WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


An aquaintance embraces God

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 07-23-2017, 05:25 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,792
Thanks: 329
Thanks 638
Default An aquaintance embraces God


A young man (I'll call him MotivationMan) who is an internet acquaintance, - one who I just missed meeting IRL has recently begun a spiritual journey, starting to drift away from a radical hedonism and drifting toward God. He recently shared something - rather lengthy, which I'll share:

The Grand Catholicon

What does it mean to be real? Is the world we see every day real? After all, our senses could deceive us. We could be in the matrix, or we could be dreaming. How would we know? The fact that we are even asking these questions is evidence that our minds have been polluted.

The serious man, the honest man, knows what's real. He can see it plain as day. The problem is we aren't serious or honest. We in our depravity will devise all manner of excuses not to see.

The honest man sees men and women. The fool thinks gender is a social construct. Geometry is a social construct. It deals with imaginary things like perfectly straight lines and right angles (or non-Euclidean cyclopean hellscapes). The reality of men and women is obvious to anyone who is not actively lying to themselves. The belief that they are arbitrary categories is the social construct.

That is not to say all social constructs are elaborate ways of lying to oneself. Social constructs have their uses. They help us reach a deeper understanding, but they are not the fundamental reality, the simple truth. The simple truth is you see men and women, and (usually) it's obvious which is which.

I could go into a long autistic digression about every detail of this process, of the physics of light, of how your eyes reflect the light and send the picture as a signal to your brain, your brain which is programmed to interpret certain physical cues as male and female. Or I could say you see men and women. The complicated explanation is not more honest than the simple explanation. Indeed, a complicated explanation can be used as a way to explain away the plain truth, to deny it with a thousand quibbling details. An honest man does not let these details blind him to the obvious truth. These details can be manipulated, and false explanations can be taught to spread confusion. This is how you get millions of fools actively denying their own eyes by claiming gender is a social construct.

The honest man sees reality. The fool dismisses it as a probability. This is based on a misinterpretation of the scientific method, which is nothing more than the application of probability (itself a social construct) to experiments in order to uncover deeper secrets about the world. Man does not experience the ordinary world as a probability. He experiences the world as real. He does not walk through walls because quantum mechanics says it's mostly empty space. Walls are solid to him. He does not make a distinction between certainty and 99.9999% certainty. He does not question the reality of the world just because everything hasn't been accounted for in laboratory conditions and controlled circumstances. The honest man believes what he sees. The modern scientist denies reality by claiming the deeper world is somehow more real than the ordinary world experienced by ordinary men, and particularly foolish cases claim nothing can be known at all with certainty, except what is not there, and all else a probability.

The true scientist is a wizard or wishes he was. He accepts the face value of reality but seeks something deeper. He knows in his bones that arcane and mystical secrets lurk below the surface, put there by God. Newton himself considered physics and calculus among his lesser achievements. He spent much of his time trying to decode biblical prophecy and almost certainly died a virgin. He was a bit of a madman, who saw things others could not. That was a man of science, who sought the truth wherever he could. The deeper truth is there to be found, but it is by no means a necessary thing that makes the seeker superior to the ordinary man. The world the ordinary man sees is just as real. Indeed, the scientist is in danger of being swallowed up by the pride of the occult. For many, it would have been better to never have looked.

The honest man sees good and evil. The fool says morality is subjective. There are any number of artificial moral theories dreamt up by men who sought to deny the truth of good and evil. There are those who say good and evil are nothing more than pleasure and pain, and there are those who say anything straight, white, and male is evil, and many more, all as artificial as the last.

Be honest with yourself. Good and evil aren't just words, you've felt them. Maybe you couldn't define them academically but you would know them when you see them. People wish to deny their instincts and the deep moral law written on their hearts, so they invent artificial ethical codes as an excuse to deny the conscience they can never fully silence.

The reason they do this is because they know where their conscience leads. You can't have a conscience unless someone put it there. You have felt this in your heart. If you truly open your heart without pretense you will admit knowing good and evil is the same as knowing God and his enemies. Knowing God is the simplest thing imaginable to the honest man who believes what he sees. The sky, the land, the oceans, and the animals all testify to him if you only listen. Denying God when you can easily see the world he has made is the silliest and most dishonest thing possible. Only a fool would do it. Only the creativity stimulated by that pricked conscience could drive him to create the infinite exceptions and artificial systems necessary to keep the lie going, to fool himself and forget his conscience for a time.

Ultimately, these clever systems are nothing but an excuse to deny the reality in front of our eyes, to lie to ourselves, and their origin is none other than the father of lies himself. It is a game we play to make ourselves seem wise, and the better we are at it the further we fall from God's grace. It is fundamentally dishonest and unserious to treat reality as anything other than obvious and simple. We should be honest and serious. We should accept that the world is real. But we do not. We say real is not real, good is not good, and God is not God because of science, because of a thousand silly little things we learned in school, and because we are afraid. We cling to uncertainty because the certain is painful, like a hot sun we can never quite forget is there, even when our back is to it.

There is hope, however, and it is a simple matter. It is nothing more than believing what you already know to be true, to stop making excuses and start listening to your heart. We are not honest men. We are not serious men. The age is against us. But the world turns, and the light must inevitably sweep away the darkness. Real is real, good is good, and God is God. Accept this, and begin to know wisdom.

__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mohican For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (07-23-2017)
  #2  
Old 07-23-2017, 07:08 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,971
Thanks: 1,303
Thanks 375
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
A young man (I'll call him MotivationMan) who is an internet acquaintance, - one who I just missed meeting IRL has recently begun a spiritual journey, starting to drift away from a radical hedonism and drifting toward God. He recently shared something - rather lengthy, which I'll share:

The Grand Catholicon

What does it mean to be real? Is the world we see every day real? After all, our senses could deceive us. We could be in the matrix, or we could be dreaming. How would we know? The fact that we are even asking these questions is evidence that our minds have been polluted.

The serious man, the honest man, knows what's real. He can see it plain as day. The problem is we aren't serious or honest. We in our depravity will devise all manner of excuses not to see.

The honest man sees men and women. The fool thinks gender is a social construct. Geometry is a social construct. It deals with imaginary things like perfectly straight lines and right angles (or non-Euclidean cyclopean hellscapes). The reality of men and women is obvious to anyone who is not actively lying to themselves. The belief that they are arbitrary categories is the social construct.

That is not to say all social constructs are elaborate ways of lying to oneself. Social constructs have their uses. They help us reach a deeper understanding, but they are not the fundamental reality, the simple truth. The simple truth is you see men and women, and (usually) it's obvious which is which.

I could go into a long autistic digression about every detail of this process, of the physics of light, of how your eyes reflect the light and send the picture as a signal to your brain, your brain which is programmed to interpret certain physical cues as male and female. Or I could say you see men and women. The complicated explanation is not more honest than the simple explanation. Indeed, a complicated explanation can be used as a way to explain away the plain truth, to deny it with a thousand quibbling details. An honest man does not let these details blind him to the obvious truth. These details can be manipulated, and false explanations can be taught to spread confusion. This is how you get millions of fools actively denying their own eyes by claiming gender is a social construct.

The honest man sees reality. The fool dismisses it as a probability. This is based on a misinterpretation of the scientific method, which is nothing more than the application of probability (itself a social construct) to experiments in order to uncover deeper secrets about the world. Man does not experience the ordinary world as a probability. He experiences the world as real. He does not walk through walls because quantum mechanics says it's mostly empty space. Walls are solid to him. He does not make a distinction between certainty and 99.9999% certainty. He does not question the reality of the world just because everything hasn't been accounted for in laboratory conditions and controlled circumstances. The honest man believes what he sees. The modern scientist denies reality by claiming the deeper world is somehow more real than the ordinary world experienced by ordinary men, and particularly foolish cases claim nothing can be known at all with certainty, except what is not there, and all else a probability.

The true scientist is a wizard or wishes he was. He accepts the face value of reality but seeks something deeper. He knows in his bones that arcane and mystical secrets lurk below the surface, put there by God. Newton himself considered physics and calculus among his lesser achievements. He spent much of his time trying to decode biblical prophecy and almost certainly died a virgin. He was a bit of a madman, who saw things others could not. That was a man of science, who sought the truth wherever he could. The deeper truth is there to be found, but it is by no means a necessary thing that makes the seeker superior to the ordinary man. The world the ordinary man sees is just as real. Indeed, the scientist is in danger of being swallowed up by the pride of the occult. For many, it would have been better to never have looked.

The honest man sees good and evil. The fool says morality is subjective. There are any number of artificial moral theories dreamt up by men who sought to deny the truth of good and evil. There are those who say good and evil are nothing more than pleasure and pain, and there are those who say anything straight, white, and male is evil, and many more, all as artificial as the last.

Be honest with yourself. Good and evil aren't just words, you've felt them. Maybe you couldn't define them academically but you would know them when you see them. People wish to deny their instincts and the deep moral law written on their hearts, so they invent artificial ethical codes as an excuse to deny the conscience they can never fully silence.

The reason they do this is because they know where their conscience leads. You can't have a conscience unless someone put it there. You have felt this in your heart. If you truly open your heart without pretense you will admit knowing good and evil is the same as knowing God and his enemies. Knowing God is the simplest thing imaginable to the honest man who believes what he sees. The sky, the land, the oceans, and the animals all testify to him if you only listen. Denying God when you can easily see the world he has made is the silliest and most dishonest thing possible. Only a fool would do it. Only the creativity stimulated by that pricked conscience could drive him to create the infinite exceptions and artificial systems necessary to keep the lie going, to fool himself and forget his conscience for a time.

Ultimately, these clever systems are nothing but an excuse to deny the reality in front of our eyes, to lie to ourselves, and their origin is none other than the father of lies himself. It is a game we play to make ourselves seem wise, and the better we are at it the further we fall from God's grace. It is fundamentally dishonest and unserious to treat reality as anything other than obvious and simple. We should be honest and serious. We should accept that the world is real. But we do not. We say real is not real, good is not good, and God is not God because of science, because of a thousand silly little things we learned in school, and because we are afraid. We cling to uncertainty because the certain is painful, like a hot sun we can never quite forget is there, even when our back is to it.

There is hope, however, and it is a simple matter. It is nothing more than believing what you already know to be true, to stop making excuses and start listening to your heart. We are not honest men. We are not serious men. The age is against us. But the world turns, and the light must inevitably sweep away the darkness. Real is real, good is good, and God is God. Accept this, and begin to know wisdom.
Yeah but I think when a person starts their discussion on their belief, measurable against an objective reality, their belief, if not also objective (and therefore an hypothesis), rests on superficial foundations. But it also seems that the author's beliefs is a rejection of what others believe rather than a spiritual discovery. For example, the author could have wrote, "I don't like SJWism, therefore I am going to believe in God"
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-23-2017, 07:17 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,742
Thanks: 355
Thanks 828
Default

Kirk Cameron? Zat you?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-24-2017, 03:55 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 320
Thanks 334
Default

The serious man, the honest man, knows what's real. He can see it plain as day.
Oh, the irony...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-24-2017, 11:12 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,792
Thanks: 329
Thanks 638
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Yeah but I think when a person starts their discussion on their belief, measurable against an objective reality, their belief, if not also objective (and therefore an hypothesis), rests on superficial foundations. But it also seems that the author's beliefs is a rejection of what others believe rather than a spiritual discovery. For example, the author could have wrote, "I don't like SJWism, therefore I am going to believe in God"
There are things I strongly believe, while rejecting other beliefs. A belief in God, and a belief in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil will contrast sharply against the fey faux tolerance of SJWism.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mohican For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (07-24-2017)
  #6  
Old 07-24-2017, 03:35 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,971
Thanks: 1,303
Thanks 375
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
There are things I strongly believe, while rejecting other beliefs. A belief in God, and a belief in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil will contrast sharply against the fey faux tolerance of SJWism.
But I don't believe a person should believe an ideology based on the rejection of an independent ideology, for example, your acquaintance discusses Euclid, and one thing Euclid did not state was;

"Grass cannot be green because everyone sees the color green differently therefore if a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles"

If your acquaintance had stated, "I have read the teachings of Christ and these sentiments resonate strongly with me" this would make more sense if they decide to follow a path inspired by Christianity, if they had stated, "I have read the teachings of Buddha and these sentiments resonate strongly with me" this would make more sense if they decided to follow a path inspired by Buddhism.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-24-2017, 03:56 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 320
Thanks 334
Default

You get to call yourself serious when you actually do serious things and live in a serious way -- not solely by attaching yourself to a religious belief and passing simplistic judgments.

The vast majority of gay people don't see their sexuality as any kind of construct -- it's very real to them. It's who they are and who they always have been.

So if you want to see what's real, then why not open your eyes and consider all the gay people who live decent and productive lives and who are raising children who will do the same?

Of course, some people don't want to or can't do that, because of cognitive dissonance -- it might cause them to question what they believe -- and that's very hard.

I don't know anything about this guy. Maybe he's always been confused, afraid and misinformed about sexuality all along -- and now he's found a way to justify his feelings based on an appropriated belief system.

Otherwise, he’s just choosing his own constructs and buying into a version of what he NOW sees as reality. But it's more like he's a child who sees everything in black and white and needs very specific boundaries and rules to feel safe and grounded.

Really, the question is -- did we invent moral guidelines to make society workable? Or were they handed down to us from God?

Theoretically and among reasonable people, the outcome might be the same, but if you subscribe to the latter -- and if you're a conservative Christian -- then your ability to assess things like sexuality in any kind of objective way has been hobbled by superstition and made up rules with made up consequences.

It hardly puts you in a position to preach about honesty and "wisdom..."

Last edited by Myers; 07-24-2017 at 04:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Myers For This Useful Post:
eripiomundus (07-29-2017), PickleBottom (07-24-2017)
  #8  
Old 07-24-2017, 04:16 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 320
Thanks 334
Default

There are people who have been indoctrinated since birth -- then there are folks who realize they aren't content for whatever reason.

So then there's God -- which means immediate acceptance and a whole set of simple rules -- and a way to automatically elevate yourself above people with different beliefs -- all without having to do or accomplish anything.

I can definitely see the allure...

Last edited by Myers; 07-24-2017 at 04:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-24-2017, 04:33 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,971
Thanks: 1,303
Thanks 375
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
You get to call yourself serious when you actually do serious things and live in a serious way -- not solely by attaching yourself to a religious belief and passing simplistic judgments.

For example -- the vast majority of gay people don't see their sexuality as any kind of construct -- it's very real to them. It's who they are and who they always have been.

So if you want to see what's real, then why not open your eyes and consider all the gay people who live decent and productive lives and who are raising children who will do the same?

Of course, some people don't want to or can't do that, because of cognitive dissonance -- it might cause them to question what they believe -- and that's very hard.

I don't know anything about this guy. Maybe he's always been confused, afraid and misinformed about sexuality all along -- and now he's found a way to justify his feelings based on an appropriated belief system.

Otherwise, he’s just choosing his own constructs and buying into a version of what he NOW sees as reality. But it's more like he's a child who sees everything in black and white and needs very specific boundaries and rules to feel safe and grounded.

Really, the question is -- did we invent moral guidelines to make society workable? Or were they handed down to us from God?

Theoretically and among reasonable people, the outcome might be the same, but if you subscribe to the latter -- and if you're a conservative Christian -- then your ability to assess things like sexuality in any kind of objective way has been hobbled by superstition and made up rules with made up consequences.

It hardly puts you in a position to preach about honesty and "wisdom..."
Yep, and as a result the idea becomes part of a cheap franchise ideology, "If you want to believe that X people are bad then buy into our religion, we hate the fuckers, and for this commitment and modest joining fee you can also, as a bonus, hate group Y, and if you call us within the next hour you receive a free t-shirt. Subscribe to our beliefs today!"
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-24-2017, 04:54 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,971
Thanks: 1,303
Thanks 375
Default

Further to this, there is the perception of ideological bundles, that is, there is a belief that if a person is "Left" or "Right" due to idea A then they must also share idea B, or should accept idea B*.

*In some cases this can be true that a belief system has, as a result, the implication that a person who believes idea A has to also accept idea B.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-24-2017, 06:30 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,792
Thanks: 329
Thanks 638
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
You get to call yourself serious when you actually do serious things and live in a serious way -- not solely by attaching yourself to a religious belief and passing simplistic judgments.

The vast majority of gay people don't see their sexuality as any kind of construct -- it's very real to them. It's who they are and who they always have been.

So if you want to see what's real, then why not open your eyes and consider all the gay people who live decent and productive lives and who are raising children who will do the same?

Of course, some people don't want to or can't do that, because of cognitive dissonance -- it might cause them to question what they believe -- and that's very hard.

I don't know anything about this guy. Maybe he's always been confused, afraid and misinformed about sexuality all along -- and now he's found a way to justify his feelings based on an appropriated belief system.

Otherwise, he’s just choosing his own constructs and buying into a version of what he NOW sees as reality. But it's more like he's a child who sees everything in black and white and needs very specific boundaries and rules to feel safe and grounded.

Really, the question is -- did we invent moral guidelines to make society workable? Or were they handed down to us from God?

Theoretically and among reasonable people, the outcome might be the same, but if you subscribe to the latter -- and if you're a conservative Christian -- then your ability to assess things like sexuality in any kind of objective way has been hobbled by superstition and made up rules with made up consequences.

It hardly puts you in a position to preach about honesty and "wisdom..."
This is prepackaged nonsense, and as silly as someone stating that Protestants can not sit on the supreme court.

Why would a conservative Christian not be able to assess sexuality?


Our morality was handed down to us by God. You do have the free will afforded to you to not believe this, but it is so.

If you do not believe in God then you're morality is likely not tethered to any bedrock, but subject to change based on what the High Priests and Priestesses of Culture tell you what is now acceptable.

And what is this "never question you're beliefs?" you speak of, friend? Like Jacob, I've wrestled with The Angel quite often.....
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mohican For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (07-24-2017)
  #12  
Old 07-24-2017, 06:35 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,742
Thanks: 355
Thanks 828
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
This is prepackaged nonsense, and as silly as someone stating that Protestants can not sit on the supreme court.

Why would a conservative Christian not be able to assess sexuality?


Our morality was handed down to us by God. You do have the free will afforded to you to not believe this, but it is so.

If you do not believe in God then you're morality is likely not tethered to any bedrock, but subject to change based on what the High Priests and Priestesses of Culture tell you what is now acceptable.

And what is this "never question you're beliefs?" you speak of, friend? Like Jacob, I've wrestled with The Angel quite often.....


Wrestle harder friend...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to brianpatrick For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (07-24-2017)
  #13  
Old 07-24-2017, 06:50 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,971
Thanks: 1,303
Thanks 375
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
If you do not believe in God then you're morality is likely not tethered to any bedrock, but subject to change based on what the High Priests and Priestesses of Culture tell you what is now acceptable.
I'm afraid all organised religion is exactly the same, only those that shift their morality with reality survive. That's one of the reasons why most Christians aren't allowed to beat their slaves anymore, even though God allowed this through His spoken Word in The Bible.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-24-2017, 07:01 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,792
Thanks: 329
Thanks 638
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
I'm afraid all organised religion is exactly the same, only those that shift their morality with reality survive. That's one of the reasons why most Christians aren't allowed to beat their slaves anymore, even though God allowed this through His spoken Word in The Bible.
Empty dodge, Pickle bottom. And wrong on several accounts.

Christianity is radically different from the Judaism it sprang from, and both share similarities and vast differences with the other "Abrahamic" religion.

And then by implication all Christians were slave owners, all of them found some reference they interpreted as a reason to beat their slaves?

Are you trying to continue a discussion or argument, or have you just bottomed out in the zone of "if all else fails, accuse them of being racists, slave beaters, hurr durrr"
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mohican For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (07-24-2017)
  #15  
Old 07-24-2017, 07:03 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,792
Thanks: 329
Thanks 638
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
Wrestle harder friend...
you shouldn't wish that - every time The Angel takes me further away from where you see the world.....
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-24-2017, 07:07 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,742
Thanks: 355
Thanks 828
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
you shouldn't wish that - every time The Angel takes me further away from where you see the world.....


Well, as long as you don't become one of those parking lot or mall shooters (getting rid of the evil&#128580 I'm good with whatever you choose.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-24-2017, 07:14 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,971
Thanks: 1,303
Thanks 375
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Empty dodge, Pickle bottom. And wrong on several accounts.

Christianity is radically different from the Judaism it sprang from, and both share similarities and vast differences with the other "Abrahamic" religion.

And then by implication all Christians were slave owners, all of them found some reference they interpreted as a reason to beat their slaves?

Are you trying to continue a discussion or argument, or have you just bottomed out in the zone of "if all else fails, accuse them of being racists, slave beaters, hurr durrr"
Ah you have just conceded the argument my friend, "Christianity is radically different from the Judaism it sprang from" - where is the bedrock?

Your middle paragraph does not follow from my argument, as my post recognises that some Christians still do own slaves but makes no statement on whether all ancient Christians did so, or even whether owning slaves is morally right, only that an organised religion cannot survive in today's society if it is morally reprehensible, hence your last statement, which you misinterpreted my argument*, modern western society considers slavery and beating slaves morally reprehensible and therefore would not consider owning and/or beating a slave, and if this is part of a religious doctrine the people will reject it. Therefore the church has to change its stance on the issue in line with common sensibilities - or lose followers/become extinct.

*you played the victim card too early my friend, I'm not calling you a racist
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by PickleBottom; 07-24-2017 at 07:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-24-2017, 07:48 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,792
Thanks: 329
Thanks 638
Default

Pickle You're playing word games and trying to be too cute.

And I don't see the change of Christianity from it's parent as a need to adapt or water down to survive with the times, although far too many seem to be willing to do so. Almost all of that change was brought on by Christ's sacrifice. A bit more was when Saul became Paul and was directed to take Christianity to the Gentiles, because the Jews weren't receiving the message....

An no, you didn't mention racist. But you did play a good bit of a word game with "most Christians Christians aren't allowed to beat their slaves anymore".

Was you implication that most Christians did own slaves?

And that the majority of these slave owners mistreated their slaves?

And what would you base that on?

Or were you trolling or out in search of a gotcha moment?

To go back to what you think is a gotcha, and put in perspective of 'Murrica below the Mason Dixon line pre 1865 - Maybe 5% of the population owned slaves.

If you make the assumption that percentage of slaveowners/percentage of Christians stayed in a similar ratio then even in the deep dark South 5% or less of Christians owned slaves. So that invalidates your statement.

As an aside, I'd bet a higher percentage of British Sailors of the time were lashed and beaten compared to slaves. Or so Churchill opined....something something....The British Navy..rum, the lash, sodomy.....
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mohican For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (07-24-2017)
  #19  
Old 07-24-2017, 08:02 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,971
Thanks: 1,303
Thanks 375
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Pickle You're playing word games and trying to be too cute.

And I don't see the change of Christianity from it's parent as a need to adapt or water down to survive with the times, although far too many seem to be willing to do so. Almost all of that change was brought on by Christ's sacrifice. A bit more was when Saul became Paul and was directed to take Christianity to the Gentiles, because the Jews weren't receiving the message....

An no, you didn't mention racist. But you did play a good bit of a word game with "most Christians Christians aren't allowed to beat their slaves anymore".

Was you implication that most Christians did own slaves?

And that the majority of these slave owners mistreated their slaves?

And what would you base that on?

Or were you trolling or out in search of a gotcha moment?

To go back to what you think is a gotcha, and put in perspective of 'Murrica below the Mason Dixon line pre 1865 - Maybe 5% of the population owned slaves.

If you make the assumption that percentage of slaveowners/percentage of Christians stayed in a similar ratio then even in the deep dark South 5% or less of Christians owned slaves. So that invalidates your statement.

As an aside, I'd bet a higher percentage of British Sailors of the time were lashed and beaten compared to slaves. Or so Churchill opined....something something....The British Navy..rum, the lash, sodomy.....
But interestingly, when I thought slaves I thought of ancient bedouin people and when I thought of modern slavery I was thinking of "black" Christians owning "black" slaves in Africa (not only Christian and not only "black"). The most in "most" Christians was then directed more towards Christians in the modern western world, the point being that presumably they would not want to own another person as property and beat them, because in my understanding modern western Christians would want to do the right thing by their fellow human.

The "gotcha" moment was when I stated "Ah you have just conceded the argument my friend, "Christianity is radically different from the Judaism it sprang from" - where is the bedrock?"
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by PickleBottom; 07-24-2017 at 08:27 PM.. Reason: For clarity
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-25-2017, 02:21 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 320
Thanks 334
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
This is prepackaged nonsense, and as silly as someone stating that Protestants can not sit on the supreme court.
Of course that would be silly.

Because we would hope that a Supreme Court justice would form his opinions based on the law -- not on his religious beliefs.

But that's exactly what you and your acquaintance are doing here -- and no problem.

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Why would a conservative Christian not be able to assess sexuality?
Here's what I said:

"...if you're a conservative Christian -- then your ability to assess things like sexuality in any kind of objective way has been hobbled by superstition and made up rules with made up consequences."

It's like when someone asked about how much LBGT should be included in a story, and you said it would be a matter of how "silly and depraved" you wanted to portray the character.

That speaks for itself.

Either your ability to be objective about a person's sexuality has been hobbled by your beliefs -- or you've formed your opinions from watching the movie Airplane or maybe you've never actually met any gay people.

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
If you do not believe in God then you're morality is likely not tethered to any bedrock, but subject to change based on what the High Priests and Priestesses of Culture tell you what is now acceptable.
Of course, that’s what you have to believe. Otherwise, if you haven’t been indoctrinated by religion, you have to rely on something that you’ve indicated you view with some suspicion -- reason. (You’ve as much as said that when reason came into it during that pesky enlightenment, things started going doing hill.)

That means observing the effects of behavior and evaluating real world consequences -- which of course is potentially unsettling and a lot harder than falling back on because “the Bible tells me so.”

If your morality is based on the Bible -- or if it's based on what the High Priests and Priestesses of Culture tell you is acceptable -- it makes no difference to me. Neither of them require much thinking.

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
And what is this "never question you're beliefs?" you speak of, friend? Like Jacob, I've wrestled with The Angel quite often.....
If you read my comments, you'll see I was referring to something pretty specific -- I'll go out on a limb and say it's something you haven't questioned.

I wasn't suggesting you that you've never questioned ANY of your beliefs.

Last edited by Myers; 07-25-2017 at 05:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-25-2017, 06:17 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,742
Thanks: 355
Thanks 828
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
Of course that would be silly.

Because we would hope that a Supreme Court justice would form his opinions based on the law -- not on his religious beliefs.

But that's exactly what you and your acquaintance are doing here -- and no problem.



Here's what I said:

"...if you're a conservative Christian -- then your ability to assess things like sexuality in any kind of objective way has been hobbled by superstition and made up rules with made up consequences."

It's like when someone asked about how much LBGT should be included in a story, and you said it would be a matter of how "silly and depraved" you wanted to portray the character.

That speaks for itself.

Either your ability to be objective about a person's sexuality has been hobbled by your beliefs -- or you've formed your opinions from watching the movie Airplane or maybe you've never actually met any gay people.



Of course, that’s what you have to believe. Otherwise, if you haven’t been indoctrinated by religion, you have to rely on something that you’ve indicated you view with some suspicion -- reason. (You’ve as much as said that when reason came into it during that pesky enlightenment, things started going doing hill.)

That means observing the effects of behavior and evaluating real world consequences -- which of course is potentially unsettling and a lot harder than falling back on because “the Bible tells me so.”

If your morality is based on the Bible -- or if it's based on what the High Priests and Priestesses of Culture tell you is acceptable -- it makes no difference to me. Neither of them require much thinking.



If you read my comments, you'll see I was referring to something pretty specific -- I'll go out on a limb and say it's something you haven't questioned.

I wasn't suggesting you that you've never questioned ANY of your beliefs.


Well Myers, again you're spewing pre-packaged gobboldy-gook. Like Bubbles here, with every sentence you draw closer to Satan's waiting arms.

Hope you like cats on fire.

https://youtu.be/FxBDUU_DDd8

Just anticipating what Mo might say.😀
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-26-2017, 04:06 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 320
Thanks 334
Default

Heh. I love that show. There really is some heart beneath all the shenanigans. But I have to watch it by myself. It baffles the better half.

She thinks the Bubbles character is making fun of the developmentally disabled -- but he's probably the smartest guy on the show.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Myers For This Useful Post:
brianpatrick (07-26-2017)
  #23  
Old 07-29-2017, 07:49 AM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 374
Thanks: 27
Thanks 105
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Our morality was handed down to us by God. You do have the free will afforded to you to not believe this, but it is so.
I'm honestly not trying to antagonise, because from a certain perspective I can see an argument for what you're saying, but can you provide any evidence for what you've said here?

I just posted this on another thread, but it seems to me that the Bible is full of both moral and immoral things, and Christians pick and choose which they adhere to according to their own moral compass. If this is the case, and it most certainly is*, then how can you say that God handed down our morals?

*In the book of Job, for example, Job gives his daughter to a mod of people hungry for rape in order to keep them from raping a traveler who asks him for refuge. Is this moral?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-29-2017, 08:12 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 320
Thanks 334
Default

I've learned not to reference anything in the Old Testament...
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-29-2017, 08:13 AM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 374
Thanks: 27
Thanks 105
Default

Probably a good point. "Christians" after all, but the old testament is still supposedly the word of the Christian God.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-29-2017, 09:46 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,587
Thanks: 320
Thanks 334
Default

The conversation is going to be a non-starter regardless.

There is no evidence. You won't get anything beyond "because it's in the Bible..."

There's a lady who babysat my kids who I love like my own grandmother, and she thinks drinking is a sin -- not just drunkenness.

Against my better judgement I told her that up until the Methodists came a long and the subsequent temperance movement, most Christians drank alcohol.

She said, "Yes, but Jesus drank grape juice. That's what it means in the Bible when it says 'new wine."

I was like, uh OK. It makes no sense from a historical or even a logical standpoint. How do you even respond to something that?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-29-2017, 09:58 AM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 374
Thanks: 27
Thanks 105
Default

Haha, yeah. I was once stopped by some muslims in the street who tried to convert me to their religion. They were nice guys, but their reasoning was incredibly flawed. Their argument went like this:

The word of God has been interpretted many times, but wouldn't it make sense for God to give his most faithful interpretation to the last prophet? (I said yes just to see where it was headed). So, since Mohamed is the last prohphet, his version of God's word must be the truest one.

I said: "I see your point, but if you look at every religion across the entire globe you'll notice that every single one of them claims to have the definitive word of God, so how can you know whether your version, amongst all the others claiming the same degree of veracity, is the true one?"

One of the guys looked at me as if I had given a revelation, and I felt sorry for him. He'd been brainwashed so completely it hadn't even occured to him to question what was a terrible line of reasoning to begin with. Because I felt so sorry for him I ended up walking away with a Koran and a promise to read it... which I, disgracefully, failed to do after the first fifty pages.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-30-2017, 01:41 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,792
Thanks: 329
Thanks 638
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
The conversation is going to be a non-starter regardless.

There is no evidence. You won't get anything beyond "because it's in the Bible..."

There's a lady who babysat my kids who I love like my own grandmother, and she thinks drinking is a sin -- not just drunkenness.

Against my better judgement I told her that up until the Methodists came a long and the subsequent temperance movement, most Christians drank alcohol.

She said, "Yes, but Jesus drank grape juice. That's what it means in the Bible when it says 'new wine."

I was like, uh OK. It makes no sense from a historical or even a logical standpoint. How do you even respond to something that?
Did you ask her how Noah got roaring drunk?

And I thing Grape Juice remaining grape juice is a fairly modern thing....
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:07 AM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.