I’ve made this case to Christians before. If people who don’t hear about it get a free pass into heaven, after Jesus died, if they just didn’t say anything, everyone on earth would go to heaven.
Any time they go somewhere new and preach, they have to get 100% to believe just to keep the number of people going to heaven the same. Anything less and hell has gained some new souls.
Christianity is a recruitment tool for hell.
Eskimo is a racial slur. I realize things were different in your youth but you need to try and be at least up to date from the last thirty years, grandpa mickey.
What is the right term?
Either Inuit or Yupik (or perhaps even Aleut), depending on which people you are intending to refer to.
Inuit, I guess
Well the church fixed that now.
Children who die before they have a chance to be baptised are in heaven too.
But everyone else is going to hell if they do not praise god.
That just sounds like noone should get baptised either.
Christianity is an infohazard
The basilisk problem. If you knew about it and didn’t work to bring it about by telling more people about it then you are the enemy.
i always found that creepypasta funny exactly because of that. bunch of atheists experiencing religious fears but with some words swapped lol
lol no one fears santa claus no matter how many words you swap. Now you want an atheist religion go look at Space Nutters.
lmao
all the abrahamic religions are cognitohazard. maybe, the reason why they’re so engrained is cuz one said “shit, now that i’ve learned it, imma burn, why not spread this to others?”
Da fuq? When I went to Christian school, they told me everyone who died without knowing Jesus go to hell. And I asked “how about babies?”, and they firmly told me “yes, they go to hell”
Ah the loving and compassionate God, who sends you to hell if you haven’t even heard of them.
He loves you unconditionally… with some conditions.
Some Christians believe they go to limbo or purgatory as they were not baptized
Both forms of Christianity have very differing views.
Catholics have their own brand of afterlife beliefs like limbo and purgatory, none of it is in the bible, but rather external “supporting” scriptures.
Protestants mostly believe one of two things, you’re either whisked away, judged and sent to heaven or hell, or you’re in a sort of “sleep” until judgement day THEN sent off to heaven/hell.
Heaven being the temporary spot until earth is remade and believers come back to live in New Jerusalem in earthly bodies once more, forever.
I made a creature and then killed it before it had an opportunity to comprehend me and I’m offended by that so I’m going to torture it for eternity.
- the good guy, supposedly
Makes me think that this God fellow has a lot of trauma from its upbringing that needs to be worked through.
Good and merciful god that one.
Back when I was a wee little shit, and the parents were ritualistically sacrificing my Sunday mornings to Sky Daddy & Super-J by dragging my ass to church: I recall our pastor actually addressing this. Idr the verse he referenced, but it boiled down your ‘soul’ or some shit being driven to god even if you haven’t been exposed to him here on Earth. TLDR, even if you don’t know, you still go to hell for being a dirty heathen, so good 'ol christians have a duty to go shove their shit down as many throats as possible to ‘save’ them.
Whether or not that’s true to their lore, I have no idea - there are so many contradictions in that shit that you can basically make it say whatever you want.
The lore is whatever you can twist into it. You already said it lol
good 'ol christians have a duty to go shove their shit down as many throats as possible to ‘save’ them.
Yyyyyyep.
My favorite was when I (white guy) lived in a neighborhood with a lot of majority-black churches, ladies would walk around on Sunday afternoons knocking on doors to “spread the news.” However, the second they saw me their faces would fall and they’d make a quick exit after a minimal pitch. It was obvious they were trying to recruit from the black community and my soul was not a priority to them. I’m sure it happens the other way around as well. Nothing against black people here.
In my experience, each flavor of Christianity handles this a little differently. IIRC the reason
the MormonsJehovah’s Witnesses are extra aggressive about hounding your door is because they consider it an obligation to spread the good word, while there are other groups who just stay out of your business entirely.WRT the quote, there’s very little talk of heaven and hell at all in Lutheran churches in my experience, just as an example. Although I have only been exposed to the Norwegian state church, which is pretty laid back about most things, so your mileage may vary with other Lutheran churches.
Also, at least officially, the reason they baptize teenagers with the names of your dead ancestors is because they believe baptism of a physical body is necessary for salvation, AND that they will continue to pester said dead ancestors to convert to Mormonism in heaven’s waiting room.
If some random little shit who lied to his local bishop about cranking it three times a week will get dunked when they read the right name, apparently that helps with the backlog or something, and White Jesus really wants them to get right on that, I assume because his dad is up his ass about TPS Reports or something.
I thought Mormons were like a pyramid scheme. Only the top 300k Mormons get be be God of their own planet so they have to get more in so they can be at the top.
No, you are thinking of Jehovah Witnesses. Mormons definitely want all their members to go to the temple to be sealed to ensure their future right to rule their own planet.
You’re right, I was thinking of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Mormonism is truly insane. it’s a super interesting rabbit hole to investigate.
Good choir though
Grew up Lutheran. Its mostly singing songs written by old people about how awesome God is. Meh.
The actual answer is “I don’t know, the Bible doesn’t say.”
The contradictions between doctrine and the Bible make so much more sense when you view it in the historical context of a tribal religion, as it was written, not as some kind of universal truth. The Bible doesn’t say what happens to people who never hear about it because the writers weren’t thinking about that.
Mathew 18:18 is the circuit breaker for those situations:
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heavenAKA when in doubt, god defers to the Pope for some reason.
The evolution seemed to be Old Testament = God of Israel, New Testament = God of the Jews and Gentiles, but they still clearly weren’t thinking about people in distant lands like the Chinese or Mesoamericans.
I think that any religions that have survived to the present day did so in part because they contained flexibilities like “defer to the Pope”
but they still clearly weren’t thinking about people in distant lands like the Chinese or Mesoamericans.
It’s almost like these books of supposed divine revelation could only have been informed by the experiences of the people who wrote them… 🤔
From a religion maintenance POV it makes total sense. From a “god is omniscient and infallible” standpoint, it makes my head hurt.
I assure you it doesn’t merit that amount of thought.
But what about the “sheep that are not of this flock”? Couldn’t have been more explicit.
I always believed that God would accept anyone, even if they don’t believe, as long as they were good people. I can’t imagine He would just turn away the kindest people because they were born on the other side of the planet. But I don’t get along with fundamentalists.
this is why they told him
So, religious texts are basically just some kind of “mind virus”? But just not the kind one should be “woke” about?
That is hilarious. They gave Christianity the selfish-gene treatment. I’ll be embarrassed if this is a page from the book — I haven’t actually read it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
Bruh why do lemmy dudes drop philosophical nukes so casually. Incremental adjustments to the trajectory of the mind one article at a time
It’s from The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore
That’s exactly what I thought of when I read the post, but don’t recall this page being in The Selfish Gene. Worth a read, though! (Better than this trope).
Edit: Apparently from Susan Blackmore’s book, The Meme Machine.
This kind of implies that this is the social engineering equivalent of worm-like malware in Cybersecurity.
That’s curious.
High replication and changeability to adapt to circumstances. From molecules to lifeforms to cultures. It’s all the same process.
or a physical virus
Indeed - as a writer I find holy texts fascinating for their endurance through viral properties. It seems important for them to speak at once with ultimate authority but also a lot of vagueness to keep the messages versatile for as many situations as possible and as unfalsifiable as possible.
They are the equivalent of a radioactive meteor that lands on an unwitting planet and spreads a plague.
What’s the name of that book?
It’s from The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore
Preach brother
Should have kept it in Latin…
Nah, should have kept the original speeches or whatever in Aramaic and never written them down.
Organized religion is a vestigial organ from more primitive eras that’s weighing humanity down.
Not only religion. Any institution or organization, no matter what reason it was created, will immediately put continued existence and growth as their first priority.
See: capitalism.
Original chain email
no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined
I’m not a fan of this no-freewill interpretation, but it’s a hell of lot clearer than Christian doctrine.
“eskimo” is a curse word for Inuit, meaning raw meat eater. Please stop use that word, it’s disrespectful.
Any Inuit here to confirm that?
Spent some time in Alaska - the natives I had a chance to speak to referred to themselves as Eskimos. And it wasn’t one of those ‘we can say it, but it’s derogatory coming from anyone else’ words… it’s just a word they use for their people. They were kind of amused at the whole controversy.
It’s anecdote, and the number of them actually offended by the term Eskimo is probably higher than zero, but by and large this is white people being offended on their behalf at something that is a non-issue.
So, call em Eskimos. Or Inuit. Or Natives. From the source, they’re cool with it.
It’s a different situation in different areas. In parts of Alaska, it’s not a slur, but in parts of Canada, it is a slur. Ultimately you need to know which situation you’re dealing with for the area you’re in.
Ah yes. The “I know a black guy who isn’t offended by a white guy saying the N word so it’s ok to say it” argument.
They are not all the same. I know for a fact that there are indeed large groups who are offended by it. Just because you know a group / groups who are not offended, doesn’t mean all the others spread out all over half a continent feel the same way about it.
Using these slurs enables systematic racism.
I know a black guy
Try, 'I walked on eggshells about it around dozens of them scattered about Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks, and it outed me as a clueless white dude 100% of the time.
I went in with the understanding that it was a slur. I treated it as a slur. I was corrected.
I’m guessing you’re a US American? Canada and Greenland do not exist right? No one lives there right? I mean, you’ve seen 3 places in Alaska, that’s enough to know them all isn’t it? Even the ones living 4000km away (that’s 22471910.112360 bananas in “freedom” units) in a different country.
Its such an ignorant and dumb American thing to assume everyone is the same and the world outside the US doesn’t exist.
Clearly you have no clue to what the Canadian government, and the Danish government, have done to natives and why it’s such a sensitive word to many.
walked on eggshells about
Why do you desperately want to support systematic racism? Was it that hard not to use a word that might be considered offensive?
FFS, Idiocracy was far too optimistic.
Here are some sources. Maybe educate yourself before defending racism.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/24/475129558/why-you-probably-shouldnt-say-eskimo
https://sinchi-foundation.com/dont-use-the-word-eskimo-anymore/
https://www.calendar-canada.ca/frequently-asked-questions/why-is-the-word-eskimo-offensive-in-canada
https://indianreservation.info/eskimo-definition-controversial/?amp=1
Am American. Canada and Greenland infact do not exist. Still sticking with what I learned directly from the culture in question over an internet stranger and a handful of articles.
Speaking also as an internet stranger to all of our readers, I know my own posts carry the same amount of weight as yours - that is, none at all.
Didn’t intend to stir up any drama in sharing my experience. I’ll be sure to learn the regional etiquette if and when I visit other areas.
Latinx is still the dumbest thing I’ve heard
While I do get wanting to steer the language away from pointlessly gendering everything (why tf do I need to know if my blender is a boy or girl??) …yeah “Latinx” ain’t it.
To me it always reads phonetically like “lah-teenks”. I hate it.
In the little corner of Latin America where I live, if people are making a concerted effort to be inclusive in writing, they end a word with @s to include both -os and -as endings: amig@s, chic@s, etc. But that is very uncommon, and I have not encountered a spoken equivalent.
As a non-native speaker, I find Spanish to be quite a bit more flexible than English. It’s very context-dependent, so I think a lot of Spanish speakers just have the mindset that you figure out the meaning of a word through its context. Words ending in -o can be for everyone or for masculine people, and you figure out the speaker’s intention by the context.
But also when your blender has a gender (it’s feminine, for people who don’t know), maybe it takes some of the gravitas out of the conversation about gendered language.
@
That’s clever honestly. I could see that working well for things like banners addressing a broad audience - marketing type stuff.
My bitching is more geared to why it was structured that way in the first place… and obviously it didn’t just appear overnight, but developed over ages like most other languages. Some trends stick and others don’t… gendering random inanimate objects is one that stuck. …for some weird-ass reason.
Except the desire to degender everything is a specifically English endeavor, and only because it doesn’t have gender based nouns. Spanish is VERY MUCH A GENDERED LANGUAGE. Also, Spanish already HAS a neutral article, “Lo” so not even using that while inventing our own bullshit is the most pearl clutching nonsense I’ve ever seen
Oh, thinking you can change a major language structure to make it more PC is dumb as hell. I’m not advocating for it, but I do understand a shred of of where that push is coming from. Spanish is VERY MUCH A GENDERED LANGUAGE… but… why? Why is my chair a girl, and shoe a boy? The status quo in this case is about as dumb as thinking we can change it.
Its literally a fools errand. Especially since most people speak languages that are strongly gendered. It’s just a self-absorbed virtue signal. The people who made Latinx obviously never stopped to ask most Latin people what they thought of the whole endeavour… And no, I don’t mean Francis your half Mexican schoolmate from private school…
Ummmm, actually, it’s Eskimx
X-kimo, final offer.
but also Eskimo and Inuit refer to different things… Inuit people is one part of Eskimo
It really is a good question. This situation is referenced to in Romans 2.
Romans 2:12-16 ESV [12] For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
So, the answer is still “I don’t know if you are. I don’t know if you’re doing the right thing by your law or conscience.”
As for “Why tell me?” The theory is still that it is better for your life to know and that God’s law is better and more generous than man’s law.
As for “Why tell me?” The theory is still that it is better for your life to know and that God’s law is better and more generous than man’s law.
The Golden Rule has popped up independently in cultures across the globe (including the Abrahamic religions), and I’d argue it’s a much better foundation for morality than anything that assumes/requires supernatural backing.
great answer, thanks for that. i wonder if apostates/non-believers are included in “Gentiles who do not have the law”
or is it only the people that never heard the gospel?
I can’t say for sure. Nobody really can but there is a divide in some protestant faiths that someone “once saved is always saved.”. Meaning that if you ever believed then you’re good to go. I think this idea is rooted in John 10:28-29 ESV [28] I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. [29] My Father, who has given them to me,is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
A lot of Christian faiths don’t agree with that logic though.
I think largely though people believe Romans 2 only applies to people who have never heard.
In other things that never happened.
except christian missionaries have been literally doing this for thousands of years
You mean every belief system?
I ain’t ever seen Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or Taoists or believers of Shinto, or anything else going door to door telling people about their prophets. Just Christians and occasionally Scientologists.
Door to door is not the qualifier. Muslims, Jews, and buddhists definitely prosteleltize their beliefs.
Nope, sure don’t.
Unless you’ve had The Satanic Temple murdering your ancestors for not believing and I somehow missed it?
Don’t need the Satanist to do it for you. 3 of the above named belief systemms will without being asked.
