What's happening in the Methodist Church?

[Beau Vine 54230]

On 5/19/2023 at 6:59 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

My church dropped $80 million on a building project that we definitely didn’t need. But they could do it, so they did. I think many big churches run into the same problem. They’re not for profit so the money needs to get spent. 

When I was a kid, my church built a bowling alley.  

[Gatorubet 30239]

4 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Wait - you’re claiming the Bible didn’t portray women as sinful and lesser than men?

Excuse me while I laugh myself sick.

That’s just the snake making you say that…

[Gatorubet 30239]

On 5/19/2023 at 6:21 PM, Anastasis said:

You are arguing against a straw man in this and everything after. It’s amazing the delusions some of you create to avoid actually engaging. 

Engaging with YOU, you mean.  I originally said Swayze might be wrong, but that the ‘net positive’ discussion is not without legit counterpoints.   This triggers you.  I mean, I love me some Venerable Bede as much as the next guy, and my state’s civil code is based upon Roman law, which early Christian scholars (and Arabic ones) helped preserve.  

I personally think that people can be moral and purely secular, and that the existence of Christianity was not the force that changed immoral mankind to a moral state.   Being a man, you do not give a damn about two millennia of shitting on women’s rights that was in part very much Christianity’s legacy.  Women had more rights under many pagan cultures.  When I became a lawyer Louisiana had the Head and Master Law.  If a minor was injured, the person to bring the claim by law was the dad.  Even an absent dad illiterate laborer was deemed more competent to handle the suit than the lawyer mother he knocked up at at a drunken Mardi Gras party.  The Catholic Church had no problem with continuing the Roman law.

I doubt a Western Society under Buddhism would have resulted in the same amount of deaths as under Christianity, for example.   Mostly I was pushing back on your nobody-has -a-valid-point-but-me-schtick, and the beanie nonsense.   

[Guadaloopy 10971]

4 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Wait - you’re claiming the Bible didn’t portray women as sinful and lesser than men?

Excuse me while I laugh myself sick.

The Bible, as curated and interpreted by men in patriarchal cultures over millennia, is definitely problematic at times in its portrayal of women.  Despite that, women are still portrayed in positions of honor and power throughout scripture.  The Hebrew midwives, Miriam, Deborah, Rahab, Ruth, and Esther are heroes of faith in the Old Testament.  Mary, Elizabeth, Mary Magdalene, Mary & Martha, Lydia, and Phoebe are all given positions of honor in the New Testament.  The choice to highlight the role of men and to diminish the role of women in God's story is a failure of men blinded by their desire to maintain the earthly power of patriarchy.

The example and story of Jesus, on the other hand, is explicitly inclusive and respectful of women as equals in the Kingdom of God.  One of the two major Christological confessions in scripture is attributed to a woman (Martha - or possibly Mary Magdalene depending on some theoretical interpretations of multiple manuscripts).  The first witness to the resurrection was a woman (Mary Magdalene).  As a Rabbi, Jesus welcomed women into his inner circle of disciples.  Jesus also broke with culture, tradition, and Jewish law to minister to women (the woman at the well) and to defend women against unjust persecution (the woman caught in adultery).

If someone is using the Bible to justify a lesser role for women in society, the Church, or in the overall Kingdom of God, they are getting it flat wrong.

 

 

[SydneyCarton 48107]

15 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

The Bible, as curated and interpreted by men in patriarchal cultures over millennia, is definitely problematic at times in its portrayal of women.  Despite that, women are still portrayed in positions of honor and power throughout scripture.  The Hebrew midwives, Miriam, Deborah, Rahab, Ruth, and Esther are heroes of faith in the Old Testament.  Mary, Elizabeth, Mary Magdalene, Mary & Martha, Lydia, and Phoebe are all given positions of honor in the New Testament.  The choice to highlight the role of men and to diminish the role of women in God's story is a failure of men blinded by their desire to maintain the earthly power of patriarchy.

The example and story of Jesus, on the other hand, is explicitly inclusive and respectful of women as equals in the Kingdom of God.  One of the two major Christological confessions in scripture is attributed to a woman (Martha - or possibly Mary Magdalene depending on some theoretical interpretations of multiple manuscripts).  The first witness to the resurrection was a woman (Mary Magdalene).  As a Rabbi, Jesus welcomed women into his inner circle of disciples.  Jesus also broke with culture, tradition, and Jewish law to minister to women (the woman at the well) and to defend women against unjust persecution (the woman caught in adultery).

If someone is using the Bible to justify a lesser role for women in society, the Church, or in the overall Kingdom of God, they are getting it flat wrong.

 

 

Wait a second. I've been told my entire life that the Bible was inspired by God and is his literal word, and the vessels through which he inspired to write the book of God were not, and could not be prone to influencing the scripture with their own thoughts or prejudices. Because to admit that would be to admit that not everything in the Bible can be taken as the ultimate word of God. Not that this prevents people from Cherry Picking from the Bible to suit there own purposes anyway, but I digress. Because if you throw out some of it in terms of being backwards (the lessons that portray women as subservient to men) do you not have to throw out ALL of it, like, say, the persecution of Homosexuality as a sin?

Because, I do not believe it can be had both ways. 

[Brisketexan 105144]

33 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

The Bible, as curated and interpreted by men in patriarchal cultures over millennia, is definitely problematic at times in its portrayal of women.  Despite that, women are still portrayed in positions of honor and power throughout scripture.  The Hebrew midwives, Miriam, Deborah, Rahab, Ruth, and Esther are heroes of faith in the Old Testament.  Mary, Elizabeth, Mary Magdalene, Mary & Martha, Lydia, and Phoebe are all given positions of honor in the New Testament.  The choice to highlight the role of men and to diminish the role of women in God's story is a failure of men blinded by their desire to maintain the earthly power of patriarchy.

The example and story of Jesus, on the other hand, is explicitly inclusive and respectful of women as equals in the Kingdom of God.  One of the two major Christological confessions in scripture is attributed to a woman (Martha - or possibly Mary Magdalene depending on some theoretical interpretations of multiple manuscripts).  The first witness to the resurrection was a woman (Mary Magdalene).  As a Rabbi, Jesus welcomed women into his inner circle of disciples.  Jesus also broke with culture, tradition, and Jewish law to minister to women (the woman at the well) and to defend women against unjust persecution (the woman caught in adultery).

If someone is using the Bible to justify a lesser role for women in society, the Church, or in the overall Kingdom of God, they are getting it flat wrong.

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Wait a second. I've been told my entire life that the Bible was inspired by God and is his literal word, and the vessels through which he inspired to write the book of God were not, and could not be prone to influencing the scripture with their own thoughts or prejudices. Because to admit that would be to admit that not everything in the Bible can be taken as the ultimate word of God. Not that this prevents people from Cherry Picking from the Bible to suit there own purposes anyway, but I digress. Because if you throw out some of it in terms of being backwards (the lessons that portray women as subservient to men) do you not have to throw out ALL of it, like, say, the persecution of Homosexuality as a sin?

Because, I do not believe it can be had both ways. 

Yeah....someone is skipping the problematic epistles from Paul (Paul was a fucking asshole) which, last I checked, were in the New Testament.

Just for shits and giggles, I regularly cite the 2nd chapter of Timothy to my wife:

Quote

 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

As of yet, my disobedient, theologian-trained wife has yet to follow this edict.  She is troublesome.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Brisketexan

[Guadaloopy 10971]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Wait a second. I've been told my entire life that the Bible was inspired by God and is his literal word, and the vessels through which he inspired to write the book of God were not, and could not be prone to influencing the scripture with their own thoughts or prejudices. Because to admit that would be to admit that not everything in the Bible can be taken as the ultimate word of God. Not that this prevents people from Cherry Picking from the Bible to suit there own purposes anyway, but I digress. Because if you throw out some of it in terms of being backwards (the lessons that portray women as subservient to men) do you not have to throw out ALL of it, like, say, the persecution of Homosexuality as a sin?

Because, I do not believe it can be had both ways. 

I would submit that what has been interpreted as lessons that portray women as subservient to men are either a) meant for a time and place where it was dangerous to step outside of that cultural norm or b) misinterpreted or c) misapplied.

I would submit that the same can be said for biblical teachings about homosexuality. 

Not all Christians believe that scripture is the literal, inerrant Word of God.  I think it's safe to say that most if not all Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  What does that mean practically?  Was it dictated, or were people inspired by their experience with God to capture their thoughts and interpretations of that experience.  I lean towards the latter.  

[SydneyCarton 48107]

1 minute ago, Guadaloopy said:

I would submit that what has been interpreted as lessons that portray women as subservient to men are either a) meant for a time and place where it was dangerous to step outside of that cultural norm or b) misinterpreted or c) misapplied.

I would submit that the same can be said for biblical teachings about homosexuality. 

Not all Christians believe that scripture is the literal, inerrant Word of God.  I think it's safe to say that most if not all Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  What does that mean practically?  Was it dictated, or were people inspired by their experience with God to capture their thoughts and interpretations of that experience.  I lean towards the latter.  

That's great. I grew up Catholic, where the Bible was an allegory. Now what do you do about the millions cherry-pick things as the literal word of God and use those messages as a blunt instrument to bludgeon women, minorities, and homosexuals?

[Brisketexan 105144]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's great. I grew up Catholic, where the Bible was an allegory. Now what do you do about the millions cherry-pick things as the literal word of God and use those messages as a blunt instrument to bludgeon women, minorities, and homosexuals?

Bingo.  Sure, it all makes sense as an allegory produced by certain people at a certain time in a certain context (you know, what it actually is).

But today (and not just today, of course), it is a weapon, used by prooftexting literalists who also happen to overlap heavily with the ruling class that wants to use religion to help preserve its dominant status, to inflict brutal pain and subjugation on whoever falls within their sights.

The Bible is a tool used by man.  Today, it is mostly used to inflict pain, not healing or goodness.

[Guadaloopy 10971]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Yeah....someone is skipping the problematic epistles from Paul (Paul was a fucking asshole) which, last I checked, were in the New Testament.

Not skipping... just realizing that we are reading someone else's mail.  Paul's epistles were written to specific congregations of believers to address specific challenges that that particular group of believers was facing.  There are useful insights, but a lot of the prescriptive edicts in Paul's letters were for that people in that time and place.

[Brisketexan 105144]

Just now, Guadaloopy said:

Not skipping... just realizing that we are reading someone else's mail.  Paul's epistles were written to specific congregations of believers to address specific challenges that that particular group of believers was facing.  There are useful insights, but a lot of the prescriptive edicts in Paul's letters were for that people in that time and place.

Yet, that's not how the fundagelicals use those letters.  At all.  After all, they are 1) in the Bible, so 2) every word in them is the literal word of God.

That's the world we live in.  Not one of your defensible theology, but the world of the fundagelicals cruel and insane theology.  That's the fucking point.  As always....the cruelty is the point.

[Guadaloopy 10971]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's great. I grew up Catholic, where the Bible was an allegory. Now what do you do about the millions cherry-pick things as the literal word of God and use those messages as a blunt instrument to bludgeon women, minorities, and homosexuals?

 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bingo.  Sure, it all makes sense as an allegory produced by certain people at a certain time in a certain context (you know, what it actually is).

But today (and not just today, of course), it is a weapon, used by prooftexting literalists who also happen to overlap heavily with the ruling class that wants to use religion to help preserve its dominant status, to inflict brutal pain and subjugation on whoever falls within their sights.

The Bible is a tool used by man.  Today, it is mostly used to inflict pain, not healing or goodness.

All I can to with these situations is what I have already done here and say that I think they are getting it wrong.  If enough of us do this, someday it might break through.

[SydneyCarton 48107]

4 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

 

All I can to with these situations is what I have already done here and say that I think they are getting it wrong.  If enough of us do this, someday it might break through.

I admire your optimism. I don't share it. What has the best chance of happening is people continue to flee religion in ever increasing droves as they see the form it takes for many Americans. Because the horrible gets the coverage. The good works, not so much. 

[Guadaloopy 10971]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet, that's not how the fundagelicals use those letters.  At all.  After all, they are 1) in the Bible, so 2) every word in them is the literal word of God.

That's the world we live in.  Not one of your defensible theology, but the world of the fundagelicals cruel and insane theology.  That's the fucking point.  As always....the cruelty is the point.

I am fully aware of this.  I grew up and came to faith in one of the most fundagelical branches out there - the Church of Christ.   Over the last 15 years, I came to the realization of just how wrong we were getting the Gospel.  First, I had to admit that I had gotten it wrong. 

I have not abandoned the Church, but have tried to work from the inside to change opinions and minds.  It is very slow going.  I worked in ministry for six years and felt like I had some impact on my small congregation in Chula Vista, CA.

Now I am in Tulsa and feel like I have found a unicorn congregation that is willing to be led in new directions by the Holy Spirit rather than clinging to old understanding and tradition.  We try to do the best we can and apply Maya Angelou's maxim to our faith:  “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

[SydneyCarton 48107]

9 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

I am fully aware of this.  I grew up and came to faith in one of the most fundagelical branches out there - the Church of Christ.   Over the last 15 years, I came to the realization of just how wrong we were getting the Gospel.  First, I had to admit that I had gotten it wrong. 

I have not abandoned the Church, but have tried to work from the inside to change opinions and minds.  It is very slow going.  I worked in ministry for six years and felt like I had some impact on my small congregation in Chula Vista, CA.

Now I am in Tulsa and feel like I have found a unicorn congregation that is willing to be led in new directions by the Holy Spirit rather than clinging to old understanding and tradition.  We try to do the best we can and apply Maya Angelou's maxim to our faith:  “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

You say you had been getting it wrong. But I would posit that the indoctrinating you suffered worked perfectly as intended. You managed to see through the bullshit and start getting it right. 

[Guadaloopy 10971]

16 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You say you had been getting it wrong. But I would posit that the indoctrinating you suffered worked perfectly as intended. You managed to see through the bullshit and start getting it right. 

[HouTex 1867]

On 5/19/2023 at 7:57 PM, JBJ said:

Depends on the structure but generally no the way you are using the term.  For example, River Oaks doesn't pay property taxes.

You mean River Oaks Country Club?  It most certainly pays property taxes, but it gets a green belt reduction for much of the land (the golf course).  Country clubs still pay property tax on the assessed value of their structures and non-green belt land.  For most big city Texas country clubs, they wouldn’t exist without the green belt reduction.  

[conVINCEd 21469]

22 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You say you had been getting it wrong. But I would posit that the indoctrinating you suffered worked perfectly as intended. You managed to see through the bullshit and start getting it right. 

You actually believe him?

[SydneyCarton 48107]

3 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

You actually believe him?

I'm giving someone the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying I didn't raise my eyebrows when he said he never left the Church of Christ. But that guy got on a message board and said evangelicals are getting it wrong and admitted it to us...that's more than like 95% of Christians I encounter these days will do, and I'm not going to shit on the guy for that. I'll take him at his word. 

[Guadaloopy 10971]

7 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

You actually believe him?

I get it.  Breaks my heart, but skepticism of Christians in general is well-earned, especially in post-2015 America.

[conVINCEd 21469]

9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm giving someone the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying I didn't raise my eyebrows when he said he never left the Church of Christ. But that guy got on a message board and said evangelicals are getting it wrong and admitted it to us...that's more than like 95% of Christians I encounter these days will do, and I'm not going to shit on the guy for that. I'll take him at his word. 

You’re less skeptical than I am

[Beau Vine 54230]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's great. I grew up Catholic, where the Bible was an allegory. Now what do you do about the millions cherry-pick things as the literal word of God and use those messages as a blunt instrument to bludgeon women, minorities, and homosexuals?

Feature, not bug.

[SydneyCarton 48107]

6 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

You’re less skeptical than I am

There's a difference between skepticism and taking a stranger at face value on a message board when he's agreeing with you. I don't have an extensive history with this particular poster, so I'm not going to go "No, FUCK YOU AND YOUR RELIGION" as he's generally agreeing with me. This isn't Iconoclast, or the duo that love to post Russian Propaganda from their 5th or 6th handles after being crowd sourced, or a cast of characters who show up to both sides various threads and trade in logical fallacies. If this guy starts showing up drunk, dropping N-bombs, and blasting homosexuals as sinners that need our prayer on another thread, I'll revise my opinions. 

[dcbc 14484]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Just for shits and giggles, I regularly cite the 2nd chapter of Timothy to my wife:

I'm sure it goes over well every time.  And, clearly, you you some serious survival skills.

[Gil Bang 25960]

1 hour ago, HouTex said:

You mean River Oaks Country Club?  It most certainly pays property taxes, but it gets a green belt reduction for much of the land (the golf course).  Country clubs still pay property tax on the assessed value of their structures and non-green belt land.  For most big city Texas country clubs, they wouldn’t exist without the green belt reduction.  

It would be tragic if Country Clubs didn't exist.

[Anastasis 23471]

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Engaging with YOU, you mean.  I originally said Swayze might be wrong, but that the ‘net positive’ discussion is not without legit counterpoints.   This triggers you.

Based on reading your responses, I am not sure that I am the one that is triggered. You started talking about soteriology, which I did not bring up, and isn't particularly relevant to discussing the net effect of Christianity on society in either the past or the present. I then said that I was open to a serious discussion of the impact of Christianity and whether it has been a net positive or negative on the balance, and suggested that we start that discussion in the context of the moral world of the 1st century. I never suggested that you had to agree with my thought process nor conclusions, nor moved goal posts. You then suggested that I shifted from a "both sides" perspective to a "only my side", when in this exchange, fwiw, you are the one that seems fixated on only one side of the ledger.  You are arguing in a specific way against arguments that I haven't made. But I am sorry if you didn't like the propeller cap in response to insults and trite shit from PS.

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I personally think that people can be moral and purely secular, and that the existence of Christianity was not the force that changed immoral mankind to a moral state.  

Good, I think that we mostly agree. 

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Being a man, you do not give a damn about two millennia of shitting on women’s rights that was in part very much Christianity’s legacy.  Women had more rights under many pagan cultures.

See, here is something that we can dig in to. The early Christian movement was particularly appealing to women (majority in the early church were women, representation among Jesus' closest initial followers was discussed up thread as well), and I would argue that that appeal was a critical part of why Christianity spread to the extent that it did across the Roman world during its first few centuries (this is in no way a novel argument). In fact, pagan criticisms of the Christian movement at the time were explicitly misogynist (e.g. Celsus), arguing for example that the adoption of Christianity among women (and children, slaves, etc.) was a result of their weak intellect and constitution. Relative to the context of the time, the Christian movement provided a far more egalitarian and inclusive worldview. I would argue that it's appeal and growth during the first few centuries is a result of that fundamental distinction. So that's at least one aspect to unpack in the discussion.

 

Couple links for your consider, one academic paper, one blog posting with citations. 

https://roosevelt.ucsd.edu/_files/mmw/mmw12/RodneyStarkReconstructingRiseofChristianityWomen.pdf

https://mysonginthenight.com/2023/01/08/movers-shakers-empire-breakers-how-christian-women-changed-the-course-of-history/

Edited May 23, 2023 by Anastasis

[HouTex 1867]

33 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

It would be tragic if Country Clubs didn't exist.

You must not be a golfer.  Daily fee courses would get killed too.  Except for the few munis in the state, golf in Texas would pretty much go away without the green belt reduction.  Our property tax system is out of hand.  

[Beau Vine 54230]

37 minutes ago, HouTex said:

You must not be a golfer.  Daily fee courses would get killed too.  Except for the few munis in the state, golf in Texas would pretty much go away without the green belt reduction.  Our property tax system is out of hand.  

Perhaps there should be a work requirement for those who benefit from subsidized green fees?

[Murfdogg21 4412]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Wait - you’re claiming the Bible didn’t portray women as sinful and lesser than men?

Excuse me while I laugh myself sick.

I said I thought the Bible portrays the act of homosexuality as a sin, but being a woman or being non-white is not a sin. My point was it is all bigotry or prejudice by these church goers, but homosexuality is the really the only one with Biblical law to cite. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by Murfdogg21

[Guest]

On 5/12/2023 at 5:29 PM, Brisketexan said:

Note that the Presbyterians had their own split over the slavery and women issues back in the day....and have likewise experienced a split over thuh gayz in recent years (First Pres in San Antonio is no longer affiliated with the PCUSA; it's affiliated with "ECO - a Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians" (they chose that name over "we think gayz are icky").  That's the conservative offshoot -- the Presbyterians aren't immune).  That said, the PCUSA has definitely staked out the progressive position.  But I don't think it does anyone much good.  "Christianity" in America has become a brand that is totally tied to everything bad about modern conservative thought, and the idea of "progressive Christians" just can't fit into people's heads.

Sounds like a reasonable post but I never see this at all in my UMC. And, Presby had this exact schism several years ago. I want to be aligned with a progressive church, feel that mine is, and have always felt Methodists and Presbys are the most liberal denominations. Lol at swapping with Baptists. 

[Guest]

On 5/13/2023 at 1:57 PM, Beau Vine said:

Since the time I was a teenager being forced to attend the First Baptist Church in Denton, TX, I have always been amazed at how Christians had such hatred for homosexuals, in spite of the fact that:

1.  "Thou shalt not be gay" somehow managed not to make the Ten Commandments.

2.  When someone asked Jesus what the "greatest of all commandments was" he said 1) Love God with all your heart and 2) LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.

This is all Christians, including pastors, should focus on when it comes to discussing sexuality. I’m not interested in converting anyone, particularly not relentlessly. Live, let live, and love your non-pitbull-possessing neighbor. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21907]

1 hour ago, HouTex said:

  Except for the few munis in the state, golf in Texas would pretty much go away without the green belt reduction

And I’m fine with that.

[SydneyCarton 48107]

54 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

I said I thought the Bible portrays the act of homosexuality as a sin, but being a woman or being non-white is not a sin. My point was it is all bigotry or prejudice by these church goers, but homosexuality is the really the only one with Biblical law to cite. 

1) She said “lesser” not sin. 
 

2) also, that’s mighty white of the ole’ Bible.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

As a father of two young girls (8 and 6), I am still developing my household 10 commandments. So far:

1. The Golden Rule
2. If they want me to pay for college, no Baylor or Aggy
3. Dad tax is non negotiable
4. If they have friends that live in a house with guns, my girls aren’t allowed to go there.
5. They aren’t allowed to go to church with friends. First, I don’t want them indoctrinated into cults, and second it mitigates the chances of them being sexually assaulted.

Ana can post all the pics he wants about my stance on Christianity, but none will negate the fact that he is a cunt.

Christianity is extremely bizarre.

[SydneyCarton 48107]

2 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

As a father of two young girls (8 and 6), I am still developing my household 10 commandments. So far:

1. The Golden Rule
2. If they want me to pay for college, no Baylor or Aggy
3. Dad tax is non negotiable
4. If they have friends that live in a house with guns, my girls aren’t allowed to go there.
5. They aren’t allowed to go to church with friends. First, I don’t want them indoctrinated into cults, and second it mitigates the chances of them being sexually assaulted.

Ana can post all the pics he wants about my stance on Christianity, but none will negate the fact that he is a cunt.

Christianity is extremely bizarre.

Oh. So you’re cool with OU? Duly noted. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Oh. So you’re cool with OU? Duly noted. 

Hahaha. Got me. But no. Hell no. I reckon a fella would get his ass kicked for that.

[Gatorubet 30239]

5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

. You started talking about soteriology, which I did not bring up, and isn't particularly relevant to discussing the net effect of Christianity on society in either the past or the present. I then said that I was open to a serious discussion of the impact of Christianity and whether it has been a net positive or negative on the balance, and suggested that we start that discussion in the context of the moral world of the 1st century.

I stated talking about soteriology that isn’t particularly relevant to the discussion????

When I said this:

Quote

He certainly might be wrong, but the picture above is regarded.  Because you can’t argue the benefit of salvation in the discussion

I am an ordained Minister of the Church of the Flying Sspaghetti Monster, Bless His Noodly Appendages.   So if you want to  discuss strippers and beer volcanoes, and the effects of the diminution of pirates in the world, I’m yours.

[Beau Vine 54230]

24 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

5. They aren’t allowed to go to church with friends. First, I don’t want them indoctrinated into cults, and second it mitigates the chances of them being sexually assaulted.

The logic here is pretty much unassailable, but I will say that one of my best parenting decisions occurred when my daughter (then in HS) asked me if she could go to the Baptist church with a friend one day.  I didn't say no.  I didn't say yes.  I just said, "You'll regret it." 

A couple hours later, she pulled up in the driveway after church and I could tell that she was furious by the way she got out of the car.  

Turned out the sermon that day was the pastor spending 20 minutes whining about how Christians are persecuted because they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.  And one of my daughter's best friends is gay.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

The logic here is pretty much unassailable, but I will say that one of my best parenting decisions occurred when my daughter (then in HS) asked me if she could go to the Baptist church with a friend one day.  I didn't say no.  I didn't say yes.  I just said, "You'll regret it." 
A couple hours later, she pulled up in the driveway after church and I could tell that she was furious by the way she got out of the car.  
Turned out the sermon that day was the pastor spending 20 minutes whining about how Christians are persecuted because they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.  And one of my daughter's best friends is gay.

I almost added that once they are old enough for critical thinking, they can go. But before teenage years, hell no. That is straight up indoctrination.

[Murfdogg21 4412]

5 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

1) She said “lesser” not sin. 
 

2) also, that’s mighty white of the ole’ Bible.

That post was responding to her post, and not what I originally said. I originally said that being a woman was not called out as a sin, but it does treat homosexuality that way. She replied that Bible has examples that treat women lesser. Ok, but that’s not what I said. 

[Guest]

Problem I have with modern secularist orthodoxy is the default physicalism/materialism position.  Any worldview that entails that numbers are physical is obviously nonsense.  

[Mole 4333]

14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Yeah....someone is skipping the problematic epistles from Paul (Paul was a fucking asshole) which, last I checked, were in the New Testament.

Just for shits and giggles, I regularly cite the 2nd chapter of Timothy to my wife:

As of yet, my disobedient, theologian-trained wife has yet to follow this edict.  She is troublesome.

Proverbs 27: 

15 A nagging wife is like water going drip-drip-drip on a rainy day. 

16 How can you keep her quiet? Have you ever tried to stop the wind or ever tried to hold a handful of oil?

57 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Problem I have with modern secularist orthodoxy is the default physicalism/materialism position.  Any worldview that entails that numbers are physical is obviously nonsense.  

I know you need to prime the pump, but this religion thread is still in its infancy. It’s all friendly right now; wait until we’ve all decided to hate each other for a few days and then you’ll get that sweet metaphysics talk that you crave. We live in an ordered universe, so this thread must also follow the God-ordained natural order of things.

[SL Xpress 7515]

Are there people on this thread who truly believe Christianity is the source of evil against humanity in the name of religion?

As opposed to people simply being people? 

The fossil record shows evidence for any number of settlements/cultures wiped out purposefully. Neanderthals almost certainly became extinct in part because of their encounters with homo sapiens. Same thing with homo erectus and home heidelbergensis. The Neanderthal DNA in Europeans almost certainly doesn't exist because of friendly relations and interspecies swapping. It's from raping and the destruction of rival tribes. 

The Maoris weren't Christian. They took a great deal of pride in finding isolated island communities and wiping them from the face of the earth, taking their women and girls with them. Ghengis Khan wasn't a Christian as he wiped out 10% of the human population on the planet. I've always found his perspective interesting when he told the Muslims "if you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you."

The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas weren't Christians. Neither were the Comanches. Alexander the Great wasn't Christian when he wiped the Thebans from the face of the planet. Rome wasn't Christian when they ended the Carthaginian culture for good. Neither Stalin nor Mao were Christians. The Japanese weren't Christian. The Turkish Kemalists weren't Christian when they wiped out the 500,000 Greeks at Smyrna, and kicked out all the Greeks out of Anatolia. The Hutus weren't massacring Tutsis because Jesus told them to.

People are people. They're going to use the tools at hand to create tribal associations, and then eventually someone is going to come along to convince people in those tribal associations it's either them or us. 

The only real defense for it over the long term is complete assimilation so that tribal distinctions become practically nonexistent, like with the Mongols ruling China. Or some way of creating a tradition so rich in allowing peaceful transitions of power that differing tribes get their turn at fucking things up only to peacefully hand it over to another tribe for their chance to screw up. But that's extremely fragile and always vulnerable to a charismatic leader and our natural instinct for various forms of repression and elimination.

But that happens whether Christianity exists or not. 

The good thing about Christianity is that the historical religious leader is not also the political and/or military leader. So we have "rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and instead of leading an army, we have the image of Jesus dying on a cross. The other good thing about Christianity is that the reformation movement, including Luther but also other sects, successfully led a shift in mindset where according to this new belief people were capable of their own relationship with Jesus Christ and God, and therefore no longer needed a central authority to tell them what to think, or dictate to them whether they were going to heaven or not. Whether you believe Christianity is a good thing or not, or believe in somewhat wacky versions of the religion where being prosperous is a sign of your faith (you know, from the biblical stories of requiring apostles to give up all their wealth, or the meek shall inherit the earth, or overturning the moneychangers' tables because they took advantage of the requirement to only donate in the local currency), the truth is there's precedence in the faith for a wide variety of belief structures.

Hence, this thread. Where, sure, a lot of people in the church feel like you're going to hell for engaging in sexual acts with your same gender, and deserve condemnation and judgement for doing so. But there are a whole lot of people looking for a revisionist interpretation where people who engage in sodomy and a reach around on Saturday night can now lead a congregation with a sermon about the love of God the next day. 

I don't see that as evidence of the evils of Christianity. People are going to do people things, and Christianity in many ways is simply going to reflect that. 

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by SL Xpress

[Gatorubet 30239]

7 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

Problem I have with modern secularist orthodoxy is the default physicalism/materialism position.  Any worldview that entails that numbers are physical is obviously nonsense.  

If axiom got hit with six rocks, it would not matter. 

[Beau Vine 54230]

7 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

Problem I have with modern secularist orthodoxy is the default physicalism/materialism position.  Any worldview that entails that numbers are physical is obviously nonsense.  

Username checks out?

[Captainant 27673]

13 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

1. The Golden Rule

I've been trying to teach my niece and nephew the Platinum Rule - treat others as THEY would like to be treated

Edited May 24, 2023 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31480]

2 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Are there people on this thread who truly believe Christianity is the source of evil against humanity in the name of religion?

As opposed to people simply being people? 

The fossil record shows evidence for any number of settlements/cultures wiped out purposefully. Neanderthals almost certainly became extinct in part because of their encounters with homo sapiens. Same thing with homo erectus and home heidelbergensis. The Neanderthal DNA in Europeans almost certainly doesn't exist because of friendly relations and interspecies swapping. It's from raping and the destruction of rival tribes. 

The Maoris weren't Christian. They took a great deal of pride in finding isolated island communities and wiping them from the face of the earth, taking their women and girls with them. Ghengis Khan wasn't a Christian as he wiped out 10% of the human population on the planet. I've always found his perspective interesting when he told the Muslims "if you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you."

The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas weren't Christians. Neither were the Comanches. Alexander the Great wasn't Christian when he wiped the Thebans from the face of the planet. Rome wasn't Christian when they ended the Carthaginian culture for good. Neither Stalin nor Mao were Christians. The Japanese weren't Christian. The Turkish Kemalists weren't Christian when they wiped out the 500,000 Greeks at Smyrna, and kicked out all the Greeks out of Anatolia. The Hutus weren't massacring Tutsis because Jesus told them to.

People are people. They're going to use the tools at hand to create tribal associations, and then eventually someone is going to come along to convince people in those tribal associations it's either them or us. 

The only real defense for it over the long term is complete assimilation so that tribal distinctions become practically nonexistent, like with the Mongols ruling China. Or some way of creating a tradition so rich in allowing peaceful transitions of power that differing tribes get their turn at fucking things up only to peacefully hand it over to another tribe for their chance to screw up. But that's extremely fragile and always vulnerable to a charismatic leader and our natural instinct for various forms of repression and elimination.

But that happens whether Christianity exists or not. 

The good thing about Christianity is that the historical religious leader is not also the political and/or military leader. So we have "rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and instead of leading an army, we have the image of Jesus dying on a cross. The other good thing about Christianity is that the reformation movement, including Luther but also other sects, successfully led a shift in mindset where according to this new belief people were capable of their own relationship with Jesus Christ and God, and therefore no longer needed a central authority to tell them what to think, or dictate to them whether they were going to heaven or not. Whether you believe Christianity is a good thing or not, or believe in somewhat wacky versions of the religion where being prosperous is a sign of your faith (you know, from the biblical stories of requiring apostles to give up all their wealth, or the meek shall inherit the earth, or overturning the moneychangers' tables because they took advantage of the requirement to only donate in the local currency), the truth is there's precedence in the faith for a wide variety of belief structures.

Hence, this thread. Where, sure, a lot of people in the church feel like you're going to hell for engaging in sexual acts with your same gender, and deserve condemnation and judgement for doing so. But there are a whole lot of people looking for a revisionist interpretation where people who engage in sodomy and a reach around on Saturday night can now lead a congregation with a sermon about the love of God the next day. 

I don't see that as evidence of the evils of Christianity. People are going to do people things, and Christianity in many ways is simply going to reflect that. 

 

Lotta truth to this.

The "church" is just an organization subject to the same herd mentality, corruption, and other bullshit as any other organization.

That the "church" ascribes to what should be a benign and beneficial belief system makes it that much worse, though.

 

 

[Brisketexan 105144]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I've been trying to teach my niece and nephew the Platinum Rule - treat others as THEY would like to be treated

I'd be thrilled if people just got these baseline rules down -- rules that, in their fundamental form, are common to every major belief system, secular  or religious.

1) be a decent person.

2) don't be a dick.

Yeah, they go hand in hand, but one is the affirmative (do the right thing) and one is negative (don't do the wrong thing).

See the discussion (a Jewish one) about the famous Rabbi Hillel statement:

Quote

The most famous attempt at simplification occurs in Tractate Shabbat (Talmud), wherein a gentile approaches two celebrated Jewish scholars and asks each to tell him everything he needs to know about Judaism while he stands on one foot. Shammai responds to this question by hitting the young man with his cane. But Hillel famously reduces Judaism to one sentence: That which is hateful to you, do not do to another person. This statement, known as Hillel’s Golden Rule, is only part of what he says. We’ll discuss the rest of his answer below.

Hillel’s version, with its negative injunction, is far less well known than the positive version often attributed to Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Actually, this positive version also appears in the Torah: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [Lev 19:18])

Honestly, my wife and I engage in rambling discussions on such matters, and we've regularly come to the conclusion that.....maybe we're jewish.  Some of the most thoughtful, kind thinkers and practitioners of theology I know are jewish; they seem to get it right (yeah, yeah -- not that there isn't plenty of shitty and cruel and selfish fundagelicalism to be found in modern judaism as well.  Wherever there is a belief system, there will be humans to pervert it to serve their own ends).

[Brisketexan 105144]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lotta truth to this.

The "church" is just an organization subject to the same herd mentality, corruption, and other bullshit as any other organization.

That the "church" ascribes to what should be a benign and beneficial belief system makes it that much worse, though.

 

 

And this.

To treat me and a shitload of my fellow humans like shit is one thing.

To do that under the banner/symbol of a belief system that has two core tenets (1 - love God, and 2 - love everyone else) is infuriating.  The analogy I've used before fits: we are all outraged when a stranger beats a kid.  We are exponentially MORE outraged when a parent beats a kid.  The very person who is supposed to not just NOT HURT the kid but rather, to protect and love the kid, inflicting pain and suffering on the kid?  That's a 10 on the outrage meter, with good reason.

Hurting gay and trans people?  That's shitty.  Doing it under the banner of "God is love" is unforgivable and sick.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Mole said:

I know you need to prime the pump, but this religion thread is still in its infancy. It’s all friendly right now; wait until we’ve all decided to hate each other for a few days and then you’ll get that sweet metaphysics talk that you crave. We live in an ordered universe, so this thread must also follow the God-ordained natural order of things.

In my defense, I thought we were at the mutual hatred stage in perpetuity regarding this topic. 

 

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

If axiom got hit with six rocks, it would not matter. 

What would happen if axiom got hit with the number six?

I'm enjoying the rediscovery and rephrasing of the ethic of reciprocity in this thread.  Cutting edge stuff.  I try to live by the iridium rule:

Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been - ever, for any reason whatsoever.