They are, but at least Catholicism has the possibility of growing a spine if it chose to.
I was a Friend and it pains me to say that the problem in the Friends is that the sinking lifeboat analogy DOES NOT WORK. There are people who rationally believe that until America is dragged down to the level of the third world, we have a moral imperative to keep taking in more people from the third world. That sinking the lifeboat is morally correct. The immediacy of helping those who's need is greatest takes precedence over building the community.
And the thing is, I can't say they're wrong. I understand where they're coming from, my understanding of the divine leads me to the same conclusions they do. So all I have to fall back on is saying Friends shouldn't be voting at all.
I would tell them they are wrong because by sinking the lifeboat, they destroy the most amount of lives.
It is not moral to destroy yourself for others.
It is like how on an airplane when there is a cabin air failure, you take care of your own mask before helping your child and then the rest of your family and friends.
That analogy is how I feel about life, you help yourself so you can help your family and then help your nation. It is moral to put yourself, your family and nation before others.
I have no qualms in saying that I view the Quakers as soft and weak individuals if they want to continue to sink the societal lifeboat to help random people from across the world over their misguided and naive view of social justice.
I have no qualms in saying that I view the Quakers as soft and weak individuals if they want to continue to sink the societal lifeboat to help random people from across the world over their misguided and naive view of social justice.
I would go further and say that they should be actively considered an enemy force for engaging in such actions.
God does not recognize the lines you've drawn that distinguish community. There is only the individual and the whole of humanity, no intermediate gradations.
Dying to help another is the pinnacle of virtue.
Look, I get what you're saying. I just cannot contrive a christian divine argument for your side.
Since a lot of people here seem to be incapable of reading between lines and thinking, I'll spell it out plainly.
The problem is Christianity. Period. Christianity is a an ascetic, compassionate religion that aspires to a world without suffering and division. And that is good; too good for its own good. It is an ideology that CANNOT SAVE ITSELF FROM ITSELF.
Islam is not an adequate replacement for Christianity. I admit it's better than Christianity at combatting SJWs, but it's not going to convert christians in the west, it's too incompatible.
What is needed is a new prophet.
I don't want to be a prophet. I am not a leader, I don't have the personality or persuasiveness for it. I talk and people aren't moved, they don't listen, they aren't inspired, they just bicker.
Sure I could do it, I could be that lunatic who goes around claiming to be the voice of god, but frankly, if I'm going to be an outcast either way, I'd rather be a low profile outcast than a high profile madman. And if god wants to be mad at me afterwards for declining the job, fine, I'll cross that bridge when it comes up; but if I'm supposed to lead people to truth then even just one guy in the crowd saying "You can do it!" without being prompted to would have been nice.
Modern Christianity has created generations of weak men who turn the other cheek.
Kinda makes me wish I'd paid more attention in sunday school, because I swear there's gotta be some misunderstanding with this "turn the other cheek" business. The trope it's turned into doesn't match the other messages I've heard, so there must be some missing context.
Yet, I agree completely; this trope has been effectively made a reality thanks to weak men aplenty. The strong and righteous still exist, but they have little reason to announce themselves.
It's why Rome kept feeding Christians to lions, to try to get them to go rebel so they could crush in a proper standup fight like the Carthaginians. But they just kept stubbornly forgiving the Romans and dying without a fight. Eventually the Romans got bored of it, started believing as well, and then a short while later the Goths invaded.
It was a mistake of the Councils to preserve the Old Testament. The two texts and their perspectives are fundamentally incompatible.
The two texts and their perspectives are fundamentally incompatible.
That's sort of what I'm getting at. There's an obvious schism between old testament and new testament. That's a terrible decision for established dogmatic texts. There should be a more unified vision.
Relatedly, it's been my view that the most successful way to read this mishmash bible is to rely heavily on personal interpretation. But this gets into other matters, like whether a religion should be taking the place of philosophical learning, or what the true purpose of a religious text should be.
But they still have a pope. Though it be unlikely, though it might take generations, with the right people wearing the mitre they could theoretically be steered back to where they were.
The same cannot be said about the protestants (aside from the Anglicans anyway). Protestantism knows no authority but god and conscience. There is no hierarchy to steer it.
People say that the SJWs took over the church. This is a narrow, nearsighted view. The reality is the SJWs are the end product of runaway Protestantism.
Protestantism is partly at fault for what's happened.
I am not Christian so I can offer an assessment of it from an outside view, The Roman Catholic church is just as pozzed as Protestantism.
Even before Francis, the RCC pushed social justice which was precursor to the current wokeism.
Modern Christianity has created generations of weak men who turn the other cheek.
They are, but at least Catholicism has the possibility of growing a spine if it chose to.
I was a Friend and it pains me to say that the problem in the Friends is that the sinking lifeboat analogy DOES NOT WORK. There are people who rationally believe that until America is dragged down to the level of the third world, we have a moral imperative to keep taking in more people from the third world. That sinking the lifeboat is morally correct. The immediacy of helping those who's need is greatest takes precedence over building the community.
And the thing is, I can't say they're wrong. I understand where they're coming from, my understanding of the divine leads me to the same conclusions they do. So all I have to fall back on is saying Friends shouldn't be voting at all.
I would tell them they are wrong because by sinking the lifeboat, they destroy the most amount of lives.
It is not moral to destroy yourself for others.
It is like how on an airplane when there is a cabin air failure, you take care of your own mask before helping your child and then the rest of your family and friends.
That analogy is how I feel about life, you help yourself so you can help your family and then help your nation. It is moral to put yourself, your family and nation before others.
I have no qualms in saying that I view the Quakers as soft and weak individuals if they want to continue to sink the societal lifeboat to help random people from across the world over their misguided and naive view of social justice.
I would go further and say that they should be actively considered an enemy force for engaging in such actions.
And that is why you are not a christian.
Men created divisions, not god. God would have those with more give eagerly to those with less.
Sure you can. Suicide and condemning your own community is wrong.
God does not recognize the lines you've drawn that distinguish community. There is only the individual and the whole of humanity, no intermediate gradations.
Dying to help another is the pinnacle of virtue.
Look, I get what you're saying. I just cannot contrive a christian divine argument for your side.
Since a lot of people here seem to be incapable of reading between lines and thinking, I'll spell it out plainly.
The problem is Christianity. Period. Christianity is a an ascetic, compassionate religion that aspires to a world without suffering and division. And that is good; too good for its own good. It is an ideology that CANNOT SAVE ITSELF FROM ITSELF.
Islam is not an adequate replacement for Christianity. I admit it's better than Christianity at combatting SJWs, but it's not going to convert christians in the west, it's too incompatible.
What is needed is a new prophet.
I don't want to be a prophet. I am not a leader, I don't have the personality or persuasiveness for it. I talk and people aren't moved, they don't listen, they aren't inspired, they just bicker.
Sure I could do it, I could be that lunatic who goes around claiming to be the voice of god, but frankly, if I'm going to be an outcast either way, I'd rather be a low profile outcast than a high profile madman. And if god wants to be mad at me afterwards for declining the job, fine, I'll cross that bridge when it comes up; but if I'm supposed to lead people to truth then even just one guy in the crowd saying "You can do it!" without being prompted to would have been nice.
Kinda makes me wish I'd paid more attention in sunday school, because I swear there's gotta be some misunderstanding with this "turn the other cheek" business. The trope it's turned into doesn't match the other messages I've heard, so there must be some missing context.
Yet, I agree completely; this trope has been effectively made a reality thanks to weak men aplenty. The strong and righteous still exist, but they have little reason to announce themselves.
Nope.
It's why Rome kept feeding Christians to lions, to try to get them to go rebel so they could crush in a proper standup fight like the Carthaginians. But they just kept stubbornly forgiving the Romans and dying without a fight. Eventually the Romans got bored of it, started believing as well, and then a short while later the Goths invaded.
It was a mistake of the Councils to preserve the Old Testament. The two texts and their perspectives are fundamentally incompatible.
That's sort of what I'm getting at. There's an obvious schism between old testament and new testament. That's a terrible decision for established dogmatic texts. There should be a more unified vision.
Relatedly, it's been my view that the most successful way to read this mishmash bible is to rely heavily on personal interpretation. But this gets into other matters, like whether a religion should be taking the place of philosophical learning, or what the true purpose of a religious text should be.
Then follow the "rules" of LaVey's Satanism. Don't have to worship him to follow decent rules.
What are you smoking? The current pope is super woke.
Yes.
But they still have a pope. Though it be unlikely, though it might take generations, with the right people wearing the mitre they could theoretically be steered back to where they were.
The same cannot be said about the protestants (aside from the Anglicans anyway). Protestantism knows no authority but god and conscience. There is no hierarchy to steer it.
People say that the SJWs took over the church. This is a narrow, nearsighted view. The reality is the SJWs are the end product of runaway Protestantism.