Something I wanted to say to christians about the Bible

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

I do not know what this "Elfen Lied" is...."googling"

Ah, it is an anime show.

To be fair, I learned everything I need for life from Star Trek

You know, i always hear that Christianity is the equivalent to the worst thing humanity has ever been subject to.

Of course, these people are historical illiterates in most cases as they forget 2 of the biggest things that ever happened to mankind. The development of the scientific method and John Locke's version of the Social Contract.

For the story on the scientific method, read this article from Columbia University

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

Now as for the Social contract, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one's interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke's view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions" (par. 6). Because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#SH2b

Ask yourself, why does the US constitution say in it's bill of rights "Congress shall make no law abridging...[insert Right here]" instead of "Congress grants you...[insert Right here]." Because under John Locke's version of the social contract, those rights come from God, not your government

FranBunnyFFXII:
Elfen Lied

Have you read the manga? It gives closure and more backstory than the anime since the anime was made when the manga wasn't complete.

You might like it

DoPo:

Relish in Chaos:
Jesus is nothing more than a glorified Mary Sue; the imagination of the perfect man.

I'm curious - does that mean that his teachings of basically "Try to be less of dicks to each other and maybe even do good stuff for your fellows" are bad?

.
Don't do that. Look at what he said in context with the Roman Occupation of Judea at the time and understand that the movement he had was to overthrow the corrupt Religious officials in the Temple and try to resist the Romans as best as they could. If they ignored the temple and instead worshiped outside, like he said that god is within every stone and tree, then the Jews would not go to the Temple and be dependent on it and its integrity. The list goes on with all of his sayings.
These things DO NOT work in our society. Some do because people interpreted them and adjusted them to our world. We do not literally turn the other cheek, we tolerate. Well, in the case of Jesus, he meant it _literally_.

An anime that features mass dismemberment is a better metaphor for humanity than a book where a sizable chunk of humanity claims to draw it's moral compass?
Makes perfect sense to me. The bible is pretty fucked up. If the slavery and genocide don't turn you into a druid, wait till you get to some chapters which advocate things conservative Christians claim are marks of moral decay.

Bassik:

Mimsofthedawg:

This is a much better example that I have much more respect for than the loss of a few species. It is known that millions of species every year go extinct, you probably named a couple hundred or maybe even thousand (I don't know the exact extent because I'm not intimately familiar with the larger categories you've mentioned). It's not an impressive number.

(Emphasis was mine)

I can see you were not familiar many of the categories I named, but these were really large groups of many different species. Both Trilobites and ammonites were once the dominant life form in our ancient seas, to begin with, and let's not even go into brachiopods, once one of the most common organisms on the planet, and now reduced to a handful of species(Literally, you could hold all the surviving species in the palm of your hand)

Many of the views within the fossil record are skewed, which is where these ideas come from. For example, only in select places in the world does the traditional fossil record exist. some places, such as the grand canyon, actually have sedimentary deposits which have been layered vertically instead of horizontally. While their are some explanations for this diversity, they usually only give an explanation for a particularly area (such as the Grand Canyon) and do not account for the widespread inconsistency in the fossil record.

In otherwords, the idea that many of the same species and animals existed at only a particular time SEPARATE from any other group of animals is more a fallacy developed out of convenience sake than anything based on widespread, hard scientific fact.

And again, do YOU know what's at the bottom of the ocean? No, you don't. But based on the numerous species that were once thought to be extinct which we now know have existed for supposedly millions of years? It's a good bet they might just be.

Nevertheless, I don't care much for defending creationism. I simply care to state that I don't find your argument compelling. If you want a GREAT documentary, and you have netflix, you should check out Dinosaurs or Dragons on Netflix. It brings up several great questions, such as why do dinosaur-like figures play an intimate role in several societies, right up until modern day. Perhaps the most compelling issue that it raises is the account of a particular Greek historian (who's name escapes me at the moment) who gives a remarkably accurate account of animals terrorizing a village, the description of which sounds strikingly like that of a pterosaur - very distinct from a bat or any type of bird. Modern history and archealogy has varified everything this historian has claimed to have happened as true - EXCEPT for this particular incident. It is called a work of fiction, yet it does not have the tone of fiction and wasn't treated as such by many of his contemporaries.

There's also things such as the alosaurus discovered to contain soft tissue samples, something that caused the world of paleontology to declare a fabrication and lie - because it's simply not possible given the incredible time span for soft tissue to exist. Such an idea is counter-intuitive to every theory on fossilization.

I can go on, but, you should just watch the movie instead.

Imperator_DK:

Crenelate:
...
PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD (*termofphrase): You think Elfen Lied is good? TELL US WHY, instead of insisting we didn't understand the damn thing.

Well, I for one once saw a brief philosophical analysis of it that pinned its themes as helplessness and nihilism, but since it works on the principle of being an emotional battleaxe (...supposedly pretty much like Clannad), you'll probably go amiss if you're looking for subtlety and nuance in it. That's not its game, everything is quite overt and larger-than-life. It appeals to raw emotion, not intellectual fortitude, so if you're not swept up in it then it won't have much else to win you over with (...which I suppose could constitute some kind of similarity to religious scripture, as by now those also rely on buying into it emotionally, and little else).

As should be obvious from my avatar, I'd certainly agree with Higurashi no Naku Koro ni being a vastly superior show (the first season at least), given that it's much more atmospheric, knows the proper story structure and pacing to repeatedly get viewers invested in the characters before the slaughter begins, and has a mystery aspect to challenge the mind as well. But Elfen Lied is hardly bad, just very melodramatic in its approach, which won't appeal to everyone (though the naked girl-on-girl ultraviolence should).

Thanks for actually putting some reasons out there :) I watched the video, and while I found it to be an interesting way of approaching the show, I have to say I'm still not convinced. The whole 'helplessness' point had some merit when it came to the 'how people try and stop being helpless' bit, but I still think they were little girls with pink hair for titillation's sake rather than making a deep point.

The nihilism issue - if that is what the creators were going for it may explain why I just cannot get this show. I actually think nihilism is really stupid, and dare I say, pointless. I know it's supposed to be sad when things go wrong for the characters, but I found them so poorly characterised I just didn't care, and the fact the whole thing was nihilistic just made it pointless in getting invested. I'm guessing the manga clears some issues up, but the lack of resolution at the end also didn't help.

I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Each to their own anyway, right? You can keep your naked girl-on-girl ultra violence - it's a bit tacky but I suppose it has appeal for some! Thanks again for actually taking the time to try and explain rather than adding to the weird religion rant going on...

Crenelate:
...
Thanks for actually putting some reasons out there :) I watched the video, and while I found it to be an interesting way of approaching the show, I have to say I'm still not convinced. The whole 'helplessness' point had some merit when it came to the 'how people try and stop being helpless' bit, but I still think they were little girls with pink hair for titillation's sake rather than making a deep point.

Well, you'd hear no argument from me against that it probably decided on featuring lots of nude girls and gore first, then how to make use of those thematically afterwards. But it did make some use of them, and all the blatant fanservice didn't really get in the way. Except with Mayu, whom I believe there was fanservice shots of in the very same episode her backstory was revealed, which just kind of undermined the whole thing: "Hey, this poor girl was sexually abused, why don't you feel disgusted while you take a look at her breasts".

The nihilism issue - if that is what the creators were going for it may explain why I just cannot get this show. I actually think nihilism is really stupid, and dare I say, pointless. I know it's supposed to be sad when things go wrong for the characters, but I found them so poorly characterised I just didn't care, and the fact the whole thing was nihilistic just made it pointless in getting invested. I'm guessing the manga clears some issues up, but the lack of resolution at the end also didn't help.

Not caring about their fates and not getting invested in what happens is exactly what nihilism is about. Both its humans and mutants alike are either evil psychos who deserve to die, or passive onlookers resigned to their fate. You're basically an entity watching with sublime indifference how these meaningless existences collide and break apart, as they're circling the drain of a crapsack world.

The only one with any progression and actual ability to make choices and connections is Nana, who's apparently one of the few who ultimately survives in the Manga along with those with the strongest bonds to her (Mayu and her surrogate father).

Of course, it's ultimately hard to say whether it's a poor show that fails to elicit investment in its characters and world, or a decent one that consciously plays around with not doing so to immerse you in its nihilism instead.

I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Each to their own anyway, right? You can keep your naked girl-on-girl ultra violence - it's a bit tacky but I suppose it has appeal for some! Thanks again for actually taking the time to try and explain rather than adding to the weird religion rant going on...

Well, personally I'd not consider Elfen Lied more than a decent show - it is first and foremost about the topless bloodshed - but we'll probably disagree on just how pointless it is (or rather whether its pointlessness was meaningful or not). You can certainly find better - Battle Royale for starters - but I find it decent enough.

And yay, more naked girl-on-girl ultra violence for me!

I_am_acting:
You know, i always hear that Christianity is the equivalent to the worst thing humanity has ever been subject to.

Of course, these people are historical illiterates in most cases as they forget 2 of the biggest things that ever happened to mankind. The development of the scientific method and John Locke's version of the Social Contract.

For the story on the scientific method, read this article from Columbia University

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

Which is patently wrong, as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of ancient history and the history of Islam will realise. Indeed, it's arguable that science survived in the west despite Christianity's presence, not because of it.

This has already been debunked in detail by historians such as Richard Carrier.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html

Now as for the Social contract, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one's interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke's view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions" (par. 6). Because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#SH2b

Ask yourself, why does the US constitution say in it's bill of rights "Congress shall make no law abridging...[insert Right here]" instead of "Congress grants you...[insert Right here]." Because under John Locke's version of the social contract, those rights come from God, not your government

Given that the founding fathers were more aligned to deism than Christian theism, this is all a mere red herring, as they are not referring to the Christian god.

I would hardly agree that Christianity is the worst thing ever, but there's as much of a tendency for its supporters to paint it as wholly good.

Oirish_Martin:

I_am_acting:
You know, i always hear that Christianity is the equivalent to the worst thing humanity has ever been subject to.

Of course, these people are historical illiterates in most cases as they forget 2 of the biggest things that ever happened to mankind. The development of the scientific method and John Locke's version of the Social Contract.

For the story on the scientific method, read this article from Columbia University

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

Which is patently wrong, as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of ancient history and the history of Islam will realise. Indeed, it's arguable that science survived in the west despite Christianity's presence, not because of it.

This has already been debunked in detail by historians such as Richard Carrier.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html

yeah, because one historian trumps an entire university yes?

additionally, not all historians share that belief, for example Edward Grant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Grant

"In his book The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts, Grant discuss the developments and discoveries that culminated in the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. He emphasize how the roots of modern science were planted in the ancient and medieval worlds long before the modern period, and that the Christian Latin civilization of Western Europe began the last stage of its intellectual development. One basic factor is how Christianity developed in the West with the establishment of the medieval universities around 1200."

Protip: Richard Carrier's views and opinions are the minority view of history on this and other topics.

"Given that the founding fathers were more aligned to deism than Christian theism, this is all a mere red herring, as they are not referring to the Christian god."

http://web.wm.edu/news/archive/index.php?id=6083

Jefferson believed in Jesus, just not how most Christians would view him today. Further more, that doesn't explain John Locke's personal beliefs, which fluxed around various Christian denominations. He was Calvinist when he published his Two Treatises of Government in 1689, then possibly converted to Socininism around 1695 with the possibility of believing in Arianism around the end of his life. While he was at his core a Deist, the fact is that Deism with regards to Europe at the time was usually referring to the Christian god. They just didn't believe in supernatural miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.

Relish in Chaos:

Jesus is nothing more than a glorified Mary Sue; the imagination of the perfect man.

Except the part where he attacked market stalls set up in the church because they were disrespecting the lords house?

Jesus definitely had flaws. Of course the book is going to focus on his good deeds, that's the point...

Never seen Elfen Lied but I think I get your point. At the core, The Bible is a collection of stories that can teach lessons. It gets perverted through its presentation, interpretation, and use, much like the Torah, Qur'an, Bhagavad-Gita, or any other theological text. It's all about reading into it correctly. It's not necessary to believe that Jesus was a real man, or that he performed miracles, all you should do is read the story and take as much knowledge from it as you can. Without condemning believers or condoning conversion, I recommend everyone with a decent education to read at least one Abrahamic text.

Outside of all that, the absolute worst people here are the ones not willing to concede. When you lean too far to one side of an argument you become as blind, ignorant, and stupid as the person you're trying to enlighten/insult. If you're willing to be mature and logical, you'll come sit in the middle with me and mine.

Bible: Good ideas, until the people get at it.

Elfen Lied: Probably entertaining, possibly enlightening. I can't speak intelligently about it.

Before I get flamed by anyone on a debate team, I realize when you're arguing a point, it helps to not concede, but we're not at debate team, and we're discussing religion online. Let's please be civil.

FranBunnyFFXII:
Just my opinion, and i know im about to get a shitload of flak for this.

Elfen Lied taught more about the need for love and caring people and treating people how they should be treated far better than christianity ever did.
No contest.
Elfen Lied was a metaphore better than anything every said by Christ and his followers.

Lucy Nana Kohta and Yuka set a far better example for humanity than christ and his apostles ever did.

And before you jump to conclusions, and start asking me things, Here:
Ever read the bible?
Yes I have.
more times tnat i wanted to.
I grew up a in a christian family, ive read the bible cover to cover before, when i began to question the "word of god"
after learning and furthering my education i realized how dispicable the bible really was, and how much it harmed people.

Dude How old are you?
Im 22 years old

Get away from anime, you looser
I dont watch anime. Now, I've been around japanese culture and i am shintoist, i used to speak almost fluent japanese, but anime wasnt really my thing. I was to far into cosmology and science and trying to learn about physics and human evolution(which is what I study now a days), its been a life long obsession, animne was a minor intrest when i was younger, but Elfen Lied is a work of art that trancends its medium
Infact its almost insulting to call elfen lied anime becuase of the reputation of illegetitmacy that anime has in the western world.

What is your point?

Terminate421:

Relish in Chaos:
Do you have any actual, concrete evidence that he did all this "pure", goody-two-shoes bullshit?

There has not been any way to truly disprove this as well.

So the Bible stories are simply Devil's Proofs. They are only true because they can't be disproven and at the same time false because they can't be proven. This is basically the case of all major religions.

uhddh:

Terminate421:

Relish in Chaos:
Do you have any actual, concrete evidence that he did all this "pure", goody-two-shoes bullshit?

There has not been any way to truly disprove this as well.

So the Bible stories are simply Devil's Proofs. They are only true because they can't be disproven and at the same time false because they can't be proven. This is basically the case of all major religions.

You just posted the practical definition to a belief....

Besides, it doesn't make me wrong or right. (I think it's right) but the same can be said for any and all beliefs, even Atheism.

I_am_acting:
yeah, because one historian trumps an entire university yes?

Except you didn't cite "an entire university", you cited some gobshites from their Christian Union who haven't updated their site in nearly a decade, and their page relies entirely on Jaki's work for reference.

additionally, not all historians share that belief, for example Edward Grant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Grant

"In his book The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts, Grant discuss the developments and discoveries that culminated in the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. He emphasize how the roots of modern science were planted in the ancient and medieval worlds long before the modern period, and that the Christian Latin civilization of Western Europe began the last stage of its intellectual development. One basic factor is how Christianity developed in the West with the establishment of the medieval universities around 1200."

Yup, thanks for backing up part of my point at least - science was around long before Christianity started claiming it invented it, along with everything else it tries to sponge off of.

What exactly is the "last stage of its intellectual development"?

Protip: Richard Carrier's views and opinions are the minority view of history on this and other topics.

Actual protip: No, you're laughably wrong.

Hero, Avicenna, Galen, &c. - all of them used the scientific method, and frequently placed it above religious reasoning.

"Given that the founding fathers were more aligned to deism than Christian theism, this is all a mere red herring, as they are not referring to the Christian god."

http://web.wm.edu/news/archive/index.php?id=6083

Jefferson believed in Jesus, just not how most Christians would view him today. Further more, that doesn't explain John Locke's personal beliefs, which fluxed around various Christian denominations. He was Calvinist when he published his Two Treatises of Government in 1689, then possibly converted to Socininism around 1695 with the possibility of believing in Arianism around the end of his life. While he was at his core a Deist, the fact is that Deism with regards to Europe at the time was usually referring to the Christian god. They just didn't believe in supernatural miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.

Or anything else other than God's creation of the universe.

Why one would then still claim it's the Christian god when there is practically nothing left of him is beyond me, but I guess cafeteria Christianity has been around for longer than I thought.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked