As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Theology and Video Gaming] Does Jesus Care Whom I Frag

13»

Posts

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    _gp wrote: »
    I am not moving towards some moral relativism or trying to figure out an answer because I really know, that there really can't be an answer to this question.

    While I do not think you are trolling, I do find it strange that a person of religious conviction would maintain that there is no answer to an ethical question. You might claim that we, as limited, finite knowers, do not have access to God's knowledge and so cannot access the question. But that does not mean that the answer cannot be answered. The question can be answered, by God, and we lack access to the answer.
    _gp wrote: »
    I wanted to know what other people thought about this relationship between the meta-physical and the physical. Do these things really affect us? I would still argue no, but I do think the door is open.

    Again, this is a strange claim for a religious person to make. If one believes in some sort of super-natural being, and sin as a thing that can be amassed and removed, then the question of whether or not a metaphysical (why are you hyphenating that word?) entity can affect us seems to be a resounding yes.
    _gp wrote: »
    When I say personal holiness being the constraint on what I do play (as I did in another post), it isn't to be relative, I do believe there is a strict to follow. If the game was causing me to lust, I would stop. If the game was leading me to feel like I am "murdering" I would stop. As an example. When I played MW2 and did the infamous airport scene, I literally put down the controller because I felt like I was "murdering." I felt like I was in violation of what God wanted on my life. In that intent, I felt convicted.

    But I played through witcher 2 (of which I am going to do another article on when I have time) and with all of the countless scenes of epic nudity, I didn't feel convicted. I felt like it was part of the story connecting the main character to the other characters. It was developing a relationship and teasing out the struggle. I felt like that was no worse then looking at the Venus de Milo or any other renaissance painting with female nudity.

    While you may not mean to be relativistic, you are invoking a kind of subjectivism insofar as you are the entity that gets to discern whether or not the game leads you to feel X or Y emotive response. Presumably, God would objectively know whether or not the game causes people to feel a particular emotive / sinful compulsion. When we eliminate the "should I ask God whether or not I am allowed to do this?" and recast it as, "Do I feel like this is making me a bad person?" we invert the role of God and subject. No longer is an individual beholden to an estranged Deity, but rather one gets to decide how one understands every situation. Granted, that understanding can be made beholden to some religious scripture, but the scripture is rendered innocuous and ineffective given that the individual gets to decide whether or not it applies.

    It's the, "I'm not in denial!" problem, only applied to one's moral outlook on issues that affect the well-being of one's eternal soul.
    _gp wrote: »
    And yes, people have condemned me for theological gymnastics plenty of times. Its the fun of being a "theologian."

    I think gymnastics are more rigorous than what you've been offering. Granted, it's a thread about religion and video games on a gaming forum. However, all of your statements have so far been couched in what you feel.

    Theological gymnastics usually involve someone rule-lawyering their way their Leviticus. You aren't rule lawyering; you're reducing every passage to what you feel. In effect, you've completely removed any degree to which you are beholden to an objective standard external to your self.

    This is a problem if one believes in a God.
    _gp wrote: »
    I actually have my M.Div (Masters in Divinity) and know the Konine Greek and Biblical Hebrew. I've studied both historical criticism of the scripture and have had to study both the Christian and Judiac Treatment of the Scriptures.

    I'm going to ask you a question that I ask my theology friends. Given that the religious scriptures of the Christian / Judaic tradition are quite demonstrably Platonism rung through Plotinus, why would you take them to be anything more than Platonism rung through Plotinus?

    Christianity is often described as "Platonism for the masses." Average people can deny / ignore this because, well, they don't know what those words mean. But if you actually have studied the historical development (read: The process by which this shit was constructed) of Christianity, then why would you believe it? Or, why would you be a Christian rather than a Plotinian?
    _gp wrote: »
    I really do believe in the Bible. I do believe that there is something Divine about it and do believe that the words have great truth into what we say. We do need to figure out what "lens" to look at the Bible (whether that be looking at the historical context or the contemporary presence thereof). I am no where close to a Biblical Literalist, but I am no where close to saying that it something that I don't believe in (and only extrapolate from my own conscience).

    I would ask what you mean by "believe in". The claim that there is "something Divine about it" is quite vague, especially when you then invoke a notion of perspectivism with respect to the lens through which we need to interpret the text.

    The problem with theological perspectivism, if you will, is that it makes the entire text beholden to the reader / interpreter. We can't have a conversation about the Truth of the Bible, given that we've started the conversation by positing an epistemological gap between ourselves and the text such that we cannot tell the other that their interpretation is wrong, since the interpretation is beholden to the lens. Through lens-X we get interpretation-X, through lens-Y interpretation-Y. How would we go about critiquing the lenses?
    _gp wrote: »
    I am arguing from the point that this is all in relation to what Christ said (not what Matthew said about the Christ or what Paul said about Christ, rather the total idea of Christ).

    This is cute. After stating previously that, "we do need to figure out what "lens" to look at the Bible" you now claim that you are not interested in the Matthew-lens or the Paul-lens. Rather, we need to get to the Christ-lens of Christ.

    That sentiment completely undermines your previous claims about perspectivism, and subjective feelings / interpretations. It also rubs against the sentiment of the first quote of this post: "there really can't be an answer to this question." Of course there is an answer; Jesus / God / Christ knows it.

    It'd be keen if you could clarify this jumble of contradictions.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    @_J_ : I haven't heard Christianity described as "Platonism for the Masses" despite my love of Biblical Minimalism. I'm quite curious to hear more, do you have a primer to recommend?

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    @_J_ : I haven't heard Christianity described as "Platonism for the Masses" despite my love of Biblical Minimalism. I'm quite curious to hear more, do you have a primer to recommend?

    Nietzsche said it.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Well, if Nietzche said it...

    Lh96QHG.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    @_J_ : I haven't heard Christianity described as "Platonism for the Masses" despite my love of Biblical Minimalism. I'm quite curious to hear more, do you have a primer to recommend?

    Nietzsche wrote it in the Preface to Beyond Good and Evil:
    SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman—what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women—that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged mien—IF, indeed, it stands at all! For there are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen, that all dogma lies on the ground—nay more, that it is at its last gasp. But to speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all dogmatizing in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive and decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble puerilism and tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it will be once and again understood WHAT has actually sufficed for the basis of such imposing and absolute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition, which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition, has not yet ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a deception on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very restricted, very personal, very human—all-too-human facts. The philosophy of the dogmatists, it is to be hoped, was only a promise for thousands of years afterwards, as was astrology in still earlier times, in the service of which probably more labour, gold, acuteness, and patience have been spent than on any actual science hitherto: we owe to it, and to its "super-terrestrial" pretensions in Asia and Egypt, the grand style of architecture. It seems that in order to inscribe themselves upon the heart of humanity with everlasting claims, all great things have first to wander about the earth as enormous and awe-inspiring caricatures: dogmatic philosophy has been a caricature of this kind—for instance, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia, and Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it must certainly be confessed that the worst, the most tiresome, and the most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist error—namely, Plato's invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself. But now when it has been surmounted, when Europe, rid of this nightmare, can again draw breath freely and at least enjoy a healthier—sleep, we, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, are the heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error has fostered. It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the denial of the PERSPECTIVE—the fundamental condition—of life, to speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them; indeed one might ask, as a physician: "How did such a malady attack that finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates really corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of youths, and deserved his hemlock?" But the struggle against Plato, or—to speak plainer, and for the "people"—the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE "PEOPLE"), produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals. As a matter of fact, the European feels this tension as a state of distress, and twice attempts have been made in grand style to unbend the bow: once by means of Jesuitism, and the second time by means of democratic enlightenment—which, with the aid of liberty of the press and newspaper-reading, might, in fact, bring it about that the spirit would not so easily find itself in "distress"! (The Germans invented gunpowder—all credit to them! but they again made things square—they invented printing.) But we, who are neither Jesuits, nor democrats, nor even sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS, and free, VERY free spirits—we have it still, all the distress of spirit and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT....


    Here are some of the explanatory quotes from that block of text:
    Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it must certainly be confessed that the worst, the most tiresome, and the most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist error—namely, Plato's invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself.

    The "problem" of Platonism, for Nietzsche, is that it posits a realm of perfect, unchanging forms that constitute what is good, virtuous, etc. Our life, being changing and impermanent, must always be understood as base and vulgar in comparison to the ideal realm of perfection. In Christianity, that's the notion of God / Angels / Heaven being the realm of perfection "up there" which we "down here" are trying to reach, despite our fallen (again reinforcing the up/down dichotomy of value) nature.
    It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the denial of the PERSPECTIVE—the fundamental condition—of life, to speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them

    This is Nietzschhe's perspectivism. When Plato articulates The Good as perfect, eternal, etc. he's ignoring that particular goods are judged to be so in terms of one's perspective on them. (insert example of perspectival good). For Plato, Good is an absolute that can be objectively known. For Nietzsche, it all comes down to that nonsense about perspective. When one embraces a Platonic world view, one ignores that subjective nature of reality (in Nietzsche's words) and this does violence to our "lived experience" (that's not Nietzsche's language, but I don't know how he'd phrase the same sentiment.)
    But the struggle against Plato, or—to speak plainer, and for the "people"—the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE "PEOPLE"), produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals.

    By, "Christianity is Platonism for the People", one could argue* that Nietzsche meant the moral value structures of Christianity are akin to the moral value structures of Platonism: The up / down value dichotomy, the notion of an eternal lasting good, the separation of mind and body (or, more accurately, the dividing of a human being into separate faculties of reason / mind), etc.

    Nietzsche had a particular goal in mind when he wrote this book (insofar as Nietzsche ever had goals in his syphilitic mind). So what he meant by it might be slightly different than what I meant. I meant that, historically, one can understand Christianity as either an outgrowth of, or heavily influenced by, the Neo-Platonic tradition, specifically The Enneads of Plotinus. If you flip through the Enneads you'll find delightful passages that are the sentiments found in Christian notions of God. Nigh-all of the metaphysical claims of Christianity have their roots in the Platonic / Neo-Platonic Tradition. Or, more specifically, Augustine / Plato : Aquinas / Aristotle. I say "nigh-all" because it's dangerous to make "all" claims.

    In summary, Christianity is just ancient Greek metaphysics on stilts, with a nice monocle, so that it appeals to the Conservatives.

    But that shouldn't be surprising. It's just like how Christianity stole the Noah / Flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

    *I write this because no one knows what the fuck Nietzsche was actually babbling about. For all we know this passage has to do with trout.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Now I'm following. I would be slightly suspicious of the claim as falling into the trap of whatever the Christian version of Whig History is: Certainly post-Aquinas I would agree this seems plausible, but prior to that it's only via eisegesis that we find modern, systematic theology (particularly the God of the Philosophers' kind that grows out of Aquinas' influence) within the Bible.

    Though, I would guess that most modern Christians in fact hold rather dissonant views which would involve both the more Platonically conceived and the more Biblically accurate form of the their theology at the same time.

    Apothe0sis on
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Now I'm following. I would be slightly suspicious of the claim as falling into the trap of whatever the Christian version of Whig History is: Certainly post-Aquinas I would agree this seems plausible, but prior to that it's only via eisegesis that we find modern, systematic theology (particularly the God of the Philosophers' kind that grows out of Aquinas' influence) within the Bible.

    Though, I would guess that most modern Christians in fact hold rather dissonant views which would involve both the more Platonically conceived and the more Biblically accurate form of the their theology at the same time.

    I think talking about Christianity before Aquinas and such is more interesting historically than philosophically. As in, God's Philosophers by James Hannam sorta illustrates that modern christian philosophy is heavily influenced and occasionally just copied by people who also read Plato and such. the Bible might not be that Platonic, but Christianity is.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Now I'm following. I would be slightly suspicious of the claim as falling into the trap of whatever the Christian version of Whig History is: Certainly post-Aquinas I would agree this seems plausible, but prior to that it's only via eisegesis that we find modern, systematic theology (particularly the God of the Philosophers' kind that grows out of Aquinas' influence) within the Bible.

    @Apothe0sis
    I disagree most strongly with your claim that only by means of Whig History and eisegesis do we get philosophical themes into early Christian theology.

    You give Aquinas as the line for philosophical influence. But he's 1225 C.E. - 1274 C.E. We have philosopher / theologians long before Aquinas injecting Greek themes into Christian "doctrine", such as it was at that time.

    Justin Martyr (100 C.E. - 165 C.E.) dealt with trying to fit the Greek notion of Logos into the Christian tradition, claiming that Christ served as the Logos between the infinite God and finite man. He also played up the idea that Christianity relates to Truth, Truth is inspired by Logos, and so we get a relation between ancient Greek philosophical conceptions of language and the Christian teachings.

    That's neither Whig History nor eisegesis. It's an application of Greek philosophy to Christian doctrine prior to Aquinas.

    There's also Iranaeus (130 C.E. - 202 C.E.) He wrote systematic philosophical / theological arguments against Gnosticism. He's also the 'first' to articulate a theology of Mary, borrowing themes regarding purity to argue for her virginity. His writings influenced the later writings of Tertullian (160 C.E. - 225 C.E.), who could be called the founder of Western Theology "proper", and translated all of these texts into Latin. When he's the first to translate Christian themes into the philosophical conception of "tres Personae, una Substantia", that's a particular conception of substance philosophy at work.

    The list goes on.

    So, again, when they were sitting around making this shit up they had their Plato and their Aristotle sitting on the same table as their newly crafted Christian system. They're borrowing ideas from ancient philosophy (Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, etc.) to articulate their system. And this is all literally a thousand years before Aquinas is even born.

    Julius wrote: »
    the Bible might not be that Platonic, but Christianity is.

    @Julius: I'm not sure how one makes that distinction between the Bible and Christianity, especially with respect to historical development. When Christians were constructing the texts that later came to be compiled into the Bible, they did so with a knowledge of the philosophical systems that came long before the Bible's production. Paul, who wrote a significant chunk of this shit, was born in 5 C.E. and died in 67 C.E. Plato was born in 424 B.C.E. and died around 348 B.C.E.

    It doesn't seem strange to suggest that when Paul was making up the New Testament, he was aware of the guy whose philosophy was composed 300+ years before him. And that's just the Platonic Influence. When you start going into how much Paul ripped off the Stoics and other Greek philosophical systems, the whole Christian house of cards starts to tumble.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    Eh, I think you guys are trying to hard to conflate philosophy and religion. Maybe "theology" is such the very conflation, but nevertheless, IMO:

    Religion is the supernatural story. God creates the Heavens and the Earth and us and then we betray him and he makes us shameful barbarians, but then later he sends his son to die for us to give us a path to forgiveness, for our personal sins as well as for the sins of Adam and Eve (and Cain and so on).

    There is nothing Platonic about that. John 3:16 is not Plato.

    However, at any given time in history you can pluck out any given religion, and likely it will have some sort of core philosophy attached to it in society and being promoted through it. This latter statement I believe is largely arbitrary. I mean, start telling the kids the story when they're young, and then when they're older you can attach whatever philosophical messages to it you want. Even ones that directly contradict the philosophical messages their great-grandparents associated with the same stories. Christianity isn't Plato, it's just that a pluralirty of moral lessons you tend to hear these days associated with Christianity (or perhaps even over a lengthy period of time and not just these days) are more or less similar to Plato.

    Christianity is an almalgamation of a lot of stories, mostly pagan traditions re-imagined so that they fit around a Roman Emperor's political decision to take a popular philosopher who had died a couple centuries earlier, and order that he be declared a demigod.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Yar wrote: »
    Religion is the supernatural story. God creates the Heavens and the Earth and us and then we betray him and he makes us shameful barbarians, but then later he sends his son to die for us to give us a path to forgiveness, for our personal sins as well as for the sins of Adam and Eve (and Cain and so on).

    There is nothing Platonic about that. John 3:16 is not Plato.

    The metaphysical underpinnings of that story, though, are philosophical. The value hierarchy of above / below, the distinction between a good, infinite realm of being and a shitty, finite realm of being, the notion of what a sin is, what a soul is, etc. One utilizes various philosophical notions to construct the narrative.

    Yar wrote: »
    However, at any given time in history you can pluck out any given religion, and likely it will have some sort of core philosophy attached to it in society and being promoted through it.

    Sure. I'm not sure why that's a "however", though. It's just undermining your first point. The story, itself, is grounded on the core philosophy. That's the whole premise to, among other things, those shitty pop culture philosophy books. The Philosophy of The Matrix is a manifestation of what I'm talking about: The Cave as a philosophical idea borrowed to construct a narrative.

    That's not me arguing that those series are worth anything, by the way. It's just an example of the sort of event I'm talking about. Literature / Religion is grounded in philosophy. It's not that one makes up a story and there's randomly Platonism read into it.

    Rather, one takes Platonism, turns The Good into an old man with a beard, and slaps a redemption story onto it.
    Yar wrote: »
    Christianity isn't Plato, it's just that a pluralirty of moral lessons you tend to hear these days associated with Christianity (or perhaps even over a lengthy period of time and not just these days) are more or less similar to Plato.

    Nope. The similarity isn't coincidental. And given both that Plato came first, and that the people who wrote the stories of the New Testament were familiar with Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, etc. I'm not sure why it's contentious to suggest that the authors of the book borrowed ideas from the philosophies with which they were familiar.
    Yar wrote: »
    Christianity is an almalgamation of a lot of stories, mostly pagan traditions re-imagined so that they fit around a Roman Emperor's political decision to take a popular philosopher who had died a couple centuries earlier, and order that he be declared a demigod.

    It's definitely an amalgamation of pagan traditions and other stories. But those stories are stretched over a fundamental structure of philosophical conceptions about existence.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I think you're giving Plato a little too much credit here, J. Judaism, Zoroastrianism, these are both more immediately influential on early Christianity than a bunch of Greeks would've been.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I think you're giving Plato a little too much credit here, J. Judaism, Zoroastrianism, these are both more immediately influential on early Christianity than a bunch of Greeks would've been.

    Those were obviously influential. If we're looking at the entire Bible, then obviously Judaism counts for over 50% of it, given the Old Testament.

    If we focus upon the New Testament, though, and understand that to be the Christian portion growing out of the Jewish system, then I don't think it's unreasonable to understand the New Testament in terms of Judaism + Platonism / Aristotelianism / Stoicism, etc.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    It isn't unreasonable to say they had their influences, no. It is unreasonable to say "Hey Christian, why don't you admit your religion is just Plato? Stupid Christian."

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    It isn't unreasonable to say they had their influences, no. It is unreasonable to say "Hey Christian, why don't you admit your religion is just Plato? Stupid Christian."

    That's fair.

    I was trying to build up the argument that Christianity is a manufactured product, constructed out of the systems of previous philosophical traditions, rather than the revealed word of God.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    It isn't unreasonable to say they had their influences, no. It is unreasonable to say "Hey Christian, why don't you admit your religion is just Plato? Stupid Christian."

    That's fair.

    I was trying to build up the argument that Christianity is a manufactured product, constructed out of the systems of previous philosophical traditions, rather than the revealed word of God.

    Obviously that's what all religions and philosophies are. This isn't a novel concept, J.

    What you're saying is your whole point was to make the OP admit his religion is a sham which I think is a pretty dick move.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    It isn't unreasonable to say they had their influences, no. It is unreasonable to say "Hey Christian, why don't you admit your religion is just Plato? Stupid Christian."

    That's fair.

    I was trying to build up the argument that Christianity is a manufactured product, constructed out of the systems of previous philosophical traditions, rather than the revealed word of God.

    Obviously that's what all religions and philosophies are. This isn't a novel concept, J.

    What you're saying is your whole point was to make the OP admit his religion is a sham which I think is a pretty dick move.

    I never claimed the religion was a sham. I claim that it was manufactured. Those are different.

    It's manufactured in the sense that it isn't up to him to decide what it means to him. Someone else already constructed the system and placed within it particular heirarchies of value. He doesn't get to decide what that means, or how it's applied, or anything. Just follow the damn rules.

    And if he doesn't like the rules, then stop subscribing to the system.

    TL;DR: Boo Protestantism.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    It isn't unreasonable to say they had their influences, no. It is unreasonable to say "Hey Christian, why don't you admit your religion is just Plato? Stupid Christian."

    That's fair.

    I was trying to build up the argument that Christianity is a manufactured product, constructed out of the systems of previous philosophical traditions, rather than the revealed word of God.

    Obviously that's what all religions and philosophies are. This isn't a novel concept, J.

    What you're saying is your whole point was to make the OP admit his religion is a sham which I think is a pretty dick move.

    I never claimed the religion was a sham. I claim that it was manufactured. Those are different.

    It's manufactured in the sense that it isn't up to him to decide what it means to him. Someone else already constructed the system and placed within it particular heirarchies of value. He doesn't get to decide what that means, or how it's applied, or anything. Just follow the damn rules.

    And if he doesn't like the rules, then stop subscribing to the system.

    TL;DR: Boo Protestantism.

    Okay. Though I'd say that the whole history of religion is that when people didn't like what they were being given they tweaked it or made a new one.

    Basically, I don't need some guy in a smock telling me how to deal with God.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    It isn't unreasonable to say they had their influences, no. It is unreasonable to say "Hey Christian, why don't you admit your religion is just Plato? Stupid Christian."

    That's fair.

    I was trying to build up the argument that Christianity is a manufactured product, constructed out of the systems of previous philosophical traditions, rather than the revealed word of God.

    Obviously that's what all religions and philosophies are. This isn't a novel concept, J.

    What you're saying is your whole point was to make the OP admit his religion is a sham which I think is a pretty dick move.

    I never claimed the religion was a sham. I claim that it was manufactured. Those are different.

    It's manufactured in the sense that it isn't up to him to decide what it means to him. Someone else already constructed the system and placed within it particular heirarchies of value. He doesn't get to decide what that means, or how it's applied, or anything. Just follow the damn rules.

    And if he doesn't like the rules, then stop subscribing to the system.

    TL;DR: Boo Protestantism.

    Okay. Though I'd say that the whole history of religion is that when people didn't like what they were being given they tweaked it or made a new one.

    Basically, I don't need some guy in a smock telling me how to deal with God.

    If only because the financial future of the guy in the smock depends upon whether or not you decide that his God is the best God.

    To your other point, I'd much prefer that persons start new religions rather than modify old ones.

    In a reasonable universe, we would have abandoned the Judeo-Christian narrative the second we decided that slavery was a bad idea.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Just to bring this back around to the OP...

    The title of this thread asks, "Does Jesus Care Whom I Frag?" That seems to set the object of inquiry at discerning whether or not Jesus, the historical person, literary figure, metaphysical triune-God component, cares who one frags.

    Yet rather than address the text that deals with the man's teachings, or building a time machine, or praying, we almost immediately get into this shit:
    _gp wrote: »
    because I do not believe that they are sin(s).
    _gp wrote: »
    I do believe that there is a struggle (as every Christian must) between the things of this world and the eternal that we strive for. I believe that we must really look at things that are causing us to sin (which is not the same for every one) and evaluate if that is need to be part of the body. Yes, I do believe we could blanket retreat from everything, but I don't believe God calls us into such a stark reality in the over-arching concept of Christian faith.

    Rather than address the question of whether or not Jesus cares, the author of the OP states what he believes. Repeatedly we find "I believe" rather than "Jesus says". There is no attempt to actually address the question of the thread, to discern the sentiments of an external moral system. Instead, we get this:
    _gp wrote: »
    what I am saying, is that if you can feel like you can play it without affecting your personal holiness, then go ahead and do so.

    If you can rationalize X, then X is fine.

    That's the sentiment that demolishes any notion that Christianity is maintained to be an applicable moral system, or a relevant doctrine of beliefs. Because, ultimately, for the author, it doesn't matter what the religious tradition states, or what the metaphysical underpinnings of the theology indicate.

    This is all about justifying one's hobby, rationalizing one's preferences.

    If that's all we're doing, then there's no need to bring religion into it. Just state your preference, muddle through some feeble, self-serving moral non-argument, and then continue to play GTA.

    Because you obviously don't give a shit about Christ. You just care about rationalizing your own preferences.

Sign In or Register to comment.