>Christianity then
>"We believe that everything in the bible literally happened. We have no moral trouble with worming our way in to society's institutions, laws, torturing people etc. How DARE you question the bible when it's God's message to us"
>Christianity now
>"Dude, you actually believe that the bible is real? Bro, it's a PRANK, it's metaphorical, its a PRANK! How DARE you question the bible when it has had a big influence on our society, nvm the fact that we can't watch an alternate reality where Christianity wasn't invented. Lmao, look at the reddit neckbeards!"
OK, I'm agnostic but you get the gist. Christianity has gone from essential to an ornament for people to wave about as a way of gaining respectability points. Everyone on lit wishes they were Christian. That's the level of faux patrician were talking about
>>475009
It's just like kids longing for the nineties. Or /pol/ longing for a nazi Reich. People tend to believe the grass is greener on things they have no experience with.
>>475009
Christianity is making a comeback in circles like 4chan for the same reason militant atheism had a huge boom during the late 2000s and early 2010s.
People who were previously Christian found out that a lot of what they were told frankly isn't true, so they rebel against it by being as un-Christian as possible. 4chan however is populated by shut-ins who's only real experience with theology was militant atheists on the internet, so when they find out a lot of what these knee-jerk atheists is saying isn't true they turn to radical Christianity.
It's bizarre.
Bible is not a single thing. It's a collection of 40 or so book, histories, poetry/song annals, prophecies and wisdom literature. You can't generalize how it is to be read.
Also not being familiar with basic concepts of literary studies such as literal and symbolical and more complex levels of narration.
>>475770
>It's bizarre.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
>>475770
Most 4chan users are American. Most Americans are Christians. Christianity is declining on 4chan, pic related
>>475770
>so when they find out a lot of what these knee-jerk atheists is saying isn't true they turn to radical Christianity
What do atheists say that is as untrue as the ridiculous stories of Christianity?
And do you have examples of users actually getting baptized and becoming radicalized or are you talking about LARPers that post "Deus Vult!" from their mom's basement?
Christians never took the Old Testament seriously. Saint Augustine already wrote that it couldn't be literally true, that's in the 4th century.
Sage for yet another nonsensical attention whoring fedora thread.
>>475770
Christianity is making a rather major comeback, as is religion in general.
>>475810
Ridiculous myths like the Christian dark ages and various mad misinterpretations of Christian theology. Just take a visit to /r/atheism, it's retarded.
>LARPers that post "Deus Vult!" from their mom's basement?
That's what I'm taking about.
Just as militant atheists aren't literal militants who go off to join communist revolutions or something, militant 4chan Christians aren't literally crusaders contrary to their ambitions.
>>475811
St Ausgustine was in a minority and he believed that Genesis was not literal because he though God created planets, people etc in one instant, not all of 6 days.
I've never read that he didn't think Exodus etc were literal.
I actually went to a very radical church for a long time because of my exposure to militant Christianity on the internet.
Now I just shitpost fedora images and listen to white supremacist podcasts telling myself I'll go back to church any day now.
>>475818
There is a current debate going on between historians as to whether the Middle Ages were quite as bad as traditionally they have been viewed. I love the latest meme among Christians on 4chan that this now means the whole Medieval period is an atheist myth, from /r/atheism according to you no less.
>>475843
It's not an atheist myth, but the kind of atheists I'm talking about here do definitely believe it wholeheatedly. And even more mistakenly believe it is caused by Christianity exclusively.
I can tell you this from experience, having previously been that kind of atheist.
>>475739
Pretty sure there are more people who were adults in the 1990s longing for the nineties than people who were kids. The '90s were objectively better than the crap we have today.
>>475860
>The '90s were objectively
No, you were just a carefree kid.
>>475822
Clearly this shows that belief in the literal word of the Old Testament was never a point of dogma. And I can't think of a single Catholic thinker who ever believed that.
>>475905
Hand wringing over what is and what isn't dogma is unique to the modern church.
>>475905
If you've ever read Augustine's theodicy you would know he was OT loving as fuck. Seriously, if American fundamentalists knew more about philosophy Augustine would be their hero.
t. theology student
>>475009
>Christianity then
>We believe that everything in the bible literally happened
Fuck off nigger, go read early christian theologians, they were already saying that shit like Adam & Eve is a metaphor before the fall of the roman empire.
>>475770
Christianity is making a comeback because with the wave of far-left generations coming in people are realising that Christian values encouraged their ideal society.
If they had it their way people that do Slut walks would be labelled as Psychotic and thrown in an institution, peace demonstrators would be labelled as ignorant of how the world works, femenists would be laughed at and society wouldn't be so "sexual"
and im okay with that
>>475969
>peace demonstrators would be labelled as ignorant of how the world works,
Yes, it's not like pacifism is taught by Christianity as the only possible option or something like that
>>475009
>Christianity then
>"Jesus is our lord of savour but we don't agree on whether this or that gospel is the truth and what exactly we're expected to do and do we even have to follow the old testament and is the bible's message spiritual or literal?"
>Christianity after
>"lol we have power, now only the richest of people can read the bible and by the way suffering makes you closer to christ so it's okay if we torture you and step on your rights :^)"
>Christianity now
>"Jesus is our lord of savour but we don't agree on whether this or that gospel is the truth and what exactly we're expected to do and do we even have to follow the old testament and is the bible's message spiritual or literal? plus what about these scientifical and historical discoveries we've made"
>>475979
>Christianity then: Old Testament
>Christianity now: New Testament
>>475956
>Be early jews
>call beginning book genesis
>same root as origin, generate, PIE root with begin
>infinite other names to choose from
>"if it's a collection of metaphors and parables, let's go with something that'll give off a vibe of literalism just to fuck with people"
>"all in favor say 'aye'".
Exactly how it happened.
>>475981
>what about these scientifical and historical discoveries we've made
They were seldom the direct product of Christianity?
If they were, then please explain how muslims discovered planets without being christian
>>475991
So you admit you're ignorant of how the world works?
>>476006
I'm saying Old Testament, e.g "Christianity Then" didn't preach pacifism.
>>476002
That's not what I implied. I was referring to things like the history of the universe, etc. and how it works (or not) with the Bible and if the Christian beliefs can be adapted or not.
Christianity, from the beginning, was about accepting several interpretations and debating and criticizing the religion itself. After all, the Bible says God gave us reason and intelligence so that we wouldn't stay in the dark, and the Bible itself has 4 different gospels (and Paul himself had his own version even without meeting the Christ before the latter's death).
Modern Christianity is actually closer to how it originally was, with several schools of thoughts, various interpretations varying from very open to very literal, and newer Christians creating a bridge between their faith and how we discover more and more about the world on a daily basis.
>>475770
If your understanding of your identity as a Christian or atheist comes from internet culture your just an idiot
>>475800
Yeah but the internet is never indicative of the real statistics. Whoever screams the loudest seems to have an overwheleming presense. Most people on this site are religious apathetic.
>>475969
But Christianity ISN'T making a comeback. It's decaying in the US at 1% a year and faster in Europe. It's just Larpers pretending to be their favorite war hammer saint on the internet. The idea of Christianity as an anti-liberalism doesn't make sense. Christianity adopts to whatever culture is around it. If you live in a liberal area the Christians will liberal, if you live in a conservative area the Christians will be conservative.
>"Remember that Mary and Joseph were refugees and ethnic minorities. Open the boarders goy!"
etc.
>>475009
>Christianity then
>"We believe that everything in the bible literally happened
Learn actual intellectual history or kill yourself. Biblical literalism has been dismissed since at least St. Augustine. The standard system was that if something in the bible contradicted natural observation then it was to be interpreted as figurative. Similarly, if something was straight up wrong, it was assumed that God's word used the common thought of the time to not scare people off, and thus was permissible to dismiss.
>>476002
Condemnations of 1277 directly encouraged skepticism about the perfection of Ancient Greek writings and made it acceptable to make alterations to Aristotelian theory. Thus it was through the Church's pursuit to clearly demarcate the spheres of natural philosophy and Christian theology that one of the first popular instances of release from ancient dogma occurred.
Its something that probably would have occurred eventually anyway, but the church's impetus probably saw it occurring earlier.
>>476183
I read Summa Theologica and Aquinas only seemed to say that the days can be out of order and they don't necessarily need to be 24 hours each. That's it. He goes on to say crazy stuff like
>The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it
And
>It is to be noted, however, that although these works of demons which appear marvelous to us are not real miracles, they are sometimes nevertheless something real. Thus the magicians of Pharaoh by the demons' power produced real serpents and frogs. And "when fire came down from heaven and at one blow consumed Job's servants and sheep; when the storm struck down his house and with it his children---these were the work of Satan, not phantoms"; as Augustine says
>>476183
>Biblical literalism has been dismissed since at least St. Augustine
So jesus only metaphorically rose from the dead?
>The standard system was that if something in the bible contradicted natural observation
Well magic isn't real so I guess none of those miracles apply....oh wait Aquinas believed in witches and dark magic.
>>476216
>made it acceptable to make alterations to Aristotelian theory
No, they banned his works on physics. The exact opposite of science
>>476221
>magic semen
>>476162
I agree, people who base their religious beliefs on memes are retarded.
However I'm not such a person, I'm firmly a strident atheist, however I've come to that conclusion through legitimate philosophical education and life experience.
>>475009
St Augustine as influential a Christian figure as anyone else non divine didnt take all the bible literally
Brush up on your knowledge of Christian/history/philosophy/ theology family
>>476248
Augustine literally believed bad things in the world were a product of us being descended from Adam and his own act of straying from god's will.
>>476224
The ban was fairly brief and the outcomes entirely unintentional, but the resulting questioning of Aristotle and ancient knowledge in the rest of Christendom (and eventually Paris again) was a major step toward the development of modern science. The condemnations were based on Aristotle's physics contradicting theology, and came down to the idea that God was not limited by Aristotle's words (example: Aristotle says vacuums are impossible and absurd, however the omnipotence of God could make a vacuum occur, however unlikely). This led to medieval scholars recognizing that the Ancients could indeed be wrong and that the intellectual framework of natural philosophy and contradictory natural observations didn't need to be worked within Aristotelian physics. Its a strange accident of circumstance, but an important piece in the development of science regardless.
>>476328
>The ban was fairly brief
Doesn't matter. There was one. That alone disqualifies the Catholic Church as a serious scientific organization
>>475843
Its not that the middle ages weren't bad, its that they weren't a "dark age". The idea that the Greeks and Romans were on the verge of space travel and then christianity came along and reduced them to shit eating peasents is bullshit.
>>476014
Those were just Jews, anon. Jesus came to do away with that paradigm. How can you claim to follow Christian values when you ignore everything actually involving Christ?
>>476392
>Jesus came to do away with that paradigm
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
>>476343
The question wasn't if the Church was scientific organization, its was if many of Western Europe's scientific innovations were a direct cause of the existence of the Church. No one is arguing that the church itself (the many natural discoveries of theologians not being included since they weren't an institutional aspect) was a scientific entity. Rather, the Church's actions directly led to the accelerated development of an intellectual tradition that would play a major role in the development modern science.
Science and technology are not simply the chronology of major discoveries that many scientific histories like to portray it as. The intellectual frameworks that propagate the incremental additions of new knowledge is just as important, and needs to be considered just as much any natural discovery
>>476407
>its was if many of Western Europe's scientific innovations were a direct cause of the existence of the Church.
This ignores pretty much all of the innovations done by non-christians. You might as well say that the Oracle of Delphi and the effect of the apparent separation between the gods and mankind caused the Greeks to invent math. To make such sweeping generalizations as 'direct causes' on something as chaotic and broad as science is highly dubious at best
>>476268
And? There were no natural observations that contradicted that idea at that time. An interesting aspect of the loss and rediscovery of ancient knowledge is the effect on the interpretation of genesis. In Augustine's time the idea of the world being hard separated by the equator was seen as fairly ridiculous. When Medieval scholars rediscovered Ptolemaic geography and the idea of the antipodes, scholars were forced to reinterpret Genesis (and Noah for that matter) as figurative, since otherwise people could not exist below the equator. Interestingly enough, the discovery of the new world kept the figurative interpretation in tact after the Portuguese rounded Africa.
The "religion of science" is Hermetism
>Chemistry (called alchemy back than) written into the holy books
>Flexiable and non-dogmatic. Hermetism can be understood as a stand-alone religion, a compliment to any other religion, or a secular spiritual experience.
>Major influence on several important scientists. Giordano Bruno and Newton were hermetic. Hermetic was strongly associated with the Renaissance.
>>476430
The history of intellectual developments and their direct influence is hardly dubious; indeed direct lines are reasonably easy to follow in Intellectual History. Note that there can be a very large number of direct causes, and that the one I was speaking of was only one of many. No one would say that the event was alone in the intellectual development of Europe toward modern science. But it was a certainly a part of it, and is evidence of the Church's role in the development of the West's unique Scientific tradition.
I also don't see how attributing the acceleration of popular skepticism of ancient knowledge to a particular incident ignores non-christian innovation.
>>475969
>Sex is bad
*tips menorah*
