Christian Discussion: No more Fun with Pope Puns

[Prima Scriptura]

The song is religious, I'm talking about it's use in the secular sense.

such as?

I think we see this in media and in secular culture. What does "Amazing Grace" mean to you when you hear it? I don't think people understand what "Grace" means to Christians, specially Sola gratia Protestants. It's more than just "I used to be bad, but now I'm good."

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

When I hear Amazing Grace I usually think how much I hate pipe bands.

[HISPIDA]

When I hear Amazing Grace I usually think how much I hate pipe bands.

the bagpipes are wonderful instruments. you're just jealous.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

When I hear Amazing Grace I usually think how much I hate pipe bands.

the bagpipes are wonderful instruments. you're just jealous.

Jealous of the Devil's octopus? Never.

[Prima Scriptura]

When I hear Amazing Grace I usually think how much I hate pipe bands.

When I hear Amazing Grace, I think of God saving me from the fires of hell. Literally saving a wrench like me, because none of us is worthy of His Grace.

[Tarsonis]

When I hear Amazing Grace I usually think how much I hate pipe bands.

Yes, it's so nice when heretics confess. Now will you be wanting a standard pyre, or can I interest you in our "Our Sweet lady of propane" special edition pyre, guaranteed to kill you twice as fast.

[Tarsonis]

When I hear Amazing Grace I usually think how much I hate pipe bands.

When I hear Amazing Grace, I think of God saving me from the fires of hell. Literally saving a wrench like me, because none of us is worthy of His Grace.

I dunno, Wrenches are pretty useful, don't sell yourself short

[Sordhau]

The song is religious, I'm talking about it's use in the secular sense.

such as?

It's one of those things that certain people complain about but never actually happens.

[The Blaatschapen]

such as?

I think we see this in media and in secular culture. What does "Amazing Grace" mean to you when you hear it? I don't think people understand what "Grace" means to Christians, specially Sola gratia Protestants. It's more than just "I used to be bad, but now I'm good."

When I hear amazing grace, I think of American movies and television.

I don't hear it in other media.

[Thermodolia]

When I hear Amazing Grace I usually think how much I hate pipe bands.

the bagpipes are wonderful instruments. you're just jealous.

I agree, we don’t need Scotiphobia around here

[Stellar Colonies]

I just think of Spock’s funeral whenever I hear “Amazing Grace”.

[Duvniask]

continuing from last thread:

That's a distinction without a difference. People's backgrounds always influence their product. Naturally is Marx wasn't an atheist, his philosophy wouldn't have been anti-religious, quite the opposite. So not only was Marx's atheism a key quality in making him repugnant to religious societies, but the fact that it influenced so much of his work, even more so.

honestly, i think that this is jumping the gun a bit. marx's actual views on religion were more complex than "religion bad!" and his "opium of the people" quote is a bit misinterpreted.

marx's view on religion is less "religion is a bad thing and should be stamped out!"; his views on religion are more akin to a materialist atheist view. marx's view on religion was that religion was a proto-revolutionary idealism, an expression of discomfort and at the same time a protest against the cause of said discomfort, such as oppression. when the oppression is destroyed, such as society's transition from a capitalist to socialist to communist society, then religion will lose relevance because oppression no longer exists. in a sense, it's a "withering away of religion" in the same vein as the withering away of the state. this is a classic example of dialectical materialism. (now obviously i don't agree with this considering i'm a christian, that's just marx's view on the subject)

marx wasn't necessarily an "anti-theist"--- he had nothing against religion, per se --- he was more of a "post-theist," really, and thought that as society advanced the need for religion would eventually die out. his actual "opium of the people" quote is as follows (with some parts cut out for brevity's sake):

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man... Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion... It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality...

...Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

can you tell he liked italics?

This would be far less disgusting to read, coming from you, if you didn't feel the need to also suck up to murderous totalitarians like Stalin or Mao.

[HISPIDA]

continuing from last thread:


honestly, i think that this is jumping the gun a bit. marx's actual views on religion were more complex than "religion bad!" and his "opium of the people" quote is a bit misinterpreted.

marx's view on religion is less "religion is a bad thing and should be stamped out!"; his views on religion are more akin to a materialist atheist view. marx's view on religion was that religion was a proto-revolutionary idealism, an expression of discomfort and at the same time a protest against the cause of said discomfort, such as oppression. when the oppression is destroyed, such as society's transition from a capitalist to socialist to communist society, then religion will lose relevance because oppression no longer exists. in a sense, it's a "withering away of religion" in the same vein as the withering away of the state. this is a classic example of dialectical materialism. (now obviously i don't agree with this considering i'm a christian, that's just marx's view on the subject)

marx wasn't necessarily an "anti-theist"--- he had nothing against religion, per se --- he was more of a "post-theist," really, and thought that as society advanced the need for religion would eventually die out. his actual "opium of the people" quote is as follows (with some parts cut out for brevity's sake):



can you tell he liked italics?

This would be far less disgusting to read, coming from you, if you didn't feel the need to also suck up to murderous totalitarians like Stalin or Mao.

cope

[Duvniask]

This would be far less disgusting to read, coming from you, if you didn't feel the need to also suck up to murderous totalitarians like Stalin or Mao.

cope

The recourse of someone with nothing to say.

Oh but of course, it's also amusing, in that you metaphorically feel the need to suck these guys off considering they would probably have outright had you murdered.

[Ayytaly]

OK, Jokes aside.

I was born and raised a southern baptist. I meandered through a variety of religious beliefs, studied the apparent human need for such beliefs, and found Satanism.

Now, I know, I am a guest (intruder) here, but I would like to know what the NS Christians think of Satanism. Both the secular atheistic and your theistic opposites.

I do NOT want this to be a threadjack. Just an exploration of another facet. After all, we DID take our name from your mythology.

Anton LaVey is what happens when you mix Ayn Rand with Aleister Crowley.

Theistic Satanism is the religious equivalent of "Why are you simping for him? He's not going to fuck you."

Atheistic version is akin to Libertarianism. The other is if Libertarianism were a deity.

continuing from last thread:

That's a distinction without a difference. People's backgrounds always influence their product. Naturally is Marx wasn't an atheist, his philosophy wouldn't have been anti-religious, quite the opposite. So not only was Marx's atheism a key quality in making him repugnant to religious societies, but the fact that it influenced so much of his work, even more so.

honestly, i think that this is jumping the gun a bit. marx's actual views on religion were more complex than "religion bad!" and his "opium of the people" quote is a bit misinterpreted.

marx's view on religion is less "religion is a bad thing and should be stamped out!"; his views on religion are more akin to a materialist atheist view. marx's view on religion was that religion was a proto-revolutionary idealism, an expression of discomfort and at the same time a protest against the cause of said discomfort, such as oppression. when the oppression is destroyed, such as society's transition from a capitalist to socialist to communist society, then religion will lose relevance because oppression no longer exists. in a sense, it's a "withering away of religion" in the same vein as the withering away of the state. this is a classic example of dialectical materialism. (now obviously i don't agree with this considering i'm a christian, that's just marx's view on the subject)

marx wasn't necessarily an "anti-theist"--- he had nothing against religion, per se --- he was more of a "post-theist," really, and thought that as society advanced the need for religion would eventually die out. his actual "opium of the people" quote is as follows (with some parts cut out for brevity's sake):

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man... Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion... It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality...

...Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

can you tell he liked italics?

Religion is just a way to prevent Man from turning primal.

[HISPIDA]

Religion is just a way to prevent Man from turning primal.

well, i (hopefully obviously) disagree on that point as well. just because i'm a christian --- a rather devout christian as well, at least in my opinion --- doesn't mean i automatically think religion is the only thing (or even a thing in most cases) keeping people from going fuckin' wild. some religious institutions and individuals have done some pretty fucked up shit; lookin' at you, crusades. and westboro. and the salem witch trials. and a surprising amount of serial killers/mass murderers. and ISIL. and--

[Dogmeat]

Religion is just a way to prevent Man from turning primal.

well, i (hopefully obviously) disagree on that point as well. just because i'm a christian --- a rather devout christian as well, at least in my opinion --- doesn't mean i automatically think religion is the only thing (or even a thing in most cases) keeping people from going fuckin' wild. some religious institutions and individuals have done some pretty fucked up shit; lookin' at you, crusades. and westboro. and the salem witch trials. and a surprising amount of serial killers/mass murderers. and ISIL. and--

Yeah, I'd say that religion's record on preventing man from "turning primal" is mixed. Certainly there are religions that do the exact opposite.

Looking at you Aztecs.

[Ayytaly]

well, i (hopefully obviously) disagree on that point as well. just because i'm a christian --- a rather devout christian as well, at least in my opinion --- doesn't mean i automatically think religion is the only thing (or even a thing in most cases) keeping people from going fuckin' wild. some religious institutions and individuals have done some pretty fucked up shit; lookin' at you, crusades. and westboro. and the salem witch trials. and a surprising amount of serial killers/mass murderers. and ISIL. and--

Yeah, I'd say that religion's record on preventing man from "turning primal" is mixed. Certainly there are religions that do the exact opposite.

Looking at you Aztecs.

>Aztecs

Pfft it's always Native Americans getting scapegoated, I see. The Aztecs didn't kill in the name of Christ. The Germanics, on the other hand, syncretized the Abrahamic God with Odin and committed genocide on "behalf" of Christianity such as the Teutonic Order when they exterminated the native Prussians.

[Lord Dominator]

Yeah, I'd say that religion's record on preventing man from "turning primal" is mixed. Certainly there are religions that do the exact opposite.

Looking at you Aztecs.

>Aztecs

Pfft it's always Native Americans getting scapegoated, I see. The Aztecs didn't kill in the name of Christ. The Germanics, on the other hand, syncretized the Abrahamic God with Odin and committed genocide on "behalf" of Christianity such as the Teutonic Order when they exterminated the native Prussians.

You’ll notice this little quote thread also mentions many of the bad things Christians/others did. The Aztecs get a bad rap because the of rather inherent part of their religion wherein they had massive ritualized human sacrifice.

[Bovad]

cope

The recourse of someone with nothing to say.

Oh but of course, it's also amusing, in that you metaphorically feel the need to suck these guys off considering they would probably have outright had you murdered.

Do you have any reasoning for that last statement?

[Dogmeat]

Yeah, I'd say that religion's record on preventing man from "turning primal" is mixed. Certainly there are religions that do the exact opposite.

Looking at you Aztecs.

>Aztecs

Pfft it's always Native Americans getting scapegoated, I see. The Aztecs didn't kill in the name of Christ. The Germanics, on the other hand, syncretized the Abrahamic God with Odin and committed genocide on "behalf" of Christianity such as the Teutonic Order when they exterminated the native Prussians.

Aztecs are an easy example, precisely because they didn't kill in the name of Christ.

Mention someone who did kill in the name of Christ, in this thread, and no matter how well-meaning you are, no matter how obvious it is that these guys were evil, there's a good chance that someone will interpret it as an attack on Christianity and insult you for a page while crying about how persecuted they are.

So yeah, Aztecs. We can all agree the Aztec religion was kind of bad, right? I mean, they were cool, sure. But still bad.

[Ayytaly]

>Aztecs

Pfft it's always Native Americans getting scapegoated, I see. The Aztecs didn't kill in the name of Christ. The Germanics, on the other hand, syncretized the Abrahamic God with Odin and committed genocide on "behalf" of Christianity such as the Teutonic Order when they exterminated the native Prussians.

Aztecs are an easy example, precisely because they didn't kill in the name of Christ.

Mention someone who did kill in the name of Christ, in this thread, and no matter how well-meaning you are, no matter how obvious it is that these guys were evil, there's a good chance that someone will interpret it as an attack on Christianity and insult you for a page while crying about how persecuted they are.

So yeah, Aztecs. We can all agree the Aztec religion was kind of bad, right? I mean, they were cool, sure. But still bad.

Those sacrifices were political, though. No different from the brazen bull.

[Dogmeat]

Aztecs are an easy example, precisely because they didn't kill in the name of Christ.

Mention someone who did kill in the name of Christ, in this thread, and no matter how well-meaning you are, no matter how obvious it is that these guys were evil, there's a good chance that someone will interpret it as an attack on Christianity and insult you for a page while crying about how persecuted they are.

So yeah, Aztecs. We can all agree the Aztec religion was kind of bad, right? I mean, they were cool, sure. But still bad.

Those sacrifices were political, though. No different from the brazen bull.

Okay? I'm actually not sure what you're talking about. Aztec sacrifice could be construed as political, sure. But they also served a religious function, and were vital to the maintenance of Huitzilopochtli, Tenochtitlan's patron god, and the only thing staving off yet another world-ending event.

The Aztecs engaged in massive religious wars against people they had already conquered for the purpose of obtaining enough sacrifices to ensure Huitzilopochtli's continued prosperity. Let's not sweep that under the rug as "merely political."

[HISPIDA]

Aztecs are an easy example, precisely because they didn't kill in the name of Christ.

Mention someone who did kill in the name of Christ, in this thread, and no matter how well-meaning you are, no matter how obvious it is that these guys were evil, there's a good chance that someone will interpret it as an attack on Christianity and insult you for a page while crying about how persecuted they are.

So yeah, Aztecs. We can all agree the Aztec religion was kind of bad, right? I mean, they were cool, sure. But still bad.

Those sacrifices were political, though. No different from the brazen bull.

what? aztec sacrifices were incredibly religious. the aztecs viewed human sacrifice as pleasing the gods, especially huitzilopochtli, as the gods sacrificed themselves to give life and create the new cycle. and it wasn't just prisoners; aztec citizens would also sacrifice parts of them selves, such as thorns covered with blood. blood from the genitals was especially venerated IIRC as quetzalcoatl used blood from his own genitals to give humanity life.

[Ayytaly]

Those sacrifices were political, though. No different from the brazen bull.

Okay? I'm actually not sure what you're talking about. Aztec sacrifice could be construed as political, sure. But they also served a religious function, and were vital to the maintenance of Huitzilopochtli, Tenochtitlan's patron god, and the only thing staving off yet another world-ending event.

The Aztecs engaged in massive religious wars against people they had already conquered for the purpose of obtaining enough sacrifices to ensure Huitzilopochtli's continued prosperity. Let's not sweep that under the rug as "merely political."

You forget the Aztecs were imperial. They were America's Rome and treated outsider tribes the same way Rome treated Christians.