Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Judgement Day and We Can Know: What the hell?

1212224262730

Posts

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Belief in Rapture requires only a belief in the supernatural. To believe this guy required a belief in the supernatural, a subpar knowledge of the Bible, a poor understanding of Math, Time, Metaphor, and common sense.

    Quire.jpg
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Wait, some strands of Judaism make you pay to attend service?!?!?! WTF?

    No. Deep breaths, k?

    Synagogues don't charge people to attend regular services. They DO encourage people to become dues-paying members (the building fund doesn't pay itself, nu?), and for High Holidays services - which have huge attendance - they require people who aren't members to purchase tickets. Otherwise lots of people would just show up for High Holidays and that's it.

    Now, it's also true that they are not supposed to turn anybody away for lack of money. Dues are generally income-based and if somebody can't afford dues, the synagogue is supposed to have a process to let them join anyway.

    There are also groups, like Chabad Lubavich, which have a specific agenda to spread observance and therefore have free services open to all.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • WolfprintWolfprint Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Jesus told people the world was going to end, and they needn't follow Mosaic law anymore. Everyone thought he was nuts.

    I bet that's how Camping sees himself.

  • DelzhandDelzhand motivated battle programmerRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    If you haven't yet now is a good time to read through:

    http://www.bricktestament.com/

    Wow, I haven't seen that since it was only half done. Just started reading Revelation, and this guy's gotten pretty damn creative.

    Edit: ah ha ha

    http://www.bricktestament.com/revelation/god_kills_one_third_of_remaining_humans/rv09_21.html

    Edit 2: oh my god this keeps getting better and better

    http://www.bricktestament.com/revelation/alternative_to_god_proves_very_popular/rv13_03p01.html

    jk0Btsj.png
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    As far as sites like exmormon.org and the like, well, they're something. That's about all I have to say about them. I won't try to pretend like everything on sites like that are lies/slander or at best gross exaggerations of truth. I've read them myself, in the past, and yeah, some of it is factually correct; hell even the church has admitted that. But that's about the extent of it. There's a lot of it that is also completely made up or is, at best, hearsay of hearsay. And none of it is in the context in which it should be to learn about. The church isn't immune to criticism and everything it does and has done hasn't been entirely right or correct. I am not even trying to pretend that either. There are things I will openly admit that I don't see eye to eye with the church on, though those things are rarely spiritual things and typically just things related to politics and other activities. However, things like this? The tithing thing? Yeah, that's just nonsense.

    To be fair, a lot of those factually true pieces can be very, very damning, and the context even more so. Those sites should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt, if not outright skepticism, but it's the same rule as Wikipedia: Follow the links to the source material.

    steam_sig.png
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Wow, when Tim LaHaye is calling you crazy...

    Well, sir, there's no bottom from there.

    Also, pro tip here folks, Camping doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. He's milking the fearful and stupid for money and telling them what they want to hear. He's not sobbing on the potty wondering why Jehovah done did forsook him, he's laughing about the whole thing in his gold hot tub.

    I hate this tendency in the secular left. We, as a whole, just cannot get our head around the fact that people really believe what they say they do - because what they believe is straight up stupid. This is coupled with the fact that it is fashionably enlightened to absolve religion of its myriad inherent shortcomings.

    There's no reason to believe that Camping doesn't believe exactly what he says he does. He also probably believes his good fortune is the result of his godliness, it's not like prosperity gospel is new or unpopular in the US.

    tl;dr - religious people believe stupid fucking things because religion is fucking stupid.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Delzhand wrote: »

    My actual thoughts as I read this one.

    *look at picture* Not bad.
    *read text* Well this says that there's a blasphemous name on his forehead...
    *look back at picture* ...but I didn't see any namWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • WishpigWishpig Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    n/m what I said could be considered a tad but too offensive. I'm gonna be safe and delete it.

    WARNING: Picture below may cause spontaneous growth of facial hair and/or body hair.
    Spoiler:
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Wolfprint wrote: »
    Jesus told people the world was going to end, and they needn't follow Mosaic law anymore.

    Oh for crying out loud, not only Jesus never said that, but he said the exact opposite of that.
    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    tl;dr - religious people believe stupid fucking things because religion is fucking stupid.

    It's more "stupid people believe stupid fucking things because stupid people are fucking stupid."

    Anyone with more than about 30 seconds of actually reading the New Testament would see how stupid this was. This is not a case of religion being, in your words, "fucking stupid", this is a case of someone taking advantage of idiots.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Wow, when Tim LaHaye is calling you crazy...

    Well, sir, there's no bottom from there.

    Also, pro tip here folks, Camping doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. He's milking the fearful and stupid for money and telling them what they want to hear. He's not sobbing on the potty wondering why Jehovah done did forsook him, he's laughing about the whole thing in his gold hot tub.

    I hate this tendency in the secular left. We, as a whole, just cannot get our head around the fact that people really believe what they say they do - because what they believe is straight up stupid. This is coupled with the fact that it is fashionably enlightened to absolve religion of its myriad inherent shortcomings.

    There's no reason to believe that Camping doesn't believe exactly what he says he does. He also probably believes his good fortune is the result of his godliness, it's not like prosperity gospel is new or unpopular in the US.

    tl;dr - religious people believe stupid fucking things because religion is fucking stupid.

    I had a woman tell me yesterday, and I assure you I inject no hyperbole or embellishment to this this truth, that while she never completed the requisite training and education to become licensed as an interior decorator, her ability to work as a design consultant was testament to the fact that it was a divine gift handed down by God, and through Him her work was possible.


    I nearly shit my pants over how awesome that was.

    Apothe0sis
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    tl;dr - religious people believe stupid fucking things because religion is fucking stupid.

    It's more "stupid people believe stupid fucking things because stupid people are fucking stupid."

    Anyone with more than about 30 seconds of actually reading the New Testament would see how stupid this was. This is not a case of religion being, in your words, "fucking stupid", this is a case of someone taking advantage of idiots.

    Yes. Through religion.

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Wow, when Tim LaHaye is calling you crazy...

    Well, sir, there's no bottom from there.

    Also, pro tip here folks, Camping doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. He's milking the fearful and stupid for money and telling them what they want to hear. He's not sobbing on the potty wondering why Jehovah done did forsook him, he's laughing about the whole thing in his gold hot tub.

    I hate this tendency in the secular left. We, as a whole, just cannot get our head around the fact that people really believe what they say they do - because what they believe is straight up stupid. This is coupled with the fact that it is fashionably enlightened to absolve religion of its myriad inherent shortcomings.

    There's no reason to believe that Camping doesn't believe exactly what he says he does. He also probably believes his good fortune is the result of his godliness, it's not like prosperity gospel is new or unpopular in the US.

    tl;dr - religious people believe stupid fucking things because religion is fucking stupid.

    No, I can completely understand people believe what they believe. I do not think that religion is "fucking stupid". Your thought process here is ridiculously immature.

    Camping is a crook and a user, plain and simple.

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    tl;dr - religious people believe stupid fucking things because religion is fucking stupid.

    It's more "stupid people believe stupid fucking things because stupid people are fucking stupid."

    Anyone with more than about 30 seconds of actually reading the New Testament would see how stupid this was. This is not a case of religion being, in your words, "fucking stupid", this is a case of someone taking advantage of idiots.

    Yes. Through religion.


    So just because I use a shovel to shovel shit does that make all shovels shitty? No.

    Religion is ridiuclously easy to abuse, granted. But not everyone does.

  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    tl;dr - religious people believe stupid fucking things because religion is fucking stupid.

    It's more "stupid people believe stupid fucking things because stupid people are fucking stupid."

    Anyone with more than about 30 seconds of actually reading the New Testament would see how stupid this was. This is not a case of religion being, in your words, "fucking stupid", this is a case of someone taking advantage of idiots.

    Yes. Through religion.

    Okay. So, the thought process here is "the tool with which someone takes advantage of idiots is fucking stupid."

    If we're gonna be technical, smooth talking is fucking stupid here. Because the Gospels clearly state that even Jesus Christ doesn't know the day of judgment. So some random person on Earth definitely won't know when it's coming.

    Idiots don't know what their own holy book says->"smart" guy takes advantage of them.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Religion is ridiuclously easy to abuse, granted. But not everyone does.

    I just think it's a bit condescending to brand everyone like Camping or Fred Phelps or Osama bin Laden as "doing it wrong" or insinuate that they're charlatans or motivated by insidious secular goals.

    Plenty of people employ religion in a positive way for insidious secular goals as well, but no one bats an eye or calls it into question when its doing good.

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Wow, when Tim LaHaye is calling you crazy...

    Well, sir, there's no bottom from there.

    Also, pro tip here folks, Camping doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. He's milking the fearful and stupid for money and telling them what they want to hear. He's not sobbing on the potty wondering why Jehovah done did forsook him, he's laughing about the whole thing in his gold hot tub.

    I hate this tendency in the secular left. We, as a whole, just cannot get our head around the fact that people really believe what they say they do - because what they believe is straight up stupid. This is coupled with the fact that it is fashionably enlightened to absolve religion of its myriad inherent shortcomings.

    There's no reason to believe that Camping doesn't believe exactly what he says he does. He also probably believes his good fortune is the result of his godliness, it's not like prosperity gospel is new or unpopular in the US.

    tl;dr - religious people believe stupid fucking things because religion is fucking stupid.

    It's possible to sincerely believe in a religion, even the controversial parts, and see no problem with enjoying some material benefits from it. Exhibit A: The Pope.

    That said, I think questioning Camping's sincerity is perfectly fair game. The question came up on every Open Forum show that I listened to, and Camping was always very quick to shut any such questioning down and claim that there was no problem hanging on to material possessions, even ones that would have no conceivable value if his predictions were true (i.e. no need to sell your car if you plan on driving up to May 21, but do you still need your life's savings?). It was pretty clear that he didn't buy into it as thoroughly as some of his followers, as there were people who had essentially budgeted to have zero assets on May 21.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Religion is ridiuclously easy to abuse, granted. But not everyone does.

    I just think it's a bit condescending to brand everyone like Camping or Fred Phelps or Osama bin Laden as "doing it wrong" or insinuate that they're charlatans or motivated by insidious secular goals.

    Plenty of people employ religion in a positive way for insidious secular goals as well, but no one bats an eye or calls it into question when its doing good.

    No shit we say they're doing it wrong as they're ignoring some pretty basic shit about their religion, espousing certain minor sections while ignoring really major parts!

    Also: "Positive way" and "Insidious secular goals" are mutually exclusive. If the secular goals are insidious, it's obvious that religion isn't being used in a positive way.

    However, we don't bat an eye when religion's doing good because it's doing good.

    "Man those Catholic Charities. So horrible for helping people not starve. They are the garbages and we should criticize them." Is that what you want us to say? Throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were?

    UA1OmVB.png
  • WolfprintWolfprint Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Wolfprint wrote: »
    Jesus told people the world was going to end, and they needn't follow Mosaic law anymore.

    Oh for crying out loud, not only Jesus never said that, but he said the exact opposite of that.
    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    In the context of his actions he was not the strictest adherent of the law. It was like he said, "Hey, no need to follow the letter; embrace the spirit of it!"

    Anyways, point is, if you accept that he was an Apocalyptist, then his actions are not in keeping with the keeping or enforcement of any laws. They were so out of step with the way the Mosaic law was enforced that everyone thought he was a quack.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Wolfprint wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Wolfprint wrote: »
    Jesus told people the world was going to end, and they needn't follow Mosaic law anymore.

    Oh for crying out loud, not only Jesus never said that, but he said the exact opposite of that.
    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    In the context of his actions he was not the strictest adherent of the law. It was like he said, "Hey, no need to follow the letter; embrace the spirit of it!"

    Anyways, point is, if you accept that he was an Apocalyptist, then his actions are not in keeping with the keeping or enforcement of any laws. They were so out of step with the way the Mosaic law was enforced that everyone thought he was a quack.
    There was not a single established "Mosaic Law Enforcement Code" that you can possibly refer to to argue that Jesus or anyone else was "out of step with it". Quite the opposite, there were a multitude of interpretations of the Mosaic Law, what it meant and how it should be followed. Some focused on the spirituality of the law, some focused on the word of the law, some on the sacrifices and the Temple, some on the holy land, etc. etc. Many of these interpretations were incompatible, and sometimes in direct contradiction, with each other. First-Century Judaism was a very diverse religion.

    It is clear that Jesus thought certain interpretations floating around his time were wrong and that he argued against them. It is also clear that he had his own interpretation of Mosaic Law, that he argued for; and based on the Bible it seems to have been a very strict interpretation of the law. And I'll say once again, pushing a new (possibly stricter) interpretation of the law is exactly the opposite of telling people they don't need to follow the law anymore.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Religion is ridiuclously easy to abuse, granted. But not everyone does.

    I just think it's a bit condescending to brand everyone like Camping or Fred Phelps or Osama bin Laden as "doing it wrong" or insinuate that they're charlatans or motivated by insidious secular goals.

    Plenty of people employ religion in a positive way for insidious secular goals as well, but no one bats an eye or calls it into question when its doing good.

    No shit we say they're doing it wrong as they're ignoring some pretty basic shit about their religion, espousing certain minor sections while ignoring really major parts!

    And that's different from any number of other legitimized Abrahamic sects how exactly?
    Also: "Positive way" and "Insidious secular goals" are mutually exclusive. If the secular goals are insidious, it's obvious that religion isn't being used in a positive way.

    Say someone starts a charity under the guise of being a Catholic (or Methodist, or whatever) institution for the homeless, but is actually diverting the funds collected to a low-income women's clinic or a therapy center for gay teens.

    Those are positive things being done in the name of religion that are actually secular goals. So, you're incorrect.
    "Man those Catholic Charities. So horrible for helping people not starve. They are the garbages and we should criticize them." Is that what you want us to say? Throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were?

    "Doing it wrong" is a two-way street. If people who are dogmatic in their practice in ways you don't approve are "bad Christians," what makes you the better?

  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Wolfprint wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Wolfprint wrote: »
    Jesus told people the world was going to end, and they needn't follow Mosaic law anymore.

    Oh for crying out loud, not only Jesus never said that, but he said the exact opposite of that.
    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    In the context of his actions he was not the strictest adherent of the law. It was like he said, "Hey, no need to follow the letter; embrace the spirit of it!"

    Anyways, point is, if you accept that he was an Apocalyptist, then his actions are not in keeping with the keeping or enforcement of any laws. They were so out of step with the way the Mosaic law was enforced that everyone thought he was a quack.
    There was not a single established "Mosaic Law Enforcement Code" that you can possibly refer to to argue that Jesus or anyone else was "out of step with it". Quite the opposite, there were a multitude of interpretations of the Mosaic Law, what it meant and how it should be followed. Some focused on the spirituality of the law, some focused on the word of the law, some on the sacrifices and the Temple, some on the holy land, etc. etc. Many of these interpretations were incompatible, and sometimes in direct contradiction, with each other. First-Century Judaism was a very diverse religion.

    It is clear that Jesus thought certain interpretations floating around his time were wrong and that he argued against them. It is also clear that he had his own interpretation of Mosaic Law, that he argued for; and based on the Bible it seems to have been a very strict interpretation of the law. And I'll say once again, pushing a new (possibly stricter) interpretation of the law is exactly the opposite of telling people they don't need to follow the law anymore.


    Hell, even today Jews argue about what, exactly, the Mosaic Law means and what it requires.

  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Ross: Because quoting a split up post like that is a clusterfuck, I'll just do this the old fashioned way.

    1: There's ignoring portions that are shitfaced retarded and espousing portions that are shitfaced retarded.

    2: Creating a gay teen's center is not an insidious goal, which is specifically what you mentioned. Using religion in a positive way precludes insidious goals.

    unless of course the gay teen's center was actually some kind of Soylent Green maker but then it wouldn't be using religion in a positive way, now would it?

    3: Because I'm not using religion as a tool to justify me being a pathetic excuse of a human being re: Osama Bin Laden/Fred Phelps. Or horribly mislead people re: Camping.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Ross: Because quoting a split up post like that is a clusterfuck, I'll just do this the old fashioned way.

    1: There's ignoring portions that are shitfaced retarded and espousing portions that are shitfaced retarded.

    Again, who made you the arbiter of that? I think glossing over one little remark about the specificity of the Rapture is far more benign than espousing hateful misogyny and homophobia, which far more religious people seem to be okay with.
    2: Creating a gay teen's center is not an insidious goal, which is specifically what you mentioned. Using religion in a positive way precludes insidious goals.

    insidious [adj]: - intended to entrap or beguile.

    I don't think you have the right definition of insidious employed in your argument.
    3: Because I'm not using religion as a tool to justify me being a pathetic excuse of a human being re: Osama Bin Laden/Fred Phelps. Or horribly mislead people re: Camping.

    For the third time, who are you to say who's doing it wrong? You think your way is "better" because it doesn't involve you acting like a horrible piece of shit or treating people badly, but the Abrahamic texts order their followers quite regularly to be utter fucking barbarians.

    I think you, like many sane and rational people, use an interpretation of dogma that allows them to live the life they generally enjoy living. But the fact that your practice of your faith allows you to be normal and happy and live peacefully in mainstream society in no way has any bearing on whether or not you're "doing it right."

  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    From Merriam-Webster:
    1
    a : awaiting a chance to entrap : treacherous b : harmful but enticing : seductive <insidious drugs>
    2
    a : having a gradual and cumulative effect : subtle <the insidious pressures of modern life> b of a disease : developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent

    So I suppose the literal definition, barring all negative connotations (this is literally the first time I've seen anyone use insidious in a positive light), could fit.

    And are you really saying "We should kill all X people" is doing it right? There's as much shit in the Old Testament as there is good (The Commandments, anyone?) The Gospels are pretty awesome in general. The Epistles are a little fuzzy, but aren't particularly good or bad either way, from what I remember.

    UA1OmVB.png
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Wolfprint wrote: »
    Jesus told people the world was going to end, and they needn't follow Mosaic law anymore.

    Oh for crying out loud, not only Jesus never said that, but he said the exact opposite of that.
    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
    No, no see he told them to ignore the inconvenient parts, like all the not wearing clothes with multiple types of fibres or being permitted to rape the wives and daughters of your tribe's enemies. He just meant all the 'stone the gays' stuff when he said this.

    That, or maybe a lot of his followers are just massive hypocrites who use the Bible to excuse doing whatever the fuck they'd prefer anyway. Speaking of prosperity theology...

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    MechMantis wrote: »
    From Merriam-Webster:
    1
    a : awaiting a chance to entrap : treacherous b : harmful but enticing : seductive <insidious drugs>
    2
    a : having a gradual and cumulative effect : subtle <the insidious pressures of modern life> b of a disease : developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent

    So I suppose the literal definition, barring all negative connotations (this is literally the first time I've seen anyone use insidious in a positive light), could fit.

    It wasn't really used positively or negatively, what I was saying was that people use religion all the time as a motivator toward secular goals, goals that are insidiously hidden under the appeal to ecclesiaticsm. To me, it seems somewhat ingenuous to say its okay to strive toward secular goals that help people in a manner generally approved by mainstream society when using religion as a front to appeal to a broader range of patrons, but when the same is done toward ends that the mainstream doesn't find tolerable, we start talking about how they're "bad at religion."
    And are you really saying "We should kill all X people" is doing it right? There's as much shit in the Old Testament as there is good (The Commandments, anyone?) The Gospels are pretty awesome in general. The Epistles are a little fuzzy, but aren't particularly good or bad either way, from what I remember.

    No, I'm saying that there's well enough suggestion in the scriptures to encourage any number of interpretations, and that most people find the interpretation that allows them to best function in the society that they want to be part of. Are you a WASPy Westerner? Odds are you're going to practice a faith that emphasizes tolerance and teachings of avoiding casting judgment. Are you in a war torn 3rd-world nation? You're probably more likely to ascribe to the sections that talk about killing the infidels.

    But it's all there in the same books.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Wolfprint wrote: »
    Jesus told people the world was going to end, and they needn't follow Mosaic law anymore.

    Oh for crying out loud, not only Jesus never said that, but he said the exact opposite of that.
    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
    No, no see he told them to ignore the inconvenient parts, like all the not wearing clothes with multiple types of fibres or being permitted to rape the wives and daughters of your tribe's enemies. He just meant all the 'stone the gays' stuff when he said this.

    That, or maybe a lot of his followers are just massive hypocrites who use the Bible to excuse doing whatever the fuck they'd prefer anyway. Speaking of prosperity theology...

    Most of the Kosher laws were actually removed by S(P)aul, whose story rivals John Smith in it's improbably self serving nature.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.

    PSN: QuipFilter
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Wow, when Tim LaHaye is calling you crazy...

    Well, sir, there's no bottom from there.

    Also, pro tip here folks, Camping doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. He's milking the fearful and stupid for money and telling them what they want to hear. He's not sobbing on the potty wondering why Jehovah done did forsook him, he's laughing about the whole thing in his gold hot tub.

    I hate this tendency in the secular left. We, as a whole, just cannot get our head around the fact that people really believe what they say they do - because what they believe is straight up stupid. This is coupled with the fact that it is fashionably enlightened to absolve religion of its myriad inherent shortcomings.

    There's no reason to believe that Camping doesn't believe exactly what he says he does. He also probably believes his good fortune is the result of his godliness, it's not like prosperity gospel is new or unpopular in the US.

    tl;dr - religious people believe stupid fucking things because religion is fucking stupid.

    No, I can completely understand people believe what they believe. I do not think that religion is "fucking stupid". Your thought process here is ridiculously immature.

    Camping is a crook and a user, plain and simple.

    This is not incompatible with his espoused theology.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Most of the Kosher laws were actually removed by S(P)aul, whose story rivals John Smith in it's improbably self serving nature.
    Not sure how "self-serving" it really was. I mean, Paul was a persecutor of early Christianity. He seems to have been fairly high-ranking in Judaism; he could go to distant synagogues and exert some level of power there. He gave that all up when he converted: instead of having power, he was taken out and whipped several times. What he gained instead was a certain level of leadership over churches - churches that he had to create himself, travelling from city to city, and power that he could only exert over a distance through letters (since he was travelling from city to city to create more churches). This doesn't strike me as a step up in his professional life.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Most of the Kosher laws were actually removed by S(P)aul, whose story rivals John Smith in it's improbably self serving nature.
    Not sure how "self-serving" it really was. I mean, Paul was a persecutor of early Christianity. He seems to have been fairly high-ranking in Judaism; he could go to distant synagogues and exert some level of power there. He gave that all up when he converted: instead of having power, he was taken out and whipped several times. What he gained instead was a certain level of leadership over churches - churches that he had to create himself, travelling from city to city, and power that he could only exert over a distance through letters (since he was travelling from city to city to create more churches). This doesn't strike me as a step up in his professional life.

    Now I have to wonder whether there was actually any evidence of Paul's prior rank, or if all people had to go on was his claims.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    jothki wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Most of the Kosher laws were actually removed by S(P)aul, whose story rivals John Smith in it's improbably self serving nature.
    Not sure how "self-serving" it really was. I mean, Paul was a persecutor of early Christianity. He seems to have been fairly high-ranking in Judaism; he could go to distant synagogues and exert some level of power there. He gave that all up when he converted: instead of having power, he was taken out and whipped several times. What he gained instead was a certain level of leadership over churches - churches that he had to create himself, travelling from city to city, and power that he could only exert over a distance through letters (since he was travelling from city to city to create more churches). This doesn't strike me as a step up in his professional life.

    Now I have to wonder whether there was actually any evidence of Paul's prior rank, or if all people had to go on was his claims.

    It's called faith! The bible is full of silly stories wherein people give third hand accounts of some guy doing shit a few towns over as proof of X. It blows my mind to sit through a church service where these things are read and no one says "Wait, that's what this is all based on? I give you money every week because some guy heard about a guy from a third guy, and then decided to write that shit down and give it to some other guys? Fuck this."

    Automata-Sg.png
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The greater the claim, the greater suspension of disbelief that is required to believe it.

    steam_sig.png
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    jothki wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Most of the Kosher laws were actually removed by S(P)aul, whose story rivals John Smith in it's improbably self serving nature.
    Not sure how "self-serving" it really was. I mean, Paul was a persecutor of early Christianity. He seems to have been fairly high-ranking in Judaism; he could go to distant synagogues and exert some level of power there. He gave that all up when he converted: instead of having power, he was taken out and whipped several times. What he gained instead was a certain level of leadership over churches - churches that he had to create himself, travelling from city to city, and power that he could only exert over a distance through letters (since he was travelling from city to city to create more churches). This doesn't strike me as a step up in his professional life.

    Now I have to wonder whether there was actually any evidence of Paul's prior rank, or if all people had to go on was his claims.

    I was totally head of this other synagogue.

    You probably haven't heard of them, they live pretty far away.

    Can I crash here tonight?

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    jothki wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Most of the Kosher laws were actually removed by S(P)aul, whose story rivals John Smith in it's improbably self serving nature.
    Not sure how "self-serving" it really was. I mean, Paul was a persecutor of early Christianity. He seems to have been fairly high-ranking in Judaism; he could go to distant synagogues and exert some level of power there. He gave that all up when he converted: instead of having power, he was taken out and whipped several times. What he gained instead was a certain level of leadership over churches - churches that he had to create himself, travelling from city to city, and power that he could only exert over a distance through letters (since he was travelling from city to city to create more churches). This doesn't strike me as a step up in his professional life.

    Now I have to wonder whether there was actually any evidence of Paul's prior rank, or if all people had to go on was his claims.

    I don't think we have any non-New-Testament sources about Paul's life, no. All we have are his claims in his letters, and the claims about him in Acts (which is a fairly pro-Paul book, not an objective source).

    But the historical evidence is that he did travel around, founded several churches in several cities where he was an outsider in short order, helped them grow quickly, and kept a certain level of control over them from far away during his travels (at an era where the only form of long-range communication was hand-carried letters). That indicates he had a charismatic and strong personality. So it's not unbelievable that he could have risen in the ranks of Judaism too.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Most of the Kosher laws were actually removed by S(P)aul, whose story rivals John Smith in it's improbably self serving nature.
    Not sure how "self-serving" it really was. I mean, Paul was a persecutor of early Christianity. He seems to have been fairly high-ranking in Judaism; he could go to distant synagogues and exert some level of power there. He gave that all up when he converted: instead of having power, he was taken out and whipped several times. What he gained instead was a certain level of leadership over churches - churches that he had to create himself, travelling from city to city, and power that he could only exert over a distance through letters (since he was travelling from city to city to create more churches). This doesn't strike me as a step up in his professional life.

    Now I have to wonder whether there was actually any evidence of Paul's prior rank, or if all people had to go on was his claims.

    I was totally head of this other synagogue.

    You probably haven't heard of them, they live pretty far away.

    Can I crash here tonight?

    No? Well let me tell a story about this guy who turned away a visitor. He lived in... you ever been to Shrewsbury? Oh... your family huh. Nice place. Not like... Soddom? Oh, you've never been? Well anyway, this guy was from Soddom.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    I was totally head of this other synagogue.

    You probably haven't heard of them, they live pretty far away.

    Can I crash here tonight?
    You know, people weren't any dumber back then than they are today.

    Paul wasn't going around pretending to be a synagogue leader on his word alone. First of all, he wasn't pretending to be a synagogue leader, but a high-ranking representative sent to enforce anti-Christian edicts. And second, he wasn't going on his word alone, but had a letter from the synagogue elders confirming his identity.

    Those letters are long lost to us, unfortunately, along with most documents from Early Christianity :(

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    jothki wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Most of the Kosher laws were actually removed by S(P)aul, whose story rivals John Smith in it's improbably self serving nature.
    Not sure how "self-serving" it really was. I mean, Paul was a persecutor of early Christianity. He seems to have been fairly high-ranking in Judaism; he could go to distant synagogues and exert some level of power there. He gave that all up when he converted: instead of having power, he was taken out and whipped several times. What he gained instead was a certain level of leadership over churches - churches that he had to create himself, travelling from city to city, and power that he could only exert over a distance through letters (since he was travelling from city to city to create more churches). This doesn't strike me as a step up in his professional life.

    Now I have to wonder whether there was actually any evidence of Paul's prior rank, or if all people had to go on was his claims.

    It's called faith! The bible is full of silly stories wherein people give third hand accounts of some guy doing shit a few towns over as proof of X. It blows my mind to sit through a church service where these things are read and no one says "Wait, that's what this is all based on? I give you money every week because some guy heard about a guy from a third guy, and then decided to write that shit down and give it to some other guys? And then several hundred years later, we got a powerful group of guys together to choose this letter out of dozens of others, and official certify it as the word of God? After which it was translated into Greek. Which was translated into Latin. Which was translated into German. Which was translated into English. Which was translated into modern English. Almost off of which was copied. By hand.

    And you expect me to believe that this is the literal true accurate word of God, all of it no take-backs?
    Fuck this."
    Expanded for how clearly batshit you have to been to take the Bible as the true word of an almighty God.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Most of the Kosher laws were actually removed by S(P)aul, whose story rivals John Smith in it's improbably self serving nature.
    Not sure how "self-serving" it really was. I mean, Paul was a persecutor of early Christianity. He seems to have been fairly high-ranking in Judaism; he could go to distant synagogues and exert some level of power there. He gave that all up when he converted: instead of having power, he was taken out and whipped several times. What he gained instead was a certain level of leadership over churches - churches that he had to create himself, travelling from city to city, and power that he could only exert over a distance through letters (since he was travelling from city to city to create more churches). This doesn't strike me as a step up in his professional life.

    Now I have to wonder whether there was actually any evidence of Paul's prior rank, or if all people had to go on was his claims.

    I don't think we have any non-New-Testament sources about Paul's life, no. All we have are his claims in his letters, and the claims about him in Acts (which is a fairly pro-Paul book, not an objective source).

    But the historical evidence is that he did travel around, founded several churches in several cities where he was an outsider in short order, helped them grow quickly, and kept a certain level of control over them from far away during his travels (at an era where the only form of long-range communication was hand-carried letters). That indicates he had a charismatic and strong personality. So it's not unbelievable that he could have risen in the ranks of Judaism too.

    I doubt it. Paul grew his churches on conversion, which was based on his ruling that the only precept of morality in Christianity is being Christian. By comparison, Judaism is hard to convert to and actually has rules that need to be followed to be considered a moral person.

    As a Jew, I must voice my amusement that any case of someone using something as evidence that religion makes people stupid is always in reference to something done by Christians. Not only is it evidence of a double standard in which anything done by Muslims is evidence against Islam but anything done by Christians is evidence against religion in general, but it also provides a nice piece of evidence that conversionary religions are inherently troublesome.

  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Bagginses wrote: »
    As a Jew, I must voice my amusement that any case of someone using something as evidence that religion makes people stupid is always in reference to something done by Christians. Not only is it evidence of a double standard in which anything done by Muslims is evidence against Islam but anything done by Christians is evidence against religion in general, but it also provides a nice piece of evidence that conversionary religions are inherently troublesome.

    You know, this is true. I've never met a Jew, be they ever so passionate and serious about their religion, who cared whatsoever that I was an atheist or what I did with my life. I respect that a lot. Neither a Buddhist. There are plenty of religions like that that are pretty much content to do their own thing, and cool if you want to join in, cool if you don't. You guys, for the most part, are doing religion right.

    Understandably, we focus on railing against those who actively undermine our rights, discriminate against the non-religious (or other religions), or simply con people (like Camping).

Sign In or Register to comment.