Media/Hollywood's anti-Christian campaign

[sidis 9832]

On 3/2/2019 at 11:52 AM, Axiom of Choice said:

"choice functions," which are functions that follow some rule/algorithm in order to select particular elements from sets. 

They are called choice functions even though there is no conscious intent behind them;

i think you are losing me here.  and i think it underscores the giant chasm that exists between our perspectives.

 

On 3/2/2019 at 11:52 AM, Axiom of Choice said:

So with that math preamble in place, consider the following questions:

1. With no choice function used, would it be possible to select an element from set A?
2. If yes, what type of a thing would be capable of making a selection without the need of a selection function and what would you call this type of selection?
3. How would something go about selecting an element of set B?

 

it is not possible to select something without a choice function.  but this comes back to the primary objection i have with premise 2 and premise 3.  you are only allowing for a selection (regardless of selection with intent or selection of randomness) between those two premises.  there exists the possibility that no selection, regardless of intent or no intent was the driver of origin.  it is hard to contemplate but it cannot be eliminated even though it is difficult to exemplify beyond existence itself.  i suppose that is what the "thing" or "type of selection" coould be called - existence/reality.  i haven't given much thought to this but perhaps there is some scholarship on whether or not elements of chaos theory exemplify such a notion.

 

On 3/2/2019 at 11:52 AM, Axiom of Choice said:

The analogy I'm making here is that W is like set B.  It has infinite possibilities and the elements cannot be referenced from a possibility standpoint since they are all the same in that regard.  How does one element of such a set get selected?  My claim is that the only way for this to happen in the absence of some selection function is for there to be something that is capable of making some selection based on intent/preference/whim, or what we would otherwise refer to as a choice. 

 

and that is totally plausible.  but i do not feel like you have proved it.  all that is necessary is for possibilty 1 to exist in W and R and that R has an infinite number of contingencies that branch off of P1 to comprise R.  whether P1 was chosen or just was, i do not feel like you have sufficiently eliminated the possibility of the latter through your proof because your proof semantically requires a selection or choice.

[sidis 9832]

33 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Ok, I think I understand the source for the primary difference of views.  I believe what you are suggesting is that some possibility within W may exist simply as a "brute fact," and not due to any sort of selection.  Therefore, a selection of some type is not necessarily required.  Is this correct?  If so, then if one were to ask "why was this initial possibility within W exemplified and not some other," the answer would be something along the lines of "no reason; it just simply happened that way."  Let me know if this more or less aligns with what you are suggesting as a possible scenario as a response to my argument. 

there you go.  the minute there is a reason or consequence, then one is practically boxed into a selection mechanism which leads to your self-fulfilling proof.

33 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Ok, I think I understand the source for the primary difference of views.  I believe what you are suggesting is that some possibility within W may exist simply as a "brute fact," and not due to any sort of selection.  Therefore, a selection of some type is not necessarily required.  Is this correct?  If so, then if one were to ask "why was this initial possibility within W exemplified and not some other," the answer would be something along the lines of "no reason; it just simply happened that way."  Let me know if this more or less aligns with what you are suggesting as a possible scenario as a response to my argument. 

In any case, the idea of a brute contingent fact seems like utter nonsense to me.   

why?  why any more so than a single entity capable of setting all the governing dynamics of existence?  all the quantum physics and cosmological guidelines?  all existence for its own entertainment.  i suspect it is because you (as do us all) experience all reality through the prism of all things being a cumulative causal chain of events that ultimately leads back to an origin.

and if one departs from theism, it is certainly no more "nonsense" than the notions of the personal god embraced and espoused by virtually every religion out there  which are utterly indefensible.

Edited March 6, 2019 by sidis

[TheFlyingBoat 907]

On 2/26/2019 at 5:27 AM, tjhooker said:

How about just shoot down the middle? No bias at all.  Christianity nor any other religion are beyond being criticized.  But it is totally OK to be biased against Christianity in Hollywood and media.  It isn't frowned upon but say the same thing about Islam and watch out. 

Hate to go all the way back to the beginning but after reading through half of page 1 I'm about ready to skip to the end. Muslims blowing shit up is a trope so common in Hollywood that it is practically cliche at this point. There isn't much portrayal of Judaism or Hinduism negatively, but that's largely because there isn't much portrayal of them at all. I can't think of the last time I saw an ultra devout character of either religion. Everyone now and then a largely non-practicing or at least not overtly devout one of either religion finds their religion as the butt of a joke, but that's about it. Not much positive portrayal of either though or Islam for that matter, whereas for Easter, we're getting treated to Breakthrough, a movie where the F-list version of Melissa McCarthy shows the liberal doctors and scientists that the healing power of God is stronger than anything they can do. Let me know when any other religion gets that treatment. You literally have to be a Christian to win election as President and just about any other major election in 90% of the country and somehow Christians are getting a bad rap in the media?

 

EDIT: oh shit there seems to be a nice discussion on epistemology and metaphysics that has been going on. Maybe this thread is worth something.

Edited March 6, 2019 by TheFlyingBoat

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, TheFlyingBoat said:

Hate to go all the way back to the beginning but after reading through half of page 1 I'm about ready to skip to the end. Muslims blowing shit up is a trope so common in Hollywood that it is practically cliche at this point. There isn't much portrayal of Judaism or Hinduism negatively, but that's largely because there isn't much portrayal of them at all. I can't think of the last time I saw an ultra devout character of either religion. Everyone now and then a largely non-practicing or at least not overtly devout one of either religion finds their religion as the butt of a joke, but that's about it. Not much positive portrayal of either though or Islam for that matter, whereas for Easter, we're getting treated to Breakthrough, a movie where the F-list version of Melissa McCarthy shows the liberal doctors and scientists that the healing power of God is stronger than anything they can do. Let me know when any other religion gets that treatment. You literally have to be a Christian to win election as President and just about any other major election in 90% of the country and somehow Christians are getting a bad rap in the media?

 

EDIT: oh shit there seems to be a nice discussion on epistemology and metaphysics that has been going on. Maybe this thread is worth something.

What about Mola Ram?  He was as bad as they come and ran an evil offshoot of Hinduism. 

[sidis 9832]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

In any other context, if one were to say "there are reasons for why things are the way the are," or "there is an explanation behind phenomena," or "for every fact, there is a reason why it is the case," then we would accept such statements without reservation as evident truths.  We assume this is true in every other subject and also in our daily lives.  In fact, you can't even have a rigorous or satisfactory investigation into any subject if you reject these statements, because one could posit any fact as simply a brute fact.  Why do the planets wander around the night sky?  Why do cannons get hot when you bore them out?  Why does iron rust but gold does not?  Why did a crime suspect have the murder weapon in his car?  We could posit all of these as brute facts; these things are true simply because they are that way.  

The view that all things have reasons was at the heart of the scientific revolution.  Spinoza, Leibniz, and Laplace accepted it explicitly; virtually all others accepted it implicitly.  Most people assume it implicitly today as well.  It is the basis behind what we refer to as rational or reasonable thought.  The moment we reject brute facts and insist upon reason is the moment our thought becomes reasonable. The only time it is ever really challenged is when used explicitly in metaphysics, and only then when it is used in arguments related to the origin of reality.  Do you not find it at all interesting or puzzling that a claim as benign as "for every fact, there is a reason why it is the case" has such strong implications on the origin of reality? 

In regards to things you suggest as nonsensical such as a a personal God or an entity setting the all the laws of dynamics in place, I would say that those are examples of thing that seem strange, bizarre, or extraordinary to us.  But that is fundamentally different than things having no reason behind them.  There are numerous math facts that seem odd, bizarre, and unintuitive, but there are reasons for why they are true.   

like i said in my preceding post, your rationalization is "because you (as do us all) experience all reality through the prism of all things being a cumulative causal chain of events that ultimately leads back to an origin."  everything we understand is because we can understand its underlying root causality and there is a chain of causality that goes back about 14 billion years that we understand.

it is a bit of an understatement to say a personal god seems "strange" and "bizarre."  that is completely punting on the point.  it is a lot more silly than that.  but accepting that, i don't understand why the strangeness of that is any different than the bizarre nature of existence just "being."  neither are any more implausible or inexplicable than the other.

[sidis 9832]

i will also state that your wholesale rejection of brute facts is somewhat amusing in light of your appeal to the necessary being punt on infinite regress.

[sidis 9832]

in fact, couldn't an argument be structured to say that a brute fact of existence simply "being" as more defensible than the existence of a "necessary being" which ends the chain of sufficient reason since we know reality does actually exist and the necessary being is as pure a philosophical abstract as has ever been contemplated?

[elfenix 34364]

aristotle laid all this out 2500 years ago.  it hasn't changed.

[sidis 9832]

5 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

  I don't see any reason to conflate what seems bizarre to us with whether a fact has a reason or not.  

but you have been throughout this discussion.  if the reason that things exist is just because they exist, you reject it for bizareness since you believe the causal chain back to a necessary being is...well, necessary.  that is the only reason.

and now you are conflating belief in a personal god from a religion with "fact" which is no bueno.  bizarre facts that are testable and observable and the utter bizareness of actually believing in the god of the koran are not remotely comparable.

[Huckleberry 33159]

31 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

One may prefer this line of thinking, but it is not defensible if the PSR is assumed.  Ending with a necessary entity is compatible with the PSR while ending with a brute contingent fact is not.  

And now you know why I know the PSR is bunk. 😉

That's what I was getting at when I said your proof was begging the question in a way. Seems like the entire intent of the proof is to logically show that everything has a cause (you are simply phrasing it as a selector between choices). And one of the premises/assumptions of the proof is that the PSR is true, which, of course, states that everything has a reason or cause.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Huckleberry

[sidis 9832]

11 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I'm not rejecting it because it seems bizarre, I'm rejecting it because it violates reason.  Those are two different things.  Brute facts are even described as outside of reason when defined - things which are so for no reason.  That is in a different category of merely being bizarre/strange.  

Necessary entities require reason.  I don't view it as a punt as I have no objection to necessary facts or entities (they seem evident to me), and I would think this regardless of this specific ontological discussion.  Even if I were an atheist, I would still believe the origin or basis of our reality must ultimately be tied back to something necessary.  It is just the way things have to be.  

I only referenced the personal God to respond to your point about it; my argument is not based on that concept nor does it reference it.  I wasn't trying to sneak or shoehorn it in and I'm happy to leave it out of the discussion.  

Did you watch the video?  It is a pretty interesting fact.

i didn't say you were shoehorning it in.  for the most part, you tend to be transparent on breaking between religion and theism when discussing ontology.  i also acknowledged that i was breaking away from theism in stating that your description of utter nonsense as applicable to religion just as easily if one applies the same rigidity of reason.  you responded well it is more akin to the bizareness of certain unexpected facts. i was rejecting that entirely as not sufficiently responsive to the question i posed.  of course you are happy to ignore it altogether as you go to great lengths to ignore religion as part of these discussions for obvious reasons.

you are rejecting it because you cannot fathom the reason for existence simply being existence.

so what is the reason for a necessary being beyond the tautology of being necessary to it to be the origin?

[elfenix 34364]

 

2 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Our universe could pop out of existence for no reason if it could exist for no reason.

so what?

[Biff Tannen 45751]

Santorum looking like a god damn schmuck with his Ash Wednesday cross on his forehead on a CNN panel.  Thought it was a huge bruise at first.  But who would ever want to punch that guy in the forehead?

[Biff Tannen 45751]

Oh for god's sake there's like 2 or 3 others since him too.  Well, I guess that doesn't quite feed into the "media hates Christians" narrative then does it?  Religion is a scourge on the world and we would all be better off without it.  There.

[bolverk 29766]

On 3/5/2019 at 10:44 AM, Axiom of Choice said:

@sidis , @Huckleberry, any interest left in the tank or are we done with this round?

Disclaimer:

I've not taken a single course in philosophy (unless you count didacticism in French literature) nor physics (French major and minors in German and international studies; Masters in city planning with a specialization in economic development) but was raised Southern Baptist (now consider myself a "spiritual" atheist with Buddhist tendencies). That said, I like science and shit.

Here's an interesting read I came across this morning. I like how the author is trying to wed quantum mechanics with the observable universe [i.e. Nature (big N)] and how it both refutes and embraces aspects of the multiverse by seemingly (if I understand it correctly) implying that the dilemma of Shroedinger's cat can help us address the idea of multiple layers to one universe.

Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics

[bolverk 29766]

On 2/27/2019 at 10:14 AM, Axiom of Choice said:

This is one area where there is quite a bit of agreement.  There was a lot of disagreement in the early centuries, but of the ~300 bishops at the council of Nicaea, all but 3 voted to ratify the Trinitarian Nicene creed.   Then of course the state got more involved and so disagreement was not a very attractive option for many centuries.  There was a resurgence of Arianism after the Reformation as people started to reevaluate every piece of theology.  In any case, today I believe the Non-Trinitarians (eg. mormon, Jehovahs witness, unitarians) make up less than 3%.  All other major denominations are Trinitarian and they make up over 95% of Christianity.  So the idea is approaching practical limits of agreement among any group. Humanity doesn't even have that high of an agreement rate on the fact that the earth is round.  

4

Also, I need to disagree with you here. Again, raised Southern Baptist.

No, I was never taught that Christ and God were one and of the same. On the contrary, I was taught to believe that he was a man just like any other. I became, however, vaguely aware at some point in my teenage years that others believed differently.

I'd guess that Southern Baptists make up well beyond 3 percent of Christianity (well, certainly in America).

[Anastasis 23471]

38 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Also, I need to disagree with you here. Again, raised Southern Baptist.

No, I was never taught that Christ and God were one and of the same. On the contrary, I was taught to believe that he was a man just like any other. I became, however, vaguely aware at some point in my teenage years that others believed differently.

I'd guess that Southern Baptists make up well beyond 3 percent of Christianity (well, certainly in America).

This is not southern baptist christology.  

[F250 28881]

59 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Also, I need to disagree with you here. Again, raised Southern Baptist.

No, I was never taught that Christ and God were one and of the same. On the contrary, I was taught to believe that he was a man just like any other. I became, however, vaguely aware at some point in my teenage years that others believed differently.

I'd guess that Southern Baptists make up well beyond 3 percent of Christianity (well, certainly in America).

Southern Baptists are most definitely Trinitarian. Either you were not paying close attention growing up or were not attending an actual SBC church. Any church teaching anti-trinitarian doctrine would have been disassociated from the SBC with extreme prejudice.

Southern Baptists may not be big on doctrine but the Trinity is one of the few pieces of orthodox Christianity they uphold.

[TwiceHorn 31644]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Santorum looking like a god damn schmuck with his Ash Wednesday cross on his forehead on a CNN panel.  Thought it was a huge bruise at first.  But who would ever want to punch that guy in the forehead?

 

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Oh for god's sake there's like 2 or 3 others since him too.  Well, I guess that doesn't quite feed into the "media hates Christians" narrative then does it?  Religion is a scourge on the world and we would all be better off without it.  There.

Ummm, so putting practicing Catholics on tv on Ash Wednesday is significant in either endorsing or persecuting religion?  I think not.  I'm sorry ash smudges offend you so deeply.

That said, Santorum is a schmuck.  Surprised the Baptists haven't claimed him yet.

Edited March 7, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Atx71 146]

On 2/26/2019 at 8:18 AM, futureman said:

a leftist talking about someone else’s intolerance is the single funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time and shows a lack of self-awareness on par with an infant.  congratulations?

A rightist talking about the left's intolerance while simultaneously supporting the Trump regime is ........the working definition of both deluded and hypocrisy. 

[bolverk 29766]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

This is not southern baptist christology.  

 

8 hours ago, F250 said:

Southern Baptists are most definitely Trinitarian. Either you were not paying close attention growing up or were not attending an actual SBC church. Any church teaching anti-trinitarian doctrine would have been disassociated from the SBC with extreme prejudice.

Southern Baptists may not be big on doctrine but the Trinity is one of the few pieces of orthodox Christianity they uphold.

I guess I wasn't very good at baptisting and pretty much stopped going to church once I was in high school.

[sidis 9832]

16 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

It is hard enough to have this conversation in perfect isolation.  It is almost impossible to have it if we weave in the claims of various theistic religions.  I view it as deliberately keeping those topics out (as opposed to ignoring them) to have productive discussion.  That is my reason; you have to admit it is effective for working toward that purpose (at least more effective than the alternative). 

I agree that excluding religion from the theist position is necessary in any ontological discussion as it serves to muddy the waters and undermine the value of the theist position.  i will say though that is somewhat amusing that almost universally, when you hijack a thread into ontological discussion, it is a thread dealing specifically with religion.

 

 

16 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I can fathom something being exemplified for no reason, but the problem with this is that all sorts of other irrational consequences follow.  Our universe could pop out of existence for no reason if it could exist for no reason.  Really anything in the realm of possibility could suddenly occur or not occur if we remove the PSR.  If there were no PSR, reality would be nonsense.  At most, one would have to appeal to a restricted or weaker version of the PSR to make sense of anything.  But in what way should we restrict it and why?  

i have read plenty of arguments for the psr that almost always derive from this same "unfortunate consequences" argument is made.  and every time, i have the same reaction...so what?  your discomfort with the irrationality of existence is not PROOF of the need for psr.  again, that ties back to my noting that because the only experience we have is based on reason and contingencies, that we think causality drives all things.  it is all we know so it makes sense.  everything that is is a result of a 14 billion years of events/actions/choices. but just like one can separate W, R, P's, and C's in your argument, one can separate them in their need for reason.  W/R can exist without sufficient reason while the governing dynamics of the C's all absolutely follow sufficient reason.  reality isn't nonsense without psr, it just is.  you just don't want to confront the possibility that reality is arbitrary and truly random because it isn't particularly helpful from knowledge standpoint and it doesn't reconcile with the behavior of our experiences and empirical knowledge.  psr doesn't need to be restricted when it comes to W or R, it just isn't necessary altogether.  however, it absolutely exists as it relates to P and C.

mackie and russell articulated this and the response to the acceptance of such a brute fact is that it undercuts science and our reasoning principles.  if one can't separate the reality of existence as W from science being able to measure P's and C's, then I agree that it is irrational to a point that is unsupportable.  however, i contend that one has to do the same thing to accept a necessary being with god-like properties.  such an entity would also undercut our conceptions of science and reason because they exist outside of those same governing dynamics that we observe and test with science and reason.  so again, it is no less persuasive to accept that "reality just is" and such a question is separate from our endeavors for knowledge as it is to say there is a necessary being from which all things are contingent that exists separately from our endeavors for knowledge.  both are equally conversation enders if you ask me.

also, what do you think of notre dame's peter van inwagen's argument for rejecting psr:

If the PSR is true, every contingent proposition has an explanation. Suppose

P is the conjunction of all contingent true propositions. Suppose also that there is a state of affairs S that provides a sufficient reason for P. S cannot itself be contingent, for then it would be a conjunct of P and entailed by P, and as both entailing and entailed by P would be P, so that it would be its own sufficient reason. But no contingent proposition can explain itself. Neither can S be necessary, for from necessary propositions only necessary propositions follow. Necessary propositions cannot explain contingent propositions, for if x sufficiently explains y, then x entails y, and if x is necessary so is y. So S cannot be either contingent or necessary, and hence the PSR is false.

 

 

16 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

There are two basic ways to arrive at the necessary being.  One is to use a type of cosmological argument (or other arguments that start with observations on reality) and work back to the impossibility of there being only contingents.  From there you use excluded middle and noncontradiction to show that a necessary entity must be involved.  But that is not tautological, no more than showing that the square root of 2 is irrational because it is impossible for it to be rational.  The other way is via a direct constructive proof starting from metaphysical principles. These types of arguments are admittedly more difficult and they are going to be based on premises more abstract than the other type of argument.  I could give some, but for one who rejects the PSR on insufficient evidence, the premises of the constructive ontological arguments will seem like absolutely titanic reaches.  I like those arguments for their own sake, but they are not very effective at persuading a skeptic.

but i know from your previous postings that you don't find the cosmological argument particularly defensible.  and, again, the cosmological argument hinges entirely on the principles of causation and sufficient reason (see above).

and i am happy to consider those proofs but if one starts from metaphysical principles, you are right that they are unlikely to be persuasive to my perspective.

at the end of the day, i think the necessary being to defeat infinite regress is absolutely a king's x and kant's arguments against it are sound.  additionally, i come back to mackie and his boxing you in with your own reasoning...that if god is a metaphysical necessity, then its existence is logically contingent.

[TwiceHorn 31644]

So, ontological gentlemen, somehow along the line, I completely missed out on formal logic.  Do any of you have any suggestions for familiarizing oneself with the discipline?  Britannica has a fairly comprehensive entry, it seems, but open to education.

[Asithappens 974]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, ontological gentlemen, somehow along the line, I completely missed out on formal logic.  

Good discussion, really.

But it just kills me that some think that "formal logic" can be used to prove/disprove whatever it is we're talking about.

 

[sidis 9832]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, ontological gentlemen, somehow along the line, I completely missed out on formal logic.  Do any of you have any suggestions for familiarizing oneself with the discipline?  Britannica has a fairly comprehensive entry, it seems, but open to education.

i am a novice in the subject...just an occasional interest.  i just play the role of gadfly sometimes for aoc who likes me to read his papers because he doesn't know how to footnote/endnote properly. :)

however, the best learning tool for me that i would recommend for a well-edited, well-curated source on most philosophical (including logic) topics is the online stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  there is a pretty robust section on logic that one can start with.

https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

[Longhorn_Fan68 33901]

is this the fuck religion thread?

[Newdoc 3457]

Me reading sidis and Axiom’s responses....

[Zavala 1384]

 

[David Dennison 18993]

2 minutes ago, Zavala said:

 

So much stupidity and historical ignorance in one place.

[Brisketexan 105478]

I'm curious.  Did Gavin have the dildo jammed up his butt for that whole interview?

[Foosters 17895]

*clicks play

*sees runtime is 28 minutes

*turns off computer

[David Dennison 18993]

It's always fun to watch two white guys expound on how much better things were for African Americans before 1969. You know, the good old days.

 

[Rimbo 26172]

On 2/26/2019 at 3:55 AM, Monster said:

I used to laugh at my Christian friends when they talked about being ridiculed.  "Maybe in other countries, but not here."  Or if I was in a mood, "Maybe you deserve it."  Well, after watching far too many movies and tv shows and reading too many message board/social media posts/news articles over the last two years, I'm not laughing at them anymore. 

Since a somewhat notable election, there would appear to be a coordinated and sustained effort to shame and vilify people of the Christian faith.  I submit the following examples for your consideration and look forward to your rebuttals...

 

Speaking as a Christian...

Set the wayback machine to about... oh, 8 centuries ago. A Franciscan Friar, William of Rubruck, is sent by the Pope to meet this Mongolian "Great Khan" that had been terrorizing all of Asia and Eastern Europe, because some Nestorian Christian ambassadors from the Mongol Empire had essentially told them that the Great Khan was ready to convert to Christianity. In reality, the ambassadors were letting the Great Khan's tolerance of all religions mislead them into thinking this way. And in reality, the Friar was sent as a spy.

The Great Khan, Möngke, already knew -- the Mongolians had the best, fastest communications system in the world at the time -- that the Friar had been sent as a spy, already knew Christian teachings well, and already knew very well all about the King who'd sent him. After teasing him relentlessly for a long time after the long journey, in his final audience with the Friar he said, "You Christians have commandments, but you do not follow them. When our Shamans tell us to do something, we do it." And then, sent him home.

Christianity of today -- like then -- needs to be practiced more than defended.

No Christian can see any OP's "examples" and say that this is an attack on Christianity. You should see -- as I do -- that these characters are villains, pure and simple. It's attacking hypocrisy, greed, lust, rape -- all the things that God Himself commanded us not to do, and yet not only do we do these things, we defend and support those who do. Look at the Catholic Church hiding child rapists; look at American Evangelicals defending Donald Trump. If your heart is right with God, then you would see these so-called "Christians" in the media as the villains they are. They are not merely villains to Hollywood, they are villains to Christ.

So, in short, get off yer high horse and stop defending this behavior. Stop supporting people who rape and tear apart families and cheat on their wives and brag about it. My God... someone actually had the President sign their Bible. Can you not see how twisted and perverse that is? This man... signing the Word of God? A book he hasn't bothered to read and wouldn't follow even if he did?

Edited March 14, 2019 by Rimbo

[Chrispy 132]

33 minutes ago, Zavala said:

 

Interesting video, thanks for sharing. 

[Rimbo 26172]

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Set the wayback machine to about... oh, 8 centuries ago. A Franciscan Friar, William of Rubruck, is sent by the Pope to meet this Mongolian "Great Khan" that had been terrorizing all of Asia and Eastern Europe, because some Nestorian Christian ambassadors from the Mongol Empire had essentially told them that the Great Khan was ready to convert to Christianity.

Correction. It was King Louis IX of France, not the Pope, who sent Rubruck on his espionage mission.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Rimbo

[Brisketexan 105478]

Correction. It was King Louis IX of France, not the Pope, who sent Rubruck on his espionage mission.

Thank god you fixed that. I was about to neg the shit out of you for your clear error.

[Rimbo 26172]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Thank god you fixed that. I was about to neg the shit out of you for your clear error.

I don't know what I was thinking, making such a horrible mistake.

[Mole 4333]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Thank god you fixed that. I was about to neg the shit out of you for your clear error.

Still negworthy. The historical ignorance required to make such a mistake is astounding.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Mole

[Monster 219]

That was a fun and informative tangent.  I wanted to add a few things to add to the original conversation.... 

 

Consider the late 1990’s early 2000’s.  Growing up during this time, my TV told me to distrust Muslims.  All of the major networks agreed, Muslims want to kill me and my family.  And I have to admit, as a young adult, I was influenced by the TV and started to fear these ‘dangerous people’ who I’d never met.  My hillbilly brethren started to openly hate Muslims, despite having never met one.  When we eventually went to war, destabilizing Muslim countries, killing or arresting their leaders, we did so with full approval of my friends and neighbors and the rest of the American people…who’d been watching those same anti-Muslim TV shows. 

And now my TV is telling me I should distrust Christians.  I’m being told they are detestable, deplorable, racist villains who deserve ridicule and hate.  I can see from your responses, that, once again, many of those around me agree with the TV's message.  And I wonder, where are we going with this? 

Images from 'Happy-season 2'  - Nuns being blown up in a park, accompanied by comical music.   

[Monster 219]

Quick follow up question; is ridiculing people for what they believe an effective way of changing their minds or persuading them to see things (or vote) your way?  

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Monster

[Chuckie Finster 22759]

What the fuck kind of TV did you watch growing up?

[Guest]

On 3/14/2019 at 3:34 PM, Foosters said:

*clicks play

*sees runtime is 28 minutes

*turns off computer

The inverse of watching porn, right?

[Asithappens 974]

On 3/6/2019 at 9:13 PM, bolverk said:

Also, I need to disagree with you here. Again, raised Southern Baptist.

No, I was never taught that Christ and God were one and of the same. On the contrary, I was taught to believe that he was a man just like any other. I became, however, vaguely aware at some point in my teenage years that others believed differently.

I'd guess that Southern Baptists make up well beyond 3 percent of Christianity (well, certainly in America).

If that is really what you were taught then your church wasn't even Christian.

[WhatTheBuck 28821]

3 hours ago, Asithappens said:

If that is really what you were taught then your church wasn't even Christian.

He could be Christian, just not Southern Baptist. He could be Eastern Orthodox. 

[gsoda3 3284]

43 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He could be Christian, just not Southern Baptist. He could be Eastern Orthodox. 

the eastern orthodox believe in a single triune God.  moreover their view of Jesus is that He was fully man and fully God.  bolverk's memory is of them teaching Jesus was just a man.  i think he skipped a few too many sundays.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

the eastern orthodox believe in a single triune God.  moreover their view of Jesus is that He was fully man and fully God.  bolverk's memory is of them teaching Jesus was just a man.  i think he skipped a few too many sundays.

I think he just meant trinitarian.  Rather than just a man, Jesus is his own being somewhat separate from God even if of the same essence. Whatever other properties one believes Jesus had, he was a man as well and died like one. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[WhatTheBuck 28821]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

the eastern orthodox believe in a single triune God.  moreover their view of Jesus is that He was fully man and fully God.  bolverk's memory is of them teaching Jesus was just a man.  i think he skipped a few too many sundays.

My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church believes the trinity are three separate entities. They are all equal but Jesus isn't God. He was begotten by God. They'll give you some theological doublespeak about "The Word" being eternal and other bizarre made up logic to justify whatever shit it is they believe. So it can be confusing. But I don't think they subscribe to the Doctrine of the Trinity that the Western churches do where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same identical entity. 

[gsoda3 3284]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Church believes the trinity are three separate entities. They are all equal but Jesus isn't God. He was begotten by God. They'll give you some theological doublespeak about "The Word" being eternal and other bizarre made up logic to justify whatever shit it is they believe. So it can be confusing. But I don't think they subscribe to the Doctrine of the Trinity that the Western churches do where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same identical entity. 

they believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit existing as three separate persons but being one entity-  God.  no one person begat another.  all the divine characteristics of one person are identical to the other persons.  

[Anastasis 23471]

Buck may be reflecting (a poor understanding) of either monophysite christology historically associated with the Oriental Orthodox, or Nestorian dual nature christology. Neither of which are a good fit for what bolverk described, nor are associated with the Eastern Orthodox. What bolverk describes sounds like some form of adoptionism, which isn't really a mainstream belief in any major or minor christian sect.    

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Anastasis

[Lagunamadre 1975]

10 hours ago, Monster said:

Quick follow up question; is ridiculing people for what they believe an effective way of changing their minds or persuading them to see things (or vote) your way?  

 

No. It is not. It only reinforces that persons beliefs, if for nothing else spite. Engaging civilly is much more effective. 

All ridicule should be saved for once the idiot leaves, then everyone can laugh their asses off at how stupid they are.