![]()
So the question is, why isn't that getting through?
Now, I apologize. As I've talked about these things quite extensively on another forum, I'm used to using short-hand instead of explaining my position in detail so I'll do that here. I don't think that theology matters as much as culture. So when I talk about the tendency of a religion, the proper theology matter less than the culture as a whole. That's not to say it's a monolithic block (As an aside, claims of monolithicness don't just come from critics from religion. Think of "No True Scotsman" arguments as monolithic as well), but there has to be some room to discuss the general trend and tropes of the religion.
It goes with the
poster as well. I've been to church services, events with religious speakers, whatever. I do not think there's any nuance behind the word glory. It means what you think it means. Prestige. Fame. Things of that nature.
Here's my opinion. I do not believe that the glory seeking nature of the religion is compatible with the social gospel of Jesus. But I've seen more and more of the former over the last 10 years or so. (And less of the latter). The tropes are just TOO different. That's not to say that it's theologically correct. Most of the theologically knowledgeable people I've talked to put things in a lot more nuance than that.
But the problem with all this, is the problem I have with the core concept of sin within Christianity, even among well meaning people. It assumes that the listener is going to make the same assumption in terms of "scale" as the speaker. The example I always give is the way the wider culture (and my upbringing in Christianity, as well as most people I know) look at the famous "speck in the eye" parable. I was taught, like most people, that it was basically judge not, lest ye be judged type thing. Glass houses don't throw stones. That sort of thing. But a mote and a log are not equal. One is much bigger than the other. This is what too often is lost.
The sense of scale.
So we're in a world where a lot of noise is made about "sinners" who happen to be gay or having sex before marriage or don't believe in a god or whatever, and not so much noise being made about things like poverty and war.
The scale is broken.
Is it religions fault? I don't know. I do think that there's been a real change in the last few decades. But there might not be any direct causation there. But my point for all this, is that religion, and Christianity in particular isn't "clean" in this. Even if you think that it's a net positive, it's clear that there are definitely things they could be doing better.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveBecause laziness, complacency, arrogance, etc. I mean it's funny in a soul-crushingly depressing way that you bring up the log in eye thing.
As for the sense of scale, it's the whole point. The people most likely to go around condemning others are typically those with far worse problems. I mean shit, the New Testament could have been renamed "Jesus calls people out for being sanctimonious, self-absorbed douchecakes" and nobody would've blinked.
Well, they might. Depends on what the Greek word for douchecakes is.
edited 14th Sep '11 10:12:08 PM by Pykrete
@OP: Sin is a concept that has this wondrous ability to be molded into anything. Unfortunately, like all similar concepts, humanity chooses to mold it into a weapon and use it to attack people they don't like.
Fortunately, one can always escape Hell by not believing in it.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~I'm not sure even solipsism works that way, man.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Well, a good enough portion of the NT at least, for sure. And I can really get down with that.
I think at the end of the day, what ends up happening when you try to elevate minor issues of sexual and other personal morality is that you actually end up lowering other more important issues.
![]()
![]()
The big problem with just ignoring the concept of hell, is what effect does the belief that someone is hell-bound or whatever have on your view of the worth of that person. To some people, it might not much or any effect. To other people, it has a huge effect.
edited 14th Sep '11 10:21:53 PM by Karmakin
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveOkay, let me put that in a longer form...
"You cannot hold power over me with your beliefs, because they were crafted by humans as fallible and mortal as I. You define things one way...I choose to define them another, and my definition carries just as much weight as yours, because I believe it to be so."
The basis of religion is fear; if one chooses to reject the concept upon which that fear is based, religion holds no power over said individual.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~![]()
Well, there's that thing with perceived scale again. From what I've seen, fooling around risks all kinds of things that the participants are in all likelihood not ready for, trashes the priorities of a relationship before it can form a stable base, and generally builds up something rather unsupported and shallow that will screw up the lives of all involved when the hormones wear off and it breaks down. So yeah, I have pretty big problem with calling that a "minor issue".
The good news is that the fact that it's one of the bigger ones left means that for the most part we're past stuff like, you know, shanking each other in the streets, so hey.
edited 14th Sep '11 10:38:24 PM by Pykrete
I just don't get where this whole thing about sinfulness is coming from. Is it really expected that all of us will commit major sins that are difficult to forgive? (And if the meaning is something like "all of us will commit small misdeeds that can easily be repented for," who the hell cares?)
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulI often view sin as just a part of the moral line. Humanity is on all sides of this line. We must understand this so we see why both ill and fair acts are committed.
As for the idea of original sin, that humans are at birth sinned, I find to be counterable. At birth the human is a blank canvess, to be painted via the moral decisions thy makes. That is when virtue and vice are committed as the charactur makes their development.
I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.The issue is that it is a meaningless descriptor. Can you create a triangle with four sides? No, because it would contradict the definition of what a triangle is. Can you find me a married bachelor?
Being unable to produce a rock so large that God cannot lift is not a limitation or a disability. The statement is self contradictory and thus nonsense.
This goes back to the above. A man that can behold God would be self-contradictory. Mankind by definition is flawed and only an unflawed being can witness Him in his entirety and not self-destruct.
Sort of like that scene toward the end of Dogma where God speaks.
edited 15th Sep '11 4:19:43 AM by Pentadragon
That's not a logical contradiction. There is nothing in the dictionary definition of "God" that says "being whom men cannot behold without self-destructing." Nor the commonly understood definition of God, for that matter. You're just making a bald assertion about God's attributes and expecting me to be impressed.
Anyway, I'm a woman.
Dude, that was just a movie.
^ I'm not expecting you to be impressed. Just providing an explanation. Calm down.
I was providing an example from fiction in an attempt to lighten the discussion. Obviously that attempt failed. I wasn't seriously using the movie as a theological source. If you want, I'll use the Bible. This is from Exodus.
19 And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name `The LORD'; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live."
21 And the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand upon the rock;
22 and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by;
23 then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen."
Why did you even point out that you were a woman? I know that and you knew exactly what I meant in the above post.
edited 15th Sep '11 7:09:05 AM by Pentadragon
^x10
Totally agree. We made god. We made it to explain things we didn't understand. We know a billion times more then our ancestors knew. God is obsolete.
Untitled Power Rangers StoryAs for god and logic (and the impossible rock), there is another huge problem though:
1. God created logic. Therefore, logic is arbitrary, so no truth can ever be found, and furthermore it is impossible to find god by reason. OR 2. God didn't create logic. Therefore, god is bound by logic and therefore not omnipotent.
Before you dismiss 1 on the ground of "god is more than logic", kindly consider that EVERY act of language, including every verbal thought, must necessarily be logical to make any sense. If logic is arbitrary, then you have no clue about what you are actually thinking, and you have no connection at all to the world. It's a rather frightening concept.
The only solution I ever found was that god IS logic. And bang goes the personal god that christians so adore.
(Disclaimer: By "christians", I obviously refer not to ALL christians, as that would consider strawmanning and get me banned - instead, I am here referring to about 99.999% of all christians, excluding a few esoteric mystics and folks who are probably not recognized as christians by other christians - by which, I obviously refer not to ALL christians...)
God is whatever you want him to be, because he only exist in your head. Hes an imagnary friend for adults.
Untitled Power Rangers Story@vijeno: The Logos is God. How many times does that need to be repeated, dude?
@feo: We commit more than minor sins. We tend to be monsters to anyone weaker than us. Proud and terrible king, man kills anything and nothing can resist him, etc.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardI'm perfectly calm.
And, well, it's a crappy explanation. In the first place, I'm not one of those smartasses who says "If God is all-powerful, why can't he make a triangle with four sides? HUH?!" I ask sensible questions like "If God is all-powerful, why can't he give sinners some cosmic sunglasses or something so they can withstand his presence and be in Heaven too?" And then you come along and say that's just like the triangle question. Of course it's not.
See? If he could do that for Moses, why can't he do it for everyone?
Similarly, if what protects the "saved" from being immolated by his awesomeness is that he has forgiven them, why doesn't he just forgive everyone? Because he can't forgive you unless you ask for it? Who made up that rule?
It annoys me when people use "man" as a catch-all for "human."
The morality of humanity is that of a Morality Kitchen Sink as we commit acts on all sides of the scale, with a rare few on the exstreams. Most fall in the centre but humanity covers all areas.
I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.

I dunno man, seems pretty obvious to me.
I mean hell, it's one of the few things the guy pulled zero punches about.
Yeah. So when it happens, you own up, make up, move on, do better, and don't stop trying. This isn't a particularly difficult concept.
edited 14th Sep '11 9:11:52 PM by Pykrete