Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patheos)   Progressive Christian (yes, they exist) lays out case for Evangelical Republicans being guilty of Onanism, and no he isn't talking about when they think of Saint Sarah at night   (patheos.com) divider line 318
    More: Obvious, progressive Christians, Republican, sister-in-law  
•       •       •

3360 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 2:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



318 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-19 07:15:55 PM  

spongeboob: That is not how it works you claim Prosperity Gospel is not Mainstream you prove above I posted link for 50/260 of the largest Churches in America preach the Prosperity Gospel, that is 19% in America and here are some other quotes with citations


I don't care if 259 out of 260 churches in America preach prosperity gospel you cant defend it biblically. People will believe what they want to believe. There is a grain of truth about prosperity gospel as there is with most heresy but to study the Bible at any length is to reject it.

Think about this a second. The Bible has been around for 2000 years. 70% of America claims to be Christian. Every single person just about knows about revelation and the story of the anti Christ. The prophecies are pretty clear. When he arrives on the scene it should be obvious who he is and what is going on. Yet the scripture is clear that most will follow the antichrist. How could that be? Pretty much 100% of all churches will follow him. There will be almost 0 resistance. How could that be? The growth of prosperity gospel shows how it will be. You till people what they want to hear when they want to hear it all truth will be thrown out. That is human nature and I cant do anything about it but follow God and read and learn the Bible.
 
2013-08-19 07:16:10 PM  

Infernalist: walkingtall: Infernalist: Faith just IS. Evidence just doesn't enter into the equation. Evidence is the realm of science and reality. Faith is the realm of the spiritual.

That is false. Science, as practiced by human beings, is chock full of faith. Humans have a hole that faith in something seems to fill. What that something is is where you get to choose. Most of anything is believed through faith. Very little is actually provable in a concrete sense. That is more of a philosophy debate. My faith isn't blind. I don't like blind faith and if belief in God and Jesus could only be done blindly I wouldn't believe it. Take that as you want.

Science that requires faith is not science.


but it might be quantum physics!  um...or not.  the math is a bit fuzzy on that, actually.
 
2013-08-19 07:18:00 PM  

Weaver95: Infernalist: walkingtall: Infernalist: Faith just IS. Evidence just doesn't enter into the equation. Evidence is the realm of science and reality. Faith is the realm of the spiritual.

That is false. Science, as practiced by human beings, is chock full of faith. Humans have a hole that faith in something seems to fill. What that something is is where you get to choose. Most of anything is believed through faith. Very little is actually provable in a concrete sense. That is more of a philosophy debate. My faith isn't blind. I don't like blind faith and if belief in God and Jesus could only be done blindly I wouldn't believe it. Take that as you want.

Science that requires faith is not science.

but it might be quantum physics!  um...or not.  the math is a bit fuzzy on that, actually.


I don't believe in Quantum Physics.  Any situation where the cause comes after the reaction gets my hackles up.
 
2013-08-19 07:19:10 PM  

walkingtall: There is not a single conservative evangelical that you can show me wishes, desires, or through inaction, is ok with suffering upon the poor.


GSS-2000, variable RICHHLTH ("Is it just or unjust - right or wrong - that people with higher incomes can: a. Buy better health care than people with lower incomes"), it's about 10% of conservative Baptists who think it's entirely just.

(Most of the other GSS questions on poverty you could argue about being because of the government involvement -- though with some difficulties.)

walkingtall: It isn't accepted or liked among conservative Christian churches.


Citation? It is at least more popular with conservative Christians, suggesting that it is likely to be at least better accepted/liked among conservative Christian churches.
 
2013-08-19 07:19:55 PM  

walkingtall: I don't care if 259 out of 260 churches in America preach prosperity gospel you cant defend it biblically.


You still aren't addressing the issue tho, you're changing the subject.  prosperity gospel theology is real and it has a strong influence on the evangelical wing of the Republican party.  the question is - as a Christian, what are YOU gonna do about it?  saying 'oh well it's not really christianity' means you let heresy and sin corrupt your churches and lead others out of your faith down to follow a false god.  either you confront it...or you don't.

I don't envy you your choices.  I wouldn't blame you for ignoring the problem.
 
2013-08-19 07:26:17 PM  

walkingtall: spongeboob: That is not how it works you claim Prosperity Gospel is not Mainstream you prove above I posted link for 50/260 of the largest Churches in America preach the Prosperity Gospel, that is 19% in America and here are some other quotes with citations

I don't care if 259 out of 260 churches in America preach prosperity gospel you cant defend it biblically. People will believe what they want to believe. There is a grain of truth about prosperity gospel as there is with most heresy but to study the Bible at any length is to reject it.

Think about this a second. The Bible has been around for 2000 years. 70% of America claims to be Christian. Every single person just about knows about revelation and the story of the anti Christ. The prophecies are pretty clear. When he arrives on the scene it should be obvious who he is and what is going on. Yet the scripture is clear that most will follow the antichrist. How could that be? Pretty much 100% of all churches will follow him. There will be almost 0 resistance. How could that be? The growth of prosperity gospel shows how it will be. You till people what they want to hear when they want to hear it all truth will be thrown out. That is human nature and I cant do anything about it but follow God and read and learn the Bible.

Not Germane to discussion

Wow this may be the best deflection on Fark, you first claim that Prosperity Gospel is not embraced by Christians when confronted with the facts that at least 17% of American Christians believe in the the Prosperity Gospel, and 61% buy at least some of it, you act like I am preaching the Prosperity Gospel and you say 'you can't defend it Biblically' could you please point out where I seemed to defend the Prosperity Gospel? But I like how even if 259/260 churches preach the Prosperity Gospel you will still claim that doesn't matter real Christians don't believe it.
 
2013-08-19 08:02:15 PM  

walkingtall: Mouldy Squid: The fact is that Paul did purposefully alter and manipulate the fledgling religion in direct defiance of and in opposition to the Mother Council headed by James in Jerusalem. He was recalled to Jerusalem twice to answer for his heretical teachings and writings, the prime of which was the the claim that Jesus was the Son of God.

This is completely 100% false. Im sorry but this theory has been put forth and rebuked at every turn. Paul did not create core doctrine. He refined it but the core existed from the very beginning. I cant take seriously the rest of what you wrote because this is demonstrably false and it shows a non intellectual bias that is pointless to debate.


Citations please. The core theology, from even Jesus himself, calls him the Son of Man. We don't get Son of God until Paul. You also haven't answered why Paul was called before James the brother of Jesus to answer for his teachings. Could it be because they were not the same as what James was teaching? Could it be that Paul was teaching things about Jesus that James found heretical? That he was preaching to gentiles which was strictly against the Law? Paul was even condemned by Peter who was also preaching in Rome, to Jews, with the sanction of James.

The university that granted my MA in Comparative Religion seemed to think I was intellectual enough. But then again, one of the best universities in Canada must not hold a candle to your bible circle.
 
2013-08-19 08:07:26 PM  

Weaver95: Princess Ryans Knickers: Bloody William: But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother." But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother's wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.

What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.
This seems less a condemnation of masturbating, and more a condemnation of pulling out.

Try reading the story in context. It's clear that it's not about masturbating. It's about not fulfilling his duty to give her a child.

And exploiting the situation and misfortune of others for personal pleasure and gain.


I think there's a lot more to this. Not an expert in ancient Judaic, but I think there might be a huge economic incentive to do this. Brother has no heir so more of the inheritance goes to the surviving brother. Once inheritance is secured wife can replaced with a better one by being able to afford a higher dowry.
 
2013-08-19 08:28:26 PM  

Mouldy Squid: The university that granted my MA in Comparative Religion seemed to think I was intellectual enough. But then again, one of the best universities in Canada must not hold a candle to your bible circle.


NB: Torah (תורה) does not mean "Law". Nomos (νόμος) is your thing.
 
2013-08-19 09:06:41 PM  
Mouldy Squid:
The university that granted my MA in Comparative Religion seemed to think I was intellectual enough. But then again, one of the best universities in Canada must not hold a candle to your bible circle.

Made my day.
 
2013-08-19 09:29:06 PM  
Mouldy Squid: ... or that he espoused a radical Jewish religious philosophy, some of which made it into the Gospels and other books of the New Testament...

That's not stressed enough.

TFA gives some perspective: the story of Onan features a deity who exacted severe punishment for failing to meet very worldly social and family obligations. But such worldly things did not, apparently, matter to Jesus. So Jesus' exhortations had to be bowdlerized, made safe for polite society. Paul laid the groundwork for the prosperity doctrine.
 
2013-08-19 10:33:12 PM  

Weaver95: Kristoph57: Weaver95: That was a very well written article. Damn shame the lesson is lost on the modern evangelical movement tho.

Someone should compile a list of lessons taught in the bible that are completely lost on modern evangelical movements.

Lessons: the Bible's Good Teachings or LBGT for short.

It's weird that I'm pagan and I know more about the bible than most Christians.


That's not weird at all, man. It's called being anything-other-than-Christian in a bible-thumpy part of the country. You have to speak their language, or they just keep insisting that you haven't "heard the word." It's the ONLY way to keep them from repeating themselves incessantly.
 
2013-08-19 10:42:23 PM  

Kristoph57: Infernalist:

I maintain that if Jesus were to take up his mission in today's world, he'd be a crunch-head hippie commie.

A dude like that nowadays would be crucifie...


That comment just earned you a month of TF. Use it unwisely, good sir.
 
2013-08-19 11:11:24 PM  

Infernalist: That whole mythology gets 'really' interesting when you find out that Ahura Mazda had a son named Mithras that came to earth in the flesh, had a dozen disciples, died and went to hell to fight Ahriman for the souls of mankind.

And then he rose from the dead.

And, as I understand it, the mythology predates Christianity by about a thousand years or so.


You don't by any chance remember Mithras' birthday, do you?

It was in late December, the 20-somethingth, I think...
 
2013-08-20 12:32:31 AM  

Mouldy Squid: The university that granted my MA in Comparative Religion seemed to think I was intellectual enough. But then again, one of the best universities in Canada must not hold a candle to your bible circle


I don't care what your MA is from. If you tell an untruth it is an untruth. A lie from someone with an MA is still a lie. False confidence in education is a very serious problem with all of academia today. If you try and tell me that Paul made up the divinity of Christ years and years after Christ's death then you are wrong. If you know you are wrong and saying it anyway then you are a liar. Just as Dan Brown stating that it is an absolute fact that the Council of Nicea decided that Christ was divine 300 years after his death is a lie. It isn't true. It has never been true and it has been thoroughly debunked. I don't care if Dan Brown has 4 Phds in Christian History. He wrote a falsehood. You are doing the same trying to tell people Paul made up the divinity of Christ over the objections of the rest of the early Christian church.
 
2013-08-20 12:46:41 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mouldy Squid: The university that granted my MA in Comparative Religion seemed to think I was intellectual enough. But then again, one of the best universities in Canada must not hold a candle to your bible circle.

NB: Torah (תורה) does not mean "Law". Nomos (νόμος) is your thing.


My mistake, thank you for the correction. I will admit that my speciality wasn't turn of the millennium Judaism.
 
2013-08-20 01:12:22 AM  

walkingtall: Mouldy Squid: The university that granted my MA in Comparative Religion seemed to think I was intellectual enough. But then again, one of the best universities in Canada must not hold a candle to your bible circle

I don't care what your MA is from. If you tell an untruth it is an untruth. A lie from someone with an MA is still a lie. False confidence in education is a very serious problem with all of academia today. If you try and tell me that Paul made up the divinity of Christ years and years after Christ's death then you are wrong. If you know you are wrong and saying it anyway then you are a liar. Just as Dan Brown stating that it is an absolute fact that the Council of Nicea decided that Christ was divine 300 years after his death is a lie. It isn't true. It has never been true and it has been thoroughly debunked. I don't care if Dan Brown has 4 Phds in Christian History. He wrote a falsehood. You are doing the same trying to tell people Paul made up the divinity of Christ over the objections of the rest of the early Christian church.


Why do you have such a hate on for Dan Brown? Do you think that somehow a fiction writer's books have any bearing on the scholarship of religion? Just what do you think went on at the Council of Nicaea if not the bishops deciding on the doctrine of the Christians. Do you know that there were two opposing views? You have heard of Arius, right?

So call me a liar if you want. It is the last weapon you have in this argument, and shows your desperation.
 
2013-08-20 01:18:51 AM  

vpb: Bloody William: What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.
This seems less a condemnation of masturbating, and more a condemnation of pulling out.

He spoiled the porno God was shooting.

That's the actual purpose of humanity, to provide limitless porn for the celestial realm.


... Well, you can just rock *me* to sleep tonight!

-- Binkley
 
2013-08-20 01:33:12 AM  

Mouldy Squid: Why do you have such a hate on for Dan Brown? Do you think that somehow a fiction writer's books have any bearing on the scholarship of religion? Just what do you think went on at the Council of Nicaea if not the bishops deciding on the doctrine of the Christians. Do you know that there were two opposing views? You have heard of Arius, right?

So call me a liar if you want. It is the last weapon you have in this argument, and shows your desperation.


Dan Brown stated that his book was fiction wrapped around certain truths. One of those truths he stated was that the Council of Nicea decided Christ's divinity 300 years after his death. That was false. Easily proven false. However, people still believe it today. I am calling you out claiming that Paul made up Christ's divinity over the objections of the early church and was rebuked for it. That is false. You are hiding behind your education making false statements just as Dan Brown hid behind the assumption of a learned author that the statement of fact made in his book is in reality a fact, which it is not.
 
2013-08-20 01:37:36 AM  

Infernalist: walkingtall: Infernalist: Faith just IS. Evidence just doesn't enter into the equation. Evidence is the realm of science and reality. Faith is the realm of the spiritual.

That is false. Science, as practiced by human beings, is chock full of faith. Humans have a hole that faith in something seems to fill. What that something is is where you get to choose. Most of anything is believed through faith. Very little is actually provable in a concrete sense. That is more of a philosophy debate. My faith isn't blind. I don't like blind faith and if belief in God and Jesus could only be done blindly I wouldn't believe it. Take that as you want.

Science that requires faith is not science.


OTOH, the thing about science is that an awful lot of what's been proven scientifically has been proven by people who have the degrees and the specialized knowledge that allow them to prove those things. Everybody else - the lay people, if you will - kind of have to take the things science has to tell us on faith. Yes, if they had that specialized knowledge, they, too, could perform the experiments necessary to prove those things.

In a lot of ways, it's like the Catholic Church before the printing press; a handful of people were literate enough to tell everybody else what the Bible said, and because those people couldn't read Latin, they had to take it on faith.

I'm not trying to equate the two directly, but there are parallels running from faith to science. The argument that "science is more true because the scientific method allows you to prove things" is still going to be largely theoretical to vast swaths of the lay public. Religious faith is the same way. Less so these days thanks to widespread literacy, but that's still what it boils down to.

Put another way, the religious are engaged in one grand experiment; where scientists seek to figure out what makes the universe tick, the religious have a very specific hypothesis: there is a God, and for those who follow His Commandments, Heaven awaits. The proof for or against that hypothesis is testable by any man or woman.

They just tend not to be able to publish afterwards.
 
2013-08-20 01:38:51 AM  

Mouldy Squid: Do you know that there were two opposing views? You have heard of Arius, right?


There were a WHOLE lot more then two opposing views at every Council. Every single heretical or outright cult that had some kind of leader was invited to make their case.
 
2013-08-20 01:48:17 AM  

Ned Stark: They should bring back the old Christian Socialist Party. Maximum overtroll.


... if the 'National Socialists' were the 'Nazis', would that make the 'Christian Socialists' the 'Crazies'?
 
2013-08-20 01:58:08 AM  
The Council of Nicea did nothing more then codify already existing theology that existed from the first days after Christ's death. They didn't make up anything new they simply gave voice to some dissenting opinions that had cropped up and put down some heretical teachings that were making the rounds. At no time was there any indication that any new theology was created. This is where the great lies have their foundation. Codifying and clarifying is NOT creating whole cloth which is what is claimed. Just as Paul clarified and applied doctrine as he made his way across the world. He rebuked churches that got out of line and put down heretical teachings where he found them. His message never changed on a core level. Christ was Lord, given for our sins by God the Father and imbued with the Holy Spirit. We are saved by faith in Christ alone. This message never wavered and never wavered before or after the Councils.
 
2013-08-20 01:59:39 AM  

Mouldy Squid: Do you know that there were two opposing views? You have heard of Arius, right?


Why would you ask that question of one who obviously had never even heard of, let alone read, Augustine of Hippo?
/Required reading in comparative religion; emphatically not my idea.
//Nothing personal, but you people believe some really strange stuff.
//(For example, no Jew would drink blood or participate in any other acts of ritual cannibalism. Just. Un. Farking. Thinkable.)
 
2013-08-20 02:03:05 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: For example, no Jew would drink blood or participate in any other acts of ritual cannibalism. Just. Un. Farking. Thinkable.)


You have an entire holiday built around celebrating innocent animals being slaughtered and the blood being put on doors to ward against the angel of death killing all the first born and you are going to throw stones against a ritual that is symbolic in nature? Really?
 
2013-08-20 02:16:34 AM  

martin55: Put another way, the religious are engaged in one grand experiment; where scientists seek to figure out what makes the universe tick, the religious have a very specific hypothesis: there is a God, and for those who follow His Commandments, Heaven awaits.


Religious.
Heaven is a concept stolen from our mysticism.
The World to Come is not really a core belief. The idea of acting as though our faith focuses on the promise of entering some paradise is, honestly, puzzling.
We live here and now.
Our actions affect others here and now.
The thought of acting otherwise is ... unnatural. The idea of some divine punishment after we die as a motivation is equally puzzling and unnatural. Sorry.

That's absolutely not why we do what we do.
 
2013-08-20 02:35:02 AM  

walkingtall: demaL-demaL-yeH: For example, no Jew would drink blood or participate in any other acts of ritual cannibalism. Just. Un. Farking. Thinkable.)

You have an entire holiday built around celebrating innocent animals being slaughtered and the blood being put on doors to ward against the angel of death killing all the first born and you are going to throw stones against a ritual that is symbolic in nature? Really?


We don't practice animal sacrifice and haven't (with the exception of Ethiopians) for around two thousand years. Blood is the life on an animal. Consuming blood is specifically prohibited by God(Leviticus 17:10-14).

And, since at least 106 CE (according to Ignatius in his letter to the Romans), your Eucharist has been a  literal, not symbolic, act ofcannibalism.

/But even symbolic acts of ritual cannibalism are repugnant to Jews, and always have been.
 
2013-08-20 02:43:18 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: But even symbolic acts of ritual cannibalism are repugnant to Jews, and always have been.


You are way off on Christian doctrine. Christ broke bread and stated to eat this in remembrance of me. Not take this bread and eat me. This is just so silly I can believe I am typing this. There is nothing cannibalistic about communion. If church leaders made up some doctrine about it being the actual literal blood and flesh of Christ then so be it but there is nothing biblical to back that up. The passage is clear what it means. What has been added to it is irrelevant. Passages were used to justify slavery and justify thinking that blacks were sub human with no soul. Completely misses the point of the Bible in its full context just as you have done.
 
2013-08-20 02:50:37 AM  
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of  bGod are perishing in their disputes. - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1

Ignatious understood Substitutional theology and this is what he was trying to teach. Jesus's flesh was given for our flesh. His blood for our. Perfectly mainline theology.
 
2013-08-20 03:21:13 AM  

walkingtall: demaL-demaL-yeH: But even symbolic acts of ritual cannibalism are repugnant to Jews, and always have been.

You are way off on Christian doctrine. Christ broke bread and stated to eat this in remembrance of me. Not take this bread and eat me. This is just so silly I can believe I am typing this. There is nothing cannibalistic about communion. If church leaders made up some doctrine about it being the actual literal blood and flesh of Christ then so be it but there is nothing biblical to back that up. The passage is clear what it means. What has been added to it is irrelevant. Passages were used to justify slavery and justify thinking that blacks were sub human with no soul. Completely misses the point of the Bible in its full context just as you have done.


I'm telling you flat out that no 1st Century CE Jew would do this.
None would participate, either: It is repugnant beyond words.
John (6th chapter), Matthew, Luke, and I Corinthians,  render it in Greek "This is my body." and "This is my blood."
Not.
Possible.
For.
A.
Jew.

walkingtall: they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins


This directly contradicts your assertion, by the way. Want to try to dissect it in Attic Greek? Or should I drag in Justin Martyr (100-165 CE), who also wrote:
"And this food is called among us  Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

That's literal in Greek, too.

/It seems to me that the doctrines and history of your religion are more familiar to me than to you.
//Does that bother you nearly as much as it bothers me?
 
2013-08-20 03:35:17 AM  
/It seems to me that the doctrines and history of your religion are more familiar to me than to you.
//Does that bother you nearly as much as it bothers me?


Of course when your goal is to pick some ultimately meaningless semantics about early church history and play word games to try and justify your agenda then yeah. you are much more familiar with that. If you are talking about real theology and real beliefs about Christ then no you know less then nothing. You are stubbornly wrong about what you think you do know. As evidenced by your entire post. You are taking the words of one early church leader who was emphatically trying to make some strong points and extrapolating meaning from them that is not real. Not Christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion. They are debating about the fact that this this is an actual representation of the act of sacrifice that Christ entailed. Because of your lack of foundational knowledge about all aspect of Christian theology you come up with this idea that Judaism is above some archaic belief about eating flesh and drinking blood. It is understandable but a little bit more humility might be in order on your part.
 
2013-08-20 03:46:29 AM  
Wow I truly do learn something new every day. Everything quoted by dema-l is accurate except he completely and totally misses the entire point by such a large margin I am flabbergasted. I really didn't believe this misinterpretation truly existed. I did not know such self described scholars could so completely miss the point on a piece of theology any school child could learn in 3rd grade. Im not trying to be insulting but substituional theology and spirit behind communion is taught very early. Using the exact same words you used in your posts but from a very different foundation.
 
2013-08-20 03:46:38 AM  

walkingtall: /It seems to me that the doctrines and history of your religion are more familiar to me than to you.
//Does that bother you nearly as much as it bothers me?

Of course when your goal is to pick some ultimately meaningless semantics about early church history and play word games to try and justify your agenda then yeah. you are much more familiar with that. If you are talking about real theology and real beliefs about Christ then no you know less then nothing. You are stubbornly wrong about what you think you do know. As evidenced by your entire post. You are taking the words of one early church leader who was emphatically trying to make some strong points and extrapolating meaning from them that is not real. Not Christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion. They are debating about the fact that this this is an actual representation of the act of sacrifice that Christ entailed. Because of your lack of foundational knowledge about all aspect of Christian theology you come up with this idea that Judaism is above some archaic belief about eating flesh and drinking blood. It is understandable but a little bit more humility might be in order on your part.


Are you having a stroke or are you using word salad as the base for your poeslaw?
 
2013-08-20 03:59:09 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Are you having a stroke or are you using word salad as the base for your poeslaw?


Interesting you cannot follow what I am saying. I am saying the debate among the early fathers and the whole blood and flesh quotes you took completely out of context of anything else is that there was one school of thought that stated that communion was basically a pretty meaningless ritual vs communion was a very meaningful demonstration of the sacrifice of Christ. Hence all the language about blood and flesh. The idea being that this ceremony has power. The same power it has today. I took communion two days ago and it means the same now as it did then. I can explain if you wish but suffice to say as I stated before you missed the entire point. You are not even in the stadium to the point. Is that better for you?
 
2013-08-20 04:27:34 AM  

walkingtall: demaL-demaL-yeH: Are you having a stroke or are you using word salad as the base for your poeslaw?

Interesting you cannot follow what I am saying. I am saying the debate among the early fathers and the whole blood and flesh quotes you took completely out of context of anything else is that there was one school of thought that stated that communion was basically a pretty meaningless ritual vs communion was a very meaningful demonstration of the sacrifice of Christ. Hence all the language about blood and flesh. The idea being that this ceremony has power. The same power it has today. I took communion two days ago and it means the same now as it did then. I can explain if you wish but suffice to say as I stated before you missed the entire point. You are not even in the stadium to the point. Is that better for you?


You are denying what has been a basic dogma of your religion since at least 100 CE: Your Eucharist is an act of ritual cannibalism, and participants consume the actual blood and body of a human being. They are not taken out of context - it is a constant theme throughout the history of Christian theology - Ignatius, Justin, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

I am telling you that drinking blood, whether literal of symbolic, is repugnant to Jews. Always has been. Always will be. Did. Not. Happen. No way. No how.
 
2013-08-20 05:41:31 AM  

make me some tea: ...which also proves that these weird little stories in the Bible can be interpreted in any way you see fit to justify your own worldview.


Well, with this particular story there's pretty much a right way and a wrong way, the one in TFA being the unarguable correct interpretation.  Well, the bit about safety nets for widows and orphans is nonsense, the ancient Israelis couldn't have given less of a shiat about widows and orphans if their god had explicitly commanded them not to, but making sure that all of your family had heirs and continuous lines was serious farking business.

A lot of the stories are pretty unambiguous in themselves, it's just that you can usually find another story in there that's unambiguous in the opposite direction, moral-wise.  Real scholars don't really have to twist the wording like evangelicals (who cannot even charitably be called bible-literate), because there's usually another passage that actually says what they want to say.
 
2013-08-20 08:31:47 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I am telling you that drinking blood, whether literal of symbolic, is repugnant to Jews. Always has been. Always will be. Did. Not. Happen. No way. No how


Whatever floats your boat man but I can tell you that hundreds of thousands of Jews will be taking communion within the next. year depending on denomination. So your statement is easily refuted. Unless you call Messianic Jews not Jewish.
 
2013-08-20 08:34:31 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I am telling you that drinking blood, whether literal of symbolic, is repugnant to Jews. Always has been. Always will be. Did. Not. Happen. No way. No how.


The same communion ceremony exists now that existed then. Whatever weird thing you ascribe to communion then applies now. There are about 250000 American messianic jews and 10-20k Israeli messianic jews and most if not all take communion. You must be very mad at them.
 
2013-08-20 09:33:00 AM  

walkingtall: Not Christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion. They are debating about the fact that this this is an actual representation of the act of sacrifice that Christ entailed. Because of your lack of foundational knowledge about all aspect of Christian theology...


Your view of transubstantiation does not match the beliefs of the majority of Christians who have ever lived.

Through this thread, people have made statements and backed them up with specific quotes.
Throughout this thread, you've made unsupported statements contradicting the supported, referenced points. You've been asked to support some of your statements, and have ignored these requests.

I think everyone has been patient with you, but I really think it's time for you to start trying to back up what you say. Perhaps if you do a little research on your own while trying (and failing) to find sources supporting your views, you'll be able to modify your own views. It's happened to me in other threads - I'd start writing a post, start looking for sources, and quietly delete every word, continuing to read the thread. It's a valuable process.

/tl dr: Citation needed.
 
2013-08-20 09:41:47 AM  

draypresct: Through this thread, people have made statements and backed them up with specific quotes.
Throughout this thread, you've made unsupported statements contradicting the supported, referenced points. You've been asked to support some of your statements, and have ignored these requests.


Here we go. There has been not a single supported statement made in this thread. Paul did not make up Jesus divinity, Council of Nicea did not make up Jesus divinity, communion is not the act of physically eating Christ and drinking his blood and the assertion that no Jew does communion is false. Did I miss something? None of these things are true. I don't have to disprove an untruth. Google it for yourself. I always find it interesting that I am always challenged to show my work against statements that are patently false with nothing but smoke and mirrors behind it.
 
2013-08-20 09:43:57 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mouldy Squid: Do you know that there were two opposing views? You have heard of Arius, right?

Why would you ask that question of one who obviously had never even heard of, let alone read, Augustine of Hippo?
/Required reading in comparative religion; emphatically not my idea.
//Nothing personal, but you people believe some really strange stuff.
//(For example, no Jew would drink blood or participate in any other acts of ritual cannibalism. Just. Un. Farking. Thinkable.)


You people? You mistake me, sir. My degree is Comparative Religions not Theology. I am not, and never have been, Christian.
 
2013-08-20 10:02:23 AM  

walkingtall: /It seems to me that the doctrines and history of your religion are more familiar to me than to you.
//Does that bother you nearly as much as it bothers me?

Of course when your goal is to pick some ultimately meaningless semantics about early church history and play word games to try and justify your agenda then yeah. you are much more familiar with that. If you are talking about real theology and real beliefs about Christ then no you know less then nothing. You are stubbornly wrong about what you think you do know. As evidenced by your entire post. You are taking the words of one early church leader who was emphatically trying to make some strong points and extrapolating meaning from them that is not real. Not Christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion. They are debating about the fact that this this is an actual representation of the act of sacrifice that Christ entailed. Because of your lack of foundational knowledge about all aspect of Christian theology you come up with this idea that Judaism is above some archaic belief about eating flesh and drinking blood. It is understandable but a little bit more humility might be in order on your part.


Is it possible you have never heard of the Catholics? The miracle of transubstantiation is a bedrock, mainline, core belief. It has been since at least ca. 100 CE. Not figurative, not symbolic, but true actual blood and flesh of Christ.

Ignatius, 106 CE: "theyabstainfrom the Eucharist and fromprayer,becausethey confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of ourSaviorJesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, andwhichthe Father, of His goodness, raised up again "
Justin Martyr, 150 CE: "Notas common bread and common drinkdowe receive these; but in like manner asJesus Christ our Savior, having been madefleshbytheWord of God, hadbothflesh and blood for our salvation, so likewisehavewe been taughtthat the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which ourbloodandfleshbytransmutation arenourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

You might also want to look at the writings of Thomas Aquinus, Archbishop Hildebert of Tours, The Fourth Lateran Council, The Council of Trent, and even Martin Luther. Itis clear from multiple sources that the Eucharist was very strictly believed to be the actual body and blood of Christ, from the earliest days of Christianity, through to the modern day. The Protestants might have criticized it, but both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches hold it as a foundational belief.

You can rant and rave all you want, but I will use actual scholarship and research to form my opinions about Christianity. It is a pity that you won't.
 
2013-08-20 10:12:06 AM  

Infernalist: Science that requires faith is not science.


Science does require taking of as basis for inference certain primary premises not dependent on any philosophical prior -- mostly inherited from axiomatic mathematics, which allows a scientist to note that 5+3^2=14 along the way. The Münchhausen trilemma leaves having some such primary premises more or less inevitable.

In the case of science, however, that starting "creed" is relatively unremarkable, especially compared to most religious creeds.
 
2013-08-20 10:13:53 AM  

draypresct: Your view of transubstantiation does not match the beliefs of the majority of Christians who have ever lived.


. We can go into the nuances all day if you like of the theology. It is one of those things that religion has taken and run with. It was a very simple ceremony given by Christ in the beginning and its meaning has ebbed and flowed throughout history. The root of all of it is the same though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

The first known instance was the 11th Century. So your assertion that my beliefs differ from all of Christian history is false. As I stated it has ebbed and flowed from one extreme to the other. Different denominations have come up with various things over time. Some good some not so good. To characterize all Christians in all time believing in literal Transubstantiation is incorrect. Very interesting bit of Christian history there.

So that took me all of 25 seconds to get a truer view of Communion than the statement "All Christians have always believed in physically eating Christ and drinking His blood and that is sick to Jews" and that is what I stated was false. That is my experience on fark. Someone makes a sweeping statement backed up by one quote taken completely out of context and that is given the weight of actual fact. I am then challenged to refute that patently shallow statement and I have to show my work from 25 different sources. It is a very one sided way to debate.
 
2013-08-20 10:18:35 AM  

walkingtall: draypresct: Through this thread, people have made statements and backed them up with specific quotes.
Throughout this thread, you've made unsupported statements contradicting the supported, referenced points. You've been asked to support some of your statements, and have ignored these requests.

Here we go. There has been not a single supported statement made in this thread. Paul did not make up Jesus divinity, Council of Nicea did not make up Jesus divinity, communion is not the act of physically eating Christ and drinking his blood and the assertion that no Jew does communion is false. Did I miss something? None of these things are true. I don't have to disprove an untruth. Google it for yourself. I always find it interesting that I am always challenged to show my work against statements that are patently false with nothing but smoke and mirrors behind it.


I supplied biblical quotes. Abb3w and Spongeboob supplied links giving information about the popularity of prosperity gospel among Christians. demal_demal_yeh supplied a biblical reference about drinking blood.

You responded to some of these posts, so I know you don't have these people on 'ignore'.

If you believe what you're saying, why not try debating in good faith?

/Thanks Abb3w, Spongeboob, and demal_demal_yeh, by the way, for another Fark thread where I learn new things.
 
2013-08-20 10:18:58 AM  
 

walkingtall: Wow I truly do learn something new every day. Everything quoted by dema-l is accurate except he completely and totally misses the entire point by such a large margin I am flabbergasted. I really didn't believe this misinterpretation truly existed. I did not know such self described scholars could so completely miss the point on a piece of theology any school child could learn in 3rd grade. Im not trying to be insulting but substituional theology and spirit behind communion is taught very early. Using the exact same words you used in your posts but from a very different foundation.


Taught by whom? Which flavour of Christianity are you? I'll guess: the one true flavour, right? What you were taught is the only correct version, right? You obviously aren't Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, otherwise you wouldn't be stupidly arguing that "no christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion" since that has been core doctrine of both of those sects for nearly 2000 years. Literally billions of people believed exactly that. It is only since the Protestant Reformation that the miracle of the Eucharist has been questioned, and even then most of the "big" Protestant churches (Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans etc) have some sort of doctrine that consubstantiates the divine nature of Christ into the wine and wafer.

I will defer to demaL on the particulars of Judaism, it is clear he knows a great deal about it and my focus wasn't Judaism or even Christianity. I would even defer to another biblical exegesist if there were a one here, but I certainly won't take your ill-educated blather to be anything other than what it is: ignorance and foolishness.

Go back to your bible circle. It certainly hasn't prepared you for this.

Don't bother replying, I won't see it. You have earned yourself a place on the ignore list. I see no reason to further humour you.
 
2013-08-20 10:21:50 AM  
You can rant and rave all you want, but I will use actual scholarship and research to form my opinions about Christianity. It is a pity that you won't

I wish that were true Mouldy. You have made up your mind and you use half truths, and completely misunderstood theology to come to a conclusion you already made. I see this all the time. I have been there. Communion means the same now as it does then. When I take Communion I have a little bad tasting bit of cracker and about 1/2 an ounce of grape juice in my hand. I eat the bread with my head down thinking about the flesh of Christ up on the Cross for my sins. That cracker ceases to be just a tasteless cracker. I then drink the grape juice and with my head still down I remember the blood that flowed from an innocent man for my sins. When that intense moment is gone I look up and I have an empty plastic container with a little bit of grape juice left in it. What that moment means before that is what all that theology is about. It is a mystery and it will never be truly solved.
 
2013-08-20 10:28:19 AM  

draypresct: I supplied biblical quotes. Abb3w and Spongeboob supplied links giving information about the popularity of prosperity gospel among Christians. demal_demal_yeh supplied a biblical reference about drinking blood.

You responded to some of these posts, so I know you don't have these people on 'ignore'.

If you believe what you're saying, why not try debating in good faith?


Prosperity gospel exists and Im certainly not going to defend it. It isn't biblical and it has no weight behind it. Not sure what else needs to be said. There are many popular things that doesn't mean it has any weight behind it. I have long responded to the drinking blood assertion. Wow, out of all the things that could be debated this is what you came up with? I have had some very good debates on fark. This has been extremely light weight.
 
2013-08-20 10:32:32 AM  

walkingtall: draypresct: Your view of transubstantiation does not match the beliefs of the majority of Christians who have ever lived.

. We can go into the nuances all day if you like of the theology. It is one of those things that religion has taken and run with. It was a very simple ceremony given by Christ in the beginning and its meaning has ebbed and flowed throughout history. The root of all of it is the same though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

The first known instance was the 11th Century. So your assertion that my beliefs differ from all of Christian history is false. As I stated it has ebbed and flowed from one extreme to the other. Different denominations have come up with various things over time. Some good some not so good. To characterize all Christians in all time believing in literal Transubstantiation is incorrect. Very interesting bit of Christian history there.

So that took me all of 25 seconds to get a truer view of Communion than the statement "All Christians have always believed in physically eating Christ and drinking His blood and that is sick to Jews" and that is what I stated was false. That is my experience on fark. Someone makes a sweeping statement backed up by one quote taken completely out of context and that is given the weight of actual fact. I am then challenged to refute that patently shallow statement and I have to show my work from 25 different sources. It is a very one sided way to debate.


Whoops! You didn't read that article closely enough. The term "transubstantiation" is first referenced in the 11th Century, but only the term. If you bothered to spend more than "25 seconds" reading you would see that the doctrine of it goes back much further. As the very article you linked to states: "Otherfourth-centuryChristianwriters say that in the Eucharist there occurs a "change",[28] "transelementation",[29]"transformation",[30] "tra nsposing",[31] "alteration"[32] of the bread into the body of Christ." The doctrine was there, well established very early on.

By your repeated exclamations of surprise at what everyone else here already knows, it is clear that your education about the actual history of your religion is sorely lacking.

And with this I bid you good day.
 
2013-08-20 10:36:38 AM  

martin55: OTOH, the thing about science is that an awful lot of what's been proven scientifically has been proven by people who have the degrees and the specialized knowledge that allow them to prove those things. Everybody else - the lay people, if you will - kind of have to take the things science has to tell us on faith. Yes, if they had that specialized knowledge, they, too, could perform the experiments necessary to prove those things.


A key difference, however, is that the knowledge of science is (comparatively) openly available for acquisition; and that any part of it is subject to critical scrutiny and testing.

You might find tracking down the old PBS miniseries The Ring of Truth interesting. It's not available on DVD at the moment (which is a crying shame), but there appear to be a few pirate torrents and old VHS tapes out in circulation.

walkingtall: So that took me all of 25 seconds to get a truer view of Communion than the statement "All Christians have always believed in physically eating Christ and drinking His blood and that is sick to Jews" and that is what I stated was false.


It would seem that you have trouble keeping straight the difference between "All Christians" and "the majority of Christians". Moreover, an existence case suffices to disprove an assertion of "No Christian has ever...", unless you want to move the goalposts with "no true Christian".

There is some interesting wiggle room in Catholic doctrine via the difference between "physical" and "substantial" (even without getting to surveys of how many believe the doctrine when asked specific questions), but not if you're that sloppy.
 
Displayed 50 of 318 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report