If this quote is true, Christianity is the greatest troll of all time

[Sithlord Piff]

"In that particular context, telling a Christian slave to treat even a harsh master with respect was considered the most likely way to convert the master to faith and change his own situation. Since the Christian in question had likely either sold himself into slavery or been sold into it by his father alongside the whole family, any unilateral abandonment or rejection would have resulted in negative consequences that would have only made his situation worse."

What righteous God would sanction this type of method for the sake of converting a slave master over to faith?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

We're now up to 26 pages in a thread revolving around a fake quote.

Let's not lose track of the fact that the OP quote is not from a Pope, it's from a play called "The Pageant of the Popes", a parody by the Protestant satirist John Bale.

And yet in 26 pages of discussion, I didn't see a single anti-Christian figure out the truth for themselves. Nor have I seen it in the numerous anti-Christian websites and messageboards where this fake quote gets repeated over and over again.

I guess if you're an anti-Christian and you hear something on the internet that confirms your pre-held beliefs, you don't need to check if it's true or not.

Continues in the amazingly common trend of anti-Christians coming up and bragging about how "rational" and fact-based they are, while showing themselves incapable of even the most simplistic fact-checking.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Y'all better not be fuccin with Ted Cruz then
Cause he with the shyts.


He's from not too far where I'm at, it's a not an uncommonly held belief down here.

Looking into this NT Wright, it says he doesn't believe a literal rapture will happen.


Of course you don't think getting the Jews back to their homeland will do anything if you don't think the rapture is actually going to happen

Idk if you've heard of those Left Behind books, but when those came out most people I talked to about them were not anywhere close to believing that the rapture isn't a literal event like Wright is. Maybe you're from England?

The whole idea of the rapture was invented in America by an ignorant pastor in the late 1800s.

Like supporting a political Israel, it is in no way a historical church belief, nor is it common outside America except in places where American missionaries have recently propagated it.

Ted Cruz is a "smart" guy who was brainwashed by a conservative debate society when he was 13. He's very good at defending his pre-held positions in a debate context, horrible at examining the facts to come up with the right positions in the first place.

 

[joeychizzle]

Joey, you can think seriously about it or just dismiss it because you don't want to, but it's a real question. If you don't believe in any sort of higher power, and your actions are just the result of deterministic biological processes, then what does it even mean to "own up" to anything? The whole idea of "responsibility" becomes meaningless - all actions were predetermined and therefore no one has responsiblity for anything. You can't make your neurons "do something" that wasn't completely determined by the past and random quantum fluctuations.

From a scientific sense, what is even the "you" that is taking the responsibility?





That's a non-answer.

Athiestic scientists and philosophers have been working on this question for literally thousands of of years. Tell me - what have they concluded? Since we are all purely biological beings explained by purely naturalistic processes, there has to be a scientifically determinable answer...or there's no answer at all, right?

What have you concluded?

What is the point of being good?

If you are just the random outcome of evolutionary processes, what is the point of being "you" at all?





I have a degree in biophysics, with distinction, from one of the top science institutions in the country. I also have a graduate degree in science education, and I've continued to remain well-read in a number of fields, including the interaction between science and ethics/morality (where I specifically did coursework at both the undergraduate and graduate level). I don't usually go around throwing out credentials, but since you seem to require them to be a part of the conversation and want to mock mine, there they are.

As far as "societies less religious", I'll repeat what I said earlier,



Every "less religious" society that's "perceivably doing well", as you say, was either built up on a heavily religious, specifically Christian, background, or it dramatically changed as the result of influence from such societies.

When you see societies that attempt to entirely reject all auspices of religiously-derived social norms and morality (USSR under Stalin, North Korea under Kim il-Sung and his clan, Cambodia under Pol Pot), is when you actually see a profound difference.


What non-religious moral basis are you living your life based on? Utilitarianism? Ethical nihilism? Ethical Egoism? Tell me, which? And name one society that's working out of that, or any other coherent and consistent non-religiously derived ethical basis, that's "perceivably doing well", as you say.

that's a lotta text breh.

you make an extremely valid point. I have often wondered.. what is the point of doing good? I might as well do bad just as easily. I guess you could say that I'm in part driven by social norms. Like, doing the right thing would be to open a door for someone, the bad thing would be slamming their face into it. What if I feel like doing the bad thing? In the grand scheme of things, it does not matter.

There is no point to anything, because we are a grand mistake. From my side, I see no purposeful creation. Merely an accident that blossomed into what we have today. I certainly understand the need to rationalize a creator, and on very rare occasions I have considered it, albeit briefly. But then my own instinct, honed through years (24, to be more exact), tells me that if all that you, I and everybody else knows was created by a perfect deity, then his creations are pretty damn imperfect.

'If you are just the random outcome of evolutionary processes, what is the point of being "you" at all?'
Well, good sir, I happen to be alive, in control of my own destiny (to a certain extent, said extent of which is incalculable to me at the moment), and there are simple things that stimulate and affect me, positively or negatively. Is there an ultimate goal? No. I know I'm gonna die in a few decades, barring some miracle discovery. I might as well enjoy being "me" in the time frame allotted to us by nature. Or, perhaps, from your perspective, God.

I'm impressed by your education, and must note that it exceeds mine. It's just that.. a large percentage of posters on this forum aren't exactly up to scratch on religious matters, and believe in a personal God merely via fear, or being instructed to from a tender age, etc. It appears you've found reasoning that suits your needs, although they do not fit in with what we have discovered so far.

It is indeed true that most, if not all modern atheistic societies had a religious foundation, but suppose we were to start from scratch - akin to a sandbox game where we tweaked the parameters gently, removing religion from the equation - would we see a similar rate of growth over the centuries compared to highly religious societies?

It's rather difficult to place myself in one particular category, regarding my morals. There are times when I do exhibit utilitarian tendencies, but if I was to choose, I would be a humanist. I guess that ties in with utilitarianism.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

"In that particular context, telling a Christian slave to treat even a harsh master with respect was considered the most likely way to convert the master to faith and change his own situation. Since the Christian in question had likely either sold himself into slavery or been sold into it by his father alongside the whole family, any unilateral abandonment or rejection would have resulted in negative consequences that would have only made his situation worse."

What righteous God would sanction this type of method for the sake of converting a slave master over to faith?

Probably one who was working with what actual humans had to offer and wanted results.

People in power don't change because their subordinates with no power scream at them to change.

And if you want to convert people to a certain kind of behavior, its probably best to do it by actually using that behavior, rather than performing a bait-and-switch where you use violence on them and then turn around and say, "Okay, um, now that you're on our side, don't go that violent route anymore! Be kind and good and treat everyone with respect, just like I wasn't doing to you."

Devotees of Marx have proven over and over again how poorly the opposite strategy works. Which is why Christian societies, for all their faults, ended up developing into the most moral of the faulty human societies we have today and led the way in the correction of most social evils, while atheist Marxist societies generally became cesspools of suffering and death.

 

[DonKnock]

The whole idea of the rapture was invented in America by an ignorant pastor in the late 1800s.

Like supporting a political Israel, it is in no way a historical church belief, nor is it common outside America except in places where American missionaries have recently propagated it.

Ted Cruz is a "smart" guy who was brainwashed by a conservative debate society when he was 13. He's very good at defending his pre-held positions in a debate context, horrible at examining the facts to come up with the right positions in the first place.

The concept of Hell was synthesized from the Greek Hades tho, Paul's Greek origins might have played some role in that no?


and Zionism also originated in England.

 

[Sithlord Piff]

Probably one who was working with what actual humans had to offer and wanted results.

People in power don't change because their subordinates with no power scream at them to change.

And if you want to convert people to a certain kind of behavior, its probably best to do it by actually using that behavior, rather than performing a bait-and-switch where you use violence on them and then turn around and say, "Okay, um, now that you're on our side, don't go that violent route anymore! Be kind and good and treat everyone with respect, just like I wasn't doing to you."

Devotees of Marx have proven over and over again how poorly the opposite strategy works. Which is why Christian societies, for all their faults, ended up developing into the most moral of the faulty human societies we have today and led the way in the correction of most social evils, while atheist Marxist societies generally became cesspools of suffering and death.

Probably one who was working with what actual humans had to offer and wanted results.

People in power don't change because their subordinates with no power scream at them to change.

And if you want to convert people to a certain kind of behavior, its probably best to do it by actually using that behavior, rather than performing a bait-and-switch where you use violence on them and then turn around and say, "Okay, um, now that you're on our side, don't go that violent route anymore! Be kind and good and treat everyone with respect, just like I wasn't doing to you."

Devotees of Marx have proven over and over again how poorly the opposite strategy works. Which is why Christian societies, for all their faults, ended up developing into the most moral of the faulty human societies we have today and led the way in the correction of most social evils, while atheist Marxist societies generally became cesspools of suffering and death.

Lots of conjecture and interpretation here. But if God is allowing this harsh abuse for the sake of appearing attainable to those who are inflicting that mistreatment on those that serve them... thats not a God I would ever serve. Either God is for justice or He isnt. Damn the grey areas.

 

[MR. SNIFLES]

Go up to any Christian and tellem you have to kill thier son/daughter because of what dey will become. Tellem God sentchu to do it and for dem to just have faith.

Bet money dat suppressed rational thinkin will come through crushin dem faith buildings wit da quickness.

WOULDN'T BE A TEST IF IT WAS EASY.

 

[MajorVitaman]

the bible is just a canon of selected ancient hebrew texts

even the biblical content in the dead sea scrolls aren't the original writings by any stretch

we are talking almost three millennia here

So why do you trust it so much?

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

Just because they believe in a God doesn't mean that they'll believe your retarded ass walking up to them saying this dumb shyt

Irony of you callin somebody else retarded when you couldn't eam grasp da point of dat fukkin post in da first place.

You idiots continue to keep outtin yaselves.

 

[LurkMoar]

We're now up to 26 pages in a thread revolving around a fake quote.

Let's not lose track of the fact that the OP quote is not from a Pope, it's from a play called "The Pageant of the Popes", a parody by the Protestant satirist John Bale.

And yet in 26 pages of discussion, I didn't see a single anti-Christian figure out the truth for themselves. Nor have I seen it in the numerous anti-Christian websites and messageboards where this fake quote gets repeated over and over again.

I guess if you're an anti-Christian and you hear something on the internet that confirms your pre-held beliefs, you don't need to check if it's true or not.

Continues in the amazingly common trend of anti-Christians coming up and bragging about how "rational" and fact-based they are, while showing themselves incapable of even the most simplistic fact-checking.

The coli slowly turning into a fake urban reddit, too many cacs on here

 

[Everythingg]

Quoted is the difference between an atheist/agnostic and a believer. Believers use faith to answer questions like these to make them feel comfortable with the unknown. Atheist/agnostics accept that some things they just don't know. To a believer it seems crazy and hopeless to not know what your purpose or ultimate destination in life is. But it's really not that bad lol.

It's not about not knowing. It's about not caring.

So you want me to cite some source other than the people who made up the imaginary position that he took over.

I asked you where you got the info that "Peter" passed anything down to Catholics. Where was your answer?

Of course Catholics are gonna say that that's what he did so as to keep that (false) veil of authority over the people. And just so you know Catholics did not WRITE the bible

 

[Soon]

It's not about not knowing. It's about not caring.


I asked you where you got the info that "Peter" passed anything down to Catholics. Where was your answer?

Of course Catholics are gonna say that that's what he did so as to keep that (false) veil of authority over the people. And just so you know Catholics did not WRITE the bible

The Early Church was charismatic, the 7 Epistles of Paul were written before the 4 Gospels.

Acts which sets up the Church was also written after, and actually contradicts Paul's Epistles in some places. The 4 Gospels had agendas, Mark not so much compared to the other 3 and John is just ridiculous. John is so ridiculous they don't even group it with the other 3 Gospels.

@Chez Lopez

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The concept of Hell was synthesized from the Greek Hades tho, Paul's Greek origins might have played some role in that no?



and Zionism also originated in England.

Paul was from Taursus (in modern-day southeast Turkey), and it was an extremely devout Jew. To refer to him as having "Greek origins" is really stretching the case. It's true that his city was influenced by Greek culture, as were all the cities in the Mediterranean region at the time. But though Paul sometimes translated concepts in a manner that was helpful to the Gentile audience he was speaking to, the best commentaries I've read show how his theology remained firmly rooted in Judaism, with the proclamation of a crucified Messiah as Lord as a new and unexpected twist on fundamentally Jewish themes. Pages 1320-1407 of "Paul and the Faithfulness of God" cover Paul's theology in light of Greek religion and philosophy in great detail...and in the end, the analysis doesn't find much basis at all to say that one was rooted in the other in any meaningful way. Paul engaged with the Greek-influenced world around him, and sometimes used its language to explain his theology, but the fundamental ideas remained rooting in a startling new version of Judiasm inspired by a crucified and risen Messiah, not in anything derived from Greek religion/philosophy.

"The rapture" and Hell are very different concepts. Though it wasn't firmly defined, the evidence suggests that Christianity from the very beginning had some vision of an alternative destination for those who are not raised to etermal life on the new Earth. However, Christian thinkers from Origin in the 3rd century all the way to Rob Bell in th 21st have left open the concept that eventually, God's love will win and Hell will be empty.

As far as Paul's view of "hell"....there's Romans 2:7-9, which is sparse, and then there's...almost nothing else. I'm really not seeing where you can give Paul a prominent place in that discussion at all.

And "the rapture" doesn't exist in Paul's theology at all. It's based on a really bad misinterpretation of a single line by someone who had no idea how to read a metaphor.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Lots of conjecture and interpretation here.

You're right about that. All historical hypotheses involve interpretation and conjecture. Making a superficial interpretation that neglects 95% of the evidence is still interpretation and conjecture...it's just a very uneducated interpretation based on a very faulty basis.

There is at least one serious alternative interpretation....that God did want them to speak more forcibly about slavery, and it was the writers of the New Testament themselves who weren't ready to write that yet. Thus, the guiding principles of life which they had learned from God were there, and you can still see Paul carrying those principles to their natural conclusion in telling Philemon to free his slave, but a specific command against slavery wasn't there because slavery was just such a basic assumption about societal life in the 1st century that the New Testament authors never understood they should totally condemn it. I'm not ruling that interpretation out.

Of course, the dumbest possible interpretation would come from taking a single line out-of-context, ignoring the relevant history, throwing in a modern context that had absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand, and then pretending that you've said anything at all about the fact. When you do that, you're interpreting all right, by what you've chosen to include and not include and by what context you've chosen to place it in. However, an interpretation based on such a miniscule selection of the evidence says far more about what's going on in the interpreter's head than what was actually written.

But if God is allowing this harsh abuse for the sake of appearing attainable to those who are inflicting that mistreatment on those that serve them... thats not a God I would ever serve. Either God is for justice or He isnt. Damn the grey areas.

Love your neighbor as yourself
Do to others what you would want them to do to you
Consider others more than yourself
He who wishes to be great must become a servant, for those who put themselves first will be last in the Kingdom of God
The Son of Man came to Earth to serve, not to be served
If you are my disciples, then choose to serve rather than to be served
There is no slave or free but we are all one in Christ Jesus
Slaves and slaveowners are brothers

No one could actually follow Jesus's commands or Paul's interpretation of them and remain a slave-owner.

God is for justice. The question is how to make the justice actually happen. As Bernie said recently, all the screaming in the world doesn't accomplish shyt.

Slavery, even the form of temporary "debt bondage" being practiced in Israel at that time, is not a grey area.

However, actually getting slavery ended, like actually getting women equal treatment, was something that was going to take time in that society. In the 1st century, every single society in existence just assumed that slavery was part of life. You could try to combat that directly by introducing an anti-slavery claim that automatically pits people against each other, that is automatically rejected by all in power, and that doesn't do shyt to change the status quo, but you're proud of that system because you "said what needed to be said". Or you can create a system that actually converts both the powerful and the weak to justice and righteousness, and thus transforms the system from the inside. The principles laid out in the New Testament clearly make slave-owning completely untenable. And the letter to Philemon shows that working in practice. The fact that slaveowning is never fobidden outright is only a matter of technique in attaining justice, not a difference in the view of justice.

As I pointed out already, Christian bishops were the first in history to call for the universal abolition of slavery, within just a couple centuries of the founding of the church. You want to go ahead and name the next system of justice to call for the abolition of slavery? What's your own system of justice, and how does it rule slavery out without relying on Christian foundations of selfhood, brotherhood, and morality?

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowing this harsh abuse". Do you think God should step in and supernaturally intervene any time an injustice occurs? That can be a long and meaningless discussion, because it's obviously not how the world works. God seems to have created the world with true free will that allows humans to choose to be good to others or choose to be evil to others. Humans are the ones who allowed slavery, as long as they allowed it. And if slavery was going to be stopped by humans, it was only going to happen if the people in power stopped it by being transformed from within, not because some powerless little sect of Judiasm wrote a book that told everyone it was wrong.