1. Hello and welcome to the brand new home for PlayDota!
    Please read through our Welcome thread to see what's new!
    Dismiss Notice

Social Justice Debates

Discussion in 'World News & Debate' started by Blarrg, Oct 8, 2016.

  1. Leadblast

    Leadblast Member

    May 31, 2010
    I clearly said that hormones determine your behaviour

    and your gender was determined by your 23rd pair of chomosomes

    XX = female
    XY = male

    Surprise surprise, first he says (quoting me) it's the hormones, then he talks about the 23rd pair of chromosomes :rolleyes:

    Testosterone deficiency is NOT to be expected in healthy men duh. Even so, it doesn't decide gender...

    you can't change your 23rd pair of chromosomes just because you say so.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2018
  2. Eutychius

    Eutychius Moderator Staff Member

    Aug 15, 2013
    What that determines is your biological sex. Gender, depending on its definition, entails different aspects of one's biology and/or personality. If it was as simple as you imply, then there wouldn't be any viable gender classification for people with genetic mutations that affect their 23rd pair of chromosomes.

    Actually no, both of what you quoted from me are within the same paragraph of the same post. It's just that it is convenient for you to respond to each thing separately and out of context so that it appears to be contradictory, when in reality each of what I said compliments each other and is meant to be read as one single point.

    First of all, this has nothing to do with health, what I'm proposing is imply a scenario where that hormone imbalance is a thing. Whether that's healthy or not is not pertinent to the point I was making. Besides, hormone imbalance in this topic can mean a lot of things, it doesn't necessarily have to do with the proverbial emasculation of men or defeminization of women.

    Secondly, again, that depends on how you define gender. What you are thinking of when you say "gender" is really just biological sex. But as I've pointed out with clarity, there are "grey areas" of biological sex classification where your worldview doesn't exactly help.

    And thirdly, it takes more than just biology to define oneself. If you are born with visual impairment, you aren't going to run around myopic (even though in this context, you do seem like you are being just that, figuratively speaking) because biologically you are like that. You wear contacts/glasses or perform an eye surgery to solve the problem and see properly. You will still have the genetic markers for myopia, but you will have solved it in practical terms.

    That is not to say that these are directly equivalent, but it's just an analogy to show that one's biological state can and is usually altered for the betterment of their quality of life.

    Genetic engineering is a thing that exists and is still in development, so I wouldn't be so absolute if I were you.
  3. ManOnTheCan

    ManOnTheCan Member

    Aug 18, 2013
    So, how many genders are there, and how do we determine what gender someone is scientifically?
  4. Eutychius

    Eutychius Moderator Staff Member

    Aug 15, 2013
    It depends on your definition. How can anyone claim the number of anything if there isn't even a well-defined outline for said thing? If someone says gender is also behavioural rather than just genetic, but someone like Leadblast says it's just genetic, then there isn't even a consensus on the language we are using to discuss anything further meaningfully.

    Same goes for "defining gender scientifically". Even though I would argue there is already science behind gender, it's just that it's underdeveloped and in its infancy. Which is understandable, both because clinical psychology and genetics are relatively new fields in academia, as well as because the issue is highly political which doesn't allow for proper research to be conducted without obstructions. Same with climate science.
  5. ManOnTheCan

    ManOnTheCan Member

    Aug 18, 2013
    Are you suggesting that climate science is as scientifically established as "gender science"?

    No wonder lots of people don't believe in climate change.
  6. Eutychius

    Eutychius Moderator Staff Member

    Aug 15, 2013
    "Scientifically established" isn't an actual thing by which subjects are defined. That is because, by definition, science is simply any rigorously tested field of study dedicated to the explanation of the world, while abiding certain procedures (the scientific method). This definition is applicable to fields such as economics or psychology as well, and does not actually involve mathematics. What I assume you meant is that "gender science" doesn't seem "science-y" enough, but that's just defining science as simply the STEM fields.

    All these of course while making unfounded assumptions.

    First off, you falsely assume that I equated climate science with "gender science" as you call it. That's just a strawman argument. What I said is that the development of fields pertaining to the study of gender (genetics, clinical psychology etc) are impeded because of political factors. Likewise, climate science is impeded by equivalent political factors.

    Secondly, you erroneously try to paint me as a "gender studies" advocate, as in I actually give weight to gender studies in and of themselves, even though I never even mentioned it. Again, what I mentioned was genetics and clinical psychology. Unless you want to discredit the validity of some scientists' pursuit of studying the idea of gender and its conflation with biology in the context of those aforementioned fields, then there's no actual "unscientific" accusation to be thrown here.

    TL;DR: You are engaging in confirmation bias.

    Actually, lots of people don't "believe" in climate change because a) they are scientifically illiterate, b) they are swayed by politically induced propaganda and/or c) they consider the issue farfetched and value economic growth more. It has absolutely nothing to do with your incorrect assumption that some people advocate for "gender science".

    In other words, you threw a red herring.
  7. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    Jun 12, 2009
    Treating gender outside of meaning sex is completely ridiculous as it stands. I've gone over why in my previous post.

    The only two actual factors in this discussion are your chromosomes/genitals and your hormone levels. Many articles or studies will quote things like "self-defined gender identity" or "culture" being part of what determines your gender. However, both of those things are simply byproducts of our society's thought process on what makes someone come off as more masculine or feminine.

    As explained before, estrogen and testosterone do have an effect on your personality, but a feminine man is still a man, they just happen to have more personality traits associated with women than most do. From a reasonable person's point of view, there is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing wrong with little boys enjoying playing with barbie dolls or little girls enjoying playing with dinosaur figures. They start to develop this "feeling" that they are more of a "girl" than a "boy" because of society's expectations of what they are typically going to like more, not because of any scientific reason. It is all in their heads.

    Society's view of gender roles are archaic. Biology will always show that boys and girls excel at different things and that will lead to differences in representation in certain areas. But people shouldn't be put down for enjoying things that are typically enjoyed by the opposite sex, and that is what the root of the problem is. There is no need to start redefining language. It is just insecurity caused by unrealistic expectations from our society.
  8. NaL-Ra

    NaL-Ra Member

    Dec 16, 2013
    Hmm, a deja vu.
    I'll cut this comeback right at its root.

    No, it doesn't depend on your definition...

    Where do you stop and draw the line ?
    Anyone can "define" anything, give his own definition on anything, however they want. That still doesn't make it valid.
    Huh, whats that ? Oh, definition has to come from some higher authority, official government statement, to be valid. And only and exclusively from Western government official statements... If its a statement by MIddle Eastern officials then its not valid...

    Approach on this matter is enforced, artificial and all backwards. Hehe, get it ? backwards...

    You cannot say: "Hey, there is this thing called - Gender. Lets define it".

    No, there always was an obvious and undeniable distinction in human spiciest, genetical and biological difference, separating the species on 2 (and in words, two) specimens of human species. And "gender" term emerged from those differences, and as a "description" of the natural and biological differences between them and a definition for them.
    Not the other way around.

    Like I said, where do you stop? Anyone can say anything, but that still doesn't make it so.
    Swaggolo can say "Birds can't fly, they are just running in air.", but that does not make it so, and it doesn't become one view on a thing on which now we need to reach the "consensus".
    Consensus is exclusively a political thing, and doesn't have anything to do with natural, biological, scientific, factual state of things.

    Stop making every aspect of life into a matter of politics.

    Plus, great majority of the World sees, defines and believes in "gender" for what it is, and doesn't see it as a political issue, behavior norms or someone's personality, at all.
    Gender was defined long time ago, and just because gender defining or, better yet, baseless redefining, is "pushed" by just a small part of the "mentally enslaved members of western world" population, don't see how and why would it be applied as the norm, on the rest of the World population...

    No it doesn't. Gender definition is very based and founded in factual state, biological and natural things, and isn't an unfounded claim that has to "reach a consensus"...

    "Age" of science field that makes a scientific discovery, isn't a factor when it comes to the validity of that discovery...

    Plus, with what mental gymnastics do you chose what to believe when 2 fields are of the same "age" ? You believe in one thing, while waiting for the science field to mature enough to believe in discovery, on another field. Even though both fields are at the same level of "maturity"... Hilarious...

    How is "Gender" a highly political issue ?

    Gender exists throughout the entire animal kingdom, all mammals, not just on humans, in pair of 2 (and in words, two) - male and female gender. And rest of animals in animal kingdom don't have politics, politicians and officials to tell them how to define it, or society that "enforces" social "behavior norms" for their gender, on them.

    Gender always was an obvious feature among animals in animal kingdom, as early as ancient men times, times of the forming of early human tribes, settlements and societies, exhibited through a clear distinction and division on male and female "roles in society", gender specific jobs in the early formed human "civilizations" , when politics wasn't a thing, or even existed, where there was no one to "define" it and tell them how they should behave...

    It all came natural and instinctual to them, without even knowing what it is, how's it defined or even called.

    Just because some group of people who control us all is trying to make it into a political issue and wants to redefines something, doesn't make it is so.

    How is climate science a highly political issue ?

    Everything is a political issue with you, isn't it.
    Biology is political issue, Climate is a political issue, Physics is a political issue...
    What do you say when similar "cure" is applied in real life ?
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2018
  9. Eutychius

    Eutychius Moderator Staff Member

    Aug 15, 2013
    That's just semantics at its core, though. What does prevent someone from giving behavioural characteristics a certain system of classification, be it under the name of "gender" or whatever else? If your problem is the fact it's called gender, as in that it challenges the classic view of biological sex, then it's obviously not what science implies when stating that and it's not meant to replace the system of biological gender.

    This is the entire point of the discussion basically: The only thing I got from the opposition to studying gender in a new light is that biological sex is just male and female and gender means just that, so it's over. So I say alright then, let's not call it gender, let's call it "shmoozle". Could a sophisticated discussion based on the intricacies and complications of behaviours and personal characteristics pertaining to one's sex and hormones be conducted under the name "shmoozle"?

    Chromosomes and genitals are two entirely different aspects of defining biological sex. After all, "intersex" is an umbrella term, it's not one monolithic group of people. It could include people with a well-defined 23rd pair of chromosomes, but with both types of genitals. It could include someone with one type of genitals, but with a genetic defect like XXY in their genome.

    Also, I can't really evaluate what you are saying if you are not citing those studies. Because rest assured, there are plenty of scientists studying these things, often with different ideas. By saying that "many" of them claim that one singular thing and nothing about their methodology is being stated, you are misrepresenting the academia here.

    Similarly, I could go out and say "well, many physicists today talk about string theory". Well, what about it? What are their arguments? What are the alternatives? Are there any whatsoever? Is there experimental data out to draw a conclusion?

    That's not the problem though. Again, that's just treating gender as biological sex which is one version of its definition. You can't resolve the issue or even make a point that gets even close to a consensus if you insist that there is no other definition to the word. You can use "shmoozle" which I invented earlier, but again, that's semantics. There is nothing fundamentally dismissive of biological sex classifications about studying aspects of one's behaviour in regards to them and their role in society.

    And of course, this isn't just preferences we are talking about here. In your earlier post for example, you mention "you can't just feel like a man today and a woman tomorrow". Well, that actually exists and it's called gender dysphoria. You might not agree with it, find it decadent or whatever else, but it exists. Some people's behavioural patterns and mental state (all determined biologically) do not match their biological sex. You can be born a man, but have gender dysphoria and feel like a woman. If one accepts this as a reality, how is it any different from me saying that biological sex isn't an absolute factor that halts any discussion on this topic?

    The other scenario would be to assume that they are all somehow lying, which wouldn't really make sense. Transgender people could spend huge amounts of money on treating their dysphoria and face life-long stigma and discrimination afterwards. There isn't exactly an incentive to lie about it.

    I agree, but that's a different issue. You see, there is nothing fundamentally wrong about tastes. You could even like really sick things if you have a taste for them. The issue here is about people whose idea of their own selves is challenged. If you are a man with gender dysphoria, you don't just want to play with dolls and crossdress, you want to be and live like any other woman. That's not really as trivial as "liking what girls like".
  10. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    Jun 12, 2009
    Yes, that is the problem. Changing definitions from words that already have significant meaning is simply a tool the left likes to use to bully people. They make things up, claim it is the only possible definition and go from there. Its cancer.

    If they want to call it shmoozle that is fine with me. I'm not going to use it, and nobody else will. They call it gender so that they can draw attention to themselves (narcissism). The bigger problem is that they specifically use the word gender. It already has a connection with sex so if they get bullied for their "shmoozle" it is now discrimination based off sex. Its redefining words that are already well defined and used in laws so that they can abuse and pretend oppression exists.

    Imagine if the law said "you cannot be fired for your personality." Well you've got yourself a big problem there. They use gender so that they have that connection to sex, which causes massive political issues. THAT is the problem.

    Like I said before, if chromosomes can't properly determine it, then you use genitalia. It is obvious that intersex is a disorder, and should be treated as such. There are two genders, and there is the problematic determination of intersex. Whatever the methodology is behind determining which of the two genders any individual intersex person is is not my call nor do I care how it is done.

    If you want there to be a 3rd legal (not biological) sex for labeling then be my guest. I'm more worried of the politics surrounding the assignment and how society leverages it to bitch and moan.

    Like I said before it is a problem. Not even lawmakers are smart enough to make the distinction of definitions and it completely affects politics. You have people using gender and biological sex to mean the same thing in one sentence then something different in the next. There are laws being made over gender which is now going to be interpreted by judges and now that you have a "definition" of gender which is essentially equivalent to the word "personality" you're going to run into a lot of stupid problems.

    The point of law is to be at least fairly rigid. You could argue it should be left open a little bit for some interpretation. But when you have such a massive difference in these two definitions to the point where one use of the word is something scientifically defined using biology and the other definition of the word is personality, you are left with a massive spectrum of interpretation that is completely arbitrary and essentially makes the use of the word meaningless. A word's definitions should be able to be clearly inferred from its surrounding context and this completely goes against that. There is no possible way you can have a discussion about "gender" without specifically defining its implicit meaning within the scope of a discussion before hand. If a word has to be used like that, what is the point in having the word in the first place?

    I somewhat addressed this earlier. Its all because of society and its expectations. People develop gender dysphoria not because they actually "feel" male or female, its because they don't feel they are living up to the expectations of what a male or female should be. You can't feel your chromosomes, and you can't feel a hormone imbalance. You simply act a certain way and are judged by how you act by those around you. That can create insecurities.

    The question I would like to pose here is... Would an intersex individual who grew up in an environment that was always supportive develop gender dysphoria?

    A study on that would provide a lot of answers. However, actually performing this study would be completely invasive of another person's life.

    They certainly are not lying. I'm not saying they can't say they "feel" like they are in the wrong body. I'm saying the concept of "feeling" like a sex doesn't exist. A more accurate description would be that they feel more masculine or feminine.

    I would consider living a life like a woman as an extreme example, and still adheres to the idea of gender roles. I would say this man that wants to live life like a woman is just a very feminine man, but still a man.
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2018
  11. NaL-Ra

    NaL-Ra Member

    Dec 16, 2013
    Back in the day...

    Five - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner
    Six - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conchita_Wurst
    Even these, why not
    Ten - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/service-canada-bans-mother-and-father-to-be-more-gender-inclusive

    Pfff, WN&D full of pros, each one much smarter than me, and its me who has to bother with question like this... He might think that we are like him and don't really know why we talk about the things that we talk about...
    ManOnTheCan likes this.
  12. NaL-Ra

    NaL-Ra Member

    Dec 16, 2013
    I too, remember that you exist!
    I also remember you leaving after being presented with actual examples of the other side of the argument, just like all others here.
    And just when I was about to ask you to further educate me on this issue:

    But, since this section is having no activity, because other knownothings are re-evaluating their collapsing world and world view, and don't know what to post anymore...

    ...and since I am a nice guy, and you are, literally, the only one here who knows anything about religion, I am gonna ask, anyway.

    I watched some TV debate a few months ago, and one of the guests was some Muslim... imam (!?) or whatever. And yes, he confirmed what you said. It really is the meaning in the sense that "God is greatest", but he also explained why they say it like that.
    Other than other religion having multiple Gods, like you said, he also pointed out that many Christians see Jesus Christ as God. Or "lord"... "Our Lord Jesus Christ", whatever that means... And that hit the spot with me, since I often wondered about that, back in the day when I was stupid and naive and watched all those brainwashing/indoctrinating shows for fake "liberals", like Oscars, MTV awards and whatnot... And everyone saying "I would like to thank our lord, Jesus Christ" or something like that.

    So, what do you think/know ? Is JC a God ? And what does "our Lord JC" means ?

    P.S. Does religion/Church have to "update" and "modernize" itself, from time to time, not to get "outdated" ?
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 7:32 PM
  13. Oesile

    Oesile Member

    Oct 8, 2016
    Hmm, so the crux here is on whether Jesus is a god or not in christianity and in part on whether it is updated and modernized yes? Let's see what I can do here.
    Well, I didn't sleep tonight so let's see if I can put this together into something understandable, unlike some of these religions *ahem*.

    Now, Christianity is actually a very broad group of
    religions, churches and sects with each their own ideas and philosophies on the religion itself, and one major doctrine is trinity: Christians who are trinitarian, believe that god is not just a single being, but three 'consubstantial' persons. This means that rather then god just being one, they recognize god as being The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, meaning that Jesus is, for trinitarian christians, a God or at least a fundamental part of God.
    Well, it's complicated,- each of them IS God in it's entirety, but there is only one God, as paradoxical as this sounds. One of the trinitarian christian groups best known is the Catholic church.

    Christians that call Jesus their Lord, explicitly believe he IS god, or don't realise what the word Lord implies in this context in Christianity. Thomas, one of Jesus's apostles, exclaimed to Jesus after he resurrected: "My lord and my God!". After that, saying "Jesus is Lord", went on to meaning that "Jesus is god" (together with the Father and the Holy Ghost).
    Basically, people who call him lord think he's God.

    Of course, there are non-trinitarian christians also (as christianity is not one religion, but rather a multitude of churches/religions that all consider themselves to be part of christianity, which basically only means that they consider Jesus to be a Messiah and divine- a notable one you probably heard of are Jenovah's Witnesses.
    Non-trinitarian christians don't believe in the trinity- Jenova's Witnesses for example consider indeed Jenovah the one true god, and that worship should be directed towards him only. In their case, they consider Jesus to be Jenovah's only direct creation, through which everything else was created through his own power (So he's still 'divine', just not God).
    This is also why Jesus takes more of a backseat role for Jenova's Witnesses for example.

    As you can see by this major difference of something of such incredible importance (basically the identity of the god you worship) within what many people actually consider to be 'one religion' it's clear that Religion modernizes and updates itself, and has done so many times before. Martin Luther was also a massive change for many groups in christianity, and founded even more.

    This isn't unique to Christianity, as it was how Islam originated- let me preface this by saying that in Judaism, Islam and Christianity the same god is worshipped, just in a different 'shape' and different circumstances (A focal point in Christianity is Jesus for example and he's considered both divine and human).
    In fact, Moslims also believe in Jesus- but not as a divine being, but rather as a divine messanger. Except his message was distorted, so God had to use Mohammed also as a divine messanger and prevent this mistake from happening again.

    The reason the Quran was dictated by God to Mohammed in the first place in Islamic religion was because the word of god that was spread before had become corrupted, and had to be reaffirmed and prevented from changing or it's meanings misinterpreted.
    They weren't wrong in saying this either, the bible for example had already been changed countless of times- How can all the different versions of the bible floating around could contain the truth, when they are rife with different meanings?

    Basically, the Quran was a reset, and this is also why nobody is allowed to ever edit the Quran as that would just ruin the whole idea of keeping it unchanged/uncorrupted, and while translations may be made, they are never considered to hold the weight of the actual Quran in the tongue it was written in originally.
    Translating it is also of course very hard to begin with, when sacred texts have an immense amount of meanings to be scried.

    Now, why are some groups in Islam then so divided by ideas and concepts that almost be considered the opposites? Well, while they didn't have the priviledge of changing their holy book when convenient, they did have the Hadiths:

    (/ˈhædɪθ/[1] or /hɑːˈdiːθ/;[2] Arabic: حديث‎ ḥadīth Arabic pronunciation: [ħadiːθ], pl. Aḥādīth, أحاديث, ʼaḥādīth[3] Arabic pronunciation: [ʔaħadiːθ], also "Traditions") in Islam refers to the record of the words, actions, and the silent approval, of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

    With an endless source of meanings to unravel Islam is free to modernize however they wish also. Radical sects may even use fabricated hadiths:

    Jihad is another meaning that has been stolen of it's context and used for convenience; in fact, the Qu'Ran even aknowledges that Christians and Judaists worship the same god as Islam and should be protected and respected.. regardless of them spreading a corrupted divine message.

    I'm also not the only one here that dabbles in religion, and I'm sure ManOnTheCan is more used to Judaism then I am (which as the oldest of the three, is also definitely the most complicated and complex).

    As a last example of a modernization of religion, Pope Francis (ergo the Catholic movement) allegedly said that dogs go to heaven.

    Im going to sleep now, I hope this answers any questions you may have.
    Marquis de Gibus likes this.
  14. r0xo

    r0xo Member

    Dec 9, 2012
    This (like some others) get quiet from time to time, at times when you aren't all that active on the thread. It has nothing to do with you presenting some kind of argument or set of facts that contradict other people's belief.

    I tend to not post much when people post things that I am not interested in replying to (not because they destroy my view but because I don't find the topic of the posts interesting).

    I think the Christians who believe Jesus is a separate god have some weird interpretation of the bible. It is pretty damn clear that the trinity is three forms of one being. I mean like half of the commandments is god being a self conscious low esteem jealous guy saying you aren't allowed to worship any other gods so I would argue that makes it obvious that Jesus isn't a god himself since they are also told that they have to believe in Jesus as their saviour and worship him. I think it is also implied heavily that you shouldn't even worship any other beings not just gods and you are told as a christian to worship Jesus. That is the line of thought that the denominations I know teach at least. We all know that their are a silly amount of interpretations. So I don't know how all of the others are told to interpret the shit but I find it strange how many of them would believe that.

    And as I understand it calling him lord doesn't imply that he is a god. Lord isn't a title meant only for separate god so even those that call him lord don't necessarily see him as a god. And on top of that we know how much mindless regurgitation many, if not most, religious people do without knowing what it means or just using it because that is how they grew up so they don't mean the literal thing.
  15. Oesile

    Oesile Member

    Oct 8, 2016
    Yea, in my case I don't really play Dota anymore, so I rarely come by to look around. I don't remember what argument I allegedly dodged either, but I wouldn't be surprised if I did. At some point discussing just becomes tedious anyway, and writing proper responses consumes quite some time.

    It is mostly because of how 'confusing' the trinity is. Each member of the trinity is considered God as a whole, but despite being 3 members, there is only one God. When you worship Jesus, it's the same as worshiping god when it comes to trinitarian Christians. This is made even more confusing for the less informed of Christians because Jesus is seen as God and the Son of God at the same time, and even the bible itself depicts how the 'father' sends his 'son' to our world. But the actions of the father sending, and the actions of the son coming, are both the single action of one God.

    Here is a picture that depicts the relation of the trinity to one another (The Son here represents Jesus).

    As for the worshiping other gods part, indeed. That's entirely disallowed in Christianity as there is only one God, and the same goes for worshipping anything as if it were god (Idolatry).

    From what I've read I can only see this being the opposite. Jesus IS considered a god for trinitarian christians and calling him Lord reaffirms that.
    Non-trinitarian christians that don't believe that Jesus is god, but rather a divine instrument of god (remember that if no divinity is attributed to Jesus then it's not Christianity, hence the Christ in Christianity), do not refer to him is their lord. He wouldn't be their lord- he would be an instrument, after all.

    There are non-trinitarian christian groups that only consider Jesus as god, such as Swedenborgianism, but those are the exception and not the rule (and they indeed defer to him as Lord).

    Of course it's important to realize that Christianity is a Monotheistic religion. It's therefore impossible for any of them to consider Jesus as a separate god- either he IS god (Trinitarians and many non-trinitarians that just don't consider the Holy Ghost to be god) along with the Father and Holy Ghost, or he is not (Non-trinitarians).

    PS: As for the part that divinity HAS to be attributed to Jesus for it to be Christianity, that's also not entirely true, as for example the Ebionites considered Jesus to be a common man chosen by god to be his Messiah (and were because of this considered heretics later), and are possibly the original form of Christianity according to many scholars, or at least one of the oldest forms.
    Now because of this they are considered Jewish-Christians, but anyhow, I suppose the importance of Jesus in Christianity is what defines Christianity except when it doesn't is the bottom line here :cat:.

    Edit: let's see if the pic works now
  16. NaL-Ra

    NaL-Ra Member

    Dec 16, 2013
    It has everything to do with it.
    Their ego doesn't let them to go for option A, so they have to go with option B.
    But, its a process, first stage of when your whole World and World view collapses. It will get better.

    It reminded me why I try to stay away from this shit, as much as I can. Its too fucked up for me...
    Plus, not real.

    It came to mind, yeah...

    Nah, on this matter a simple NO or OFC NO, answer would be enough.
    Notion that religion church needs to updated from time to time, is ludicrous if you ask me.
    And he meant part of Orthodox church not switching calendars like the rest of Christian churches, and still using the old calendar. Staying true to its tradition and how it always was is considered as something negative, and needs to be "modernized"...
    Pay no attention to it.

    Sounds more like a misinterpretations of it, from people to people, than an "update".

    Really ?

    You actually are. There are others who fantasize that they do too, but they don't.

    HA, good one. But try to stay on topic please, comedy section is above this one.
    And you can "thank" the people which he serves and protects, for that misrepresentation of jihad and weaponizing it, for achieving their goals.
    So... No.
    Oh yeah, that reminds me. I heard some say that Jews killed Jesus. Is that true ?

    So, one Pope's statement, aimed at sad little kid whose puppy just died, is considered a modernization now ? I think not.

    Where else have they been going all this time ?
    Also, why wouldn't they go ? Dogs are God's creation, too, aren't they? Don't all God's creation go to heaven ? Plus, dogs are much, much, much better beings that any humans, why wouldn't they go to Heaven.

    Picture makes no sense at all...
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2018 at 10:12 PM
  17. r0xo

    r0xo Member

    Dec 9, 2012
    Sure, you just know what is going on in other the minds of the other people and their motivations.

    I can see it being something that has happened before, it is not impossible. I am not really talking about specific cases relating to you, mostly because I can't remember them, but in general that is how forums work, people get bored or feel like they are talking to a wall. Or a while ago there was a discussion between two people that kind of took over the thread so people become inactive and don't check back for a while.

    But I will say that some people do what you are talking about when their view is challenged too much, that is definitely something that happens. It is just not always a case of them feeling that they are being proven wrong but rather that they don't see the point in going on with a conversation.
  18. ManOnTheCan

    ManOnTheCan Member

    Aug 18, 2013
    Not sure what you're implying by this. Israelis have been the targets of a few jihads over the years.

    No, that was the Romans, before they became Christian.

    @Oesile :

    Good analysis. Yes, the trinitarian beliefs of the major Christian groups is confusing. According to tradition I'm not supposed to enter a Christian church because according to Jewish interpretation they worship three gods. I can enter a sunni muslim mosque because they worship the same One God as we do, just in a different way.

    Actually the Jewish prayers and Muslim prayers have a lot of similarities. The Jewish Amidah prayer and the Muslim Salah have similar elements of praising God and bowing, each a certain number of times a day.

    It gets a little trickier with unitarian Christian groups who technically have one god. Also Shia Muslims technically consider the Twelve Imams to be divine, so that's twelve or thirteen gods they have, at least according to the sunni and jewish interpretation.
  19. Oesile

    Oesile Member

    Oct 8, 2016
    It's more or less a gigantic riff raff of many different authors- even the Isaiah, one of the most well preserved pieces of the Old testament (mostly unchanged in two thousand years), is considered to be written by the original isaiah, someone else centuries later and yet another author after the second and is divided in Isaiah 1, 2 and 3.

    After a quick search I found a website listing some differences already. https://www.quora.com/How-has-the-Bible-changed-over-time
    • The Pericope Adulteræ, the story about the woman taken in adultery, was not originally in the gospel of John. In ancient manuscripts, it sometimes appears in different places in the gospel and occasionally in another gospel! Maybe it was a popular story about Jesus, ‘the kind of thing he’d do’, that was added in the margins and accidentally incorporated into the text?
    • The ending to the gospel of Mark. The original (probably) ended with the women running away from the tomb and telling no one about Jesus being missing, “for they were afraid”. Later, an ending was appended by someone who didn’t appreciate the stylistic choice of a cliffhanger ending.
    • The Comma Johanneum, or Johannine Comma, in 1 John (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost”). I won’t go into it here, but there’s an interesting history behind how this found its way into most modern Bible translations; but it wasn’t originally there. This causes some controversy with some, since it’s the only more-or-less-direct support of trinitarian doctrine.
    These are all from the new testament, which is also much more stable then the old one.

    Keep in mind that admists all these changes, the bible is still reasonably stable for something that has existed for so long, and most changes are really more in the policies and what they tell others then what is truly written (one could not, say get rid of all other bibles to get your new edit in the works easily).

    Let me dig up my old post on how they justified slavery:
    It wasn't per se a direct change in the bible, but the authorities on the subject kind of decided what it meant- a change in policy if you will.

    Rather then misinterpretations, they are interpretations of a different time, in a different place.
    I don't think modernizing religion is bad at all- at the time many of the concepts brought in holy books were progressive and groundbreaking, while currently they may seem narrowminded and conservative. Understanding the context of who this message was meant for, helps us realize what it means in our situation (where even our responsabilities towards our world are completely different).

    Of course, blatantly changing the source material is awful IMO.

    The Romans killed Jesus, while the Jewish deicide is a more delicate matter. See, it is a historic belief. There isn't exactly evidence for it.

    For the Christian's side of history there is a small part written in the new testament that goes:

    'When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!"'

    Pilates being the man who tried Jesus and had him nailed, and t
    he part "His blood is on us and our children", and this supposedly means the Jews accepted this guilt. Go figure.
    Also, considering this passage or any reference hereof ONLY appears in the Matthew gospel (as far as I'm aware, I've searched and I see confirmation that this is the case but I didn't read all the gospels myself), is very iffy and likely to just be fiction from the writer of the gospel (let aside it doesn't have much to say about Jews doing it, just "All the People").

    In fact, some scholars just read it as Pilates trying to avoid culpability here- important for the fledgeling christians in a polytheistic world. Heck, even a Pope, Benedict Benedict XVI repudiates the Jews of guilt, saying it was meant to be the crowd rather then the Jewish people (possibly a modernization to reduce anti-semitism, seeing how the Jewish Deicide is kind of the crux of it for Christinity).

    NOW, there is basis for believing that Jewish priests had political interest in the cruxification of Jesus and may have been involved.

    But what do the Jews say about this? Well, some confirm their involvement, such as Maoimonedes, a medieval jewish philosopher who wrote "Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, and was put to death by the court", the court being the Beth Din (the Rabbinical court of the Jews). Maoimonedes considered Jesus a Judaist rebel revolting against Judaism. Didn't read this passage? That's because it's mostly censored today out of fear of anti-semitism (to or/and from).

    A better source is Babylonian Talmud where it is also asserted that Jesus was put to death by a Jewish court (keep in mind there were plenty) due to the crimes of sorcery and sedition. Its from 200 C.E. (current era) so it is kinda soon after the fact in comparison.

    It is also true that the Jews (and all Jews) reject Jesus as a Messiah entirely, because he did not fulfill the prophecies:

    According to Isaiah, the messiah will be a paternal descendant of King David.[23] He is expected to return the Jews to their homeland and rebuild the Temple, reign as King, and usher in an era of peace[4] and understanding where "the knowledge of God" fills the earth,[5] leading the nations to "end up recognizing the wrongs they did Israel".[24] Ezekiel states the messiah will redeem the Jews.[25]
    As Jesus couldn't fulfill these, he is in their eyes indeed a false Messiah.

    Because as Jews do not see Jesus as even a proper messanger of god but a false Messiah, they consider the worship of Jesus idolatry (and not affliated to god in any way, meaning worshipping the trinity is polytheism AND Idolatry for them).

    Basically I'd like to say that NO, there isn't really enough evidence to support that the Jews as a whole crucified Jesus, and tbh not much that really says that the powerful Jewish priests indirectly caused it either- most 'evidence' is from centuries later after the notion that the Jews did this already existed (possibly due to Matthew Gospel or the Apostle/one of his disciples spread this idea) but without real evidence. It's not like Jews were that powerful to begin with at either, and Jesus was known as the King of the Jews so the motive is a tad bit questionable.

    The Jewish priests being involved are mentioned in 4 gospels (including Matthew), which gives it more credibility, other then how they seemingly weren't allowed to put others to death for heresy and so had the Romans do it.

    Keep in mind that after many incidents and accusations both Jews and Christians believed the Jews to have done this, so later literature kinda reflects this point as a given.
    I hope @ManOnTheCan can confirm this from the Judaist side on their take on the supposed Deicide and whether they have proof of it, but I'm doubtful.

    And again let me say again that this is all Historic belief, these sources aren't factual proof but people asserting that it happened. There is a whole lot more proof that just incriminates the romans, including these old texts. In fact, even the motive fits the Romans better (as Jews weren't in a position of authority to order the cruxification, which is a roman execution to begin with) and the Romans had more to fear from Jesus then the Jews did (they certainly didnt react this harshly to other blasphemous groups).

    Is it not? Granted, it was a superficial example, but this is done with heavier topics like gay people all the time also. And, as the Pope, what he says holds a lot of weight behind it for Catholic christians. If he declares that dogs also go to heaven, they do, as he holds the final world on matters of faith and morals (also known as 'infallibility').
    As some argue that his words were just to cheer up a child and had no basis, there are others that point to his religious authority and presumed spiritual understanding.
    This would be modernization because sending dogs also to heaven is kind of a thing that appeals to more modern people then those in the past. Basically, because we now consider the dog as part of our family, it stands to reason that he goes to heaven too.
    Anyway, this is just an example to show how beliefs flex or are sometimes even created to appease the modern person where they might otherwise be outdated.
    Believe it or not, dogs weren't as emotionally important back then compared to now, and just being god's creation doesn't mean you'll go to heaven in the first place.
    But it's getting pretty late, and so I'll just drop this small exert from wikipedia:

    "Heaven is therefore spoken of in rather different senses: as another dimension,[4] as the physical skies or upper cosmos, as the realm of divine perfection already in existence, or as the "coming world" at the return of Christ."

    If I start talking about Heaven in Christianity alone, I'll be here all day.

    I hope this is readable, I need to learn to use word or something to get it down in a more structured or well planned manner but I digress.
    ManOnTheCan likes this.
  20. ManOnTheCan

    ManOnTheCan Member

    Aug 18, 2013
    @Oesile That's a more thorough analysis than I could have written, nice.

    The only thing I can add is that primary historical evidence of Jesus's existence is quite rare, most of what we have is secondary sources written ~200 years after the event when Christianity was still a relatively small religion in the Levant. I think there is one references by Josephus around 90AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#The_three_passages

    Also the Jewish authorities at the time were the Pharisees, one of three Jewish movements at the time (Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene). The Pharisees were the spiritual predecessors of modern-day Rabbinic Judaism, but not exactly the same.

    As far as Jesus being the Messiah goes, we flat out reject it, since he didn't fulfill all of the prophecies for the Messiah, which are quite clear in Isaiah.

    Incidentally, there have been many claimants to be the Messiah, not just Jesus. Even in Orthodox Judaism the Chabadniks think that Schneerson is the Messiah, even though he also didn't fulfill the prophecies.

    It's a bit silly, obviously it's Trump :cat: