Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Our ancestors, especially if you are German or Scandinavian, fought the Church for centuries. From their perspective it was the religion of the Roman oppressors being forced on them. The history of the Catholic church was one of abuse and allegiance to the ruling elites from the start, so it's not hard to understand why it was resisted for so long.
Even after Christianity "won" and became a part of European culture it was still so corrupt that many had to protest and break away, see the protestant reformation and all of the corruption they were fighting.
Our culture and ethnic identity survived the weird jew cult imported by the Romans and thrives in spite of it. I don't hate Christianity or Christ, but being ignorant of our history can give you a very false sense of what Christianity was to our ancestors. Big difference from what it has been turned into after centuries of resistance and reform vs the past.
Your sins are still your own, as well as your penence. That doesnt magically go away.
Instead of offering sacrificing at the temple at various points every trangression, asking the priest to mediate atonement and doing almsgiving, a permanent sacrifice has been made, so you can go seek atonement and almsgiving.
If you grew up a "faith not works" prot, the necessity of the old testament sacrfice is skipped that leads to the "scapegoat is abandonment of responsibility".
Yeah that whole "sacrificing at temple for transgressing" thing is where I disagree. Christianity didn't come along and say "hey guys, doing this thing that's unrelated to your bad behavior is kind of stupid, perhaps you should just do the remorse and making up for it part" and instead said "We'll just do a really big horrific human murder to pay it forward for all of them at once". I think that's an entirely nonsensical part of Judaism and Christianity. So God wasn't capable of saying "I'm over this whole sacrificing thing", he needed one last big dramatic one to get the spell to work?
I fail to see the connection between "murdering a dude" and "Now you don't need a priest to help forgive you for swearing!"
Jesus taught that anyone who didn't believe in him would burn in hell for all eternity. He talked about hell more than heaven. That sounds pretty brainwashy if you ask me.
. But Calvin teaches a lot of heretical bullshit that normal human beings should find offensive. Like how all good things you accomplish are solely because of God's Grace, yet all bad things you do are 100% your fault.
Or how true redemption is impossible because of predestination, nothing that we do in this life matters because God has already decided whether we go to Heaven or Hell. And the most common christfags that irritate people are Presbyterians, a bunch of Calvinists.
Yeah that whole "sacrificing at temple for transgressing" thing is where I disagree. Christianity didn't come along and say "hey guys, doing this thing that's unrelated to your bad behavior is kind of stupid, perhaps you should just do the remorse and making up for it part" and instead said "We'll just do a really big horrific human murder to pay it forward for all of them at once". I think that's an entirely nonsensical part of Judaism and Christianity. So God wasn't capable of saying "I'm over this whole sacrificing thing", he needed one last big dramatic one to get the spell to work?
The other part is the christus victor. The New adam died, came back to life, and conquered death. Not reincarnated, but came back in the body he died in. We celebrate that this saturday night.
I'm also not a Christian for a really long list of reasons that aren't material to the topic would derail into a personal blogpost. The sacrifice thing is one of my personal sticking points even if the rest of them didn't matter; if I were to humor Christianity and believe all the teachings are true, I don't believe God taking personal offense and requiring additional atonement to be paid to Him personally for everything bad one does is particularly moral. In fact, I think it's a trait commonly found among petty, vain Iron Age gods. Now, this feeds into that blogpost I'm not going to make -I think Yahweh's personality is very easily explained in the context of pretty much any other ancient mythical deity (lol edgy atheist)-. Point is, if I believed the teachings of Christianity were divinely mandated truth, there are some points of morality that I'd disagree with God on. I'm okay with most of Jesus's teachings, but some of 'em I don't see coming from a "perfectly loving" source. Eternal damnation is another one. Disproportionate punishment for crimes is yet another bitchy, cruel Greek god behavior.
Jesus taught that anyone who didn't believe in him would burn in hell for all eternity. He talked about hell more than heaven. That pretty brainwashy if you ask me.
I'm also not a Christian for a really long list of reasons that aren't material to the topic would derail into a personal blogpost. The sacrifice thing is one of my personal sticking points even if the rest of them didn't matter; if I were to humor Christianity and believe all the teachings are true, I don't believe God taking personal offense and requiring additional atonement to be paid to Him personally for everything bad one does is particularly moral. In fact, I think it's a trait commonly found among petty, vain Iron Age gods. Now, this feeds into that blogpost I'm not going to make -I think Yahweh's personality is very easily explained in the context of pretty much any other ancient mythical deity (lol edgy atheist)-. Point is, if I believed the teachings of Christianity were divinely mandated truth, there are some points of morality that I'd disagree with God on. I'm okay with most of Jesus's teachings, but some of 'em I don't see coming from a "perfectly loving" source. Eternal damnation is another one. Disproportionate punishment for crimes is yet another bitchy, cruel Greek god behavior.
Heres another way to look at it. At the end of the world, we all go to church, we all sing the songs we all say the prayers and do the handshakes and hug. When the new world is created some of us get to leave and enjoy a nice garden. And everyone else will be in that church singing and worshiping a god they despise, powerless to leave and surrounded by narcissists who only care for their own misery.
Yes, a lot of christians follow the moral laws of Leviticus, not all of them are stupid. But Calvin teaches a lot of heretical bullshit that normal human beings should find offensive. Like how all good things you accomplish are solely because of God's Grace, yet all bad things you do are 100% your fault. Or how true redemption is impossible because of predestination, nothing that we do in this life matters because God has already decided whether we go to Heaven or Hell. And the most common christfags that irritate people are Presbyterians, a bunch of Calvinists.
Personally, I like Calvinism. Not a Christian, but Calvinism makes sense to me. I mean he did have a point that human nature is depraved and unrighteous before God's standards. And that due to human depravity, people will naturally shy away from God's grace. Also Calvin and Luther produces some of the spectacular results due to the internalize of one's salvation. One of the biggest misconception about Protestantism is that they only have to have faith to be saved. But that's only part of the story, most Protestants say that works is proof of the Holy Spirit living in your life. Although a Protestant is saved by faith, the ability to produce the fruits of the Holy Spirit is how you can tell if you're close to God or really saved.
I don't know much about Catholicism. But it seems that the shift in the idea of salvation caused a shift in Western psychology, particularly in Northern Europe. I remembering a passage that compared Catholic Germany to Protestant Germany. Protestant Germans tend to be work harder and had a stricter approach to life when compared to Catholic Germans. From what I heard and read, Protestantism caused the expansion and dominance of the Western world. Compare the countries that were colonized by Catholics and Protestants. Although, Catholics did destory some of the host cultures. It didn't destroy it nearly as much when compared to Protestantism.
Side-note: I'm a homosexual and noticed that prominent ex-gays tend to be Catholic or into Calvinism.
Like Rasario Butterfield and Jackie Hill Perry.
I'm also not a Christian for a really long list of reasons that aren't material to the topic would derail into a personal blogpost. The sacrifice thing is one of my personal sticking points even if the rest of them didn't matter; if I were to humor Christianity and believe all the teachings are true, I don't believe God taking personal offense and requiring additional atonement to be paid to Him personally for everything bad one does is particularly moral. In fact, I think it's a trait commonly found among petty, vain Iron Age gods. Now, this feeds into that blogpost I'm not going to make -I think Yahweh's personality is very easily explained in the context of pretty much any other ancient mythical deity (lol edgy atheist)-. Point is, if I believed the teachings of Christianity were divinely mandated truth, there are some points of morality that I'd disagree with God on. I'm okay with most of Jesus's teachings, but some of 'em I don't see coming from a "perfectly loving" source. Eternal damnation is another one. Disproportionate punishment for crimes is yet another bitchy, cruel Greek god behavior.
According to Evangelical doctrines, it's not the sin that causes you go to Hell. It's your unbelief and sinful nature that causes you to go to Hell. The sins that you commit is proof that you that you're in need of a redeemer. While atonement was one of the reasons why people were to sacrifice animals. Another reason was so that the soul could be purified. Most of the Laws in the Bible has to do with purification and ritual cleanness.
Heres another way to look at it. At the end of the world, we all go to church, we all sing the songs we all say the prayers and do the handshakes and hug. When the new world is created some of us get to leave and enjoy a nice garden. And everyone else will be in that church singing and worshiping a god they despise, powerless to leave and surrounded by narcissists who only care for their own misery.
I guess I'm too much of a Protestant. From my understanding, the final judgment is when God cuts you off completely. He wants no more to do with unbelievers since they rejected him. Due to their unbelief and sinful nature, God places them into the Lake of Fire described in Revelations.
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. - Matthew 7:23
I guess I'm too much of a Protestant. From my understanding, the final judgment is when God cuts you off completely. He wants no more to do with unbelievers since they rejected him. Due to their unbelief and sinful nature, God places them into the Lake of Fire described in Revelations.
Atheistfags, do you believe in equality? Do you believe that all humans have equal value and should have equal rights? Do you believe that there's a transcendental value system that all humans should live by? Can you call people who steal or live off of the wealth of others "evil" if said people can do so without collapsing the system? Aren't the moral people who unwittingly support them just suckers? If all people receive the same fate when they die, from the serial murderer to the Lutheran church granny, then why not pour your energy into being a clever sociopath who extracts resources from the less intelligent? If there's no transcendental arbiter of justice judging you for your sins or some force in the universe acting like a "karma meter" making you spiritually sicker whenever you commit an act of evil, then why would it matter if you became a predator, other than the worldly punishment you might receive from your fellow humans in this life?
I dunno. I just notice a lot of Lefty Fedoratippers flipping out about the morality of people's actions, acting like pearl-clutching Church Ladies. Although their definition of "evil" is "person who does something that would thwart my wishes or hurt me and my allies politically." It's like they want the moral authority of the Spanish Inquisition, but they don't want a pesky God actually sitting in Heaven, granting them a source for their authority. Presumably because a Pesky God would actually demand that they get off of their fat asses, do some good works and stop jerking it to Furry Porn.
I think CS Lewis mentioned Hell being a place where the locks were bolted on the inside. Meaning that people choose to be there. After the apocalypse, it will be the only place in the Universe where lies can exist. Imagine being a narcissist, nurtured by the lie that you are a smarter, better than average person and everyone around you is jealous of you. Or that nothing in life that happened to you was ever your fault - it was always someone else standing in your way. The only way you could get to Heaven would be to throw away that lie and realize that you were the source of most of your problems all along, but could a narcissist actually do that? Wouldn't some people choose to burn and suffer, as long as they could keep those comforting lies close to them? This is the interpretation of Hell that I would prefer to be true - that it's a place that you could choose to walk out of as long as you accepted the truth about yourself and loved others, and didn't cling to lies and hatred.
Another interpretation of Hell is that it's a place where all that's perishable gets purged and burned away. For the saved person who did good works, the fire is a cleansing, purifying fire leaving their immortal self free to move onto the next world. But for the wicked person who devoted their life to greed and love of wealth and material things, the fire would simply destroy them, because that's all they were in the end - an appetite without any kind of higher, spiritual existence.
It's more of a "fuck you, dad" thing. The people who "hate" Jesus literally have no good reason to do so. The only three kinds of people who would hate him are Reddit Atheist Faggots, Angry Faggot Jews and Faggot Satanists who haven't realized that Satanism is Kabbalah yet.
Atheistfags, do you believe in equality? Do you believe that all humans have equal value and should have equal rights? Do you believe that there's a transcendental value system that all humans should live by? Can you call people who steal or live off of the wealth of others "evil" if said people can do so without collapsing the system? Aren't the moral people who unwittingly support them just suckers? If all people receive the same fate when they die, from the serial murderer to the Lutheran church granny, then why not pour your energy into being a clever sociopath who extracts resources from the less intelligent? If there's no transcendental arbiter of justice judging you for your sins or some force in the universe acting like a "karma meter" making you spiritually sicker whenever you commit an act of evil, then why would it matter if you became a predator, other than the worldly punishment you might receive from your fellow humans in this life?
I dunno. I just notice a lot of Lefty Fedoratippers flipping out about the morality of people's actions, acting like pearl-clutching Church Ladies. Although their definition of "evil" is "person who does something that would thwart my wishes or hurt me and my allies politically." It's like they want the moral authority of the Spanish Inquisition, but they don't want a pesky God actually sitting in Heaven, granting them a source for their authority. Presumably because a Pesky God would actually demand that they get off of their fat asses, do some good works and stop jerking it to Furry Porn,
Not a fedora type of person. But I do love a good discussion. Is that okay? Not trying to change to anyone's beliefs or values, just trying to extract more information from the world around me. Btw, are you Catholic?
Anyway, belief is an action, not a feeling. That's why Jordan Peterson is close to the biblical definition of belief. People have to actively choose faith. Now for the question of human equality. Most people know and acknowledge that people aren't equal in terms of intelligence, attractiveness, and wealth. But they act as if people have equal worth most of the time. Most of the time being the key phrase in the statement. When it comes time to put active belief behind one's actions most people usually fail. See how people act in terms of picking marriage partners.
I also get feeling that people really don't like the idea of equality. Especially in WEIRD countries where you have to differentiate yourself to make a living. If you constantly have to work and prove yourself, you would have a cynical approach to equality. You'll probably believe equality for your own benefit but you would have a constant urge to show that you're making progress.
Also I don't think the 95% of people don't have the capability of being a clever sociopath. So for one thing, the majority of people would fail and it wouldn't be to there benefit. At most those type people would end in jail, a mental institution or sitting in their mother's basements.
I think CS Lewis mentioned Hell being a place where the locks were bolted on the inside. Meaning that people choose to be there. After the apocalypse, it will be the only place in the Universe where lies can exist. Imagine being a narcissist, nurtured by the lie that you are a smarter, better than average person and everyone around you is jealous of you. Or that nothing in life that happened to you was ever your fault - it was always someone else standing in your way. The only way you could get to Heaven would be to throw away that lie and realize that you were the source of most of your problems all along, but could a narcissist actually do that? Wouldn't some people choose to burn and suffer, as long as they could keep those comforting lies close to them? This is the interpretation of Hell that I would prefer to be true - that it's a place that you could choose to walk out of as long as you accepted the truth about youAnother interpretation of Hell is that it's a place where all that's perishable gets purged and burned away. For the saved person who did good works, the fire is a cleansing, purifying fire leaving their immortal self free to move onto the next world. But for the wicked person who devoted their life to greed and love of wealth and material things, the fire would simply destroy them, because that's all they were in the end - an appetite without any kind of higher, spiritual existence.rself and loved others, and didn't cling to lies and hatred.
This reminds me of a convert who injured or killed his father. He thought he was evolved being and better than anyone but had nothing to show for it. This is where self-awareness and control of one's thoughts is key. If you read the biographies of great leaders regardless of their personal morality, the majority realized that they needed to constantly evolve and were aware of cause and effect. I think that the successful people in any field succeed because they want to make up for a perceived lack. Even high-profile successful criminals work with that logic.
Couldn't you argue that it's not love of worldly thing destroy them? But the fact, they would sacrifice parts of themselves that would survive to the fire?
Some lady on twitter made an interesting statement about how the earth belongs to the meek. The meek realized that their lives are justified by faith in God, while others try to justify their lives by their works or success. Maybe that's why Jesus said that we have to be like little children. What are your thoughts?
I'm also not a Christian for a really long list of reasons that aren't material to the topic would derail into a personal blogpost. The sacrifice thing is one of my personal sticking points even if the rest of them didn't matter; if I were to humor Christianity and believe all the teachings are true, I don't believe God taking personal offense and requiring additional atonement to be paid to Him personally for everything bad one does is particularly moral. In fact, I think it's a trait commonly found among petty, vain Iron Age gods. Now, this feeds into that blogpost I'm not going to make -I think Yahweh's personality is very easily explained in the context of pretty much any other ancient mythical deity (lol edgy atheist)-. Point is, if I believed the teachings of Christianity were divinely mandated truth, there are some points of morality that I'd disagree with God on. I'm okay with most of Jesus's teachings, but some of 'em I don't see coming from a "perfectly loving" source. Eternal damnation is another one. Disproportionate punishment for crimes is yet another bitchy, cruel Greek god behavior.
Christianity is interesting. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent; all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present. There’s theological implications that can be derived from that. First, everything that happens anywhere is by the Will of God, especially the things that demons do. This is one of the lessons to be learned from Job. Second, God exists everywhere beyond the limits of time. All the sacrifices and rules were established by God to preconfigure the sacrifice of Christ. Third, God can break rules He made without breaking them. An immortal being cannot be mortal, yet God himself died and still lived, and in doing so made it that mortals can become immortal themselves.
Here are a couple of good vids on Divine Omnipotence and Omniscience, and how you have to be careful in letting Atheists define the definitions of these terms.
God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent; all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present. There's theological implications that can be derived from that. First, everything that happens anywhere is by the Will of God, especially the things that demons do.
This is not exactly right. If we were in a war and you were part of a unit that surrendered, you would now be in my care. At that point I would have tremendous power over you. But I would not control your actions. I could ask you as commander to get your men to obey my rules, but the degree and manner ad to which you police them would be in your hands, even if I had enough intel to keep up with what you are doing.
After all free moral will is also part of christian theology.
I can't think of any interpretation of the Bible where God isn't a horrific monster at worst and severely incompetent at best, but there's really nothing in there to suggest Jesus was anywhere near as bad. Of course there is that whole thing where Jesus is also God at the same time so I guess if you hate God you're logically required to hate Jesus as well, I suppose?
Of course the question this thread poses really has nothing to do with anyone's personal interpretation of the scripture and everything to do with the dumb shit people will spout for political clout.
