Social Can we admit that the loss of religion in America has been a disaster for both private and public life?

[Zazen]

"In the New Testament, Jesus swept away these rules when He “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:18-19): “There is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.”

Fuck this is why I hate the Bible. You can take either stance on everything because it’s so contradictory. This is why I think it’s manmade. God would have made himself clear and understandable for everyone

 

[terrapin]

Mathew 5:17 says otherwise. Jesus came to fulfill the old law and not abolish them. Let’s be real here. Christians just couldn’t turn down the bacon

when you fulfill something you no longer need the MEANS to get to the fulfillment. that is how the tradition has ALWAYS seen it man.... thats why so many temple practiced and things are no longer practices by Christians. its the same reason you dont have to repeat first grade if you fulfilled all the requirements for first grade.

To another poster above who asked you why religious people might give more you literally included "it is God's will"...and you have not contended that pleasing God is a primary motivator for religous people. I'd pose that it's you who were indoctrinated with a child's understanding of the faith, and you've never come into an adult understanding of how infantilizing that is, removing personal agency from why you should do a good thing. I'm perfectly capable of deciding if I should do a good thing or not without the need to attach it to the will of a deity whose existence I cannot prove, or because it's part of a rule set where I will be punished, disfavored if I have not done enough of those things.

I've had many debates with religious people throughout my life and have a great respect for some of them. But at their core, their indoctrination effectively removed their ability to accept the idea of subjective morality. This has been presented in this very thread. People who subscribe to the idea that people need religion believe that without it, humans are incapable of having their own moral parameters that they consider acceptable.

none of this addrssed what i have said though... are you wanting to discuss something else maybe? if so lets agree we are changing the subject. otherwise you would have to defend why your reductionist statements (which i gave you an out on in good faith) actually are the primary motivators for christinas.

i think that cannot be done and i have lots of theological training and understanding as to why.

maybe you could just make a brief theological statement to this regard man?

 

[chardog]

we still have plenty of religion, there's the church of global warming, the church of big tech, the church of transgenderism

 

[oldshadow]

Fuck this is why I hate the Bible. You can take either stance on everything because it’s so contradictory. This is why I think it’s manmade. God would have made himself clear and understandable for everyone

That is true and it is easy to twist things to what you want.

Say the passage I quoted. It sounds like it could be used to excuse drug use if twisted right.

Then you have this.

1 Peter 5:8:

“Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”

 

[Mr Holmes]

Mathew 5:17 says otherwise. Jesus came to fulfill the old law and not abolish them. Let’s be real here. Christians just couldn’t turn down the bacon

Mark 7:18-19 explicitly says nothing that goes into someone's stomach can defile them.

 

[Zazen]

when you fulfill something you no longer need the MEANS to get to the fulfillment. that is how the tradition has ALWAYS seen it man.... thats why so many temple practices and things are no longer practices by Christians. its the same reason you dont have to repeat first grade if you fullfilled all the requirements for first grade.

none of this addrssed what i have said though... are you wanting to discuss something else maybe? if so lets agree we are changing the subject. otherwise you would have to defend why your reductionist statements (which i gave you an out on in good faith) actually are the primary motivators for christinas.

i think that cannot be done and i have lots of theological training and understanding as to why.

maybe you could just make a brief theological statement to this regard man?

He specifically says in that same verse that he also came NOT to abolish it. He says fulfill and not abolish so don’t leave out that part. This is why there’s a million branches of Christianity. The Bible is full of contradictions because it’s been created by people over the course of a couple hundred years and by many different people. Just like the claim made in Genesis about seeing god face to face and then later a second claim about nobody ever seeing god. Then there’s the claim god can do anything but later he can’t get rid of some chariots to help people get out of a valley . You get my point. Bible is a mess

 

[terrapin]

He specifically says in that same verse that he also came NOT to abolish it. He says fulfill and not abolish so don’t leave out that part. This is why there’s a million branches of Christianity. The Bible is full of contradictions because it’s been created by people over the course of a couple hundred years and by many different people. Just like the claim made in Genesis about seeing god face to face and then later a second claim about nobody ever seeing god. Then there’s the claim god can do anything but later he can’t get rid of some chariots made of iron. You get my point. Bible is a mess

you are just misunderstanding what abolish and fulfill means in this context is all. i explained it quite simply. you are also making the mistake that you can form a position on ONE set of scriptures when the job of theologians is to take ALL of what is said into context and ask what does it all mean when its all said at the same time? this is a monumental task and not suited for armchair thinkers. you are also not taking into account the MANY extra biblical commentaries from the early years of Christianity that illuminate the meaning of the scriptures. there had never been a time in christian history when those were not taken into account.

so you are taking an incredibly tiny piece of information and trying to form comprehensive theology out of it rather than studying the entire body of scriptures and the extra biblical commentaries on what it all means and then thinking deeply about all of that and then forming a theology.


i mean.... if you want to start a christian religion in contradiction to what everybody has always thought those worlds mean you can..... nobody will stop you. but then you would have to argue your point with professional theologians and that might be a tough gig.....

all im saying is that nearly nobody thinks it means what you do here or ever has.

 

[Zazen]

you are just misunderstanding what abolish and fulfill means in this context is all. i explained it quite simply. you are also making the mistake that you can form a position on ONE set of scriptures when the job of theologians is to take ALL of what is said into context and ask what does it all mean when its all said at the same time? this is a monumental task and not suited for armchair thinkers. you are also not taking into account the MANY extra biblical commentaries from the early years of Christianity that illuminate the meaning of the scriptures. there had never been a time in christian history when those were not taken into account.

so you are taking an incredibly tiny piece of information and trying to form comprehensive theology out of it rather than studying the entire body of scriptures and the extra biblical commentaries on what it all means and then thinking deeply about all of that and then forming a theology.


i mean.... if you want to start a christian religion in contradiction to what everybody has always thought those worlds mean you can..... nobody will stop you. but then you would have to argue your point with professional theologians and that might be a tough gig.....

all im saying is that nearly nobody thinks it means what you do here or ever has.

When you say Christianity what are you even referring to? Christians already get offended enough by the different sects so there’s no need for me to make one. The church near my house doesn’t even believe in eternal punishment. They think the term hell has been misinterpreted since historically it was used in four different ways. One was a pit for sacrificing, another was Hades. Most Christians today believe in Dante’s Inferno interpretation which isn’t even biblical. Then there’s people that think the Holy Trinity is not true. These people argue enough with one another so I find it odd that you think I need to make yet another one

 

[Sinister]

when you fulfill something you no longer need the MEANS to get to the fulfillment. that is how the tradition has ALWAYS seen it man.... thats why so many temple practiced and things are no longer practices by Christians. its the same reason you dont have to repeat first grade if you fulfilled all the requirements for first grade.

none of this addrssed what i have said though... are you wanting to discuss something else maybe? if so lets agree we are changing the subject. otherwise you would have to defend why your reductionist statements (which i gave you an out on in good faith) actually are the primary motivators for christinas.

i think that cannot be done and i have lots of theological training and understanding as to why.

maybe you could just make a brief theological statement to this regard man?

How about you defend your contention that the reward/punishment structure is not the main motivator of Christians. Because in all tbe theological debates I've ever seen, leading religious leaders never make such a contention.

 

[Gotosleepho]

Fuck this is why I hate the Bible. You can take either stance on everything because it’s so contradictory. This is why I think it’s manmade. God would have made himself clear and understandable for everyone

God hypothetically is omnipotent, all-knowing, and beyond your comprehension. Who are you to say how He makes himself clear and understandable for everyone? Do you know how He operates?

 

[terrapin]

When you say Christianity what are you even referring to? Christians already get offended enough by the different sects so there’s no need for me to make one. The church near my house doesn’t even believe in eternal punishment. They think the term hell has been misinterpreted since historically it was used in four different ways. One was a pit for sacrificing, another was Hades. Most Christians today believe in Dante’s Inferno interpretation which isn’t even biblical. Then there’s people that think the Holy Trinity is not true. These people argue enough with one another so I find it odd that you think I need to make yet another o

your position of fulfillment is a radically fringe one. nobody holds it man.... you are making a mountain out of a tiny grain of sand here. there is consensus. fringe positions will always exist but you cannot argue norms out of them. im not sure why this issue always pops up on the net. NOBODY is arguing about it in Christianity man or among denominations. i bet some atheist used it as a straw man or something..... it all comes from NOT reading extra biblical commentaries and/or selective reading of specific scriptures and forcing an unbiblical principle into the discussion called sola scriptura. without that inadequate approach all of these arguments about fulfillment are void.

the reason that specific church does not believe in eternal punishment is because for the first 300 years it was an unsettled matter. we KNOW the disciples did not have the same understanding as each other about hell. it WAS left vague. the first 300 years was an exceptionally vibrant period of history and we have tons of extra biblical writings by Christians from that time period. we know for certain that many great early church fathers were universalist and thought everyone went to heaven eventually even non Christians .

augustine won that debate around 300ad and the catholic church declared hell an eternal reality and a permanent state but even then one pope said that hell could be empty....

i am a universalist btw. i think everyone gets into heaven eventually and its even possible that an atheist will get there before me as far as im concerned.

so that specific matter was left vague and the orthodox church has left it that way making no definitive statements. the church you referenced just does not believe the catholic faith has the authority to define hell if the first 300 years did not do so. i dont either btw.

you say there are lots of contradictions between denominations and thats true but honestly its mostly on fringe stuff. the catholic church recognizes the baptism of ALL christian denominations save mormonism (totally different god, jesus and salvation) and i think one other. so out of thousands of paths the babtism of nearly all of them is accepted as valid. its all the same god and the same jesus and the same salvation. i think most of the differences come down to varying personalty types NEEDING to approach the path differently based on temperament and making a whole religion out of that subtle difference.

its ok to disagree about the little things is my point.

 

[terrapin]

How about you defend your contention that the reward/punishment structure is not the main motivator of Christians. Because in all tbe theological debates I've ever seen, leading religious leaders never make such a contention.

you first since i contested YOUR point about that not the other way around man. its ok that you cant man.

 

[Sinister]

you first since i contested YOUR point about that not the other way around man. its ok that you cant man.

I made a statement that is pretty commonly understood and widely stated by religious people as their motivating factor for their deeds, and I wasnt even speaking directly to you but adding on to a point someone else made. You're suggesting you have some, at the very least, exceptional understanding of the true motivation of Christians that suggests that being rewarded by God, or fear of God's disfavor is NOT a motivating factor. Go ahead an enlighten us, you claimed to have a breadth of knowledge on this subject. Have at it.

 

[Sinister]

God hypothetically is omnipotent, all-knowing, and beyond your comprehension. Who are you to say how He makes himself clear and understandable for everyone? Do you know how He operates?

FWIW the current view of slavery as immoral by Christians seems to contradict the notion of an omnipotent, all-knowing, God. As do a few other Biblical contradictions. Ben Shapiro recently had to contend with this notion:



Listen to Ben contend that God cannot do something because of the whims of man. A God who allegedly flooded the entire Earth in discontent with the actions of humanity refused to Thanos snap slavery out of existence because of social disarray lolz

Also note how Ben uses moral relativism and just refuses to call it that.

 

[Gotosleepho]

FWIW the current view of slavery as immoral by Christians seems to contradict the notion of an omnipotent, all-knowing, God. As do a few other Biblical contradictions. Ben Shapiro recently had to contend with this notion:



Listen to Ben contend that God cannot do something because of the whims of man. A God who allegedly flooded the entire Earth in discontent with the actions of humanity refused to Thanos snap slavery out of existence because of social disarray lolz

Also note how Ben uses moral relativism and just refuses to call it that.

I love that Shapiro is actually debating people who are educated. Because he is very beatable in a debate.

Anyways my point is that if God does exist we really have no conception of how He would operate, form the universe, and how His relationship with humanity would be. Just as we don't fully understand scientific and natural principles of our reality.

 

[terrapin]

I made a statement that is pretty commonly understood and widely stated by religious people as their motivating factor for their deeds, and I wasnt even speaking directly to you but adding on to a point someone else made. You're suggesting you have some, at the very least, exceptional understanding of the true motivation of Christians that suggests that being rewarded by God, or fear of God's disfavor is NOT a motivating factor. Go ahead an enlighten us, you claimed to have a breadth of knowledge on this subject. Have at it.

you have failed to defend your positive claim. thats ok...

have a great day man.

 

[Crawler89]

God hypothetically is omnipotent, all-knowing, and beyond your comprehension. Who are you to say how He makes himself clear and understandable for everyone? Do you know how He operates?

Do you use this logic when your girl can't decide what food she wants, only for her to get upset when you select the wrong food?

She's omnipotent. How are you supposed to know how she operates.

Yes I'm calling this God a bitch.

 

[panamaican]

I agree specifically about the ethical and moral element.

Every society needs a moral touchpoint. A position from which every member of society can draw a similar set of ethical/moral principles. When this country was primarily Christian, we shared that set of principles. Even if someone wasn't a practicing member of the religion, they had familiarity with the ethics and shared in their promulgation but not the religious elements.

As religion has seen its role in society diminish, it's becoming easier for people to set aside basic societal ethical components to chase individualistic ones. We see this most aggressively in politics where the party line has become the new moral compass. And that means the ethics of left and right are becoming more and more divergent.

That is a huge driver of dissent in the country. Not immigration, diversity, etc. Frankly most immigrants and minority groups are strong believers in the ethics put forward by religions. Instead the dissent comes from people drawing their ethics from their politics. The obvious example is the religious right who openly stated that they could ignore the ethical failings of a canditate...so long as the politics were amenable.

Without a core ethnical viewpoint, a country will gradually tear itself apart. And if we're not drawing it from religion, we need to find a replacement and quickly.

 

[Sinister]

I love that Shapiro is actually debating people who are educated. Because he is very beatable in a debate.

Anyways my point is that if God does exist we really have no conception of how He would operate, form the universe, and how His relationship with humanity would be. Just as we don't fully understand scientific and natural principles of our reality.

I agree with that assessment. If there IS a God, God is incomprehensible to us. I explained it to my Son by using characters in his video game. I said imagine if the characters were alive, and functioned in their own, but you could make them do things. Would they be aware that it was you doing that? He said "no." I said God would be like that. I've always had a healthy skepticism of people who profess to comprehend "God." They mostly sounded like people who just wanted everyone else to do what they did

 

[Sinister]

you have failed to defend your positive claim. thats ok...

have a great day man.

Lol, next time you interject be prepared to actually back your contention as opposed to suggesting your awesome wealth of knowledge on the subject that you then refuse to divulge.