Christanity - lol, this is not going to end well

[UnsufficentBoobage]

I am Orthodox christian, people online kinda tend to forget we even exist. Good for us)

 

[PuToTyra]

Most Christians don't even read the Bible, much less follow it. For them Christianity, the religion, is just an extension of tradition, nationalism and conservative values.

And if they do read the Bible, it's always selective. They quote and sperg over the parts that are conveneint to them, ignoring everything that isn't as "outdated in modern times".
The Bible says homosexuality is sodomy and should be punished?
"Yeee!"
The Bible says that pre-martial sex and oral sex are the same sort of sodomy and also should be punished?
" Naaah m8 we live in 21st century m8"


The Christians who are theologically aware and with whom you can have intellectual and valuable discussion about such topics are a radical minority even among the clergy.
"Gott ist tott", "and we have killed him" is what Nietzsche said after he witnessed how superficial, polytheistic and empty the religion of Catholics in Bavaria is. This was true in 19th century, it's even more true now.

 

[Mrs Paul]

Yeah, and then Nietzsche kinda went schizo and had to be put in the nuthouse.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

I am Orthodox christian, people online kinda tend to forget we even exist. Good for us)

Y'all have it the best in some ways, to be honest. Nothing is more tedious than listening to the uneducated drone on about one of the most complex and important forces of Good in human history, as if they, the unbelievers know anything about it truly. The Orthodox are almost never the targets of these ill-informed rants.

 

[UnsufficentBoobage]

We have smartass atheists on the russian-speaking net, too, and they are just as insufferable. So I feel you.

 

[PuToTyra]

We have smartass atheists on the russian-speaking net, too, and they are just as insufferable. So I feel you.

You also have compulsory religious education and it's forbidden by law to offended the fee fees of orthodox person irl. I think your country is far more insufferable for internet atheists than atheists are for you.

 

[c-no]

Been a Christian since a wee little sperg but I didn't actually bother following it until my teen years. Much as a I mellowed out of it, I find it interesting it has an impact in philosophy.

Y'all have it the best in some ways, to be honest. Nothing is more tedious than listening to the uneducated drone on about one of the most complex and important forces of Good in human history, as if they, the unbelievers know anything about it truly. The Orthodox are almost never the targets of these ill-informed rants.

One would only wonder how one could rant about Orthodoxy. While the Russian Orthodox church may be a good target, they're more of an arm of Russia iirc.

 

[PuToTyra]

Yes, you could rant about polytheism, about the escapist nature of monasticism, about how orthodox church has always been subservant to secular power, about how doctrine of trinity was made up for political reasons, how the teachings of their church are some of the most socially backwards on the Earth(right after Sunni Islam) and many other things

Edit: oh and also how Orthodox church makes facebook groups which are supposedly a "defence of all Christendom" but in reality contain thinly-veiled orthodox anti-catholic and anti-protestant propaganda.

I was banned from one such a group for saying that if Catholics are servants of pope(as one of the posts stated), then orthodox are servants of Putin.

 

[Joan Nyan]

It's a good thing Christians only bother to read the gospels and not the Old Testament, otherwise they'd realize Jesus didn't fulfill any of the prophecies of the messiah and that they're worshiping a false idol.

 

[UnsufficentBoobage]

PuToTyra
I agree that modern state of our church is disastorous, tbh.
But internet atheists are still bothersome, mostly cause lots of them are hypocritical (often believe in ancient aliens and we-live-in-computer-simulation stuff, while making fun of christians for believing in "fairy tales") or not even atheist, but annoying neo-pagans, who in Russia are often fascist to boot.
I have no problem with ones who are just people who don't hold faith, instead of hypocritical edgy cunts.

 

[bearycool]

Threads like this remind me that the Catholic Church was right about everything. Thank God.

That said, I will add my two cents and point out that most sincere practitioners don't believe in Christianity because it comforts them, helps them explain the world, alleviates their pain or loneliness, etc. That's just atheists projecting. Because the idea that other people believe in a faith because they came to the independent, logical, conclusion it was true terrifies them.

Most disciples of Christ simply believe the religion to be true- and would have no choice but to believe it even if they hated it. That's the thing. The idea that you can choose what to believe is a myth. You can't force yourself not to believe something you know deep down to be true. You couldn't force yourself not to believe in gravity- you could pretend, but it would always be an illusion. You would have to be convinced utterly for it work. So if you're "choosing" to believe in Christianity for one of the aforementioned reasons, as an example, you never really believed. You're living a lie. You're unconvinced. And you should stop. It's unhealthy.

As an agnostic/someone-who-believes-in-reincarnation-but-no-specific-god-yet/psychologist, that is the idea of a "belief": it is something you hold to your deepest core and becomes part of your identity. It defines your existence, and thus your perception is altered to fit that paradigm of faith-- this happens for Atheists as well, who have a wrapped perception of "faith". It's also why I chose agnoisticism, as I can never really truly no, and it's probably the most empirical "belief" at the moment-- as we can neither prove or disprove God fully. We can give some running mathematical logic of infinity and go into philosophy, but for the sake of this post we're going to just summarize some shit on my own personal level and perception.

Do I hold a belief that Christianity wrong? Yes, but not in everything-- for one, the golden rule "love your neighbor as yourself" still holds "true" to me as is part of my core beliefs. I believe that every religion has parts that they have gotten right with existence and being a "good" person, and, hell, even some ideas on what "God" actually is, and what that means for the universe at large. The most spiritual thing that I have taken and still hold "true" is the idea of reincarnation-- even with the idea of "well, you don't have memories from before, soooo, how could you have existed before?"

Well, if there exists an absolute, infinite being, it wouldn't be that hard for it to let a "soul" to exist for a very long time, but have their "physical" (but not spiritual) memory wiped. This makes since psychologically, as I believe an individual human can really only hold the information of a single life without huge psychological issues developing, as we see with special cases of individual who remember literally every second of their life since birth: they literally are autistic and have problems with sleeping and being able to function in the normal world. Sooooo, adding more than one life in its fullest is going to fuck you up-- hell, you may even develop actual distinctive identity disorder in theory, as that would be two different "selves" even if they held the same essence deep within them.

The rest of the other life times and their information is stored in a much bigger storage unit that one may be quick to say is our "higher self" or our "bigger soul, outside of the individual mind", or some place where experiences are placed, much like a library of different lifetimes. Our brain does store the individual lifetime we are living, and we can empirically see this by the fact that we only really pick up on the current life time we are living, and the rest is used in a way that we cannot see yet. However, it's not proven, and just a nice little "belief" I have.

So why did I say all this shit? Well, to prove a point that both Gym and I are saying: that "truth" equals "belief" on a subjective level, and given a moment, people can come up with very valid, very logical conclusions using different paradigms, either physical and empirical, or metaphysical and philosophical-- both work in a sense, especially on something as hard to prove as "God", especially one that is infinite and all powerful. To tackle the ideas of existence and "who we are" is difficult-- and being in a strict religious paradigm is going to drastically alter your perception of reality.

Hell, that's a dimension of how cults work-- via brain washing. The same concept applies: what you deep down believe as a "truth" is going to alter your perception and how you logically approach issues.

 

[bearycool]

you can't force yourself not to believe something you know deep down to be true. You couldn't force yourself not to believe in gravity- you could pretend, but it would always be an illusion. You would have to be convinced utterly for it (not) to work.

The one thing that broke my "truth" of Christianity was the idea of homosexuality, and being homosexual myself. It was the one thing that I could not work around, no matter how hard I tried to work against it. It was the one singular thing that told me empirically "bro, you didn't choose to be gay; this is something that has been within you all this time. the Christians were WRONG to call it a sin, as you cannot choose this. And hell, even if you could choose it-- what is ACTUALLY wrong with loving someone romantically and sexually of the same gender? The bible keeps saying stuff about 'love', so why is this 'love' considered a sin? That seems like a contradiction."

That's why christianity doesn't work for me-- not only does it call a fundamental part of me "sinful", it also contradicts itself on the principal it says to profess, which is "love". After all these years, I still haven't found a valid argument why loving the same sex is a "sin" and not "love", both personally as a homosexual, and by logical argument.

It's only when your belief starts hitting your core understand and perception of the world in a wrong way does your perception start changing and you see the "truth" in a different life. Do I still hold certain christian values? Yes, of course. Am I Christian? No, not anymore (emphasis on not anymore-- I truly believe I used to be one), and that's because I found out it was wrong on a very fundamental thing.

 

[Joan Nyan]

After all these years, I still haven't found a valid argument why loving the same sex is a "sin" and not "love", both personally as a homosexual, and by logical argument.

I'll try.

Disconnect the word "sin" from the idea of evil. Good and evil are arbitrary and imprecise human concepts. God doesn't judge things in the human categories of "good" and "evil", but by Aristotelian "good", as in fulfilling its purpose. When God saw light and said it was "good", he didn't mean it was morally righteous, but that it was good at illuminating things.

The purpose of sexual desire is to have children. If your sexual orientation doesn't lead to you having children, it isn't good.

 

[bearycool]

I'll try.

Disconnect the word "sin" from the idea of evil. Good and evil are arbitrary and imprecise human concepts. God doesn't judge things in the human categories of "good" and "evil", but by Aristotelian "good", as in fulfilling its purpose. When God saw light and said it was "good", he didn't mean it was morally righteous, but that it was good at illuminating things.

The purpose of sexual desire is to have children. If your sexual orientation doesn't lead to you having children, it isn't good.

Okay, I get the original meaning is "to stray from the mark" -- like literally an arrow not hitting the target on point. But then... what's straying from the mark besides it's not doing the original function of reproduction? I also get the concept that sex is first a reproductive act before all things. But then the question becomes: is that all it can be used for? Like seriously, using sex for just having reproduction is absolutely stupid, as most of the times it feels fucking good and that's the main reason why people do it. If God made sex pleasurable, the only time he would be calling it a sin is overtly abusing it-- and the definition of "abusing sex" is left for mankind to interpret, because that is complicated stuff based on your ethics and "morality". However, I think the more people realize that sex is just sex and nothing more, the more they'll realize that that is probably how "God" sees it; just a form of pleasure that, when not ABUSED, leads to some good times.

I mean, I think Oscar Wilde said it best: "Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.” is a good quote to run by for a second. Sex is powerful, but fun; just use it wisely.

Tl;dr the purpose of sex just to have children is just too narrow and is not absolutely correct, as sex feels good and getting a child out of your vagina is not so much.

 

[bearycool]

Let me explain something to you. You say that you believe God cannot be known, but you reject the very notion of sacrifice. Nobody has ever become stronger by falling into vice and sin, and I reckon you already understand this by the temptations of your sexual perversion. Because of our sins, we are in debt our entire lives. Debt necessitates a balance, and that is why men of good-will labor for justice—"Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Notice the wording; blessed are they that suffer. It is directly stated in this excerpt from the Holy Bible that we must sacrifice our lives for the sake of repaying the debt of sin. This would mean, for you, exercising your God-given free will to abstain from the temptations of your sexual perversion—and perhaps what ever other sins you may have to bear. That is your cross to bear, and it is many others' cross to bear, as well.

Our Lord condescended in the form of His Perfect Son, Jesus the Christ, in order to provide men with a Perfect Sacrifice that would be made for the propitiation of our sins and the release of death. If you do not believe in the sacrificial nature of God, then it only makes sense that you would rather make yourself out to be your own god. But should you understand sacrifice—and more importantly, the Perfect Sacrifice of our God—then you should take solace in knowing that our Lord fell three times when bearing His cross.

Isaiah 41:10 (Douay-Rheims)
"Fear not, for I am with thee: turn not aside, for I am thy God: I have strengthened thee, and have helped thee, and the right hand of my just one hath upheld thee."

May God bless you—and if you would like to understand the nature of blessings, look up the Beatitudes.

Okay after reading this, I have this to say: I get it, but I still feel like this is wrong.

Like I can't relate to how God would have a logical thing to dislike gays besides enjoying a regular pleasure that everyone haves. This whole "suffering" thing is kind of stupid, as everyone suffers pretty fucking greatly on average in the world-- so I don't see why we need to get specific on what type of suffering you must incur on yourself??? I think simply living on this earth and having to deal with existing and other humans is more than enough suffering for all of us.

Like bruh, I already go through shit; and being told that your existence and the way your brain works is a "sin" is very, very disrespectful to an already exhausted human. I simply cannot follow your logic even though I understand it.

 

[Joan Nyan]

If God made sex pleasurable, the only time he would be calling it a sin is overtly abusing it

Tl;dr the purpose of sex just to have children is just too narrow and is not absolutely correct, as sex feels good and getting a child out of your vagina is not so much.

This only follows if you think the purpose of human beings is to feel the most pleasure, which the Bible doesn't agree with at all. In fact the entire idea of pleasure being good and pain being bad is a product of our corrupted system of human morality.

 

[bearycool]

This only follows if you think the purpose of human beings is to feel the most pleasure, which the Bible doesn't agree with at all. In fact the entire idea of pleasure being good and pain being bad is a product of our corrupted system of human morality.

Erm, pain and pleasure are just two sides of the same coin. I don't operate solely on the bible; that's too narrow. You can't have one without the other, and enjoying a balanced life is the healthier way of doing things.

So no, I don't believe in hedonism; you need a balance.

Like my God, experiencing just pain sounds stupid; you need pleasure too. Experiencing just pleasure means you can't apperciate what you have, so you need pain too.

They compliment each other.

 

[PuToTyra]

It's a good thing Christians only bother to read the gospels and not the Old Testament, otherwise they'd realize Jesus didn't fulfill any of the prophecies of the messiah and that they're worshiping a false idol.

Yes, and the funniest thing is, Jesus never even said that Old Testament isn't relevant, he just rejected a single law of burned sacrifice.

Jesus also always called himself a son of man, the son of God belief came much later, and was incorporated into offical Christian doctrine of Trinity during the council of Nicaea for political reasons as an attempt to marry different cults that Christianity was divided among at the time(including Jesus-god worshipping Arianism)

 

[Joan Nyan]

I don't operate solely on the bible; that's too narrow.

Of course not but this is a thread about Christianity and the Bible is what we're talking about here. I'm not trying to make a case that makes sense, or is moral, or is correct, I'm trying to make one based on the Bible which is none of those things.

 

[Captain_Asshole]

But here's my two cents: Islam is a lot more overt with its evil, and Christianity is a lot more insidious with its evil and hides it a lot more easily.

Can't agree anymore with that. I witness it almost every damn day.

Now, on to the point. I am an atheist, I do not mind anyone holding any kind of belief and that includes christianity as well, as long it does not influence their judgement and train of thought. Apart from that, things that grind my gears and happen to personally encounter quite often when it comes to religion is when faithful people hold elitist views towards people of a different viewpoint, be that atheism or another religion. That can include the (absurdly stupid) belief that having faith automatically gives you a monopoly on morals and ''goodness'' over the ''faithless'', the ridiculously stupid and pretentious claim that one simply is faithful to something without having to get to know it or comprehend it or otherwise they are fake believers. Lastly, the belief that there is one and only one way to interpret the teachings of a particular faith which very often comes with the added effect of blindly believing in the infallibility of said faith's church, forgetting that a church is but a man-made system of institutions that can do mistakes, both logical and moral. Of course, it is perfectly possible to hold faith to something, whatever that may be, and still be a functional and unbiased human being. I do happen to have met few people that fit this description both christian and of other faiths.