@opphunter88 Yeah, he finds very elaborate copes for the reality of Christianity being a universalist faith. Also you don't even need Paul, you can see it if universal even within the canonical Gospels. You can establish a much tighter reservation than even Nicene Christianity and still get there. Yet he still denies it.lol lmfao
@NEETzsche Strictly speaking, it is about race mixing. The sin of both Israel and Judah were mixing with the peoples around them (which caused them to worship other gods, modern people will try to disconnect these two things, but they're always paired together in the Old Testament.)
Xenophon is a bit of a heretic though, to my understanding, he believes the New Testament is a racial covenant, which Paul consistently refutes. That doesn't mean race is irrelevant or doesn't exist, but it is no longer a barrier between Christian brothers, so a modern application of Ezekiel would be to avoid mixing with non-Christians.
@NEETzsche Even that is leaving a bit out, because for most of history, Christianity, for all intents and purposes, was the religion of Romans. In the Byzantine empire, it would not have necessarily been incorrect to conflate your citizenship with your faith.
@opphunter88 no no, when I say universalist, I mean in the sense that anybody can be a Christian. It's not an ethnoreligion like rabbinical judaism is.
@NEETzsche It's universalist in the sense that truth is objective, and there is an objectively true path to redemption no matter where you come from.
There's nothing wrong with universalism, in that sense.
Christianity is not universalist in that we believe the innate characteristics of the races, genders, etc. are moot. That would be silly. There are some passages that are unfortunately vague enough to be taken that way, but when you read old commentaries and look at how the early Church actually worked, it clearly wasn't received in a manner compatible with modern liberalism.
@NEETzsche The whole British Israel thing is strange, especially the ones that claim modern jews are ethnic Edomites.
There are two whole books of the Bible about establishing the racial purity of the ethnic jews; Ezra and Nehemiah. That's what sets them apart from the lost tribes, who are lost because they mixed races with their conquerors.
They've flipped the entire reality on its head. It can only come from Biblical illiteracy.
@opphunter88 In this case it's a very pointed Biblical illiteracy. They'll see the text and then come up with an elaborate explanation as to why it doesn't count. They'll get insulting and call you retarded. In my case they insisted that I was either black or a hapa.
To me, it's one thing to disagree about what ought to be considered canon or if a text is true or not. People debate those points all the time. But the reality is these documents say certain things and don't say other things, and when someone gets into this eisegesis you just know they're full of shit. It's really not the same as me citing to you something from Mormon scripture; you can read it, and you can see that it says what I say that it says, and then you can go, "but I don't think it's true." It's totally different to deny to everybody's face that something says what it says.
@NEETzsche I'm just used to seeing pagans and ethnonat atheists attack Christianity (and Islam) for being "universalist" so I'm pointing out there are multiple senses of universalism. One is the predicate for any useful truth claim, the other is an abdication of reality.
@NEETzsche I've never seen one of them address Ezra and Nehemiah. I don't think many of them have read it.
If you have, there's simply no way you can hold to these esoteric racial theories of what Christianity. The genuine ethnicity of Jesus' opponents was never even in question.
@rdr@NEETzsche NEET is a schizo (a little more schizo than you're letting on, even) but it's not productive to be rude about it. Why can't you let a civilized conversation happen in peace?
Mary, the mother of Christ, was married age 12 to 15. King David arranged for men to be killed so he could marry their wives. Even given the most parsimonious interpretation of the facts and taking your complaints entirely at face value, Mormonism is no crazier than the Old or New testaments taken at face value.
Which raises the question of why you’re malding about Mormonism in particular so hard. Do you feel a little… inferior perhaps?
@latein@opphunter88@NEETzsche no you see it was God's plan that Jesus's message would get lost for hundreds if not over a thousand years only to be restored by a conman who married other men's wives and little girls
I actually respect FLDS. If you are going to have an insane religion, I will not accept you compromising on important doctrines like polygamy and cunny.
Yeah, it’s King David shit. But this idea that Joseph Smith did something bad –> Mormonism is illegitimate, but this logic doesn’t apply to Torahnic Judaism or Nicene Christianity, since tons of prophets of God did shitty things and were directly punished for doing so.
These “gotcha” arguments just don’t work unless they work consistently. Catholicism/Orthodoxy ostensibly rests on the legitimacy of Peter, a man who denied Christ three times. See? This kind of shit doesn’t wash just because you’re mad at your Bishop.
@NEETzsche@latein@opphunter88 Mormonism ruined my teen years. I did enough research using "valid" Mormon sources to realize it didn't make any sense and was ostracized for wanting compatibility between my Reason and Religion.
I don't care that you want to marry a 14 year old as your 15th wife, I just think it's funny. "Marrying" other men's wives after you sent the man on a mission is pretty scummy tho. Joe Smith did just this.
@NEETzsche@rdr@latein >Mormonism is no crazier than the Old or New testaments taken at face value.
Well, except that whole “Book of Abraham” debacle, where we found the original “source” and it turned out to be a completely unrelated Egyptian Book of the Dead.
Counterpoint, though. Joseph Smith accurately predicted the American Civil War. That one made my head spin when I learned about it.
Your attempts to attack Mormonism failed the “can this criticism be levied against Nicene Christianity?” test, a test that they must pass in order to be valid as a unique attack on Mormonism and not on Christianity as a whole. Your standards are “my Bishop took away my cunnies.”
You didn’t read the whole thing. In order for your response to even make sense, you needed to take a sentence fragment out of context. You took a successful rebuttal against rdr, took what I said out of context, and changed the topic, hence, shifting the goalposts.
You complain about me not arguing in “good faith,” but hoo boy, you did a number there.
@NEETzsche@latein@rdr I read the whole thing. You’re making an ethical case, but that’s actually not the main issue he raised, plausibility is. Plausibility is the better argument against the LDS by far, which is why I brought up the Book of Abraham, a very specific case where we have a *lot* of information that simply does not add up.
@NEETzsche@latein@rdr You’re being ridiculous. Because you were specifically avoiding the plausibility angle, I’m not allowed to bring it back up? Quit playing, retard. It makes plenty of sense, you just don’t want to answer for it.
Okay, that’s fine. The exchange ends here, then. Let’s do a recap: rdr attempted to argue that Joseph Smith couldn’t possibly be a legitimate prophet because he was a polygamist who married other men’s wives and married young girls, and that Mormonism is uniquely ridiculous for this reason. As it turns out, King David did all of that and is still canonically considered a prophet.
When confronted with the reality that this argument didn’t wash, you deliberately took one of the things I said out of context in an attempt to change the topic to the Book of Abraham. You were given the opportunity to admit that the first attempt was a failure, but instead chose to concede the Book of Abraham point as a meritless shifting of the goalposts.
Trinitarianism is internally contradictory and therefore wrong. Here’s what Lutherans actually believe, mathematically speaking: a = b, b = c, a =/= c
This internal contradiction tipped me off to Trinitarianism early on. It’s a logic thing. I’m sorry you fell for this tripe, though. Do you think you’ll burn in hell for holding objectively wrong theological views?
These so-called “distinctions” are entirely contrived to avoid admitting that the early Orthodox Church was decisively wrong about something that they were dead-set on.
@opphunter88 A single word having different meanings in different contexts, as in the case with the word Jupiter, is the most hilarious cope about Trinitarian contradiction that I've seen. Why not view the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as parts of a greater whole, which is more coherent and doesn't require reams of apologia to cope about?
Oh right, it's because for whatever reason Nicene Christianity decided to die on this hill of all of them. It's very important that this internally contradictory doctrine be accepted at face value, or else we're going to call you a heretic and not a real Christian. It's completely preposterous. Those absolutely batshit Yaldabaoth Sophia cosmologies have a greater likelihood of being correct than this shit, and with the added benefit of being actually interesting to boot, because at least the likelihood of being correct is greater than zero. 2 + 2 != 5, and I don't have to believe otherwise just because it's absurd, as Tertullian said.
I know I blew off your attempt to discuss the Book of Abraham in this moment, but that was motivated by frustration with your reluctance to admit that I'm right about something when I very plainly am. I am willing to have a conversation about that with you in the future, but in the meantime, I'm mega drowsy so I'm going to go to sleep now.
Because that’s in inaccurate descriptions of what is believed. The Son doesn’t have a third of infinite knowledge. The Spirit doesn’t have a third of infinite power. Dividing the infinite into parts doesn’t even make sense as a concept, this is called Divine Simplicity.
@opphunter88 You can divide Infinity by things actually, you just always get infinity when you're dividing by positive reals. But division isn't really the best way to view that. I wouldn't characterize my hand as having knowledge. That's not really the point of my hand. The purpose of my hand is completely different than as a receptacle for knowledge, yet it is still part of a greater whole, me.
I'm setting up shit to actually pass out, though. I only sleep for a few hours at a time, so I'll probably be back before you go to bed. We can continue then.
@NEETzsche@opphunter88@rdr I wouldn't use David for an analogy to Joseph Smith, more accurate would be Mohammed or the serpent in the garden. When Josiah found the book of the law the angel Abaddon didn't have to bring it down to him, God preserved His Word as He has promised all throughout Scripture. Paul also warned about this same thing. Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. I looked at that awful Hie to Kolob hymn and it's also full of "Gods" which is what the serpent promised Eve after he cast doubt upon God's Word.
@latein@NEETzsche@rdr Paul's warning is even more extensive in Deuteronomy, which implies there will be prophets who show all the signs of legitimacy, except they will lead you to other gods.