Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Loeje]

Wait, just so we're clear you're not interpreting Genesis literally right?

I mean, Genesis should be interpreted literally...

No, it doesn't.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

I mean, Genesis should be interpreted literally...

not really, no.

Considering massive theological problems arise out of not interpreting Genesis literally, among other evidence that it serves more as a history book than that of poetry, yes it absolutely should.

[Odreria]

not really, no.

Considering massive theological problems arise out of not interpreting Genesis literally, among other evidence that it serves more as a history book than that of poetry, yes it absolutely should.

"History" in the modern sense didn't exist when Genesis was written.

[Tarsonis]

not really, no.

Considering massive theological problems arise out of not interpreting Genesis literally, among other evidence that it serves more as a history book than that of poetry, yes it absolutely should.

There are trees older than the origin of the world as indicated by genesis, not to mention the numerous problems with the narrative itself. The only theological issue that arises is our current understanding of original sin needs to be re-evaluated.

Is it written like a history book? sure. It's an emic origin tale of the nation of Israel. Stories passed down from generation to generation telling the Hebrews and later Israelites where they came from, and where they're going. But doesn't make it literally true. But it doesn't need to be literally true to contain the truth of God.

[Lost Memories]

I've come across a video I wanted to share, as I think it may be interesting or important, to talk over it from a christian point of view.

New Religions of the 21st Century | Yuval Harari | Talks at Google (speaker background: gay secular jew, historian of religions)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6BK5Q_Dblo

(the speaker by the way, doesn't understand what free will is, and conflates free will with feelings, which makes perfect sense inside liberalism, but it doesn't make sense inside religion; he also doesn't understand or he glossed over the role of tradition inside religions, by mentioning only holy texts; his comparisons involving religions show his deep ignorance on religions, but that's not the focus, rather liberalism, and the philosophical role played by bio-sciences in the transformation of liberalism into the religion of data, are what to focus on)


What I took out from it, specifically about liberalism, as defined in the video:

liberalism: (value comes from the feelings of the individual)
-hypersensitivity,
since feelings inside liberalism decide everything, some people think that they can use their feelings to justify their every whims, and use tantrums as validation for themselves or their ideas
--> immaturity, to behave like whining spoiled children
-extreme common law (usa + uk)
uncertainty of the law, taken to the extreme, where a whim or feeling decides each time what is law
or how the law can be hacked by exploiting feelings
-populism, and social manipulation
in the political field, decisions depend on the feelings of the individual voters, without intermediaries, direct democracy, feelings politics
-anti-intellectualism
in the educational field, the student is the authority on how to educate themselves
-loneliness, social fragmentation
since each person is free according to their own feelings,
the only way to be free without invading others, or being invaded by the freedom of others, is not interacting
-conformism
the alternative to isolation, is conformism, the cancellation of the self, while in the group, by adopting the group self, to band together around the same feeling
-subjectivism
there is nothing objective or absolute, everything is subjective and relative
-anarchy of values
liberalism is an anarchy of values
like all anarchies, it evolves spontaneously into a monarchy, a monarchy of values
who is really in control inside liberalism? not feelings, but who can influence feelings
who can influence sentiments? who has more means, to collect data, and to distribute influence
i.e. the strongest. (state propaganda in the near past and present, corporations in the present and future)
liberalism does not really follow the individual, but the law of the strongest, as in anarchy
and like all anarchies, liberalism is only functional to a regime change, it is not a stable state
-the pseudo-religion of the economy
between the three powers of the people: state, religion, economy
liberalism, fits perfectly to the purposes of merchants, the main actors of the economy
liberalism instead clashes with religion(christianity), and can clash or be coopted by the state
-the vanguard to the techno-religion of data
where feelings are no longer authoritative, but algorithms are authoritative, which replace feelings
since algorithms give "better" and "less outdated" results than feelings
since feelings are also outdated, as it was said earlier about sacred texts or traditions
first it was said: between bible and feelings, follow your feelings, they are less outdated
then it was said: don't follow feelings, they are outdated, follow the algorithms

But it's all just manipulation, people always accept to be led, because they don't really want to decide.
They don't really want the responsibility that comes with making their own decisions. Or some are just so incredibly lazy and idle, they don't want to do the effort to sort out a decision.
In the mad rush away from responsibility, they invented algorithms. (the liberalism of feelings came before it)
but algorithms are just the latest invention for people who don't want responsibility, who would give away their freedom if it meant less responsibility for them (and hard determinists, who claim freedom doesn't exist, are no different, they too fear responsibility, and think that by claiming reality doesn't exist, then also responsibility doesn't exist)
people who would rather live like potatoes in the ground, if it was made convenient.

After the algorithms, will come the potatoes.



I think that so long the ability to decide won't be stripped away from humans, by various forms of manipulation and crowd control, people will always have to decide if to be humans, or, if to be just bags of feelings, bags of algorithms, or potatoes.

To be human, in christianity, for what I understand it in this context, it is not to run away from responsibilities, but to hold one own responsibilities, and with conscience to act accordingly, by trying to anticipate any downfall, to prevent downfall, and pay back and compensate if downfall happened.
Because God gave all humans free will, not just feelings or desires, because free will is an amazing tool of creation, and God wants to have humans participate in the creation of the world with him.

Responsibility, is to own the results of our usage of free will, the results of our actions, be it positive results or negative results.
Because, it is not right to have some to claim the fruits of the work of others, that's stealing, thieves do that. And it's not right to have others bear the dirty rags of some, that's to expect others to clean and fix the dirty rags which aren't theirs, if not to bear the stink of the rags in the place of the some who own them, that is to expect others to work for free, which again it's sort of stealing, stealing the right wage and compensation for the work of others, basically it's slavery.

Liberalism just leads to a society of thieves and slavers. That's the core of it, that's the outcome of discarting responsibility.
Theft and slavery aren't acceptable in christianity. That's not a feeling which is going to change with time. It's a revealed truth, an absolute value.

[Odreria]

snip

I'm a conservative thief and slaver. We exist. I do not appreciate you erasing me.

[Suriyanakhon]

not really, no.

Considering massive theological problems arise out of not interpreting Genesis literally, among other evidence that it serves more as a history book than that of poetry, yes it absolutely should.

If the Book of Genesis were literal, we wouldn't be able to see many of the distant objects in space that we can, since they're more than 6,000 - 10,000 years away from us, and that's just one of the simpler problems with Creationist literalism. There are way more scientific and narrative problems. Geneis might say something about the human condition or contain some divine revelation, but it's nowhere close to a history about how the world or humanity started.

[Luminesa]

Wait, just so we're clear you're not interpreting Genesis literally right?

I mean, Genesis should be interpreted literally...

Genesis is only partially historical, in some of the later stories told (Abraham, Joseph, technically the Flood, etc.) However, it is primarily a theological document, NOT a scientific document.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Wait, just so we're clear you're not interpreting Genesis literally right?

I mean, Genesis should be interpreted literally...

The church fathers would beg to differ. Origen in particular is probably rolling in his grave as we speak.

[Suriyanakhon]

I mean, Genesis should be interpreted literally...

The church fathers would beg to differ. Origen in particular is probably rolling in his grave as we speak.

To be fair, Origen believed in some crazy stuff (from the Church's perspective) so he's probably not the best authority.

But other Church Fathers also didn't interpret Genesis literally as well.

[Old Tyrannia]

The church fathers would beg to differ. Origen in particular is probably rolling in his grave as we speak.

To be fair, Origen believed in some crazy stuff (from the Church's perspective) so he's probably not the best authority.

But other Church Fathers also didn't interpret Genesis literally as well.

Not that it's in any way on topic, but only the best people have quotes from Hagakure in their signatures.

[Suriyanakhon]

To be fair, Origen believed in some crazy stuff (from the Church's perspective) so he's probably not the best authority.

But other Church Fathers also didn't interpret Genesis literally as well.

Not that it's in any way on topic, but only the best people have quotes from Hagakure in their signatures.

Well, it is objectively a very classy book.

[Loeje]

not really, no.

Considering massive theological problems arise out of not interpreting Genesis literally, among other evidence that it serves more as a history book than that of poetry, yes it absolutely should.

I don't think there are any massive theological problems from not interpreting Genesis literally, but I do know that massive scientific problems arise from a literal interpretation.

[Punished UMN]

The church fathers would beg to differ. Origen in particular is probably rolling in his grave as we speak.

To be fair, Origen believed in some crazy stuff (from the Church's perspective) so he's probably not the best authority.

But other Church Fathers also didn't interpret Genesis literally as well.

Origen believed in many things that would be considered heretical now, but he's also probably the most influential Christian historian of all time, even if many of his views were refined later. Most of genesis serves to preconfigure Christ's coming, and we know from Christ's ministry that God uses parable to explain things, and we even know that God held information that the people weren't ready for, even holding it back from the Old Testament prophets (with the exception of Isaiah).

[Tarsonis]

Considering massive theological problems arise out of not interpreting Genesis literally, among other evidence that it serves more as a history book than that of poetry, yes it absolutely should.

I don't think there are any massive theological problems from not interpreting Genesis literally, but I do know that massive scientific problems arise from a literal interpretation.

There is. Original sin is predicated on the actions of Adam and Eve. If they never actually existed, what does that say for the dogma? This is actually what I hope to work on for my Doctoral Thesis

[Suriyanakhon]

I don't think there are any massive theological problems from not interpreting Genesis literally, but I do know that massive scientific problems arise from a literal interpretation.

There is. Original sin is predicated on the actions of Adam and Eve. If they never actually existed, what does that say for the dogma? This is actually what I hope to work on for my Doctoral Thesis

Pelagius laughing from the grave?

[Salus Maior]

There is. Original sin is predicated on the actions of Adam and Eve. If they never actually existed, what does that say for the dogma? This is actually what I hope to work on for my Doctoral Thesis

Pelagius laughing from the grave?

Tbh, Pelagianism is just a precursor for Deism.

[Suriyanakhon]

Pelagius laughing from the grave?

Tbh, Pelagianism is just a precursor for Deism.

Although I'm not strongly familiar with Pelagianism, I'm not sure I would go that far. Pelagius never seemed to have doubted that God was an active force in the world and that miracles could happen.

[Tarsonis]

Pelagius laughing from the grave?

Tbh, Pelagianism is just a precursor for Deism.

we don't actually know that. Pelagius's works were destroyed, all we know of his teachings comes from his critics. Not exactly what we'd call an objective source.

[Salus Maior]

Tbh, Pelagianism is just a precursor for Deism.

Although I'm not strongly familiar with Pelagianism, I'm not sure I would go that far. Pelagius never seemed to have doubted that God was an active force in the world and that miracles could happen.

That's true, but Pelagianism does nullify the necessity of Christ's sacrifice for salvation by affirming that one can become saved completely by their own effort. The logical end of that, at least in my view, is the downplaying of God's Grace as a factor as a whole and a greater and greater reliance on the self. Which in my understanding is Deistic.

[Salus Maior]

Tbh, Pelagianism is just a precursor for Deism.

we don't actually know that. Pelagius's works were destroyed, all we know of his teachings comes from his critics. Not exactly what we'd call an objective source.

The heresy we call "Pelagianism" then. Which is that one can be saved on their own effort entirely without assistance from God.

[Tarsonis]

we don't actually know that. Pelagius's works were destroyed, all we know of his teachings comes from his critics. Not exactly what we'd call an objective source.

The heresy we call "Pelagianism" then. Which is that one can be saved on their own effort entirely without assistance from God.

Yes definitely. But I have my doubts that's what he actually taught. More likely I think he got caught on the downside of the western church embracing Augustines more pessimistic views

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

The heresy we call "Pelagianism" then. Which is that one can be saved on their own effort entirely without assistance from God.

Yes definitely. But I have my doubts that's what he actually taught. More likely I think he got caught on the downside of the western church embracing Augustines more pessimistic views

The Beta Augustine v. the CHAD Pelagius

(this is only a joke don't crucify me pls)

[Salus Maior]

The heresy we call "Pelagianism" then. Which is that one can be saved on their own effort entirely without assistance from God.

Yes definitely. But I have my doubts that's what he actually taught. More likely I think he got caught on the downside of the western church embracing Augustines more pessimistic views

I mean, how can we know that wasn’t what he actually taught? Criticisms of his beliefs might be biased, sure, but it’s still evidence of what he believed. Half of an argument.

But let’s say we do toss that out as any kind of evidence as to what Pelagius believed. Then we have nothing at all to go off of, and can’t really assume what he supposedly really believed was better, worse, or equal to what we know.

[Salus Maior]

Yes definitely. But I have my doubts that's what he actually taught. More likely I think he got caught on the downside of the western church embracing Augustines more pessimistic views

The Beta Augustine v. the CHAD Pelagius

(this is only a joke don't crucify me pls)

Hey, St.Augustine was a cool guy. Rather grumpy in his later years, but his ‘Confessions’ are very moving.

Late have I loved you, beauty so old and so new: late have I loved you. And see, you were within and I was in the external world and sought you there, and in my unlovely state I plunged into those lovely created things which you made. You were with me, and I was not with you. The lovely things kept me far from you, though if they did not have their existence in you, they had no existence at all. You called and cried out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness. You were fragrant, and I drew in my breath and now pant after you. I tasted you, and I feel but hunger and thirst for you. You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain the peace which is yours.