A disabled trans woman got absolutely crucified from the left for saying religions are bad and need to be critiqued lmao
these """allies""" never had to deal with religious oppression like lgbt people do lmao
A disabled trans woman got absolutely crucified from the left for saying religions are bad and need to be critiqued lmao
A disabled trans woman got absolutely crucified from the left for saying religions are bad and need to be critiqued lmao
>say something retarded
>People call you out on it
a classic tale
Religion seriously is just a tool to control. Maybe its real, plenty of people and stuff from the bible happened or were real but this idea of this omnipotent god who just so happens to be bipolar as fuck is such a joke. I agree relgion has a place in this world but its not with its constituents forming laws and policies to enforce on thoae who arnt followers.
religion has been used this way and been nothing more than a basis for control and enabling evil for all of modern (recorded) history
Religion is literally made to control retards and avoid them sperging out, nothing more
except they just sperg out in the name of religion and think everyone is a demon.
"religion bad" is too broad of a statement. Like yeah some christian or muslim harassing queers in the streets on london is bad. But I don't think your average stoner daoist bro is hurting anybody. Also saying that "religion is bad because it's false" is very arrogant. Atheists assume that all that exists can be proved in a lab enviornment. Personally I'm a spiritualist, I believe the world is "spooky" and that there's weird supernatural shit out there but I don't believe in some all-knowing, all-judging sky-cop.
>I believe the world is "spooky" and that there's weird supernatural shit out there
so... you're a stupid person?
didn't ask for your opinion, filthy frogposter.
he demands worship and obedience and sends you to a realm of infinite torture if you don't submit.
I don't need to be "forgiven for my sins", my actions are my own and I decide if they are right or wrong.
God isn't a sky-cop. He voids all debts in Christ and calls the world to perfect community.
god is just like a cop, he tries to trick you into doing crime, and then gleefully punishes you when you do exactly what he expected
Sin is something God permits to occur by human free will which he is constantly turning to higher ends. He manifestly does not want to want to punish anyone, because he died on the Cross to offer salvation freely to us. God does not "demand worship" or impose some heteronomous set of rules upon us. God calls you to love him, that is, love itself, the ground of being, the source of everything that exists, of all goods, and through the principled love of good itself to love all men and other creatures. When God insists that you follow him, when God punishes sin, he does so because to reject him is to reject the principle of agapic love itself and practice idolatry, to make some lesser good the highest good. Sin is violence against ourselves, against our own nature, and against the community. That is why God takes it seriously. God has expressed his desire to save the whole world through Christ. If there is an eternal hell in which men will be damned, it will be because men have rejected what is right. But in all likelihood, because God is mighty and loving, we will all be saved in the end. I invite you to live with love of God, with love of the source of all things, at the center of your life, and to struggle against evil with the greatest possible hope in your heart.
god created everything he says is bad. God has full knowledge of what everyone will do in their lifetimes, yet punishes you anyway. God created the tree of knowledge and said don't eat it, god created homosexuality and said it's a sin. God gives little children cancer and it's their fault for being sinners or something.
Your perspective on god does not match the reality of the world.
God works in mysterious ways 🙂
God created a world he knew would fall into sin because he knew he could save it. He achieves this end without trampling on human freedom. He wills that the highest good, the world of perfect community, is achieved in part by contingent causes. The end is determinate, but the means undetermined. God does not give little children cancer except in the sense that he upholds the world in being even though it is in sin, and death, disease, and decay enter into the world because of sin, because the world has been alienated from God, who is the source of all being and life. God has shown that he is not interested in arbitrarily punishing people in the Cross. Instead of reflecting on logic puzzles about the relation between God's providence and particular instances of suffering, look to the Cross, where God tells you "I care and I have saved you." Where he speaks clearly. Look to the Sacraments, where he offers himself freely always.
this is meaningless to anyone who does not already believe in your ideology
God does not give children cancer, except in the sense that he created cancer, created children, and happened to know that children would get cancer. It's not his fault, other humans do bad things sometimes so that justifies it I guess.
God did not create cancer. Cancer is a deficiency in the world which results from sin. God knew that diseases like cancer would result from sin, but did not decide that this would be sufficient reason not to create, because he knew he could deliver the world from death and suffering through the Incarnation.
god created the universe, and all things in it. God created humans the way they are, down to the most precise function. God then must have created sin, created cancer, as he created all things.
Is God like Tinker Bell or something? Except instead of dying, when people stop believing in him kids get cancer. Deep.
What sin would a five year old commit to deserve dying of leukemia or lymphoma?
Don't think about sin just as a personal guilt issue. Sin is a disease which has marred the entire world. If you read the Genesis narrative, veganism was the norm before Noah. Animals were not by God's original intention to die or be killed. Nobody was, nothing was. Everything was to be in eternal, loving harmony. Children are born, as the products of their parents, inheriting fallen nature, with physical deficiencies and disabilities. This is not what God wants for us. Man was intended to be priestly steward of all creation, to lovingly care for all things. Through the Fall of man, all creation has been cursed; our physical nature, and the physical nature of all things as well. Cancer is a "natural evil," not a moral one. The redemption of man means the redemption of all things. God --> Man --> Nature.
>reading genesis 1 as talking about a literal deciduous plant rather than as an allegory for mankind’s ascension into the king of beasts
Some quality autism here, folks
regardless of the allegory, god knew what would happen, created the whole situation for it to happen, and then got mad about it.
God works in mysterious ways.
My friend, philosophical logic puzzles about providence and evil are not reason to reject hope. God screams out through the Cross that he cares. The Bible tells us that the world was created good, is still basically good, though ill, and will be delivered from this illness, called sin, its alienation from itself, restored to original glory, and energized so as to move beyond that glory into the infinite depths of holiness.
Cancer is not a thing God created. Cancer is an aberration. Cancer is a malfunction in creation, and things malfunction because of sin.God created humans to live forever, not to die miserably.
God is the ground of being. God is the pure act of being itself. To be alienated from God is to have less of being, to be removed from your own essence, to be sick with sin. It's not magic.
God allegedly made it possible for human cells to mutate and break the way that they do. You call him omnipotent; reflect on what that actually means. This has to be the world he would want
The Fall transformed natural law. The world that is available to scientific investigation is not the world of perfect and harmonious existence which predates it. Eden is not a literally discoverable garden somewhere in the Middle East, but a completely different state of being. Modern theologians, especially in the Anglican and Orthodox traditions, have been emphasizing this point in recent history.
The same point keeps rolling back. The Fall was made as a possibility; whatever deformations of “natural design” you see would be there by god’s consent
Just admit you believe in a god who made all evil as well as all good
Yes, the Fall of men was a possibility latent within the free will of man which occurred contingently. God foreknew this would happen, what man would choose, but did not decide this would be reason enough not to create. I believe that God permits and even uses evil, turning it to good, but he is not its ultimate cause. God is our savior.
If your god is the author of the authors of evil, he’d be their ultimate author. If I propagandized a child from birth to commit a mass shooting and they did, I’d be rightly held as responsible. And isn’t it interesting you think your god is an ends-justify-the-means utilitarian?
God doesn't condition people to sin. People sin freely. We inherit a propensity to sin on account of the original sin which got us cast out of Eden. God isn't thinking in terms of the utilitarian pleasure calculus, he's thinking in terms of saving and sharing himself with his loved ones, us. The glory of eternity justifies fallen history. You could argue this is broadly "consequentialist," maybe, but I'd just say God isn't a deontologist. Virtue ethicists consider consequence, too.
He literally would be, though. Who made the sin able to be passed down? Who - knowingly, as you admit - chose to go forward with a human nature that would result in the fall when he should have been able to make infinite alternatives because again, omnipotence? You really don’t give your god enough credit
And all the rewards you described are at base valuable because you think they’re pleasurable. Would you endure a heaven that felt like hell because your god wanted you to?
The joy of eternal life is not a calculable, animal "pleasure," but an abiding joy in which there can be highs and lows. Despair is rubbed out, though. God did not "make sin." Sin is nothing other than deficiency, a failure to be what God intends us to be. God creates human nature, we deviate from human nature by our free will. God created us knowing that we would freely and contingently choose sin. He did not override our free will, but instead has chosen to save us within the scope of the world it has created. And I do firmly believe that this world, considered in relation to the whole, is the best of all possible worlds. The world in which there is both freedom and eternal salvation, this is the best. God would not allow there to be evil unnecessarily, so as there was a fall and there is sin we can infer that it is better that we are going through this trial called history than it would be if we weren't.
You keep saying the same thing over and over. Your god would be responsible for whatever deficiencies there are because he made it possible to be deficient!
You say humans can stray from one human nature (weird since we’re all distinct people who I’d presume would have individual natures), but let’s run with it. Does your god have free will? Could he choose to stray from his own nature? Is that perhaps what he does when he creates Satan and sin and bone cancer and worms that eat the eyes of children, only to come back and say “I’ve changed, baby, that wasn’t me, keep worshipping me!!!”?
>unironic best of all possible worlds cope
lmao, have fun with that, Dr. Pangloss
I don't think a radical affirmation of the world is "cope." I think telling yourself the world you live in is an inferior, meaningless chaos is misanthropic and violent. God created a world in which there was a potency for evil. That doesn't make him "responsible for" or the "creator of" evil. It makes him the creator of people who choose evil. Human beings participate in one universal essence which resides in the mind of God. God's nature simply is goodness beyond comprehension. I think the mocking tone is unnecessary.
Finally we agree; my mocking tone is quite contingent
I don't care about your fairytales, religious people are weak simpletons who can't take agency of their own lives so they have to look for a "higher purpose" despite there being none.
The meaning I choose for myself and the good for which I strive are grand, cosmic. I don't feel obligated to say that the world is chaotic and meaningless. Don't see one good reason why I should. Don't see why I should choose to live with an emaciated, weak hope, instead of going full throttle and wishing well for myself and the world maximally.
You can do that without believing in literal fanfics written thousands of years ago.
You can have empty, contentless sentiments. Look at what happened to Christmas. If you remove the actual model of what universal, self-sacrificial love is, and replace it with vague ideas of "being nice," capitalism comes in and takes control and turns it into a decadent bougie commercial celebration. You take away the content of your hope, take away the person of Jesus, and something will come in to take his place. Some earthly revolutionary pseudo-Messiah or fascist demagogue. Some paper-thin cult incapable of sustaining human spiritual and intellectual life. Why shouldn't I believe that there is a God, a God that became man, who made a world that is good, and is saving it from evil? Because you don't like the Old Testament historical books or the Pentateuch? Because you don't know how to read them properly? Why can't I love Jesus Christ? Why shouldn't we all? What's not to love about him? Why shouldn't we pray together for the world?
>this established cult is better than other cults
Still don't care. I'd make organized religion illegal. You're free to worship what you want in private no matter how stupid it is but cults shouldn't be tolerated in any form.
If you can't tell the difference between orthodox Christianity and weird sects that try to consume people's lives, you are blind. You are blinding yourself. I'm going to keep talking about Jesus because I love Jesus. You're welcome not to like that, I suppose. I do think it's sick that you'd fantasize about breaking up my congregation and stopping all the work we do for our community because of some abstract utopian ideal you've got in your head of the perfect atheist McSociety.
If you do good that's great, doesn't change the fact organized religion has been used as a tool to keep the masses obedient for millennia. None of what you're doing has to involve being in a cult, there are nonprofits doing more than you without all the cuckoo shit.
Nonprofit telescopic philanthropy will not make your community a better place. Nonprofits cannot structure people's lives around care. Nonprofits do not give people concrete moral instruction, the tools they need to live genuinely human lives as social animals. You cannot just substitute corporations for primal human spiritual and social reality. "Religion," however the hell you define that maximally nebulous term, has been used to oppress people because it has been the center of human life itself for millennia. It has also been the source of human liberation and creative endeavor. Plenty of murderous atheistic regimes you can highlight in the 20th century. Problem isn't "religion," it's sin. It's hate. It's evil. Which we have to conquer with love.
>It has also been the source of human liberation and creative endeavor.
Once again, all of this could've been achieved without religion. People don't need to be scared of some cloud daddy to know not to do bad things.
Why are you so vitriolic? Genuinely, why? You do realize that religion isn't just an abstraction, right? But the actual formal principle of most people's lives? And Christian faith isn't about fear of punishment, it's about celebration of what God has done in Jesus and the imitation of his ideal. I don't know what kind of Bible-thumping Pharisaism you've encountered personally, but it's not representative of the Gospel hope. "It could've been done without religion," he says. But it wasn't. It wasn't.
You mistake rationality for vitriol. Reality is that you celebrate religion for marginal goodness when the evil it has been done with it is much worse. Realize what board you're in? Guess who made our lives the living hell it is today? Before christianity and other abrahamic religions being queer was socially nothing out of the ordinary.
>before christianity the world was an lgbt paradise
This just literally isn't true
Check on any ancient civilization and come back to me. Some that are mostly untouched by this plague are this way to this day.
>That doesn't make him "responsible for" or the "creator of" evil.
Yes it fucking does. This claim is what you continually fail to qualify. God chose to create free will and therefore chose to create evil; omnipotent beings cannot be free from any consequence of their actions to any degree because they understand every outcome of their choice.
I don't know what to tell you, dude. We've agreed in substance, I think, you just don't like my language. God does not do anything evil. God creates people who he knows will choose evil. He thinks "this is not reason to halt my act of creation, because I can save them without undoing their freedom." God creates a world which is better than a static world of order without life, a world in which there is both freedom and order, a vital unity in complexity. God is "responsible" and "creator" only in the very specific sense that he created and upholds the world in general. Every individual act of evil, every instance of ill will, is free human choice.
By creating free will, god created evil. You claim that this was neccessary to create a world with "both freedom and order", which is incorrect in the context of an OMNIPOTENT god. Why couldn't a world without the freedom to commit evil have "vital complexity"?
In addition, you claim that the creation of evil will be worth it because of a perfect world you have been promised, and the "test of history" can be redeemed. This promise only helps you ignore the immense evil of a fallen world. Every death, disease and misfortune results from God's decision and is His sin to bear. You may choose to look to your promised world and call God a savior, but a yet unfulfilled promise does not redeem all the sin of the world; His sin.
Do you believe that omnipotence implies that God can create a world which is logically impossible? That literally makes no sense? How can God create a world which is free and ordered but also not free? And do you really want a world in which there is no freedom? In which there is no possibility to choose otherwise? Because a freedom which does not contain within it the possibility to choose otherwise is no freedom at all. God has sinned not at all. He has given us an incredible gift which we abuse.
Everything that exists is good, basically. Evil is literally just privation. Sinners do not cease to be God's good creation. Evil is shocking because it is a debasing of a world which is wonderful. A maiming of its potential. Disorder. It's not a substance.
You are free to read everything that God does in the best possible light and shift the blame of creating sin off of an omnipotent and omniscient being. I will not.
I don't see why you would doubt God's intentions when he has demonstrated his loving kindness and care for each of us on the cross. He continues to offer himself to us personally in the Sacraments today.
I know that pederasty was generally much more acceptable. That is, aristocrats diddling femboys. Oh, and gay temple prostitution. But lifelong same sex relationships? Affirmation of gender transitioning? These are things which have only just become possible.
>I don't see why you would doubt God's intentions
All the evil in the world makes me doubt it. You could say again that the fall is not His fault, and I would once again say that an omniscient being knows the consequences of it's actions
I just don't get this. Doesn't all the good and beauty in the world make you happy? Grateful to be alive? Doesn't the beauty of the message of Jesus captivate you?
The world is beautiful, but at least by what I have learned in my life evil is an overwhelming force (even if it lacks substance or whatever). Maybe that is just an abberation of my life experience, but I would be lying through my teeth if I claimed that this world is good.
I do appreciate that we had this conversation, you seem more in touch with the principles of Christianity than most.
It was a good talk. I'd just say that I don't think pessimism is justified. It's not good for you or anyone else. Have a good one.
It's reasonable to speak of a God above God, who stands above all analogical language. But it is not right to say that we cannot speak of him at all or that his essence is irrational; that is, without definition; that is, nothing. God is infinite and incomprehensible but not senseless. Simple, not null. The actions absolutely are disordered because goods ought to be pursued in proper proportion. Making my dog my God is a violence against myself and against my neighbor. A dog cannot satisfy my spiritual needs, and breaking faith with the rest of the world and violating the unity of the community of prayer is a problem. Natural evil is a result of the metahistorical Fall. The redemption of man means the redemption of all creation. Jesus Christ is a cosmic savior. Change does not have to come from violence. The eschaton in Christian understanding is not static in the absence of sin, but infinitely progressing further in holiness.
>But it is not right to say that we cannot speak of him at all or that his essence is irrational; that is, without definition; that is, nothing. God is infinite and incomprehensible but not senseless. Simple, not null.
That is not what irrationality means.
The mere notion that "logic flows from God" or is "internal to the divine nature" is just a flowery way of equating God with logic and then pretending you totally didn't do that.
God fundamentally transcends these flawed human concepts.
>The actions absolutely are disordered because goods ought to be pursued in proper proportion.
You stated that all that exists is good.
This also applies to disorder, disharmony and chaos.
If being disordered and disproportional is good, how is it evil?
Is it evil because it is hated by God, or is it hated by God because it is evil?
>A dog cannot satisfy my spiritual needs
Neither does a man. yet here we are :^)
>Natural evil is a result of the metahistorical Fall
You cannot have the Fall of Man, because that'd require either Adam and Eve to not have had free will (and thus be forced into sin), or to concede that it is in fact possible to have both free will without the presence of good or evil.
>Change does not have to come from violence.
Yet it clearly does, which must be as God intended.
God is not reducible to logic but all truth claims participate in fundamental truth, in the logic of the divine essence. The irrational is literally nothing. That which in principle cannot be thought is not real. God knows himself in an immediate act of intuition and is real.
There are greater and lesser goods, gradations of being. Things are good in spite of their being disordered, not because of it. They still participate to some degree in the original harmony. If they did not, they would not exist. Clever, but Jesus can certainly satisfy your spiritual needs, because he is both your king and brother, at hand and beyond your control. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is symbolic of royal divine authority, of the ability judge worthwhile from worthless as God did in his ordering of primal chaos in the Genesis accounts. It is not the case that Adam and Eve are presented in the story as not knowing God's command. They knew his command, they knew their duty. They knew good. They decided, however, to try to exalt themselves to the place of God. That is the fundamental problem in the Genesis narrative. Idolatry. The root problem of all sin. Change can come from cooperation and mutual love. I don't buy into your weird Heraclitean metaphysics.
>all truth claims participate in fundamental truth
Logic is far broader than you think, and, more importantly, never justifies itself; it merely is.
In that sense I suppose it is closer to God than morality.
>That which in principle cannot be thought is not real.
Mankind has a very limited imagination.
>Things are good in spite of their being disordered, not because of it.
So, all components of evil are actually varying degrees of good, which makes them evil, unlike good, which is also comprised of varying degrees of goods.
Yet one is "good" and one is "bad" because of some sort of "disorder" that cannot actually be rationally deduced from the actions or intentions themselves, meaning it is an unnecessary complexity that the catholic theologian William of Ockham would deem "utterly pointless".
>Clever, but Jesus can certainly satisfy your spiritual needs
The concept of God I adhere has no need for saviors, as he has no need to save.
>the ability judge worthwhile from worthless
Same thing different name. The problem remains.
>It is not the case that Adam and Eve are presented in the story as not knowing God's command. They knew his command, they knew their duty.
But they did not in fact know good. It's not the tree of knowledge of evil, but good AND evil.
>They decided, however, to try to exalt themselves to the place of God.
Were they not deceived by a creature that is fundamentally unable to do wrong?
And no, the serpent wasn't actually Satan or Lucifer. That's from John Milton's fanfiction.
Creaturely minds are not the only minds. The truest mind is the divine mind, which grasps itself intuitively. Degrees of goodness are degrees of being. Evil is when a creature does not participate in the grade of being that is proper to it according to the divine intention, according to the essence of the thing held in the divine mind. A disordered affection keeps a thing from performing its proper function, from truly being itself. It diminishes it, debases it. It does not destroy it, it still participates in some goodness, or else it would not exist, but it is evil in the sense that it is not what it ought to be. Affections can be known to be disordered because the natures of things can be grasped by the intellect (though not fully, in their infinite relation to every other nature) through divine illumination. We can know what man is, what man is for, and thereby know where his heart should be. The same is the case in principle for every other kind of thing. We can know essences as far it is useful for us to know them. We can know what it is for a thing to flourish and what it is for it to rot. The cosmos is according to divine intention an ordered whole.
The difference is significant, because you read "Knowledge of Good and Evil" as implying an ignorance on the part of Adam and Eve of the will of God, which is manifestly not what the narrative itself is communicating. God has given them a commandment, which they grasp. The identification of the serpent with Satan was not invented at the time of Paradise Lost. It is the result of proper evangelical exegesis of the Old Testament which sees a typological unity of the entire inspired canon.
You’ve been just producing literal word vomit this whole thread. Your posts typify that inanity of religious texts.
Your literary comprehension is pretty trash if you miss the metaphors in genesis.
Holding an innocent accountable for someone else’s crime isn’t justice. This is why nobody takes reparations seriously.
Meaning's been pretty clear, which is why the conversation went on for as long as it did. You also didn't understand what I was getting at with original sin. It's an inherited corruption of nature, at its most basic level. Whether or not there's an inherited guilt, a shared participation in the metahistorical original sin, is a matter of debate.
Nietzsche was right. Get wrecked, israelite lover
israelites are alright. What's your problem?
Most of them are Zionists currently doing settler colonialism and war crimes
you seriously think most israelites are doing that
>TIL most israelites are zionists
Lol, when I lived on the east coast I had several israelite friends and they were all rabid antizionists, either for religious or political reasons. I’m
and my gripe with European and American submission to abrahamic religions is whites submitting to the slave morality of a collection of ethnic groups that aren’t even originally European. While the israelites are responsible for the success of modern Europe (as most of the financiers of Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Anglo colonialism were israelites) and Christianity was undeniably useful for pulling Europeans away from the bloody and violent morality inherent to pagan cultures, it doesn’t change the fact that the systems that rule modern whites are innately foreign to us, which is why we’re all so disconnected and dissatisfied with our own culture.
No, multiple people have all understood what you’ve said; you’ve just been repeating yourself instead of addressing counterpoints
Literally not true, learn up on indigenous american tribes. They had trans and genderfluid people looong before we officially came up with those terms.
>Do you believe that omnipotence implies that God can create a world which is logically impossible?
Yes. To believe otherwise would be to limit God.
>That literally makes no sense?
Your sense is based on your understanding of logic that is first and foremost God's creation.
>Everything that exists is good, basically
That leaves no room for evil at all. And if evil does not exist, then the argument that it is a necessity for this world (which it fundamentally isn't) is completely pointless.
Unless of course you wish to argue that God decreed that certain specific behaviors or intentions that he bestowed upon us are evil.
But that's a whole other can of worms.
When Christians claim that God is omnipotent, we are not claiming that he can do the literally nonsensical. Truth is something internal to God's own nature. There are actions which are evil, but they are evil in the specific sense that they are disordered pursuits of lesser goods. Idolatries. They really do harm, but do not make the world basically bad. It is still a basically good place, just very sick. Less than itself.
>When Christians claim that God is omnipotent, we are not claiming that he can do the literally nonsensical.
Again, you are basing your knowledge on what is sensical or not on the very logic God himself created.
But regardless, to claim God cannot do the impossible is to limit God.
I would find that very blasphemous.
>There are actions which are evil, but they are evil in the specific sense that they are disordered pursuits of lesser goods
Aside from the fact that this implicitly shifts "evil" from behavior to intention (which allows one to perform everything deemed "evil" because it's no longer tied to the action being performed), you literally just said that
>Everything that exists is good
Therefore these "disordered pursuits" which, since they exist thus come from God, cannot be evil.
They are not evil in the particular sense you are using the word evil. They are evil in my view in that they are disordered. They are violence against self and other. The world does not cease to be good, but the bonds of peace and harmony that are supposed to exist between all things are weakened. Evil action is rooted in disordered intention. Intention is the more real problem. The Bible talks about this again and again. God doesn't want empty performance of ritual formalisms, he wants you to love the good. He wants you to be what you are. God did not "create logic." The science of logic is something we are working out, but truth and coherence are basic. They're internal to the divine nature. God himself is not eternal nonsense. He is being itself. The ground of being, pure act.
I've heard vague talk of this before, but I don't know much about ancient North America. Regardless, I don't think the practices of some ancient tribes prove your point, that the world was originally a super LGBT affirming before Christianity came and ruined things. I also don't think this backwards-facing mindset is helpful. Christianity does not need to be bound to medieval or early modern Europe. Didn't come from there. Doesn't have to keep its customs.
>They are evil in my view in that they are disordered
But the thing is, they're not disordered.
>They are violence against self and other.
There is more violence in this world that is not committed by mankind than violence that is.
Are these somehow exempt from evil because they were not performed by an entity with free will?
You of harmony, but harmony is static. Disharmony and the reestablishing of an equilibrium is what brings change.
If this deliberate disharmony is a necessary facet of existence, then why is it bad to perform it?
>God did not "create logic."
Yes he did.
You're trying to capture God in some limiting notion.
God is above your concept of logic, of good and evil, and ironically also above your very concept of God itself.
>By creating free will, god created evil.
You are a moron.
>God created a world in which there was a potency for evil. That doesn't make him "responsible for" or the "creator of" evil. It makes him the creator of people who choose evil
It actually does make him the creator of evil. He simply must be, because even with free will one cannot choose what does not exist.
>God's nature simply is goodness beyond comprehension.
The irony being that your very concept and understanding of good is based on entirely human premises.
I could say that God's nature too is love beyond comprehension, though I have reasons to bet that you will sputter and balk at that very notion.
Uh, no... God is love. I believe in the unity of the transcendentals, etc., in the divine nature. And of course all of our language about the Godhead itself is analogical, I'm speaking of something which cannot be captured completely by human language. The only way one can speak univocally about God is through Jesus Christ. One does not choose evil as if evil had independent substantial existence. All evil is disordered love. One prioritizing a lesser good above a greater good. What Augustine called "disordered love." For instance, hedonism is all about physical pleasure. Physical pleasure isn't evil. It's quite nice. But in making it more important than care for your neighbor, one becomes an idolator and does evil. One acts out of proportion with what is good, true, and beautiful.
>Uh, no... God is love.
You do not know where that phrase starts and where it ends.
>One does not choose evil as if evil had independent substantial existence.
>One prioritizing a lesser good above a greater good.
A lesser good is still a good.
Even the bare minimum of good is still a good.
It fails to explain evil.
How the hell does that allegory work the way you said when in the story man was created perfect but fucked things up, falling, not rising up above other animals
But to answer your question, the chapter 2 literally talks about how if Adam is able to eat of the fruit of knowledge and the fruit of eternal life he can rise above the other beasts and become like unto the gods. And I say gods, plural, because when genesis was put to pen the israelites still worshipped a pantheon.
who gives a shit
The bible is genuinely a disgusting book filled with disgusting passages, absolutely no proof to crroberate its claimd, and it claims to be the ONLY WAY to avoid ETERNAL SUFFERING. It is a supremacist document and inherently evil.
But the religious won. Its a means of control and it does a dam good job controlling. It has cultural hegemony, even in a progressively secular society, so much so that even secular people will eat you alive if you attempt a criticism.
Any attempt at destruction of the xtians has resulted in it thriving. Its fucked
Many things in the bible did happen even if events were exaggerated. Sodom and Gomorrah can be corroborated with a historic meteor shower in that region and time. Jesus was real and his name was Joshua and he was of middle eastern descent.
He was just an insignificant schizo israelite who got executed for treason. He only gained popularity decades after his death.
>Sodom and Gomorrah can be corroborated with a historic meteor shower in that region and time
There is literally no proof of either city having actually existed, nor that any sort of cataclysmic event has taken place there.
The fucking Iliad has more historic credibility for the simple fact that we found both the city of Troy and traces of a war being fought there, and the Iliad is nothing more than a glorified war poem.
Christianity is the only religion
op, the twittertards and the wokeoids are somehow all unfathomably retarded here. good job op, gonna wipe my ass with this thread later
I am religious and bisexual.
This person isn't talking about religious-backed bigotry, which is widely criticized by a left. They are talking about "an accurate understanding of reality" and pretending that she understands that better than everyone else so of course people get annoyed with her. LOTS of queer people and BIPOC and women are into spirituality. Always have been
Get the fuck outta here with this new age spewrituality bs
Also the left doesn't criticize Islam at all
Progressive Muslims absolutely criticize religious-backed bigotry from Islam. They also criticize majority-backed Islamaphobia which kills innocent Muslims including LGBTQ Muslims. You are beyond fucking stupid if you don't know or understand why Christian queerphobia gets far more attention from leftists living in Christian dominated cultures/societies.
>new age spewrituality bs
You are the one talking about "new age". I am talking about spirituality as a whole which has always been popular among marginalized groups including LGBTQ
If you're progressive you won't be a muslim to begin with.
>You are beyond fucking stupid if you don't know or understand why Christian queerphobia gets far more attention from leftists living in Christian dominated cultures/societies.
All those Islamic immigrants committing hate crimes these days are not Christians
>If you're progressive you won't be a muslim to begin with.
Spoken like a true dumbshit with zero experience anywhere.
>All those Islamic immigrants committing hate crimes these days are not Christians
Vast majority of hate crimes and oppressive legislation comes from Christians. We should protect and uplift LGBTQ Muslims from bigotry within their communities, but in combination with your screeching about "no true Muslim is progressive" its pretty obvious you are just hoping for a convenient minority scapegoat to enact state-sponsored violence upon. If that sounds familiar its because its what right wingers already do to everyone outside their cult
these threads always attract retarded right-wingers. LULZ is the worst place to discuss political or philosophical topics
>if you hate pisslam and other Abrahamic nonsense you're right winger
Jesus fucking Christ
It gets tiresome writing out homophobia/biphobia/transphobia all the time. Queerphobia is shorthand for these interlinked bigotries. If you have a better term then lmk.
>You are beyond fucking stupid if you don't know or understand why Christian queerphobia gets far more attention from leftists living in Christian dominated cultures/societies.
Can't remember the last time a Christian blew himself up in a crowded stadium in Europe. Or ran innocent people down with a van.
You’re right, European Christians just bomb a government office, take a boat out to the youth retreat of the social democratic party, and commit the most heinous act of unprovoked gun violence in the history of the continent. And they dysgenic amerilard cousins drive their trucks through school parades to protest the ‘woke education system.’
Believing in tarot cards is even dumber than believing in God.
your definition of "the left" boils down to liberals and the democrats. kill yourself
Believing in some sky daddy is definitely not an accurate understanding of reality
Reducing all of spirituality to "some sky daddy" isn't accurate of religion or of reality. Its exactly that kind of attitude why new atheism failed the first time.
so we started on religion and now we're just at 'spirituality?' what's next, are you going to broaden it to personal beliefs?
>lots of poc and queer people believe this thing
>that means its bad to reject it
Lots of poc and queer people are anorexic too! We dont have to see things as valid because minorities like them! Thats condescending to minorities, to hold them to a lower standard. And this liberal "if the viewpoint exists we must entertain it!" Is the same shit that enables nazis and other extremists. Its okay to say something is bad
Marginalizing spiritual voices means also marginalizing LGBTQ, women, working class, and BIPOC voices. It means uplifting privileged white cishet techbros and thinking their way of thought is the "objectively correct" one. It's not.
Anorexia is a disease and no we shouldn't marginalize sick people either.
Religion in america is white as hell buddy, just because poc people are also spiritual doesnt mean its not a widely white institution in america. Your brain has been so warped by identity politics that it is justifying a supremacist movement because some minorities have chosen to believe in it too
>Religion in america is white as hell buddy,
Only insofar as America is white as hell. But Black people are much more Christian than white people, and Latine are also very religious though follow different paterns.
> a supremacist movement
You are confusing white Evangelicals with religion as a whole.
Sure, if religion in Nigeria is "black as hell"
Black people are way more religious than white people though
Btw if only whites could vote in Texas, it would be a pro-abortion state lmao, both latinos and blacks are more likely to support abortion restrictions
>Btw if only whites could vote in Texas, it would be a pro-abortion state lmao, both latinos and blacks are more likely to support abortion restrictions
Firstly this is just bullshit.
Secondly, Texas' abortion restrictions are not based on any pro or anti abortion referendum. They are based on the GOP's hold on power, which is propped up almost entirely by white people with a handful of Latine. Only the most hardcore right wing extremists support the GOP-style day 1 no exception abortion laws. But because white people love the GOP more than their human rights, they continue to prop up said GOP
>capitalizing black not white
Go be a whore for your "superior" ugly black comrades
>Marginalizing spiritual voices means also marginalizing LGBTQ, women, working class, and BIPOC voices. It means uplifting privileged white cishet techbros and thinking their way of thought is the "objectively correct" one. It's not.
this has got to be a troll
Its true. Leftist movements need to stand for all communities and build bridges between all peoples, not just the ones who conform to your view of the universe.
being a woman or black is a fundamental trait. being spiritual or religious is a voluntary belief. some belief or idea being adopted by a lot of people - some of whom are minorities - has no bearing on the ethics of criticizing that idea. most of humanity is and had been religious. you might as well say hating action movies is racist and sexist
>being a woman or black is a fundamental trait. being spiritual or religious is a voluntary belief.
Kind of sure.
>some belief or idea being adopted by a lot of people - some of whom are minorities - has no bearing on the ethics of criticizing that idea
Some belief or idea being adopted by a particularly privileged group (the belief that any and all religion and spirituality is untrue and that only positive atheism is true) doesn't mean its above criticism either. You will be criticized back and rightfully so, since spirituality is a major part of identity, culture and meaning.
Atheism is just negative critique of organized religions without any positive substance so yeah you can't critique it to delegitimize it
>Atheism is just negative critique of organized religions
Uh no, positive atheism (like the one she mentions in OP) does have positive substance and goes beyond organized religions.
The left criticizes organized religions all the time as it should.
>positive atheism (like the one she mentions in OP) does have positive substance and goes beyond organized religions.
>The left criticizes organized religions all the time as it should.
No, the left loves Islam and buddhism. It even stopped criticizing Christianity these days.
christianity is the worst of the bunch constantine wad the best christian and he was a family murdering hedonist failure of an emperor
>the left loves Islam and buddhism. It even stopped criticizing Christianity these days.
Uh no. The left is neutral about Islam/Buddhism/Christianity as a whole, but works to reject people using those religion as a backing for bigotry, with more powerful religions (Christianity) receiving proportionately much more attention (rightfully so) than extremely marginal religions (Buddhism is like, less than 1% of the population wtf are you talking about are you posting from Myanmar or are you just whining for the sake of whining)
julian the apostate was right christiannity is a sinful lath fuck yourself
> It means uplifting privileged white cishet techbros and thinking their way of thought is the "objectively correct" one. It's not.
Evidence-based science is the objectively correct way of thinking, yes.
It’s condescending if you think your also unprovable beliefs are better and you need to teach them
No, it's simply bad to reject it. Period
>LOTS of queer people and BIPOC and women are into spirituality. Always have been
and? hating religion and recognizing it's untrue doesn't imply bigotry towards non-white people or LGBT people or women. in fact, atheism is the religious stance most correlated with anti-bigotry, by far
this is "hitler drank water" logic
who gives a shit if people are into spirituality. Spirituality is religion for people who think the word fuck is an acronym
>accurate understanding of reality
if only you knew
i have far more respect for and an easier time getting along with someone who thinks i hold factually incorrect beliefs about reality than someone who rejects the idea of a single underlying truth and retreats to nonsense about "different ways of knowing" and "respecting others' beliefs"
one of these people is treating me as an adult who is capable of being epistemically responsible. the other is treating me as a child to be coddled.
t. religious tranny
>i have far more respect for and an easier time getting along with someone who thinks i hold factually incorrect beliefs about reality than someone who rejects the idea of a single underlying truth and retreats to nonsense about "different ways of knowing" and "respecting others' beliefs"
>one of these people is treating me as an adult who is capable of being epistemically responsible. the other is treating me as a child to be coddled.
>t. religious tranny
as an atheist this is a position I can respect
but anon there are religious tranners
and you know you can't criticise tranners for anything
so if you're criticising religion you're criticising tranners and therefore you're not allowed to do that
also something something mind body dualism
its always funny how atheists of all ppl think they understand the world better and how their reality is the objective correct one. while most mass religions are pretty short sighted, atheism is the equivalence of being fully blind in one eye
are there artificial structures on mars
non organized american spirituality is almost entirely new age stuff. check the akashic records b
there is the mars face nasa tried to cover up and acted really sus about ("losing" the other pic that allegedly proved its not a face, then taking a new pic that was heavy photoshopped etc) and some pics of other seemingly manmade structures. also the weird xenon in the soil that could indicate a huge nuclear war there.
but what has that to do with spirituality really?
Yep you're a schizo
calling anything schizo that isnt in the mainstream media sounds more like a you problem
Do people pretend to believe in retarded things like this to feel special? I don't get it.
Oh, so it's from just not having any hobbies and too much free time to spend on YouTube.
lol i really dont care if you only gonna believe what cnn or whatever tells u go ahead.
Ah yes, the only alternative to YouTube clickbait, CNN. But it's cool, I don't even believe you believe this shit.
It's reasonable to trust authority, you know.
appeal to authority is peak npc
When you get sick, you go to the doctor.
When you want your kid to learn something, you send them to a qualified teacher.
The mistake OP here makes is saying 'religion' instead of Christians. Its far easier to criticize one specific religion than it is to criticize every one of them under the same umbrella. Buddhists arent near as evil as Christians
buddhism is not true, which was the point of the post. reincarnation has no factual basis.
there actually is evidence, but most people don't want to even confront the possibility
>Buddhists arent near as evil as Christians
Sri lankan Buddhists genocided Tamilians
Myanmar Buddhists genocided Muslims
Japanese Buddhists justified war and imperialism pre world wars
There is not a religion that didn't commit atrocities in the name of religion
Charvaka were right and Buddhists killed them
on top of buddhism being equally false, I'd argue buddhism as a belief system is typically much more harmful to LGBT people than christianity as a belief system. (exceptions include people who repress due to their christian beliefs)
christians are more anti-LGBT than buddhists, but if you're LGBT, believing in buddhism is typically worse for you than believing in christianity
Don’t trust disable people, they are the reason why this world is a shithole. So fuck them they get what they deserve pure trash. I shouldn’t have to pay for worthless people I get nothing out of it
Be careful with critiquing everything that is false. Some trans concepts might need dismantling as well.
I detest religion but
You should criticize its supremacist nature
Not its 'untrueness'
The biggest gotcha of religion is it deals with stuff that is unprovable, but also stuff you cannot disprove. Trying to determine one truth is a fools game. If anything wr should criticize christians for claiming to have done that, rather than overwrite their supremacy with ours
that's a non sequitur. the absence of something can't be "supremacist". it's like saying "non-racism" is a countervailing supremacism against the supremacism of racism
The burden of proof lies on them
Why is it supremacist?
Christ is King
You’re a fucking pathetic troll just stop
She's correct and the twitter lefties are being retarded
Why does her being disabled matter?
Her religious father is responsible for her disability
Wait is that true?
Cool but what does religion have to do with the disability? Just because someone goes to church and their kid is disabled doesnt mean their kid is disbaled because they go to church.
Church is the most evil religious institution responsible for justifying everything from slavery to transphobia
psst, the people who were anti slavery were religious too
But they weren't against segregation. They didn't oppose it for humane reasons. They just wanted to go heaven.
martin luther king was literally a preacher you dip shit
James baldwin too and he ended up hating Christianity
same goes for Dubois
MLK is a libshit figurehead
Wait, you're tankie? Nevermind I am done then
What? Just cause I hate libs doesn't mean I'm a tankie.
He was black
ofc he'll be against racism against blacks
He also was a wife beating nagger.
>religious people cannot be good!
Now you are just going full retard
They can do good in isolated contexts but overall they are pretty sus
Lol walking back on that one already
No, you just don't get the nuance.
Religion is a social institution and social institutions are made by and out of people which makes rhen inherently corrupt
Even if you ignore the power of the institution, religious texts are disgusting and bigoted and false. You can't expect people who take these texts seriously to be sane and good natured.
Spirituality is a euphemism for schizophrenia
'Sky Daddy' tier atheism
What do these spirit voices tell you, nona?
literally yes humans are built to hallucinate and imagine unendingly with a strongly shamanistic streak and whether we treat these delusions as an authoritative voice with real representatives in the material world to be obeyed, the guiding or warning of ancestors to be gratefully heeded, dangerous and intrusive thoughts to be medicated away, a connection to the universe to be cherished, or simply one's own imagination and intuition to be considered and weighed defines quite a lot about a given culture and spiritual practice
it's the organized flavors that assert their law as community and safety and truth that do the real damage
hardcore atheism peaked during the bush years, you are supposed to be slightly religious or spiritual now to be a unique snowflake
>witches on reddit
>trad caths on twitter
>occultists on LULZ
you get the picture
you know technically jesus never said anything about lgbt people, it was paul
Technically we don't anything about what Jesus thought or said. We only have like two historical records to prove his existence.
oh you are one of those "jesus was never real" assholes
next you will tell me earth is flat
He might be real but he definitely was some insignificant fuck in 1st century Palestine and that's why the dearth of evidence about him, let alone what he actually thought or said. He was most probably a israelite who never intended to conjure up a brand new religion.
>two historical records
like a century after his death
that's not proof either
believing jesus was a real human takes nearly as much faith as believing in god
You are not qualified to make judgments about matters of historical fact. It is pure arrogance for an uninformed layman to stand against the scholarly consensus.
>appeal to authority
there is no proof
if historians think the proof is good, then post the contemporary evidence of jesus. Otherwise I think their standards of proof are too low, and too much based on not making people mad.
Authority ought to be appealed to within lay circles. There is no other grounds on which to make reliable judgments. Your conviction that everyone investigating this issue besides you is dishonest is another obvious sign of arrogance. You're not only smarter, but more virtuous than the academy. Aren't you something!
I don't come from a background of history, but I do have a science degree. In science, it's not enough to just accept that people who know a lot about something are always right, and it's not enough to accept that just because someone wrote something down a while ago means it's right. There needs to be proof, an actual demonstration of why something is right. Maybe historians have a lower bar for knowledge than that.
Oh, so you're a STEMfag who think she knows everything because he can describe models of the motion of matter. That's funny. How would you like it if some historian came barging into some scientific conference making bold claims about how X, Y, or Z field of study is rotten to its core and being pursued by researchers not really committed to the cause of truth as discernible by the discipline's methodological rules? That would be pretty annoying and arrogant, wouldn't it? You are not in the epistemic position to make judgments about matters of historical fact. Leave history to historians. What you ought to do is conform.
this is a lot of words to say that they don't have proof
You are fucking dumb.
>to the cause of truth as discernible by the discipline's methodological rules? That would be pretty annoying and arrogant, wouldn't it?
If I barge into a homeopathic conference and shit all over homeopathy and its rules I am correct. The fact that it annoys the pseudoscientists is irrelevant.
>academic history is a pseudoscience
>I, internet scholar, am the last bastion of real empirical history
Amazing. The irony is that your discourse is what's analogous to homeopathic medicine, not the academic historical consensus. A bunch of hacks and quacks in no real position to be speaking with any authority pretending to have knowledge. Academic history is the equivalent of real allopathic medicine.
>academic history is a pseudoscience
I'd like to see where I said this. I am simply saying that being rude about a field or not being a member of that field's academic community doesn't make your criticism of it invalid. And that academic consensus in a field is only worth as much as that field's methodology as a whole is worth.
You are literally saying in this post that academic history has epistemic value comparable to homeopathic medicine's relative to the hard sciences. If a doctor criticizes some homeopathic quack, that is a good physician criticizing a bad physician. A scientist criticizing a historian's research is a bad historian criticizing a good historian. Scientific knowledge does not translate to historical knowledge.
No I am using an absurd example to show why your logic is fucking retarded. The way you are defending history can also defending shitty fields like homeopathy so it is a flawed way to defend history.
>If a doctor criticizes some homeopathic quack, that is a good physician criticizing a bad physician. A scientist criticizing a historian's research is a bad historian criticizing a good historian. Scientific knowledge does not translate to historical knowledge.
And knowledge in any field does not translate to being able to defend that field from outside criticism.
Repeat your paragraph with astrology or religion and see if it works. There are no 'good' astrologists or religious scholars to defeat the 'bad' ones because the fields are inherently bankrupt. But if you try and criticise purely form within their frameworks you will get nowhere.
Historical science is in the abstract capable of critique. The point is that YOU are not capable of critiquing it. You do not know your fucking place. That's the problem. All fields can be overthrown, hypothetically. Get over yourself.
>Historical science is in the abstract capable of critique. The point is that YOU are not capable of critiquing it.
Bullshit. If something is objectively incorrect anyone can point out that truth. You don't need a magic badge from the field to do so.
>All fields can be overthrown, hypothetically. Get over yourself.
And yet some fields are clearly superior to others. If the historic consensus was that the world was only 10,000 years old but the scientific consensus disproved that we'd be accepting the scientific consensus and with good reason.
You actually do need to study things deeply to make serious, controversial judgments about them. What the fuck do you even mean by the second half of your post? Empirical science and history study different things. They provide different kinds of knowledge. How the hell could there possibly be a historical consensus the world is 10,000 years old? History doesn't ask or answer those kinds of questions. There are moments when fields come into conversation, but entirely distinct fields of knowledge do not "contradict" one another because truth is unitary.
i met jesus
he appeared to me in a vision when i was 15
when i don't know what to do in life i pray and that's how he speaks to me
i am also unrelatedly schizophrenic and people like to claim that's how i talk to jesus but when jesus talks to me it's different to when i have my hallucinations
t schizo tranny (jesus said it was my destiny to transition and he loves me just the same)
as far as obscure ancient figures go (and Jesus was definitely obscure during his time), a source within a century or so is actually pretty good, contemporary written sources are by no means the norm for ancient history
many other figures have statues made of them, coins printed of them, that sort of physical evidence. And also there's less reason for their existence to be invented, so less need to doubt.
historytoddler STEMlet btfo'd
not really. Its way easier to buy that the israeli radical cult had a founder rather than had no founder and was actually a conspiracy of 12 men pretending it had a founder who was fake and it was all a psyop.
I don't believe in the divinity of christ or something but the idea that a cult leader named josh existed and founded what would later evolve into christianity is really really not that hard to buy compared to the alternatives
As far as I'm aware the main take is he was a real person in the same was a Mohammed or Joseph Smith was a real person: a charismatic prophet but not anything actually special. Basically just an ancient cult leader which makes a lot of sense.
A century is also honestly not that long. That's potentially like hearing about your own great grandfather via your grandparents. And then also if someone was notable enough to show up in the historical record elsewhere you get more information.
Do all historical documents need to be direct eyewitness accounts to have any degree of accuracy? It’s kind of the norm when studying antiquity to find that most historical documents of real world events, people, and places were put to paper years or even decades after the fact. Typically there’s also archeological evidence to indicate said events as well. Which is where corroborating the New Testament becomes difficult, because if we found, say, for example, his body, that would conclusively prove that the story was based on a real person, but that the story was wrong. Seeing as how we have yet to find his body, that leaves us with three conclusions to draw. One, his body was exhumed and destroyed either by israeli clergy, Romans, or one or more of his followers. Two, his physical body did in fact reanimate and he did ascend to heaven. Or three, Jesus is an amalgamation of early church fathers, but this idea has very little supporting evidence other than minor differences between the gospels.
Josephus and some other roman historian mentions him in passing iirv
The Bible is about bringing balance and peace to life, it's main focus on relationships is the acceptance of the self and being against promiscuity
It's easy to spiritually legitimize being gay using the bible, though trans not at all
>The Bible is about
literally anything you want shut the fuck up it's been rewritten and abused so much it doesn't fucking matter if there was ever any kind of positive or constructive moral lesson in there
How about we stop caring about shit written by sheep herders and randomly compiled into a book 1700 years ago? But we can't have nice things because of people like
I chant(moan) while masturbating to get dat spiritual experience
It's funny how westoids have no idea how evil Buddhism is
NOOOO NOT MY TIBET MR CHAIRMAN MAO IT'S THEIR KULTURE TO TORTURE PEOPLE AND ENSLAVE THEM IN PERPETUAL POVERTY
I shiggy diggy. I don't care how probable rationalists deem the existence of God and the world's teleological structure to be. "Um, ackshually, there's a 73.5% chance that the world is a mass of senseless violence and chaos that came from nothing and is going nowhere, and the only meaning it has is what we project into it!" I don't care if it's a 75% chance or a 99.9% chance, I choose to agree with the testimony of Scripture that the world was created good and all hate, suffering, and evil is extrinsic to it, obstacles to its proper operation which are to be removed not by any arbitrary act of human revolutionary violence left or right, revolutionary violence the likes of which turned the 20th century into a mass grave, but by the revolution worked out already by God in the person of Jesus Christ, who is to be imitated in his loving kindness, willingness to offer himself as sacrifice for others, and vocal rejection of all idolatries (tradition, state power, GDP, labor, etc). I choose boldly to affirm that the world came from good and is moving into good, and that the thing to do in the here and now is celebrate and anticipate the eternal community of love that is the Heavenly Jerusalem by living with kindness and hope in the here and now. I choose to live with an invincible trust in the goodness of the world's origin and destiny. Any argument attempting to prove otherwise is nothing to me. My basic disposition of hope is not something I subject to "rational scrutiny." It is pre-philosophical and pre-scientific. Absolutely basic.
Why does her being disabled matter here?
Nordic animism stay winning
christianity is literally a death cult that sees the idea of everyone on earth dying as a good thing
Uh...? Jesus died so that the world could live forever. Jesus destroys death. His self-giving love overcomes it.
i'm not religious or christian, but i want to see everyone on earth die in a glorious holy war
>accurate understanding of reality
>accurate understanding of reallyty
There is no chromosome removal surgery, you will always be a male. Accepting reality is accepting that the technology to change sex isn't here yet
you have such a small mind about biological sex. she may chromosomally male, but undergoing transition will cause her to be phenotypically and physiopsychologically female. basically changing her biological sex to become partially female. how about YOU accept that reality.
that's just arbitrarily classifying sex as being a cluster of traits rather than the genetic reality of what sort of gametes your body is developed to produce
"my hormone levels are a type of sex, and I have changed my hormone levels by taking a bunch of titty skittles, therefore I have changed my biological sex in some ways" is not actually refuting anything because everyone already knew you were changing your hormone levels, you're just labelling your hormone levels as a type of sex
that's semantics not a gotcha
Most transwomen are not phenotypically or physiopsychologically female, they look and act like weird dudes in dresses.
>basically changing her biological sex to become partially female. how about YOU accept that reality.
Ok she is partly female. But not fully female. I'm glad we agree. The new slogan can be 'transwomen are (only mostly) women'!
They're mostly men, though. Growing small gynecomastia tits isn't being a woman kek
If the profane masses are allowed to have it, it’s not real religion
anyway "new atheism" stopped critiquing religion after they started going after islam
My political opinions have not changed at all since the early 2010s atheist movement
Because leftism is a religion, and nobody likes their fantasies criticized. Communism, Anarchism is faith based not fact based.
>Religion should be critiqued because it is false and it is important to have an accurate understanding of reality
>this person thinks it is possible to go from being one sex to another
>heh, actually you see that sky daddy and the infinite fish glitch is real also you'll live forever but you dislike being a hairy man decided by a 50% chance at birth? UR DELUSIONAL BUD
Do religiousfags really think this is logical?
you can criticize religious oppression without being a reddit cringelord
she got rightfully shit on
Nah, we need to embrace more cringelordism. Fedora tipping should be worn as a badge of honor. You shouldn’t have to tip-toe around shitting on retarded, barbaric practices out of fear of being called a reddit atheist.
I agree with the sentiment of this take, though it is very poorly worded. Organized religion in any form is detrimental to society and its public practice should be actively persecuted.
Religion should be treated in the way that conservatives view homosexuality: as a shameful lifestyle that should only be practiced behind closed doors.
It’s important to be respectful of religion and there are many religious people who are great.
t. Trans Episcopalian
t. gay Episcopalian
Why does this people complain so much about allies?
Who else do you think will stand for you?
Also moral positivism is dead
ITT: Many people who have never been religious or met actual non-hypocritical religious people or some meme religion like Islam.
Yeah, if you’ve ever been around actually religious people, you would know arguing with them is retarded. They’re all actually insane or just intentionally deluding themselves as a cope.
t. born in the bible belt
>get invested in Christianity after recent near death experiences
>try to talk about it with others I know
>most people tell me that God isn't real and to "get a real hobby" or "see a therapist"
>then there are the schizos who claim to believe it all but tell me God is really Satan and that electronic devices like cell phones and televisions are His "demon army"
>Only people I ve talked to who have actually read the scriptures and look at it the same way as me told me I need to detransition and ask God for forgiveness of my homosexualry to avoid burning in Hell
There is no winning
Consider the Episcopal Church or the ELCA, if you're American. That's the context I know. Look for an affirming congregation. We're out there. Praying for you, anon. Don't give up.
you are an American, right? I've heard most churches in Western Europe are LGBT friendly, when they aren't, they are either Orthodox or some American cult like JW or Mormons.
I'm in kinda similar situation, Christian in a country where the wast majority of Christians think I should be forcibly sent to conversion therapy. They are like drones, 90% of them never read the bible, so I don't care what they think.
Just because it's logically right doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do. Criticizing religion is not politically expedient and there is no political coalition in the US or perhaps anywhere that can exist without the support of religious people. LGBT people have worse things to worry about then the benign christians who have already watered down their religion so much in order to be compatible with a society that accepts us. Criticizing religious bigotry is still not the same as criticizing all religion, regardless of whether they might be closer than most people think.
Religion is all well and good if it's done individually. Organized religion is cancer, only worsening society so agreed.
this post is so boring and lame lets have more fun posts please
no it's actually because this is the lowest tier "atheism" imaginable, "good and true"? lmao this person is supposed to be an academic and a theorist
Twitter users are generally too stupid to form sane viewpoints, ignore the mob. Zoe has the right of it.
Nothing beats homosexuals soaked hrt brain posting on a monday evening.
No such thing as trans, only the mentally ill that castrate themselves. Religion was the last check on this craziness and the downward spiral is being perpetrated by israelites. You fags played yourselves.
CLEAN IT UP TR/JANNIES!
>ummm I can't help but notice that you only criticize christianity!!!!
that's because there are no fucking US lawmakers going out and saying that gay and trans people are evil pedophiles in the name of allah; they are all christfags
Just become heathen, orthopraxy over orthodoxy
There is nothing more malebrained than atheism. If you're a woman, you need to believe in something spiritual. All women either have a religion or at least believe in crystals and/or astrology.
Seems kinda sexist that people are pretending to be retarded as a way to pass more as women.
Is your penis as massive as your brain, anon-kun?
It's pretty average sized in both cases, which is more than enough for me to see crystal magic as nonsense and your weird LARP as sexist.
I'm not the anon whose clitty gets hard when she communes with the ancestor spirits. Crystal magic is real though, you need to play more Final Fantasy.
>got absolutely crucified
90% of quote replies are something like "lol reddit cringe", which is what it is, reddit cringe. Swap "atheism" with "christianity" and "religion" with "atheism" and tell me it's not cringe.
>A disabled trans woman
yes we know that if you are a black, trans, autistic, disabled gulf war veteran, mk ultra survivor you should be allowed some leniency, but everything has it's limits.
Well you see anon, true things and untrue things are not the same, despite what many people would have you believe. So swapping atheism and Christian in that post would not be the same.
>90% of quote replies are something like "lol reddit cringe"
nonsensical anti-intellectual "vibes" garbage; I despise all people who behave in such a manner
Based and religion critique pilled
The thing is, leftists decided that Muslims and israelites are protected groups so criticizing those religions is seen as bigotry. Meanwhile, criticizing Christianity is open season and nobody cares because its seen as the white religion.
Its because this is an arrogant statement. She doesn't understand reality anymore than religious people do. She doesn't know if a higher power exists, she's just acting like she knows and pretends that's the only truth.
Is there genuinely any difference between a religion and a cult except the number of people participating?
Sectarian eccentricity and structures of control. Usually what people are thinking about when they use the word cult. Really out there beliefs and mechanisms of soft and hard power to keep people in at all costs. Certain congregations of even mainstream religious bodies can get cultish, but usually cults are splinter groups
50% of americans go to church, 50% of americans think being trans is inherently immoral, hmmmmmm
Kill christcucks. Behead christcucks. Roundhouse kick a christcuck into the concrete. Slam dunk a christcuck baby into the trashcan. Crucify filthy christcucks. Defecate in a christcucks food. Launch christcucks into the sun.