https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0qLQWwc92Q
I would like to ask atheists, do you consider humans ontologically the same as fruit flies? Do you consider "human rights" to be just about protecting an in-group, and no less arbitrary than rights for particular races over others?
Roman Catholics, did you hear that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said Vatican II was a mistake?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-emeritus-benedict-says-church-is-now-facing-a-two-sided-deep-crisis
Is Protestantism the mother of atheism? See David Strauss, William Wrede, Albert Schweitzter, Adoly von Karnack, Paul Tillich (who in the "Dynamics of Faith" refers to Christ's Resurrection as myth). It seems to me that atheism as a social condition, came from Protestant scholars in Germany who systematically attacked the faith.
>>1123289
Please can you take this to one of the 3 existing Catholic threads?
>>1123301
No, because I'm Orthodox.
>>1123289
>Roman Catholics, did you hear that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said Vatican II was a mistake?
He didn't say that Vatican II was a mistake, he said that the post-Vatican II often got wishy-washy. I'm not going to deny that things got worse for the Catholic church after the 1960s.
>>1123312
He certainly expressed that he felt the V-II concept of "anonymous Christian" was a mistake.
>>1123289
>I would like to ask atheists, do you consider humans ontologically the same as fruit flies?
What did he mean by this
>Do you consider "human rights" to be just about protecting an in-group, and no less arbitrary than rights for particular races over others?
Human rights are completely arbitrary, yes.
>>1123289
>I would like to ask atheists, do you consider humans ontologically the same as fruit flies? Do you consider "human rights" to be just about protecting an in-group, and no less arbitrary than rights for particular races over others?
youre realy begging a bunch of unrelated questions here and basing them on basicaly nothing
>>1123323
I mean do you believe human's being is not fundamentally distinction from a fruitfly's being.
>>1123329
How is asking a question, begging a question?
>>1123335
Unless of course it is something like, "Do you still hit your wife?" but I don't see how this is like that.
Have you ever noticed how Orthodox-filled countries are generally absolutely horrible to live in because they're unfailingly corrupt and smallminded? Why is that? Do they enjoy living like animals and being subjugated by their leaders?
>>1123340
I would rather be led by Putin than Clinton, if that is what you are asking.
>>1123318
>Pope Benedict also refutes both the idea of the “anonymous Christian” as developed by Karl Rahner, as well as the indifferentist idea that all religions are equally valuable and helpful to attain eternal life
>as developed by Karl Rahner
That's not a particularly controversial thing to say though, many people criticise or reject the idea.
>>1123346
>Karl Rahner's concept of Anonymous Christian was one of the most influential theological ideals to affect the Second Vatican Council.[1]
>>1123340
>that turkroach vacuum
>>1123344
That's all I need to know about you, then. My condolences. Enjoy the dictatorship, but try to push for term limits after the next coup.
>>1123340
as if catholic countries were free from corruption
Brazil, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Mexico and the list goes on
[Atheist]
A.) Ontological categories are:
1 - Reactivity Development
2 - Pain Development
3 - Complex Development
4 - Social Development
5 - Self Awareness
6 - Abstraction Capabilities
So no, Fruit flies are different from humans.
B.) lifesitenews.com is not a reputable source
C.) Atheists have existed since the beginning of belief system because all people are born Atheists... indoctrination into religion occurs later. There were many famous ancient Atheists, such as Socrates (which was forced to commit suicide for blasphemy), and it's kind of embarrassing you think Atheism is a new thing.
D.) Faith has to be taught.
E.) Your arguments are astonishing ignorance, as a quick google search on the history of Atheism would have been more than enough to correct all of your nonsensical babble.
F.) All religions fail the Burden of Poof.
G.) 99% of all religions reject 99% of all deities. Why do you think someone had to *recently* "invent" rejecting 100% of deities when there is no proof or even any evidence to even suggest such concepts even exist?
>>1123351
Yet it's still a controversial idea that is outright rejected by many Catholics.
>>1123370
You think the common people don't want him there? You think they want another Yeltsin, or an oligarch?
>>1123309
They invite other Christians and your questions pertains to Catholicism in part so it would be more than welcome there
>>1123289
Is this an orthodox thread as well?
>>1123371
>implying I'm Catholic
>implying latitude has zero effect on criminality
>implying anyone would want to live in any hellhole east of Warsaw when they could live in Italy or Spain or even Argentina
Are you serious?
>>1123372
>1 - Reactivity Development
>2 - Pain Development
>3 - Complex Development
>4 - Social Development
>5 - Self Awareness
>6 - Abstraction Capabilities
Are these metaphysical qualities, or are they materially quantifiable?
Here is another news source: http://www.cameroon-concord.com/religion/item/5322-pope-benedict-xvi-breaks-silence-speaks-of-deep-crisis-facing-church-post-vatican-ii
Do you have any evidence Socrates was an atheist?
>why do you think a social paradigm has to be caused?
Dude, what?
>>1123387
Yeah
Could you pick on the Copts or Armenians or something besides Latin Catholics for once?
>>1123331
Define "being". I'm not trying to be obtuse, I generally don't know what you mean. I can explain what I think are the main differences between a human and a fruit fly but I don't think there's some magical human essence if that's what you're getting at.
>>1123399
1. We recognize their sacraments, their recognize ours. Neither of us recognize RCC sacraments.
2. We conceive of dogma the same way, as having an unchanging understanding, which is part of dogma itself. RCC sees dogma as having an evolving understanding
3. The difference between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox is purely a semantic distinction, and does not concern the substance of dogma. This is made clear by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which issued an anathema against the criticisms directed against Saint Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas (in chapter 3 of the work, Saint Cyril of Alexandria uses the term "natural union"--"union" here being "henosin", literally " one"--to describe Christ's Nature: "If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδῳ), which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσιkὴν): let him be anathema."). This means that the mia physis formula was approved.
cont
>>1123331
fundamentally? no. we're made of the same stuff. but we are much bigger, complex and more capable of abstract thought, or really thought at all. fruit flies probably go almost entirely on instinct. if there was a fruit fly that was as smart as a human I think it should be given it human rights
>>1123411
The Fifth Ecumenical Council was not uncontroversial, however (since it made the Oriental Orthodox Christology valid), Pope Vigilius refused to attend on the grounds that it conflicted with the Council of Chalcedon, and after it proceeded without him, the Pope refused to accept its conclusions, and excommunicated Patriarch Menas, the Pope protesting that he spoke from Peter's Chair, which was the final authority in all matters; Pope Vigilius was then excommunicated by Patriarch Menas, and imprisoned by Emperor Justinian I, but the Pope eventually recanted and was reinstated. If you want to understand the distinction between miaphysitism (which the Oriental Orthodox subscribe to) and monophysitism (which both Eastern and Oriental agree is heretical), look as the differences in the prefixes: "mono" means "alone", "solitary", it's used in Luke 4:4 and 4:8. "Mia" is the feminine form of "heis", which just the adjective for "one" ("hen" when used as a noun); see John 17:21 for an example of its use. Not only is this formula acceptable, it is heresy to say it is not, and not just because of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (which merely witnessed dogma, it did not create it), but because henosis describes the communion between us and Christ: if we say Christ's humanity does not have henosis with his divinity, then that says his Body and Blood do not have communion with his divinity, and to say such a thing seriously impacts theology of communion, and is ultimately Nestorian. Likewise it is absolutely heretical to suggest that it is invalid to describe Christ as having two natures, insofar as the phrase "two natures" is used strictly and solely to mean that Christ is both fully human and fully divine and that his humanity and divinity are not confused or "mixed", like with a demigod.
>>1123393
Cool.
Can you answer the question I asked you from last Catholic General regrading the dating of Papias and the Church fathers in general?
Specifically it was about the dates associated with their earliest manuscripts and whether you take their authenticity for granted?
Here is a link to the old thread if you need a refresh >>1113966
>>1123413
*should be given human rights
>>1123401
I mean do you think fruitflies are one king of biological machine, and human beings another? In other words, so you think humanity is special, or just glorified washing machines?
>>1123413
So how stupid should a person have to be before they do not have human rights? Since you do not believe human's are endowed with anything fundamentally special, but are simply more intelligent like on a sliding scale.
>>1123415
I think I said before he is dated in the same way Heraclitus is.
>>1123426
Yeah an I replied
>Constantine Im asking for specifics, not general rules. If you do not have the information and or have no intention of discovering it can you say so?
>Im not being silly here, Im only asking that you abide by the standards you apply and demand of other faiths.
I was looking for specifics not general methods. Like the specific details you provided in your appologetics or criticisms.
>>1123424
>So how stupid should a person have to be before they do not have human rights?
mentally retarded humans aren't able to function in their own like a wild chimpanzee that might have comparable intelligence. thus they deserve our protection. I think we basically do the same for a chimp, etc that isn't functional in the wild and put them in a wildlife preserve or something. apes like gorrilas that have been taught sign language really are like big children. it's hard not to also have empathy for them. but no human has comparable intelligence to a fruit fly.
>>1123437
Oh, the specifics for how he is dated? He's generally dated according to when his lifespan is attributed by other accounts (staring with Irenaeus). The quotations of his work are considered generally authentic, because he wasn't a saint or someone like that, so forging works in his name or quoting a lie in his name would be rather pointless (indeed he is sometimes critiqued by later Church Fathers).
>>1123449
So should chimps have human rights?
>>1123458
>Oh, the specifics for how he is dated?
No, what it is dated. Hence the
"Specifically it was about the dates associated with their earliest manuscripts and whether you take their authenticity for granted?"
>>1123411
>We recognize their sacraments, their recognize ours
How can this be if neither are in communion with each other?
How do Orthodox not see dogma as evolving? How are ecumenical councils not a form of evolution?
>purely a semantic distinction
You're in schism and have been for 1700 years, how is that semantics? The issue of miaphysitism vs chalcedonianism isn't the only one.
>>1123376
OH the common people love their dictator! I guess that makes it all ok.
>>1123470
Authenticity was never, ever take for granted in the Church, if you read the Church Fathers, it's a major point of controversy even with Scripture, different fathers had different canons, etc. The reason that the Didache was not included in Scripture, is because although it taught Orthodox teaching, its authorship couldn't be verified.
>>1123464
having freedom of speech, etc don't exactly have any way to apply to them. I guess if one signs at me "Fuck you" no one will give a damn so they basically have free speech. but I do think they should be protected from being tested on unless it's something that won't do them any harm. In most countries we've already phased out most lab testing on monkeys
>>1123424
>I mean do you think fruitflies are one king of biological machine, and human beings another? In other words, so you think humanity is special, or just glorified washing machines?
I think humans are "special" but that's utterly subjective. It's just a preference of mine because I like humans and couldn't give a fuck about fruit flies.
>>1123464
>So should chimps have human rights?
In my opinion chimps should have certain rights but not the same ones as humans, no.
>>1123476
We are not in full, formal communion due to the anathemas not being lifted yet (neither side wants to lift them without the other side), but we can partake of communion at each other's churches under numerous circumstances (intermarriage, distance to one's own church too great, etc.).
Ecumenical Councils are witnesses to dogma, to protect. They aren't giving a new understanding, they are protecting the old understanding. Unless you are talking about things like the pentarchy, which are called holy canons, which are not dogma (indeed, there are now fourteen autocephalous churches, a pentarchy is no longer possible), dogma is strictly limited to what Christ passed on.
>>1123479
What exactly is a dictator, by your understanding?
>>1123485
M8 you are doing it again If you do not have the information and or have no intention of discovering it can you say so?
Why do you keep on dodging giving an answer on this when it comes to the actual dates of the manuscripts/fragements ect involved?
You tell me everything bar thing
>>1123507
To answer your question, it depends on the manuscripts in question. The Letters of Irenaeus, for instance, absolutely have forgeries among them (which are nowadays not grouped with the rest by the Church).
>>1123525
Well can we start with the father in my post, Papias?
Why did the Eastern Churches like the Chaldeans go over to the Catholics instead of the Orthodox?
>>1123289
>no less arbitrary than rights for particular races over others?
It's less arbitrary because I'm closer to a retard pygmy albino than I am to a fruit fly.
>>1123533
I would be willing to consider Papias misdated or misattributed if there were a good reason to believe such, sure. But looking at the reasons I just stacked up, there isn't.
>>1123645
Orthodox won't budge on Nestorianism, RCC is more willing to let it slide if you will just kiss the ring.
>>1123675
So? You are also closer to your brother than the pygmy albino.
>>1123338
its more like ''do atheists consider all lifeforms arbitrarily developed biomechanoinds thus relativising all that is sacred and good about human life and its value?''
>do you consider humans ontologically the same as fruit flies?
this makes no sense outside of a christian creationist framework, it literaly a meaningless question
and what have human rights got to do with atheism
>>1123289
Tribalism and caring about your kin is inherent to human nature so humans are inherently more dispositioned to them, not only that but putting your
own species before others is objectively a good trait for survival in is thus more useful to keep, this isn't really about morality
>>1123740
I don't have a brother, and I have special connections to blood relations I don't with other people. They have unspoken rights and privileges over other humans.
>>1123740
>I would be willing to consider Papias misdated or misattributed if there were a good reason to believe such, sure. But looking at the reasons I just stacked up, there isn't.
Im not asking your to consider him being misstated or attributed I just want the manuscript/fragment dates.
Dates, not methods, not other forms of verification dates!
>>1123831
>We don't have any fragments of his manuscript left. Like Heraclitus, he only survives in quotations of his work.
Well then what are the earliest dates of the works/fragments that contain these references to him?
>>1123838
Saint Iraenaeus is the first one to mention him, I believe.
>>1123840
Then what are the earliest dates of the works/fragments of Saint Ireaneaus ? Im just looking for dates, am I not being clear?
>>1123844
Oldest fragments are dated ca. 200 AD
>>1123845
Finally we are getting somewhere now; the source for that claim?
>>1123853
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Detection_and_Overthrow_of_the_So-Called_Gnosis#/media/File:POxy405.jpg
>>1123855
Thanks you was that so torturous as to dodge it for 2 threads?
Now for the textual analysis part. On that page I saw
>Even though no complete version of Against Heresies in its original Greek exists, we possess the full ancient Latin version, probably of the third century, as well as thirty-three fragments of a Syrian version and a complete Armenian version of books 4 and 5
Are these quotes attributed to him in this specific work of Irenaeus (on heresy) and are they found in any of the Greek or are they just in the latin versions that pop up 200 years later?
>>1123892
I doubt they're in the Greek, the Greek is just a small fragment of the whole work.
>>1123897
So after reading this thread have you furthered your understanding of atheism, have the responses proved your hypothesis right or didn't you get the answers you wanted?
>>1123897
Oh and are the great quotes of him that are refered to in that specific book on heresies or are they mainly based on the discussion on him in Eusebius's work?
>>1123901
I don't think it worked to well because the only viable answer is based on kinship, and if that is the case, then one's kin ought to be able to use others in any way that benefits them.
>>1123902
Against Heresies is what his lifetime is generally dated by. The quotations come mostly from Eusebius (who is rather critical of him).
>>1123927
>Against Heresies is what his lifetime is generally dated by. The quotations come mostly from Eusebius (who is rather critical of him).
So the earliest actual reference would be closer to 462 AD or guaranteed by 1000 AD which is the dates of the Eusebius manuscripts then?
>>1123937
Uh, what? How early a reference is, isn't dated by the oldest extent manuscript. If it were, Homer would be dated to 1000 AD.
>>1123289
So your saying atheism is a new concept when people thought in the times of Christ he was a fake and even before?
>>1123960
Most people who said that were not atheist.
I'm saying atheism as a social paradigm in the West, is new.
>>1123951
Mate Im only comparing dates here in the way you did with Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. I thought that was your metric
>>1123964
I'm not dating them by their oldest fragments, bruh. I'm dating them by their date of composition.
>>1123289
>Roman Catholics, did you hear that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said Vatican II was a mistake?
He didn't say or do enough.
That said the church demography in the West makes the victory of the traditionalists all but a foregone conclusion, with the horrid modernist experiment of the last few decades a mere shameful blip on the history of the Church.
There will most likely be a new St. Marcel before the 21st century ends too.
t. Lefebvrist
>>1123289
>I would like to ask atheists, do you consider humans ontologically the same as fruit flies? Do you consider "human rights" to be just about protecting an in-group, and no less arbitrary than rights for particular races over others?
No, that would be incredibly narrow-minded. Even without religion it is obvious that humans have both a greater capacity for suffering and joy than a fly. I really don't need God or Jesus to help identify why it makes sense that we all help each other be happy whenever possible.
If we end up identifying our kind of awareness and pain/joy in a fly, I will of course be forced to treat them with more respect because of my convictions.
>Is Protestantism the mother of atheism? See David Strauss, William Wrede, Albert Schweitzter, Adoly von Karnack, Paul Tillich (who in the "Dynamics of Faith" refers to Christ's Resurrection as myth). It seems to me that atheism as a social condition, came from Protestant scholars in Germany who systematically attacked the faith.
Not sure if you are trolling, but atheists have always existed, and atheism is in fact the default worldview of all newborn babies. Not saying that makes it inherently right, just pointing out that a human will only believe whatever they can based on information around them.
I guess it's arguable that animism is in human nature and that we'd invent some religion in any case, as we always have.
Also I don't think that we live in a world of good versus evil, God versus Satan, or Christianity versus a belief in contemporary atheist science.
Honestly it's all the same shit, just people trying to explain the world around them and the wonderful and terrible feelings inside them. I just consider religions to be failed sciences, or to be more accurate, proto-sciences.
>>1123982
What demography are you referring to, exactly?
>>1123995
I mean atheism as a social paradigm.
Infants are instinctual theists. Our faculty for theism is capacity to attribute agency to occurrences. For instance, when animals see a wave, they don't think of it as an agent, but when human beings do, they instinctually associate it with agency, it's part of what makes us so special (also why people with autism often have difficult grasping theism, since their faculty for interpreting motive is severely impaired). Whether or not an infant's faculty here should be seen as polytheistic or monotheistic is a matter of contention, but if a child feels the wind blowing, he will think or at least feel that a motive is impelling the wind.
>>1123969
Ah good, so you aren't as pedantic as I thought you were even if you were a tad dishonest at other times. I was wrong there.
Now back to the meat of the subject, do you then see an issue in attaching such dominating weight to fragmentary words that appear centuries after the event they describe without context and in an era of great heresy?
These figures do not seem to the be the contempories and wittnesses you make them out to be
>>1124009
I don't see any issue with attributing the quotations of a work by Papias, to Papias, no. Similarly, I do not see anything wrong with attributing the quotations of a work by Heraclitus, to Heraclitus.
Now if Papias were a great saint or a prophet or someone like that, it might make it a bit more dubious, but he's not.
>>1124014
Or, he is a saint now, but he certainly wasn't venerated as one then, and there are no mythological or infallible or sage things attributed to him. Thus he is more comparable to Heraclitus than Pythagoras, especially since it is his own writing which is quoted.
>>1123997
On the on hand, the priestly one. No one wants to attend modernist seminaries anymore, while traditionalist ones are growing rapidly. Soon the traditionalist priests will outnumber the ones who think V2 was a good idea.
On the other hand. The only people still going to modernist mass are old Catholics who grew up with it and their religiously indifferent children who will stop going to church altogether eventually. It's going off on inertia. All the young, active faithful are attending Tridentine Mass instead.
The post-Vaticanum II Novus Ordo is barren and moribund, it does not inspire faith and will be extinct in one or two generations.
The number of faithful will fall in absolute terms, but that's not the end of the world. Eleven were enough.
>>1124014
>I don't see any issue with attributing the quotations of a work by Papias, to Papias, no. Similarly, I do not see anything wrong with attributing the quotations of a work by Heraclitus, to Heraclitus.
Presocratics were not involved in a highly politically and theological charged organization which had serious issues with falsification of documents and works.
>Now if Papias were a great saint or a prophet or someone like that, it might make it a bit more dubious, but he's not.
Church fathers are at the core of your faith, their and the interpretations of their words schismed the Church. They may not be prophets but they are almost as close in importance.
>>1124008
No they don't, for the longest time humans couldn't even conceive anything like that, they couldn't even interpret drawings or non 3dimensional images
The first signs of humanity being capable of imagining something like religion are from 35,000 years ago, since that's when the earliest cave paintings were found
>>1124025
The trouble is, I don't think the Vatican herself is going to go back to tradition, that is after all while Benedict was outed. And while many Roman Catholics do, they might find the Vatican's theology more and more disagreeable.
Plenty of Catholics have converted to Orthodoxy in Latin America: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/15/greek-orthodox-church-latin-america_n_7065630.html
We also are evangelizing heavily in the U.S.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochian_Orthodox_Christian_Archdiocese_of_North_America#Evangelism
Our Western Rite (pic related, Romanesque Icon) is pretty boss.
>>1124028
There was never any great controversy over the authenticity of the Gospels. There were controversies over numerous books in the NT, but not the Gospels.
Papias isn't a Church Father.
>>1124041
Humans instinctually have theory of mind, and it has been shown that they instincutally attribute agency to things. For instance, when they see a triangle bouncing around on a screen, they instinctually think of it as alive. This is what made people think there was a god in every thing, the sky, the ocean, etc.
I suggest you read "Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind", it's quite short.
>>1124044
*ousted
>>1124053
That's all fine and dandy, but evidence seems to disagree with that being the cause for religion
>>1124053
>There was never any great controversy over the authenticity of the Gospels. There were controversies over numerous books in the NT, but not the Gospels.
I didnt say the Gospels were not authentic I was talking about the Church Fathers and the works of early Christians.
>Papias isn't a Church Father.
Hes an Apostolic Father though.
>>1124044
>The trouble is, I don't think the Vatican herself is going to go back to tradition
The Vatican does not reproduce. Not in any sense these days. Like I said, the Novus Ordo is barren. The people who conducted the post-Vaticanum II changes are the first and the last people in the church to support them. They have failed to inspire successors, and quite soon the majority of priests will be traditionalist in outlook.
>>1124008
>Infants are instinctual theists.
perceiving patterns real or imagined =/= theist
>>1124008
Right, that's the animism argument I was talking about, but it makes a lot of unverifiable claims, like the ubiquity of healthy babies attributing agency to everything or things in motion, at least.
I'm also not totally convinced that this would make us unique from other animals - I've seen cats appear to attribute agency to screen doors, bathroom sinks, etc.
Unfortunately since infants and cats are both very poor communicators, neither is falsifiable, making the former an educated guess at best and the one about the cat a fanciful dream at worst.
>>1124062
Also, people looking at the current papacy and assuming they are watching the agony of the Catholic church are wrong; they are watching the agony of the Novus Ordo.
>>1124053
How do you know the baby thinks it is alive?
>>1124044
Do you have some church attendance statistics and figures for this decade?
The average age of parishinors seems to be going up a fair bit and Latin Americans whilst faith is declining on the whole, like the Orthodox Morman and Protestant congregations have seen praporitonally big increases.
I want to know if my hope is adequately placed or if its just dodgy statistics
>>1124058
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism
>>1124062
Seems like Francis is the most popular Pope in a long while. Or is that just outside the Church?
>>1124063
Believe when it rains, someone is making it rain, is instinctual theism.
>>1124067
Cats just react, they don't automatically think, "Agency, subjectivity" anymore than a cockroach when it feels a tremor.
>>1124075
>Believe when it rains, someone is making it rain, is instinctual theism.
Actually thats merely awareness. Most of the change an infant will witness is what it or its parents do. They then apply this to nature. nothing theistic here
>>1124075
You know I'm willing to explain why what you say isn't true if you're willing to listen, but you don't even seem interested in anything but your own theory
>>1124075
>Or is that just outside the Church?
Largely so.
Sell out your supporters to earn words of praise from your opponents, you know the kind of person? Modern politics is full of them, I believe their word for themselves is "moderates".
>>1124075
>In line with such a conception of the divine, Simon Baron-Cohen, who proposed the mindblindness theory of autism, told me that “sometimes I meet people with autism who are religious, but their motivation is driven more by the rules (the system) in theology rather than the anthropomorphizing.”
>When people see an event as divine intervention, or a result of intelligent design, they’re just letting their teleological bias run amok. They’re attributing purpose where there is none.
Seems legit
http://www.medicaldaily.com/autism-genes-linked-higher-intelligence-treading-fine-line-between-intellectual-325798
>>1124075
>Cats just react, they don't automatically think, "Agency, subjectivity" anymore than a cockroach when it feels a tremor.
How do you know that? You are completely ignoring how I pointed out that both experiments are centered on unverifiable theses.
>>1124071
"Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind" describes various tests done in diagnosing mindblindness (lack of instinctual attribution of motive to things), including in infants.
>>1124074
I don't know what the Church attendance is, I do know it is absolutely growing, especially for the Church of Antioch, where the clergy is 75% converts.
>>1124088
Thanks I will give it a read, hopefully it explains how they are able to verify whether or not infants are attributing agency to objects and not just reacting like any healthy non-mentally impaired animal would.
>>1124088
I don't know what the Church attendance is, I do know it is absolutely growing, especially for the Church of Antioch, where the clergy is 75% converts.
Is that just in Latin America? Where would I find statistics for church attendance in the West + Oceania ?
>>1124087
Do you have any evidence cats have a center for believing in a motive? As in, not causation, but believing there is a motive on a psychological level? Many tests have been conducted with animals, but so far primates are the only ones that show any promise, and even with them the faculty is no where near what it is with humans.
>>1124091
No, that's the U.S., the primary jurisdiction for Latin America is Greek Orthodox.
>>1124092
>Do you have any evidence cats have a center for believing in a motive?
Not that anon, but cats are able to interact with other cats, if they couldn't infer motive then how would they choose who to fight and who to fuck?
>>1124091
To add to this I would appreacitate info on Australia because the Church has been here for nearly 100 years yet almost half of church goers were born over seas.
>>1123289
>It seems to me that atheism as a social condition, came from Protestant scholars in Germany who systematically attacked the faith.
pretty sure ancient greece was a thing before protestants did anything
>Do you consider "human rights" to be just about protecting an in-group, and no less arbitrary than rights for particular races over others?
what the fuck are you even talking about?
>>1124096
That doesn't mean they instinctually have a theory about what another cat is thinking--they simply have one about how the cat will *react*.
>>1124100
>pretty sure ancient greece was a thing before protestants did anything
How was atheism the social condition in ancient Greece?
>>1124101
Can any human completely understand what another is thinking? are they able to accurately guess (subconsciously) how another will react?
>>1124092
Fuck it, I seem to be right In you not being open to challenges to your theory and I'm not going to post it until you at least show some openness so I'll throw you a bone to get more interest: The real cause of religion emerging was because some humans experienced what they'd see as something like (but not the same as) 'divine inspiration'
>>1124105
because atheists existed in ancient greece
>>1124106
No, of course they can't completely understand. What they can do is use "theory of mind", which means to come up with a "theory" of what another person is thinking, a theory of their mind.
>>1124107
Pretty sure it was because humans heard lightning and things like that, and thought something was angry, and so they came up with ways to honor it or at least act respectful, and did this with all natural forces.
>>1124091
Is 37% considered a high/good attendence level?
>especially for the Church of Antioch,
They are less than 10% of Orthodox in the US though so they are hardly a good metric.
>>1124109
That makes atheism an opinion held by a few, not a condition defining society.
>>1124113
It's considered a pretty good attendance considering a lot of people don't live near a church
>>1124111
If another cat thinks little more than it reacts, would another cats anticipation of anothers behaviour not approximate a theory of mind, albeit less developed.
>>1124114
> a condition defining society.
which society is defined by atheism?
>>1124123
Anticipation of occurrence is just the faculty of instinctual sense of cause-effect, which all creates need in order to function.
>>1124117
Thats unfortante, what source do you use for measuring these statistics?
>>1124126
Western society.
>>1124134
no it isnt allthough atheism is rising its not even near 'society defining' status, especially in ameirca
>>1124133
I don't know, but it is definitely a major issue at my parish.
bumping for this>>1124061
>>1124139
It absolute defines it in Europe.
I don't know if you live in America, but people, even Christians, are mostly functionally atheists here. If they are religious, it's only when they go to Church. Out of Church they swear, they fornicate, they get drunk, they do not pray or read the Bible or anything like that for the most part.
>>1124134
Church attendance in the US is higher than all Orthodox countries.
>>1124140
I know, I've seen the 'won't ever give you up, orthodox edition' photo that constantine's posted. It's still interesting to discuss though.
>Roman Catholics, did you hear that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said Vatican II was a mistake?
First, a source for the interview
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-benedict-xvis-recent-rare-and-lengthy-interview-26142/
He doesn't say all of Vatican II was a mistake, just a part of it of it. But I will reply to the interview.
Good viewpoint from Emeritus, especially with the anti-religious plurality perspective. I'm against other religions. Christianity a best, right, brother? There is a need to see other religions as wrong (in a nonviolent, peaceful, and loving sense), and Vatican II softens that. The word of Jesus as savior should definitely be spread. To hinder such is not fit in the eyes of the lord.
>>1124142
Papias is not an Apostolic Father.
>>1124145
Which is meaningless if it doesn't shape society. Church attendance in Orthodox countries is standing for three hours straight and singing hymns that are over a thousand years old. Church in the U.S. is a rock concert where you can hook up with women.
Human rights as a concept are justified by rational deliberation and argumentation surrounding the field of ethics
>>1124149
Was just going on what was on Wikipedia
bumping for the substantive part of my post that you forgot.
>>1124148
How do you feel about Pope John Paul II venerating the Koran?
>>1124154
There were contentious issues and forgeries, but if someone were going to forge something, they'd forge a big name, a name with serious authority. Papias's name did not have that.
>>1124143
i used america as an example ebcause its a big part of the western world
>but people, even Christians, are mostly functionally atheists here
yeah and theyre are still christians and not atheists how can something define a society if the people of that society dont even call themseleves the thing (nice 'no true scotsman' btw)
>Out of Church they swear, they fornicate, they get drunk, they do not pray or read the Bible or anything like that for the most part.
so you think people never did that before protestants? really? i mean by that logic atheism definied literally every nation ever, unless it was a perfect society with no bad things ever happening
>>1124152
>Church attendance in Orthodox countries is standing for three hours straight and singing hymns that are over a thousand years old
Actually given how old most of them are its mainly sitting after arriving late, before heading home hoping that no one gave you the evil eye or breaking one of the other countless superstitions whilst navel gazing over the "glory days"
>>1124159
>here were contentious issues and forgeries, but if someone were going to forge something, they'd forge a big name, a name with serious authority.
Notice how I said Church Fathers which is a general term not specific?
Is being deceptive acceptable if it leads people to Orthodoxy in the end?
>>1124162
Atheism defining society means society functions as if there were no God. Which it does.
>so you think people never did that before protestants?
I think people who did do that, understood it to be a sin, and confessed it as such, seeking repentance.
>>1124165
There are plenty of old people in my parish, but there are plenty of young people too. I can't count the number of babies and young couples who receive communion.
>>1124168
He wasn't a Church Father, he wasn't an Apostolic Father.
>>1124168
Or are you accusing a Church Father of being forged? If so, which one? Because they have been exhaustively combed through, including by the Church, and I can't give you a pat answer for all of them.
>>1124172
>I think people who did do that, understood it to be a sin, and confessed it as such, seeking repentance.
pfffffff but theyre not real christians, a real christian would be really sorry for their sins and never do them again, i guess atheism ruined everything yet again
>>1124177
No, a real Christian is someone who knows they are a sinner and mourns is and begs forgiveness with contrition, trembling and fear.
>>1124181
so basically no one outside of some fringe cult or really old people afraid of death, gotcha. you can pretend that there was some christian society where literally everyone cared very deaply about god and were the most devout people ever, but thats just not true
>>1124173
>>1124176
Which I dealt with in >>1124154
Look ill leave this thread and read a book on theology if you just tell me why when we I said given the importance of the Church fathers and how false documents are a something that was a big problem in the Church that we should treat their works with much more scrutiny than we would a figure like Heraclitus
You first shifted to arguing that Papias wasnt a Church father. Then in >>1124176 you put words in my mouth saying I was accusing them of being forged works. In both cases skipping the argument for a new one.
All I was ever doing questioning whether your standards for assessing validity (ie that used when dealing with someone like Heraclitus) was adequate and consistent.
>>1124181
t.doestevsky
Thats a pretty miserable view of the good news brought to us by Jesus. Maybe its this mindset that has contributed to the brutality and cruelty we see in Orthodox nations.
>>1124187
I don't claim they were anymore devout, but I do claim they had a concrete, religious sense of right and wrong, and they had icons in their homes and prayed all the time
>>1124188
I think it was adequate and consistent as far as Papias goes. For renown men, obviously a different method has to be used.
The importance given to Church Fathers doesn't start hundreds of years after their time, but rather starts in their own lifetimes. We can generally separate their teachings from forged teachings by a variety of techniques, including style, terminology, anachronisms, consistency of teaching, and so on. If a particular teaching is forged as dogma, it will stand out like a sore thumb, because it will contradict all the other Church Fathers.
>>1124194
Philippians 2:12, Luke 18:13
>>1124214
>and they had icons in their homes and prayed all the time
again, you can believe that if you want but there was definitely no society where shut like this was actually mainstream and not just practised by a minority
>>1124155
Gross. If he did kiss that book for reasons other than showing validation for Islam, such as solely as a sign of respect, I'm okay with it.
>>1124219
Yeah, there was. You might not be able to wrap your head around it today because materialism is common and death is not a regular part of life, but back when infants regularly died, women often died in childbirth, death by starvation was not usual, sickness could very well wipe you out, and the open casket for a funeral remained for days before burial, and there wasn't mainstream pop science, religion was a fundamental part of society. God was not a thing, like being a Jesus freak, God and the Resurrection were facts to people, and back then, before the Reformation, heaven was not something you were guaranteed into after baptism is was something always in doubt that you could never be sure of until you died and found out.
>>1124228
Do you browse NationStates by the way?
>http://www.nationstates.net/nation=constantinopolis
>>1124221
Consider that the book says in it, that Christ got off from the cross and God put an illusion (or someone else there), and that Christ will condemn all Christians to hell.
>>1124214
Dodging question and answering ones youve inserted in their own place right down to the last. I genuinley hope that the others of your confession don't maintain such a consequentialist view of honesty
>>1124229
I do have a nation, but that's not me.
>>1124228
Even in those times it was a minority practice, degeneracy and whoring are not innovations of the moderns
>>1124233
I don't understand what question I'm dodging. I said about Heraclitus in relation to, and only to, Papias, and I gave the reasons for that. As for the other Church Fathers, yes, forgeries are an issue, but they are vetted.
I never put words in your mouth.
>>1124242
It was not a minority practice, it was something very, very real to people then.
Just because prostitution flourished, doesn't mean 90% of men were fornicating, let alone 90% of women.
>>1123370
Reddit-tier American deteced. If you think Clinton is better for the world than putin you need to leave your parent's suburb basement
>>1124231
Even even grosser, then. I have never fully read the Koran, so that is a surprise. Hopefully his Holiness did not realize the symbolism of such action. The pandering to foreigners and their religious views by recent Popes is very questionable.
>>1124245
>I don't understand what question I'm dodging.
The question of why you put words in my mouth and shifted the arguments.
>>1124245
>I never put words in your mouth.
You did not only in those two occasions linked in that post but also in this exchange
>>1124028 and >>1124053
Where you began arguing as if I said the NT were forged. When I pointed this out and that the context of the entire discussion was the Church Fathers you then argued as if I believed that only Papias was Church Father.
There are times when I would like to learn more about Orthodoxy or Catholicism but I find myself repulsed when I see the fruits it produces here. You are an incredibly well read and intelligent person yet resort to sophistry and spamming for or as a result of your faith. This upsets me as whilst I realize you have or might have some life changing information I cannot find myself able to trust what you say given your conduct (on /his/) and intentions. It also worries me that were I to pursue this futher I could wind up like yourself
>>1124262
http://nypost.com/2016/04/22/pope-francis-reneges-on-offer-to-take-in-christian-refugees/
>A Christian brother and sister from Syria felt blessed to have been among the dozen refugees selected to start a new life in Italy
>Their dreams were shattered, though, when they were informed the following day that they would not be traveling to Rome. Instead, three Muslim families were taken.
>>1124269
I brought up the Gospels because I thought that's what you were on about Papias concerning. Since Papias wasn't originally reference, by me, to support any dogma, but was referenced purely to support the authorship of the Gospels. So I thought you were asking, "How can you be sure Papias wasn't just used to authenticate the Gospels at a later date?"
>>1124252
>It was not a minority practice, it was something very, very real to people then.
Oh it was real but they did not live as though it was. the Second coming might as well have been a million years away. Thier love of wordly goods and each other, the joy and celebration they found was a rule rather than quiet self flagellation you hold to be true Christianity
>Just because prostitution flourished, doesn't mean 90% of men were fornicating, let alone 90% of women.
lol so so just because 90% of the population werent fornicating they must all have been living like monks.
>>1124269
You understand I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I am rather confused about what you're asking. I thought you were mainly asking about whether Papias supported the Gospels, and I was rather confused when your questions broadened to the Church Fathers in general.
>>1124281
>Oh it was real but they did not live as though it was. the Second coming might as well have been a million years away.
Clearly you've never read about what happened at the close of the first millennium.
>Thier love of wordly goods
Most of them had few to speak of, serfs had no private property, and peasants mainly had their own land and clothes.
>the joy and celebration
There are plenty of celebrations in the Church. There is also plenty of commemoration of mourning, such as with Lent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeP70fSe3Io
>lol so so just because 90% of the population werent fornicating they must all have been living like monks.
No, monks don't eat meat or drink wine, they fast all the time, they spend hours in prayer at a time, they hardly talk at all, etc.
>>1123289
Have you graduated from TCD yet?
>>1124299
No, if it seemed that way, it's probably because I misread your questions. For instance, in response to this
>>1124028
I thought the first sentence was addressing Papias.
I also thought the second sentence was.
Therefore I thought both of these statements were about addressing the authenticity of Papias. Which is reasonable if you look at what they were responding to.
>>1124287
>>1124281
[I didnt see the other post]
>You understand I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I am rather confused about what you're asking. I thought you were mainly asking about whether Papias supported the Gospels, and I was rather confused when your questions broadened to the Church Fathers in general.
Notice how you the fact you didnt "intend to put words in my mouth" means the fact that you did doesnt matter.
Notice how you preferred to create little straw men rather than just ask for clarification.
>>1124309
Well I didn't try to create strawmen. It's clear I upset you, but I honestly didn't mean to, nor did I mean to confuse or divert you. There was a miscommunication based on the subject shifting from Papias to Church Fathers in general as important in the Church, and it looked to me like you were questioning the Church Fathers as a way of showing doubt about Papias, not like you were asking questions about the Church Fathers. But now that we cleared that up, it's clearly time to drop Papias, and just focus on the Church Fathers
First of all, the Church doesn't change or add doctrine if a writing pops up from hundreds of years ago by a Church Father. Doctrine has to be consistent to be valid. Thus if, for instance, a doctrine popped up from hundreds of years ago in 500 AD, by a Church Father saying, "It is proper to go to Church naked, "the Church would immediately reject it because the Church was not teaching that. If something has to be doctrinally changed, that means the Church would cease to be valid. Church Fathers are mainly important when there are multiple teachings simultaneously in the Church, and we have to see which one is right. Now only one will have a consistent teaching stretching back.
>>1124314
Yes, see here, from my first response, I think you are still on the subject of Papias, But with my second, you see I figured out the subject broadened. I only bring up Papias later in regard to Heraclitus, showing the methodology for determining authenticity for him, doesn't apply to the others necessarily.
>>1124061
My second answer is I thought you were arguing against the Church, not asking an for clarification. So if it was an argument against the validity of the Fathers (which Protestants and atheists often make) based on the grounds of them being spurious, I had to know which one you were questioning so as to better answer you.
>>1124317
>Well I didn't try to create strawmen. It's clear I upset you, but I honestly didn't mean to, nor did I mean to confuse or divert you.
No sooner do I bring it up you are back at it again "oh its alright if I create strawmen or move goal posts as long I dont intend to"
And how nice of you to end it by chucking out a contrived and absurd example
Enjoy your thread.
>>1124325
Well, I am sorry, and if I have done wrong, I hope you will forgive me. I don't say creating strawmen or moving goal posts is okay so long as I don't mean to, and I'm sorry if I implied such.
>>1124252
are you one of those people who think that everything was like the propaganda posters from ww2 when your grandaprents were young? you might think the middle ages were this perfect christian utopia and everything was pure and simple, but thats just poetic nonsense that doesnt reflect reality
>>1124419
No, I do think people were more pious then, and you're crazy if you think otherwise, religion was the ideology of then in the same way secular liberalism is today. People did not have TV then, most could not read, they had to deal with hardship and hunger and loss on a regular basis. Comfort was very, very scarce for the commoner, and religion was its major source.
>>1124439
so basically your beef with todays society is people not thanking god every second of their lives just because they survived until evening?
>>1124471
I wasn't "beefing" with today's society, I was just saying it's in an atheistic condition.
>>1124476
ok i probly should of aksed that before, whats wrong with this atheistic condition (in which atheists are a minority)
>>1123289
>Is Protestantism the mother of atheism?
Monotheism is the mother of atheism, as it rejects the reality of the gods and substitutes it with an universalist abstract concept. So when you refute the abstract concept you're left with no god just morality. But since without god morality makes no sense in the end you're left with nothing.
Source: Alain de Benoist
>>1124484
>ok i probly should of aksed that before, whats wrong with this atheistic condition
Relativism, moral and aesthetic, with the popular yardstick for validity of either being the "spirit of the age.
>(in which atheists are a minority)
If you define atheism solely as a conscious affirmation instead of absence of religious culture, morality or lifestyle.
>>1124485
You're conflating monotheism with deism.
>>1123289
Atheism is a product of zionism
>>1124485
I'll also add that polytheistic religions seldom provided a constant morality, as such.
>>1124143
>If people do things i dont like theyre atheists now
Bahahahahahahahaha
>>1123289
fug
I want a voice like that.
>>1124231
Not Muslim but I don't think the Koran condemns Christians to hell. It's the opposite. Jews and Christians are pretty much the only non-Muslims that will get to heaven.
It does say that Christ didn't die on the cross but was saved at the last second.
I wanna get married but no girl would want a feminine twink like me ;__;
>>1123289
>Is Protestantism the mother of atheism?
Absolutely. Look at all the biggest anti-Christians, biggest atheists in western history...nearly all were raised Protestant.
Nietzsche's father was a Lutheran minister. Look what happened.
>>1124575
Luther was raised a catholic though?
>>1124499
Maybe your boogy man non-existing concept of polytheism you learn in Sunday school, but if you actually did some research you would learn that "pagans" usually had high morals. Of course I can't speak for every religion that ever existed but the early Greeks and Romans (not to be confused with decadent Rome and democratic, thus also decadent, Athens), Germans and above all the Zoroastrians had highly moral standards.
>>1124581
I wouldn't blame Luther but rather later Protestant developments, particularly for the Reformed. Then again I personally have a soft spot for him
The fedora meme was hilarious at first until people started taking it seriously.
Fuck christians, jews, muslims, and everyone else who believes in superstitious bullshit from thousands of years ago.
>>1124687
We've got a Supreme Gentleman here
*tips hat* m'lady
try """"evolving"""" your way past being a retard
just because you think your daddy was a monkey doesn't mean you have to be as dumb as one
>>1124697
Like clockwork
>>1124582
>muh pagans were moral!
Germanic paganism practiced human sacrifice on a regular basis. Ever hear of a blot?
>>1124807
I see your 'muh blot' and I raise you my 'muh witchburnings' and 'muh religious violence/aggression'
>>1123479
>putin
>dictator
God damn this board is being flooded with autists.
>>1123289
In objective terms, yes. Doesn't make it any less important for us as people.
>>1124807
They were voluntary (thus a true sacrifice) unlike the burning and massacre of witches, heretics, scientists, etc.
>>1124807
You can pile up all the crimes commited in the name of paganism and all the crimes committed in the name of abrahamism and compare the two if you like. We all know who would win btw, but this is beside the point. There is no religion that outright preaches immorality except some edgy and deviant forms of satanism. Morality is more due to cultural and historical circumstances. But with this the whole argument by Christians that, quote-unquote:
>hurr durr all bagans were ebil only xtians r gud XDDDD
This whole argument falls apart and with it their entire world-view. It's hard to be an ignorant biggot in a world where information is avaiable everywhere, unless you're dishonest. But Christians are dishonest. In this case they will be called out in public debate and restrained in their hability to slander and harm others (aka Christian piety).
>>1123289
Hey Constantine do you still have that paste bin going?
>>1124492
>Relativism, moral and aesthetic
how is that wrong or bad?
>If you define atheism solely as a conscious affirmation instead of absence of religious culture, morality or lifestyle.
ofcourse you define it as affirmation, just because you dont like how they act doesnt mean you somehow can strip them of their belief in god
>>1124582
>the Melian dialogue, diddling little boys and forcing slaves to kill each other for shits and giggles is "high moral standards"
>>1125098
What's this all about?
>>1125890
I'm Catholic and I've been thinking about converting to Orthodoxy. Will the Greeks accept me? How would I go about converting?
>>1125930
>will the Greeks accept me
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/15/greek-orthodox-church-latin-america_n_7065630.html
>Thousands of Orthodox Christians attended Holy Week services in Greek Orthodox churches in Central and South America this year — but most were not of Greek descent.
>Of its 550,000 members, only 5,000 are Greek
>Of its 550,000 members, only 5,000 are Greek
Start attending Divine Liturgy, take any classes the parish offers, start reading books on it. After a few months, if you are still interested, tell the priest you want to convert. It will probably take about a year
>>1124562
Koran 4:157-159
>>1124581
Raised catholic? He was a catholic FRIAR.
>>1126041
My pleasure!
>>1123289
Imagine if we had the concept of "human rights" in biblical time. Mary could sue God for rape. That's a violation of her bodily rights. She could also abort baby Jesus by invoking her right to choice. (pretty sure the bible actually says abortion is ok in the old testament somewhere).
Can you imagine Jesus in court "Well Christ, you interfered with the Pharisee's right to property when you destroyed their money-changing booth. You also broke their right to religion/pursuit of happiness, if they want to turn their temple into a market place they may do so." If they Jews had particularly good lawyers (they always do) he could even sue Jesus for antisemitism.
Imagine all the Egyptions filing law suites against Moses for destruction of property and the murder of their first borns: violating right to life and property.
The concept of human rights was made by a bunch of Deists, Atheists, and Free Masons as a direct attack on church and biblical authority. It's a humanist approach in which man, not God, is the ultimate authority.
>>1126310
Are you even serious? Do you think Mary wanted to "sue God for rape"?
>>1126310
>That's a violation of her bodily rights. She could also abort baby Jesus by invoking her right to choice
Do you even Scripture m8? The whole point is that she CHOSE to give birth to Jesus. She could have said no if she wanted, God didn't force her or anything. That's how important Our Blessed Lady is.
>>1126363
>She could have said no if she wanted, God didn't force her or anything.
Do YOU even scripture m8? Where the hell does the Bible ever say that?
>>1126329
If she had been brainwashed by modern judaic left-liberal academia and media she might. Anyway the point of his post is that he is against human rights ideology from a pro-Christian perspective. Do you people even read posts or just the first phrase?
>>1126363
All worship the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of God Himself!
All hail!
>>1126391
Astarte? No thanks.
>>1126079
>pleasure
Sounds sinful!
>>1126329
The point is this: whether she invokes it or not, does Mary have a right to sue God for rape?
If not you cannot seriously entertain the idea of "rights" being compatable with God. And the truth is that they are not compatable. There is no concept of "right to life" God pretty much kills harms anyone he wants with no warning, escpially in the old testament. Just look at Job's children. Just look at how Jesus fucks with the Pharisee's property.
I've said this before. Rights are concept born of the Enlightenment. They are a fedora idea, conceived by atheists, deists, and free masons. The idea is specifically designed to destroy the church's authority, for fuck sakes it was an idealogical weapon that justified the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the toppling of church authority in so many cases.
"Human rights" have far more to do with secular humanism, Marxism, and Liberalism than they do with Christianity.
>>1126363
I know you guy's dont read the bible. But if you do you will find no passage where she makes a choice. Mary is only told she is pregnant after she has already had sex with the holy spirit. There is no choice involved. The bible even says Joseph and Mary were surprised at the news. They would only be surprised if they didn't expect it.
And consider what she knows about the husband. He's constantly being shown to use violence to get his way whenever humans disagree with him. Just look at any parts of the old testament. Most likely she would have thought if she didn't go along with her rapist the same thing would happen to her.
This is what you would have to consider if you applied the concepts of "rights" to God. It just doesn't work. The idea of Mary sueing God and aborting Jesus sounds insane but it's exactly the type of thing she would be allowed to do if she had "rights".
Jesus would be a guilty man that destroyed property rights and tried to fuck with the Pharisee's right to set up their temple as they wish.
>>1126310
All you've done here is to make a good argument for human rights and a good argument against worshipping the god of the bible.
>>Can you imagine Jesus in court "Well Christ, you interfered with the Pharisee's right to property when you destroyed their money-changing booth. You also broke their right to religion/pursuit of happiness, if they want to turn their temple into a market place they may do so."
Fuck you, they did have the right to do that and the insane lunatic hobo in question had no business interfering.
>>Imagine all the Egyptions filing law suites against Moses for destruction of property and the murder of their first borns: violating right to life and property.
Good for them, if moses really existed he was a murderous thug like the angry canaanite wargod he worshipped.
>>The concept of human rights was made by a bunch of Deists, Atheists, and Free Masons as a direct attack on church and biblical authority. It's a humanist approach in which man, not God, is the ultimate authority.
Sounds good to me, considering that even assuming for a moment that your particular deity exists he's vicious and vile bastard. The worst tyrannical murderer on earth is less of a monster then your god christard.
>>1126465
>she has already had sex with the holy spirit
Holy shit, you are some kind of filthy blasphemer
>>1123289
>I would like to ask atheists, do you consider humans ontologically the same as fruit flies?
No, human beings are not the same thing as fruit flies.
>Do you consider "human rights" to be just about protecting an in-group, and no less arbitrary than rights for particular races over others?
All morals are ultimately arbitrary, and so to are most concepts of rights. But the idea of all citizens of the US having certain legal rights is something that is very useful for me, and the vast majority of my fellow citizens. It's one of the few protections we have against an increasingly power-hungry security state.
>>1126509
>No, human beings are not the same thing as fruit flies.
But is that because they are 2.0, or because they are ontologically distinct?
Is it something Orthodox to try to prove God's existence? Why are they so scared of nihilism(i.e. babby's first existential crisis)? Is Nietzsche the devil to the Orthodox?
>>1126689
>Nietzsche
>nihilist
Further proof that no one on /his/ has ever read a book
>>1126747
>implying I don't know that
It's just that he is constantly addressed and associated with Nihilism
>>1126689
I made an extensive argument for the historicity of the Gospels here: http://pastebin.com/9XxNnSU6
We see Nietzsche more as a symptom of the Devil than the actual devil. If you want to read an Orthodox, reactionary (as in, for divine right of kings) argument against Nietzsche, see Father Seraphim Rose's "Nihilism" (you can skip the preface, which just explains this is but a single chapter of a book project later abandoned): http://oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm
>>1126747
Nietzsche is a nihilist by his own definition. Nietzsche defined nihilism as the belief that truth is not something objective, but just a product of power relations. Is that not Nietzsche's stance?
>>1126810
Wasn't Orthodoxy hit the hardest by communism and thus atheism? I can see why Orthodox would harbour a special hatred for things like nihilism.
>>1126810
>Nietzsche defined nihilism as the belief that truth is not something objective, but just a product of power relations. Is that not Nietzsche's stance?
No, not exactly. This is how he himself described nihilism:
"Overcoming of philosophers through the destruction of the world of being: intermediary period of nihilism: before there is yet present the
strength to reverse values and to deify becoming and the apparent world as the only world, and to call them good.
Nihilism as a normal phenomenon can be a symptom of increasing strength or of increasing weakness:
partly, because the strength to create, to will, has so increased that it no longer reguires these total interpretations and introductions of meaning ("present tasks," the state, etc.);
partly because even the creative strength to create meaning has declined and disappointment becomes the dominant condition. The incapability of believing in a "meaning," "unbelief.""
So it's explicitly distinguished from "the strength to reverse values and to deify becoming and the apparent world as the only world, and to call them good," which is what he advocated.
>>1126833
We identify nihilism directly with Satanism.
>>1126845
Nietzsche also describes nihilism this way
> Nihilism represents a pathological transitional stage (what is pathological is the tremendous generalization, the inference that there is no meaning at all): whether the productive forces are not yet strong enough, or whether decadence still hesitates and has not yet invented its remedies. Presupposition of this hypothesis: that there is no truth, that there is no absolute nature of things nor a "thing-in-itself." This, too, is merely nihilism-even the most extreme nihilism. It places the value of things precisely in the lack of any reality corresponding to these values and in their being merely a symptom of strength on the part of the value-positers, a simplification for the sake of life.
>>1126935
How would you react if the Pope and the Patriarchs announced that they've decided to try to mend the schism?
>>1126935
Yes, again he's specifically distinguishing it from his own philosophy, which follows after the nihilistic stage:
>transitional stage
>the productive forces are not yet strong enough
>It places the value of things precisely in the lack of any reality corresponding to these values
whereas Nietzsche's own philosophy placed the value in things with the transvaluators who redefined it, not just as a symptom of strength leading to an "inference that there is no meaning at all", but as an act of strength leading to actual new meaning.
>>1123340
Who doesn't love South Sudan?
>>1126954
If it meant accepting Papal authority, I would consider that whichever Patriarchs did this, anathematized themselves from the Orthodox Church.
>>1126962
Yes, it is. There are some very important distinctions from the Masoretic text, but most differences have zero to do with doctrine, and so outside of Liturgy, not that important.
>>1126967
Right, as Father Serpahim Rose points out, Nietzsche's vitalism is part of the nihilist dialectic, not above it; Nietzsche's philosophy is merely sublated by nihilism.
>>1123318
That's cuz Karl Rahner was a bad theologian.
>>1123289
>Do you consider "human rights" to be just about protecting an in-group, and no less arbitrary than rights for particular races over others?
Yes. But this "in group" can be as large as your own nation, and implementing said rights is based off on sober evalution of pros and cons. Since I've never personally seen any positive outcome from racist policies, I don't entertain arguments from them, not to mention I have no reason to be racist myself.
hey constantine, you had like an email or something right? I read some of the bible for the first time recently and it really changed a lot for me I think. I'm kinda interested in going to church but I am very worried about doing so and have a bunch of specific questions...
>>1127408
Nietzsche found everything to be of value. Even things he directly opposed he said were good because it gives you an enemy. In Zarathustra he outright says you should love you enemy, you should love annihilating them, and if you fall against your enemy you should love that you stuck to your principles.
His way of thinking see's value in everything and value flows outword from the mighty Ego, the Unique one.
The Christian way of thinking cannot see value in things without a God. God is just a surrogate to cope with the crushing nihilism. Rather than finding your own inner strength and value you differ your strength to an "other" (God), which is just a way of saying you never had value or strength to begin with.
>>1123289
Human rights are for people, not flies. They're not arbitrary.
On a sidenote, this whole "without a god you can't have objective morals" is silly peasant-tier horseshit. Its the same with absolute knowledge. You can't have absolute knowledge, and you can't be 100% sure what you're doing is right.
But you can be objectively justified in believing something is very likely true with enough good evidence.
And you can be reasonably sure that your actions will benefit the wellbeing of concious creatures.
Human rights are about building as society that will most likely benefit the largest ammount of people. That is objective, not arbitrary.
>>1123464
Rights are bound to responsibilities and accountability. Can you hold a chimp accountable? No.
With chimps, as beings that can suffer, we are accountable if we cause them unjustifiable suffering. Having animal protection in our laws makes humans feel better, thats why we do it. It says something about how our empathy works and what we value, and what we aspire to be.
>>1124008
>Infants are instinctual theists. Our faculty for theism is capacity to attribute agency to occurrences.
>hyperactive agency detection equates to positive belief in an intervening deity
Holy fuck, disregard
>>1129894
>>1129923
I now realise you're actually a stunningly unreasonable person, and beyond argument.
