MOTHER MOTHER FUCK, MOTHER MoTHER FUCK FUCK CHRISTIANITY

NAD

What A Horrible Night To Have A Curse
Jun 5, 2002
38,465
1,171
113
Kandarian Ruins
[insert gigantic post I just wrote that made a bit of sense but didn't follow coherent logic, this shit just pissed me the fuck off today]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

EDIT: It all comes down to the intolerance bit. I have seen some fuckos in recent memorty that have called foul on people questioning their Christian faith saying "ohhh this is just like the black in the 1960's with whites fighting them under baseless pretences." Number one, FUCK YOU. To compare this so called struggle to black oppression makes me sick to my stomach, and number two, like the Christian faith has not indulged in oppressive regimes in the past? THE CRUSADES, THE SPANISH FUCKING INQUISTION, etc.!? Jesus fucking christ!

Maybe I'm just mad at religion today and.......................... really drunk. Whoops.
 
Nothing wrong with that, and don't sorry about using big words to express it. It's enough to just be right, even if you don't necessarily know why you're right ;) drive the fuckers into the ocean!
 
1. Christianity as antiquity.-- When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a Jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?
 
Excuse this long post, but its from the 3rd century philosopher Porphyry, who wrote a multi volume text attacking the Christian faith on theological, rational, scientific etc, grounds. Of course almost all of it was burned by the Roman church, but some fragments remain, of which this following passage explains many of them:

The "end" of knowledge is truth, though one could also call it a "god." This "god" is not the Christian god, nor even the Christian idea of God. Theologians from the second century onward had misread Plato (and would later misread Plotinus and Porphyry) on this fundamental point." page 159


"Porphyry's "God," therefore, has no need to save because he is not affected by sin. This is not to say that the philosopher fails to recognize a category of actions which are displeasing to God. But these actions are expressions of active failure and not of a passive genetic deficiency in a God-created race of men, as Augustine theorized. God strengthens those who practice virtue and "noble deeds" (Marcella 16), but he does not (cannot) punish those who fail to practice virtue or who do things contrary to virtue (Marcella 17), since the divine nature can only work for the good. Accordingly, the classical Christian theodicy does not arise in Porphyry's thought; he thinks it foolish to speculate, on Christian premises, about an all-good God, creator of an originally good world, over which, through lack of foresight (omniscience) or power (omnipotence) evil reigns and in which he is obliged to intervene time and time again. The puzzles of Christian theology are non-puzzles for Porphyry: The pieces comprise not a picture but a muddle, and can only be slotted together by trimming edges and omitting embarrassingly contorted segment. This, however, does not prevent Christian priests and teachers from selling their wares as a kind of philosophy. While religious observances -pagan or Christian - are not actually harmful, they encourage the simple-minded in a belief that God has need of them. The only true priests are the wise of the world, not the "fools praying and offering sacrifice". The only truly sinful man is "he who holds the opinions of the multitudes concerning God" (Marcella 17), and those who think that tears, prayers, and sacrifices can alter the divine purpose. The Christian god fails, in Porphyry's view, because he epitomizes false opinion, baseless hopes. He is changeable, fickle, unpredictable. His priests preach "mere unreasoning faith [in a God] who is gratified and won over by libations and sacrifices," without perceiving that men making exactly the same request receive different answers to their prayers (Marcella 23). Worse, human beings seem to believe that their basest actions can be erased by prayer, or, caught in the web of their illogic, they become haters of the world and the flesh and mistakenly accuse the flesh of being the source of all evil (Marcella 29). "Salvation" for Porphyry cannot begin with self-hatred or the abnegation of the flesh. In its demythologized form, it is simply the "soul's" quest for wisdom as expressed in the pursuit of virtue - an acknowledgment of redemption being natural to the soul because of the soul's affinity to God. Porphyry does not think of the body as vile; he thinks of it as the discardable "outer man," whose satisfaction cannot be a final end or goal because it is corruptible, limited, and earthbound. The body defines creaturely existence and not the soul's quest." pages 162-164
 
Speed said:
Porphyry etc.

It feels like somewhat of a dead end to attack the christan belief with a "god" of your own that's supposed to be better; if 'ol yahwe is out there somewhere he ought to be omnipotent which makes such attacks pretty useless.

(I'm not asking you to jump in and defend his beliefs, it's just a thuoght about it all :p)
 
Um well, I was just quoting a book on the few remnants of Porphry. I understand wht you are saying, but one has to remember he was writing in the 3rd century ad, in a time where philosophy and its god of virtue, was being demolished by a childish mixture of Religion and the Roman state. Of course he would attack god on grounds that his god of the last 800 years was much better intellectually and theologically than this once obscure death cult.

Did you read his attack though on the theological problem of omnipotence of Yahweh? God by being both a creator of good and evil, how is such a thing possible? If it is, God is not good, then he is nothing more than a cruel jealous childish tyrant- and who wishes to worship or believe in such a fickle being?
 
Hm, yes you're right about that, since he wasn't a monoteist there's no problem with additional gods, pretty obvious ;| Anyway it would be pretty interesting to read any of his stuff or compilations of it, to see what the religion which governs our world today was like in the beginning, and how much it has changed of course. Hopefully it's availible in swedish, though it's perhaps not very likely

Yes well it's the classical teodice problem (or however it's spelled in english) and rather interesting since it's so simple yet meaningful; there is evil in the world; than god is either not omnipotent or not alltogehter good, which in any way poses a real problem for belivers. And the complete benevolence of the son and him as a model for people to live after, is one of the things I really dislike about that religion, such a doctrine can only lead to misery of the constant failure one will experience in not being good enough, beeing constantly forced to beg for forgivness and generally look upon yourself as a horrible sinner. I could rant about what more there is I don't like but I'd like to get to bed soon ;)
 
You are the one who killed your own son / We are the ones your hatred is on :saint:

(has nothing useful to contribute :p)
 
The title and the first post just struck me as very SOTish, which we all know is a haven for hypocrites and idiots.
 
I was drunk and angry, like I already said. Beside the fact that the title was taken from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and obviously intended to capture attention.

I fully stand by my main (quite garbled) point that Christianity has a tendency to be highly intolerant, because it does.
 
That ^^^was one of the best comebacks/witty statements Ive ever read JayKeeley.

I dont see why Chrisitianity isnt important, as western culture is partially infected with it, and half of America thinks Jesus has a personal plan for their lives, leading them to elect a chimp and his henchmen for a second term.

Spaffe, about Porphry, he was quite quite famous in his day as a neoplatonist philosopher. He was not a polytheist as far as I have read, he equally mocked the classical mythology system, but beleived it at least was human and realistic. His work attackd Christianity on literal grounds, theological grounds, and by reason, satire, common sense etc. Obviously his multi volume attack of Christianity written 50 years before Constantine, was put to flames everywhere possible. If you read the writings of Julian the Apostate, he mentions him all the time. And there are a few books and fragments surviving.
 
One Inch Man said:
I fully stand by my main (quite garbled) point that Christianity has a tendency to be highly intolerant, because it does.
Hey, kinda like the people that constantly bitch about it. :cool: