Theological discussions

[Toboe]

Dear Ladies and Gentlefurs! I do not know why you would do this to yourself, but here it is for you to read and write in!

The thread for Theological discussions, so we don't spam other Threads with our Tangents!

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=NIV

(Link in case I got a weird version/wrong part, so you can correct if it isn't what you meant )

Contains Jesus amending the old Testament, not discarding it. Just because it is in the old Testament does not automatically invalidate it, only if it is actually amended by Jesus you can argue that that amendment has priority over the old version.

since it was about the clean/unclean laws regarding animals, i found a passage that could be relevant:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-11.htm

Seems to be Jesus discarding the laws regarding good/bad food. Leaving aside the "wait, that's not him explaining it better/amending it, he's discarding it, word of god vs word of god?!" question. Discarding "good food/bad food" could (yeah a stretch...) be seen as him transitively also discarding "good animal/bad animal" meaning Gamedogs Islam is against Furries joke only includes Muslims and Jews, but not Christians.

[Saxon]

I'm sure if first century Christians had known what furries were, that they would not have approved. :V

[DevilBear]

1 Timothy 1:12

Muh mysoggyknees.

Just now, Saxon said:

I'm sure if first century Christians had known what furries were, that they would not have approved. :V

They were too busy being fed to lions to worry I think.

[Toboe]

1 minute ago, DevilBear said:

They were too busy being fed to lions to worry I think.

Well, guess they wouldn't have liked Lionfursuits.

[Endless/Nameless]

Oh God....

Politics and religion all in one forum!! Winning combination!!

The gist of it according to my understanding (and i've put a lot of thought into it over the years) is that Jesus brought a higher form of "law" that replaced the old law. The Hebrew system was very intricate, and boiled down to "just do this stuff and you're fine whatever". But simply following rules doesn't make you a righteous person at heart. Jesus's law is simpler; it's fulfilled by your heart rather than rigid obedience, and is pretty much just "Belive in me and don't be a dick while you're at it". He may have never came out and ripped up the old law before a crowd (they would have killed him quicker), but he made his intentions obvious.

Here are some messy out-of-sequence quotes from Galatians 3-5, in which the apostle Paul tries to deal with a bunch of gentiles that were just dying to be under the oh-so-cool Hebrew law for some reason:

Quote

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

"Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised [meaning "to convert over to judaism"; it's not simply referring to the actual physical thing], Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

I never expected to be discussing this stuff here. Goddamn furries. :v

Edited March 22, 2016 by Endless/Nameless

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DevilBear said:

They were too busy being fed to lions to worry I think.

I'm a horrible person for laughing at this

[PastryOfApathy]

This officially the second worst thread ever.

Only bested by every single Rassah thread, because really they all blend together. 

[Endless/Nameless]

18 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

This officially the second worst thread ever.

I helped start it and even I agree.

[Saxon]

@Endless/Nameless If the Christian god is meant to be perfect and all knowing, it is very suspicious that he was obliged to send a representative to tell everyone that the first draft of the immutable moral code needed to be amended. 

But this is a god who demands sacrifices of burnt animal flesh and the blood of first born sons:  

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Saxon

[Endless/Nameless]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

@Endless/Nameless If the Christian god is meant to be perfect and all knowing, it is very suspicious that he was obliged to send a representative to tell everyone that the first draft of the immutable moral code needed to be amended. 

But this is a god who demands sacrifices of burnt animal flesh and the blood of first born sons:  

[Saxon]

Just now, Endless/Nameless said:

This is a genuine criticism. 

God's mind is clearly as fickle as any man's, which is surprising given that he's meant to know everything. 

The most perplexing thing though, is god's obsession with being worshiped, which is rather narcissistic. 

 

 

[Zeke]

1 hour ago, PastryOfApathy said:

This officially the second worst thread ever.

Only bested by every single Rassah thread, because really they all blend together. 

We're missing a few people in this thread to make it actually terrible. 

[PastryOfApathy]

10 minutes ago, Zeke said:

We're missing a few people in this thread to make it actually terrible. 

This is true. Hey @TheGreatFanatic, we need a shot of some super gross FNaF porn stat!

[Ieono]

Does anyone else think that the term "theological" seems a bit like an oxymoron? 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Ieono

[Derin Darkpaw]

59 minutes ago, Saxon said:

If the Christian god is meant to be perfect and all knowing, it is very suspicious that he was obliged to send a representative to tell everyone that the first draft of the immutable moral code needed to be amended. 

That is actually a fascinating subject that the philosophy of religion has been debating for centuries.  Well not this topic exactly, but more generally the subject of how/why evil can exist if God is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient.  While not directly addressing the question you had many of the same arguments against the Problem of Evil can be applied here.

First to go further it will help if I outline two major viewpoints on the nature of God help by some philosophers who argue against the Problem of Evil.  Both viewpoints attempt to describe what God is and depending on that definition they argue in very different ways.  The first and much easier to understand viewpoint is that of Theistic Personalism.  Theistic Personalism argues that God is essentially just a person, albeit a person immensely, possibly infinitely, more powerful and capable then any normal person.  The other viewpoint is that of Classical Theism and it gets a little weirder.  Basically the gist of Classical Theism is that God is in no way, shape, or form a person and we can't use the same language that we apply to humans to God.  To the Classical Theist God's goodness is not necessarily moral goodness and even more extremely that our causality is not the same as God's causality.  Again this is just a extremely brief explanation of these two viewpoints and there is a lot more going on there then I explained here.

Ok so now lets look at some of the ways in which these two viewpoints reject the Problem of Evil.  A common argument among Theistic Personalists is that God may have a good reason to allow Evil or in the case of the question you posed he may have a good reason to explain his laws to humans in this manner.  They would go on to argue that God has access to infinitely more information then us and thus it could be that this was just the best possible way for God to deliver this information.  Another argument they might make is that while other actions might seem plausible for an omnipotent/omniscient God it is possible that taking such action could undermine some greater more fundamental good such as Free Will.

The Classical Theist on the other hand would make an argument more along the lines of saying that God is not a person in the same sense, so we cannot reason from our own experience of good persons to how God would act.  Basically saying that while it might make more sense to us a person for God to disseminate his law in a different way, but we can't make assumptions based on what we know about people to what God should do.

Again I want to stress that these are very brief explanations of those philosophical viewpoints and arguments.  If you are really interested in knowing more about either of those subjects I can recommend some videos and some philosophers who wrote in greater detail about the subject.  Also I want to make clear that I don't personally accept either of these arguments and I have my reasoning for such, but I feel its important for one to analyze the arguments critically and develop your own arguments for or against them. 

Then there was the argument I used to make against this, but that is based on an entirely different set of beliefs and religious framework.  This post is already getting long so I won't go into my old religious beliefs here as that would deserve a post all on its own, but I would be open to discussing them at a later point if people are interested.

[ArielMT]

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

We're missing a few people in this thread to make it actually terrible. 

Hi!

55 minutes ago, Ieono said:

Does anyone else think that the term "theological" seems a bit like an oxymoron? 

No, since the term means "regarding the study of gods," but it does tend to transcend sanity when it's not regarded as a subset of mythological studies.

Edited March 22, 2016 by ArielMT

[Clove Darkwave]

I would like to take this moment to thank the Abrahamic Religions for destroying Kemetism.

"God" is a bunch of conflicting nonsense because it's basically the remnants of the Atenist Heresy.

 

 

[Saxon]

2 hours ago, Derin Darkpaw said:

That is actually a fascinating subject that the philosophy of religion has been debating for centuries.  Well not this topic exactly, but more generally the subject of how/why evil can exist if God is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient.  While not directly addressing the question you had many of the same arguments against the Problem of Evil can be applied here.

First to go further it will help if I outline two major viewpoints on the nature of God help by some philosophers who argue against the Problem of Evil.  Both viewpoints attempt to describe what God is and depending on that definition they argue in very different ways.  The first and much easier to understand viewpoint is that of Theistic Personalism.  Theistic Personalism argues that God is essentially just a person, albeit a person immensely, possibly infinitely, more powerful and capable then any normal person.  The other viewpoint is that of Classical Theism and it gets a little weirder.  Basically the gist of Classical Theism is that God is in no way, shape, or form a person and we can't use the same language that we apply to humans to God.  To the Classical Theist God's goodness is not necessarily moral goodness and even more extremely that our causality is not the same as God's causality.  Again this is just a extremely brief explanation of these two viewpoints and there is a lot more going on there then I explained here.

Ok so now lets look at some of the ways in which these two viewpoints reject the Problem of Evil.  A common argument among Theistic Personalists is that God may have a good reason to allow Evil or in the case of the question you posed he may have a good reason to explain his laws to humans in this manner.  They would go on to argue that God has access to infinitely more information then us and thus it could be that this was just the best possible way for God to deliver this information.  Another argument they might make is that while other actions might seem plausible for an omnipotent/omniscient God it is possible that taking such action could undermine some greater more fundamental good such as Free Will.

The Classical Theist on the other hand would make an argument more along the lines of saying that God is not a person in the same sense, so we cannot reason from our own experience of good persons to how God would act.  Basically saying that while it might make more sense to us a person for God to disseminate his law in a different way, but we can't make assumptions based on what we know about people to what God should do.

Again I want to stress that these are very brief explanations of those philosophical viewpoints and arguments.  If you are really interested in knowing more about either of those subjects I can recommend some videos and some philosophers who wrote in greater detail about the subject.  Also I want to make clear that I don't personally accept either of these arguments and I have my reasoning for such, but I feel its important for one to analyze the arguments critically and develop your own arguments for or against them. 

Then there was the argument I used to make against this, but that is based on an entirely different set of beliefs and religious framework.  This post is already getting long so I won't go into my old religious beliefs here as that would deserve a post all on its own, but I would be open to discussing them at a later point if people are interested.

I've heard these arguments before and can't say I find them convincing either. I was talking to a philosophy and theology student recently and was posing him logical problems with notions such as omnipotence and his response was that my questions weren't fair, which I thought was meagre. 

When I told him that I wasn't convinced that supernatural claims were useful, because they were untestable, he proposed that testing claims is not a useful assessment of their merit because 'you can't test whether the idea of testing things is any good'. 

One may as well argue that argument is unreliable.

The knots that theologists will contort themselves into in order to deflect criticism from their claims is astounding, really; he was essentially doing this:

 

 

[Conker]

So less Bible related, but my new place of employment is really relaxed on quite a few things--which is awesome--but it's also filled with fairly religious people. They sometimes openly talk about it at work.

Now, I'm really god damned good at picking my own battles, so I keep my mouth shut, but these are all guys in their mid 50's who most certainly aren't going to change their minds and probably find my lack of belief pretty offensive. God knows they don't like the metal music I blare.

Kind of concerned what will happen once it gets out. I've dodged questions a bit here and there, but eventually I'll get fed up with em and say, "yeah but I don't think God exists so..." which probably won't be a pretty conversation.

I also don't want to be that guy that runs to HR to complain, especially since I"m super new (less than six months employed here).

So thanks religion. You make my work place awkward as fuck sometimes.

[LazerMaster5]

If there was a god, I think he would have wanted us to simply be nice to one another. No need for senseless killing or hatred. No need for ridiculous laws. No need for negativity.

Edited March 23, 2016 by LazerMaster5

[#00Buck]

I want to start my own religion and give myself the title of "sex pope."

[MalletFace]

1 hour ago, Clove Darkwave said:

I would like to take this moment to thank the Abrahamic Religions for destroying Kemetism.

"God" is a bunch of conflicting nonsense because it's basically the remnants of the Atenist Heresy.

Egyptian monaltrism never really had the power to influence Semitic myth. It barely even had any more than superficial influence on traditional religion in Egypt proper. It did not even last a whole century - not even half of one.

The Eastern Semitic religions were the ones that exerted the most power over that little Egyptian province. More specifically, Canaanite, Ashurian, and Babylonian myths most directly built the early Judaic myth while Canaanite and Babylonian proto-monaltry probably helped to develop the early henotheistic forms of Judaism. This connection leads to things like Yahweh not banning worship of other gods (But really only Moloch 7 different times) until later on, Yahweh having different names for different tasks, and the problem of words like Adonai (אֲדֹנָי), El Shaddai (אל שדי), and Elohim (אֱלֹהִים) in the earlier sections of Judaic liturgical text.

[Khaki]

37 minutes ago, LazerMaster5 said:

If there was a god, I think he would have wanted us to simply be nice to one another. No need for senseless killing or hatred. No need for ridiculous laws. No need for negativity.

Yeah, but writing "Don't be a dick ~ Love from God xoxo"  doesn't exactly make a best selling novel, does it?

[ArielMT]

1 hour ago, #00Buck said:

I want to start my own religion and give myself the title of "sex pope."

Every Discordian initiate is granted popehood on completion, thus proclaimeth Pope Ariel.

HAIL ERIS!

[Conker]

1 hour ago, LazerMaster5 said:

If there was a god, I think he would have wanted us to simply be nice to one another. No need for senseless killing or hatred. No need for ridiculous laws. No need for negativity.

Unless God is a secret eldritch horror and masturbates to all our violence. In which case, we should probably be huge dicks to get in on his good favor so he doesn't devour our souls for eternity.

Food for thought, anyways :3

[Feelwell]

On 3/22/2016 at 11:57 PM, Conker said:

Unless God is a secret eldritch horror and masturbates to all our violence. In which case, we should probably be huge dicks to get in on his good favor so he doesn't devour our souls for eternity.

Food for thought, anyways :3

 

[#00Buck]

8 minutes ago, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

A secret Eldritch horror that masturbates to violence.... There's been presidents like that, haven't there?

The Call Of Cum-Thulu.

[Feelwell]

On 3/23/2016 at 12:07 AM, #00Buck said:

The Call Of Cum-Thulu.

 

[#00Buck]

Just now, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

There've been worse gods.....

But really, I find religion to be something that people, humanity in general, often turns to for hope. It's something that allows them to function, to hope for better things against all odds. Religion, belief that there is a higher power, something that can overcome any problem, is to counter the crushing alternative: that the world is unceasing, unfeeling, unbeatable, and uncaring, and no miracles, divine intervention, or greater plan will save you.

 

Well now I'm hungry. And slightly depressed.

You don't turn to Cthulu for hope. 

[Feelwell]

On 3/23/2016 at 12:12 AM, #00Buck said:

You don't turn to Cthulu for hope. 

 

[#00Buck]

Just now, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

You turn to him for power. The belief that you can gain that much power, that it's possible, is hope.

Nah. Cthulhu just eats you after he makes you insane. 

I think you turn to Cthulu after you've gone through all the fetishes and there's no kink left that turns you on. 

[Clove Darkwave]

1 hour ago, MalletFace said:

Egyptian monaltrism never really had the power to influence Semitic myth. It barely even had any more than superficial influence on traditional religion in Egypt proper. It did not even last a whole century - not even half of one.

The Eastern Semitic religions were the ones that exerted the most power over that little Egyptian province. More specifically, Canaanite, Ashurian, and Babylonian myths most directly built the early Judaic myth while Canaanite and Babylonian proto-monaltry probably helped to develop the early henotheistic forms of Judaism. This connection leads to things like Yahweh not banning worship of other gods (But really only Moloch 7 different times) until later on, Yahweh having different names for different tasks, and the problem of words like Adonai (אֲדֹנָי), El Shaddai (אל שדי), and Elohim (אֱלֹהִים) in the earlier sections of Judaic liturgical text.

That's a good reply! There is however a fair chance that the Christian ideas of Hell were inspired by the Duat (Although a much nicer place if you ask me) of Ancient Egyptian religion. There is also a fair chance Osiris and Isis inspired the stories of Mary and Jesus, although I'd be more inclined to agree with the suggestion that Jesus was directly inspired by Akhenaten.

[WileyWarWeasel]

There appear to be elements of religion in the following pyramid:

[FlynnCoyote]

6 hours ago, ArielMT said:

Every Discordian initiate is granted popehood on completion, thus proclaimeth Pope Ariel.

HAIL ERIS!

Ah, the words and insight of Malaclypse have reached another.

6 hours ago, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

But really, I find religion to be something that people, humanity in general, often turns to for hope. It's something that allows them to function, to hope for better things against all odds. Religion, belief that there is a higher power, something that can overcome any problem, is to counter the crushing alternative: that the world is unceasing, unfeeling, unbeatable, and uncaring, and no miracles, divine intervention, or greater plan will save you.

 

Well now I'm hungry. And slightly depressed.

This may be true for some, but I've been a pretty heavy advocate of antitheism for a while and I've quite often seen that it is moreso a case of lack of any real education on the matter. I once talked to a creationist girl about evolution. She was convinced that she knew how evolution was supposed to work and refused to be corrected on the matter. Then she rebutted with about half a dozen articles made by christian fundamental organizations that "proved" the account of Genesis or "disproved" evolution. I read a quarter of the first one and wanted to shoot myself.

Some people might half heartedly turn to faith as a measure of hope but I think deep down a lot of these people really know better. Sadly a lot of others are just mis-educated, or simply not educated at all. They believe this bullshit with a level of conviction that can lead to violence, and they're always right because they have God on their side.

[Terminal7]

1 hour ago, FlynnCoyote said:

They believe this bullshit with a level of conviction that can lead to violence, and they're always right because they have God on their side.

That's the point where religion becomes a scapegoat for individuals. What you're seeing is the superiority complex they're supposed to lose when they become a member of any belief system.

 

[FlynnCoyote]

36 minutes ago, Terminal7 said:

That's the point where religion becomes a scapegoat for individuals. What you're seeing is the superiority complex they're supposed to lose when they become a member of any belief system.

 

What I'm seeing is the complete abandonment of rationality in favour of a comforting delusion that justifies their personal prejudices. What I'm seeing is cognitive dissonance, and it doesn't always just apply to the extremist morons.

[Toboe]

15 hours ago, Zeke said:

We're missing a few people in this thread to make it actually terrible. 

i get the handcuffs, you get CaptainCool and Ruk?

 

 

On the "role of religion" discussion:

Hope is a function of religion to the believer.

Explanation ("where does the world come from?") or ignoring the unknown is a function of religion to the believer.

Community is a function of religion to the believer.

 

Manipulation is a function of religion to the deceiver.

Though I think weaning society of religion is the right way, just need to be wary of replacing it with something else with likewise problems.

[Terminal7]

2 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

What I'm seeing is the complete abandonment of rationality in favour of a comforting delusion that justifies their personal prejudices. What I'm seeing is cognitive dissonance, and it doesn't always just apply to the extremist morons.

So I'm lumped in there as well? That's certainly why I believe in God.

[TheGreatFanatic]

17 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

This is true. Hey @TheGreatFanatic, we need a shot of some super gross FNaF porn stat!

 

Spoiler

 Potentially NSFW - Clove

If this is breaking some kind of rule, blame the mods. They never said anything about a censored photo.

[Clove Darkwave]

When in doubt...oh hell people just do anything but directly Embed.

 

OT: I'd have less of an issue with people and "God" if they'd stop pretending the God they like is more real than the gods I like especially when mine are thousands of years older. Or I don't know accept that maybe all of the deities exist(ed) as quantum entities living on a 4th dimension that are not perceptible to humans normally and don't have an interest in our three-dimensional world.

tl;dr- Isis is cuter and sweeter

 

Edit:

double tl;dr

[Feelwell]

12 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Quote system is broke ignore this

@TheGreatFanaticthat picture raises many, many questions.

As for religion, no ones yet indulged the fantasy of all religions being made by a secret sect to cause world division, save us from a greaterr threat, or as a test.

[PastryOfApathy]

1 hour ago, TheGreatFanatic said:

Hidden Content 

A true American hero.

11 minutes ago, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

@TheGreatFanaticthat picture raises many, many questions.

You're correct. However I've long since stopped looking for answers that quite frankly I don't think I really want. 

[Feelwell]

1 minute ago, PastryOfApathy said:

 

You're correct. However I've long since stopped looking for answers that quite frankly I don't think I really want. 

Well, that also fits into religion, now doesn't it? Nobody wants any gods disproved, so they don't want answers.

But in that pictures case, I'm with you. Nobody wants an answer to those questions.

[TheGreatFanatic]

3 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

 I don't think I really want. 

Are ya sure ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[PastryOfApathy]

1 minute ago, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

Well, that also fits into religion, now doesn't it? Nobody wants any gods disproved, so they don't want answers.

But in that pictures case, I'm with you. Nobody wants an answer to those questions.

Wow, who would have thought that some Internet weirdos horrible dead children fetish would end up being a pertinent anology for religion.

Fuck me. 

2 minutes ago, TheGreatFanatic said:

Are ya sure ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Enlighten us.

[TheGreatFanatic]

1 minute ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Wow, who would have thought that some Internet weirdos horrible dead children fetish would end up being a pertinent anology for religion.

FNaf porn is the answer for everything( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Feelwell]

1 minute ago, TheGreatFanatic said:

FNaf porn is the answer for everything( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

What if being a furry is made a crime and we have to hide any evidence of being furry. Showing furry police fnaf porn probably wouldn't be the answer there.

[TheGreatFanatic]

Just now, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

What if being a furry is made a crime and we have to hide any evidence of being furry. Showing furry police fnaf porn probably wouldn't be the answer there.

Of course it would ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Feelwell]

1 minute ago, TheGreatFanatic said:

Of course it would ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

How so?

[Feelwell]

5 minutes ago, Rhíulchabán said:

Ya'll mofos need Paganism, get outta here with dat mono-trash :V

 

Really though, whether you believe in something or not, don't let it turn you into an unthinking dick (theists or athiests or agnostics, I've seen dickwad versions of all three). It's possible to acknowledge the superiority and importance of science and the observable while still enjoying a bit of the mystical from time to time if you don't overindulge and you stay smart about it.

The main problem is that as we have learned from psychology, the more you try to convince someone that what they believe is wrong, the more they will believe in what you are telling them to stop believing. It happens mostly in those with more conservative mindsets, and unfortunately often goes hand-in-hand with organized religion if you don't make a big part of the religion looking to understand other viewpoints (although this should be something everyone learns somewhere).

What we need to find, is furry religion. There's gotta be one or two knocking around in the basement or something. Send someone down there armed with a big stick and see if it can round up a few of 'em.