catholic Church does not consider it a sin. Homosexual orientation is treated as a disorder and as such, is something beyond the control of an individual and thus cannot be the source of sinful actions. Even homosexual intercourse is frowned upon only because it happens not in a married couple and cannot not performed with fecundity in mind (see above). So, for all purposes, homosexual contacts are treated as any other form of adultery.

to:

* When it comes to homosexuality, Catholic Church does not consider it a sin. Homosexual orientation is treated as a disorder disorder[[note]]but within Christianity as a whole even ''this'' is debated. There are plenty of Christians who don't consider gay marriage any more spiritually unhealthy than straight marriage, and can back it up with interpretation.[[/note]] and as such, is something beyond the control of an individual and thus cannot be the source of sinful actions. Even homosexual intercourse is frowned upon only because it happens not in a married couple and cannot not performed with fecundity in mind (see above). So, for all purposes, homosexual contacts are treated as any other form of adultery.
19th Nov '16 8:43:50 PM skadooshbag
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It should also be noted that Christian opposition to evolution is only in part because it goes against a literal interpretation of Genesis.[[note]]Several Christian commentators, including St. Augustine, held to non-literal views of the creation account long before the true age of Earth and the universe were known.[[/note]] More importantly, they object to a naturalistic explanation because it would undermine the role of God in creation in general (i.e. life arising by chance) and the relationship between man and God in particular (i.e. consciousness arising by chance).

to:

** It should also be noted that Christian opposition to evolution is only in part because it goes against a literal interpretation of Genesis.[[note]]Several Christian commentators, including St. Augustine, held to non-literal views of the creation account long before the true age of Earth and the universe were known.[[/note]] More importantly, they object to a naturalistic explanation because they think it would undermine the role of God in creation in general (i.e. life arising by chance) and the relationship between man and God in particular (i.e. consciousness arising by chance).chance), and apparently think that something can't possibly come from God unless it popped out of nowhere fully-formed, and that God is somehow incapable of setting a gradual process in motion and occasionally poking it in the right direction. I mean, it's not like ''the beauty of nature and the the mechanisms by which it ticks is one of the reasons God created in the first place'' or anything.
19th Nov '16 8:26:39 PM skadooshbag
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* If you genuinely think that mainstream Christianity thinks God is even ''confined to spacetime'' let alone a bearded Homo sapiens male in white robes who sits on a cloud within Earth's atmosphere, then you are ''inexcusably'' ignorant on the topic of Christianity, and therefore not qualified to discuss the matter at all.

to:

* If you genuinely think that mainstream Christianity thinks God is even ''confined to spacetime'' let alone a bearded Homo sapiens male in white robes who sits on a cloud within Earth's atmosphere, then you are ''inexcusably'' ignorant on the topic of Christianity, Christianity (akin to a creationist who asks "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"), and therefore not qualified to discuss the matter at all.
19th Nov '16 7:51:52 PM skadooshbag
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**But in any regard, Hitler enforced a version of the Bible on Germany that had the entire Old Testament torn out of it (since it was Jewish), so his ''claim'' to be a Christian is no more valid than if he had clipped the Bill of rights out of the US constitution and then ''claimed'' to be a "true American patriot". And even if he ''had'' been a Christian, Hitler also wore pants. Does that make wearing pants evil?
19th Nov '16 7:26:43 PM skadooshbag
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*If you genuinely think that mainstream Christianity thinks God is even ''confined to spacetime'' let alone a bearded Homo sapiens male in white robes who sits on a cloud within Earth's atmosphere, then you are ''inexcusably'' ignorant on the topic of Christianity, and therefore not qualified to discuss the matter at all.
This list shows the last 10 events of 420. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity