Remove ads

Christianity at the Tip of a Blade - The Violence or Non-violence of Religion

Reader mode
Frumple said:
Eh... old testament exists. Bible in general, really. God deserves whatever gets inflicted on it, the atrocity spewing monster. Jesus splinter was mostly alright but the other aspects have needed to be excised and thrown into a divinity rated fire since basically day 1.

Some day I'll grok (as opposed to just sorta' understanding it) why the blazes christian denominations as a whole haven't decided the to take the new covenant thing further and declare 'bout everything not specifically coming out of jesus's mouth to be lies spread by the (myriad) devil(s). Nonexistent gods know the religion would be improved by a few orders of magnitude without the genocidal, infant murdering, plague spreading, rape commanding god figure being held as at least as important as their primary holy person.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Problem is that there were early Christian group that wanted to dump the Old Testament completely.
They were however pretty anti-Jewish in their sentiments.
 
obssesednuker said:
It really doesn't help that the Trinity doesn't make any sense. At all. The fact that both Modalism and Partialism are both unpardonable heresies mean that it is simply incoherent. The fact it violates the law of identity is a much bigger issue.

Like, seriously, the early Church founders must have been on some serious crack when they devised it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm pretty comfortable with the uncreated Source and Foundation of all being, existing outside of time being immensely baffling and hard to pin down logically. Divine revelations of the ultimate reality are under no obligation to be easy to parse.

But relatively sane theological maunderings are probably off topic in this thread.
 
Hykal94 said:
Yoooo can we not declare Christians as a bunch of crazy apocalyptic cultists?

Okay? Okay.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hey now, we can hold the crazy but christianity is pretty explicitly an apocalypse cult. The theological and scriptural emphasis on matters of eschatology, and particularly the apocalypse and final judgement, are major parts of the religion's foundation, for better or worse. It's a very non-negligible part of how stuff like the thread topic comes about, even.

People can get weirder than normal easier than normal when they're convinced the end times are coming, and no few amount of christian sects have been hammering the "end times are coming now" drum for... well, basically as long as the religion has existed and very, very much continuing into the now.
 
Last edited:
Frumple said:
Hey now, we can hold the crazy but christianity is pretty explicitly an apocalypse cult. The theological and scriptural emphasis on matters of eschatology, and particularly the apocalypse and final judgement, are major parts of the religion's foundation, for better or worse. It's a very non-negligible part of how stuff like the thread topic comes about, even.

People can get weirder than normal easier than normal when they're convinced the end times are coming, and no few amount of christian sects have been hammering the "end times are coming now" drum for... well, basically as long as the religion has existed and very, very much continuing into the now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Please don't call Christianity a cult that's just insulting.
 
Meh. It's accurate, save maybe needing to be pluralized, and I'll be damned if I let the abuse of the term primarily driven by christian denigration of other religions stop me from using it *grumbles*

Apocalypse religion doesn't roll off the tongue nearly as well, either. Which is mildly annoying, now that I think about it. Have any better suggestions for a phrase along those lines?
 
Frumple said:
Hey now, we can hold the crazy but christianity is pretty explicitly an apocalypse cult. The theological and scriptural emphasis on matters of eschatology are major parts of the religion's foundation, for better or worse. It's a very non-negligible part of how stuff like the thread topic comes about, even.

People can get weirder than normal easier than normal when they're convinced the end times are coming, and no few amount of christian sects have been hammering the "end times are coming now" drum for... well, basically as long as the religion has existed and very, very much continuing into the now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The End of the World has never actually been a meaningful part of Christian theology, once it was clear that Jesus wasn't going to be coming back any time soon. The doomsdayers have been individuals foolish enough to believe that they know the mind of God, despite Jesus having said that even He doesn't know when the End will come.
 
Frumple said:
Hey now, we can hold the crazy but christianity is pretty explicitly an apocalypse cult.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think this is entirely supportable. Just about all branches of Christianity have the Apocalypse in their scripture, but how important it is to their understanding and how they understand it varies dramatically. There was some debate about including it at all, and the Syrian churches barely reference revelation at all. It has exactly one reading in the entire liturgical year, and it is a fairly anodyne passage about the rewards of the righteous in the world to come. Not a bit with plagues, or seals, or monsters. Other Christians view the Revelation as being fundamentally a message to the first century Church about the Roman Empire, and don't believe it has any especial prophetic value to modern Christians.

The focus on Revelation is largely an Evangelical phenomenon, and I think it is rooted in attempts to identify the Roman Catholic Church with Babylon and the Pope with the "antichrist". Much of what is believed about the last days by those who do believe they are imminent is no older than the 19th century. The "rapture" and the related pre- and post- tribulationist positions only go back to John Nelson Darby. The Christian world outside of American influenced Evangelical protestantism doesn't really make a lot of use of it.

So while there are definitely apocalyptic branches of Christianity (like the nutters in the OP), it isn't a universal trait.
Frumple said:
Meh. It's accurate, save maybe needing to be pluralized, and I'll be damned if I let the abuse of the term primarily driven by christian denigration of other religions stop me from using it *grumbles*

Apocalypse religion doesn't roll off the tongue nearly as well, either. Which is mildly annoying, now that I think about it. Have any better suggestions for a phrase along those lines?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've got no problem with the word cult in its anthropological use, as I believe you intended it.
 
Drascin said:
Now, I'm not an expert, being an atheist and all that, but I'm pretty sure nobody is. One of my teachers at my school (I went to a Franciscan school, and about half my teachers were actual monks) used to paraphrase Feynman's saying about quantum mechanics about this, saying that if you ever think you really understand the nature of God, then you really do not understand the nature of God.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not only is it hard to understand but whatever anology you think of to try and explain it is likely a specific named heresy.
 
mesonoxian said:
I'm pretty comfortable with the uncreated Source and Foundation of all being, existing outside of time being immensely baffling and hard to pin down logically. Divine revelations of the ultimate reality are under no obligation to be easy to parse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

By itself, that isn't a problem. The thing is that a unparsonable and incomprehensible God is rather contradictory with Christianities stance of God having a divine plan, a personal connection, and benevolence for humanity. All three of which implies comprehension and parsonability for us humans...

Frumple said:
Apocalypse religion doesn't roll off the tongue nearly as well, either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It doesn't? I think it works just fine...


mesonoxian said:
The focus on Revelation is largely an Evangelical phenomenon, and I think it is rooted in attempts to identify the Roman Catholic Church with Babylon and the Pope with the "antichrist". Much of what is believed about the last days by those who do believe they are imminent is no older than the 19th century. The "rapture" and the related pre- and post- tribulationist positions only go back to John Nelson Darby. The Christian world outside of American influenced Evangelical protestantism doesn't really make a lot of use of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think your confusing "apocalyptism" with "millenarianism". Obsession with judgement and end times in Western Christianity is indeed a much older phenomenon then Protestantism (American or otherwise), even if the peculiar specific version of it that is millenarianism isn't. Now it
 
Last edited:
obssesednuker said:
By itself, that isn't a problem. The thing is that a unparsonable and incomprehensible God is rather contradictory with Christianities stance of God having a divine plan, a personal connection, and benevolence for humanity. All three of which implies comprehension and parsonability for us humans...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think that is contradictory. God's benevolence and knowledge of us are transcendent. We can relate to God, not because God is comprehensible, but because He presents His infinite existence to us in a way relevant to the created world and to our humanity. God has revealed to us what we need to understand to work out our salvation, not the whole of His being. As Paul says, we see through a mirror, darkly. But after the resurrection, we shall know as we are known.
 
obssesednuker said:
It doesn't? I think it works just fine...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Too many syllables :V Apocalypse is already pushing it, really, plus the soundy bits of cult fit much more smoothly with apocalypse than the less jaggedy religion. Also as may be obvious I have utterly forgotten, if I ever knew to begin with, the actual terms that are used for that sort of thing.

mesonoxian said:
The Christian world outside of American influenced Evangelical protestantism doesn't really make a lot of use of it.

So while there are definitely apocalyptic branches of Christianity (like the nutters in the OP), it isn't a universal trait.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nn... fair point. I was mostly thinking the original bits, plus I'm in north florida so the vast amount of my day to day interaction is with american evangelical protestantism. It's easy to forget some other places don't have quite the same degree of emphasis on that particular aspect of the belief's metaphysics.
 
Frumple said:
Nn... fair point. I was mostly thinking the original bits, plus I'm in north florida so the vast amount of my day to day interaction is with american evangelical protestantism. It's easy to forget some other places don't have quite the same degree of emphasis on that particular aspect of the belief's metaphysics.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
American Evangelical Christianity is, as I said, the Floridaman of the Christian world. And now you mention you're literally in Florida. You're basically getting Floridaman squared, y'know. :V

(Like here in Malaysia we're not concerned with the Rapture at all, given we've got more direct things to worry about, like Christian pastors getting disappeared by Special Branch.)
 
mesonoxian said:
I don't think that is contradictory. God's benevolence and knowledge of us are transcendent. We can relate to God, not because God is comprehensible, but because He presents His infinite existence to us in a way relevant to the created world and to our humanity. God has revealed to us what we need to understand to work out our salvation, not the whole of His being. As Paul says, we see through a mirror, darkly. But after the resurrection, we shall know as we are known.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For a connection to be shown, which is the definition of relate, it has to be comprehended. Comprehension is very much a prequisite for relation.
 
obssesednuker said:
Comprehension is very much a prequisite for relation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But not perfect comprehension. Babies don't understand their parents until they're grown, if ever, for example, but still maintain a relationship. And there's plenty of literature running on the idea that people of one gender never quite fully understand people of the other gender.

But that's getting off-topic.

...you know, as far as I can remember in the Bible, I don't think God has ever needed an army of angels to slay his enemies. In 2 Samuel and 2 Kings it took just one angel to slay (respectively) 70,000 people in three days and 185,000 people in one night. So, uh, how many deep state enemies do these people think Trump has?
 
Darth Herobrine said:
And that is one of the two reasons for the Incarnation. Jesus did after all say 'no one comes to the Father except through me'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Given that incarnation clarified dick all, on this end of the celestial plane at least, if all the subsequent bickering on what Jesus's nature and meaning was is any indication... then it didn't really work out, did it?

pantherasapiens said:
But not perfect comprehension.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah but some degree of comprehension would be nice, particularly on things that matter. Total incomprehensibility, which stuff like the Trinity (which apparently mattered enough that it had to be created/posited and for people to kill and die over) and all the repeated appeals to the mysteriousness of God on subjects like the problem of evil and paradox of omnipotence basically rely upon, is of no use at all.
 
Last edited:
obssesednuker said:
Given that incarnation clarified dick all, on this end of the celestial plane at least, if all the subsequent bickering on what Jesus's nature and meaning was is any indication... then it didn't really work out, did it?



Comprehension on stuff that matters. Total incomprehensibility, which stuff like the Trinity and all the repeated appeals to the Mysteriousness of God on subjects like the problem of evil and paradox of omnipotence basically rely upon, is of no use at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think we'll just have to disagree. Getting into the nature of God and sotierology is way off topic for this thread.
 
mesonoxian said:
I think we'll just have to disagree. Getting into the nature of God and sotierology is way off topic for this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I dunno. I mean, the sotierology in particular seems on-topic given that the fellows the OP talks about very much have opinions on salvation. :V
 
Last edited:
obssesednuker said:
I dunno. I mean, the sotierology in particular seems on-topic given that the fellows the OP talks about very much have opinions on it. :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Good point, let me see if I can make an attempt at explaining this.

When I was two years old, my infant brother and my Mom were dealing with medical complications after his birth and had to go back to the hospital for a couple of weeks. My Dad took that time off work to take care of me. I didn't really get it, but I had a great time. I got to spend all day with my Dad. I had a good relationship with my Dad. And I understood him insofar as was necessary to have that relationship. I knew he was smarter and stronger than me and would keep me safe, and that he knew where my Mom and the baby were and was taking care of them. I didn't know all the things he was dealing with. I didn't understand the trade he worked in. I barely understood where he went when he left home to work. I knew he loved me, but I didn't come close to understanding the depth and totality of that love for many, many years.

If he'd tried to tell me the things he did at work or the issues with the insurance and medical bills, or how he felt about the medical crisis, I'd have been confused and probably terrified. But I understood him well enough to have the best relationship I was capable of holding up my end, while he loved me and supported me in ways I wouldn't fathom for years to come. We don't need to understand God in his deepest mysteries to relate to him in the ways necessary for our salvation and sanctification.

After all, intellectual prowess is not a prerequisite for sanctity, as any number of holy fools and simple saints could attest. The problem is not that we, as Christians, will fail to understand the deep nuances of theology. That is nearly certain. The danger is in failing to understand, and substituting something that makes sense to us rather than accepting the limits of our comprehension, and in the process, worshiping a reflection of our own prejudices instead of the Living God.
 
mesonoxian said:
When I was two years old, my infant brother and my Mom were dealing with medical complications after his birth and had to go back to the hospital for a couple of weeks. My Dad took that time off work to take care of me. I didn't really get it, but I had a great time. I got to spend all day with my Dad. I had a good relationship with my Dad. And I understood him insofar as was necessary to have that relationship. I knew he was smarter and stronger than me and would keep me safe, and that he knew where my Mom and the baby were and was taking care of them. I didn't know all the things he was dealing with. I didn't understand the trade he worked in. I barely understood where he went when he left home to work. I knew he loved me, but I didn't come close to understanding the depth and totality of that love for many, many years.

If he'd tried to tell me the things he did at work or the issues with the insurance and medical bills, or how he felt about the medical crisis, I'd have been confused and probably terrified. But I understood him well enough to have the best relationship I was capable of holding up my end, while he loved me and supported me in ways I wouldn't fathom for years to come. We don't need to understand God in his deepest mysteries to relate to him in the ways necessary for our salvation and sanctification.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But your dad wasn't demanding anything of you so you didn't even have anything to prompt you to question him or his actions or the nature of them. God does demand things as condition for salvation, which shakes up the equation quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
Once again, getting off topic.

Actual Christian Theology is about as related to these guys as Asatru theology.
 
Zap Rowsdower said:
Once again, getting off topic.

Actual Christian Theology is about as related to these guys as Asatru theology.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"Actual Christian Theology" in this case really being "Mainstream Christian Theology". I mean, frankly Christianity is a big religion so it isn't surprising that some of it's denominations have weirder perspectives compared to it's main branches.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top