- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.world
Edit: Fuck some of these comments Y’all sick in the head. I’m out.
Edit: Fuck some of these comments Y’all sick in the head. I’m out.
This does come off a lot like “Let’s all ask God to do the important and urgent things I chose not to do.”
As Dale Carnegie says, prayer is what we try after we’ve exhausted every practical option. If God exists, they clearly want us to do our best with available options before begging them to solve our problems.
(Side note: if God exists, they have a lot to answer for, and there’s non-trivial evidence that they might be a raging asshole. Maybe a stupid choice of ally in the tough times ahead.)
CEOs have a lot of practical options. I don’t know if Pat exhausted those options, but it’s hard to give any CEO the benefit of the doubt after the last decade of pervasive “line must go up regardless of the obvious short, medium and long term consequences for absolutely everyone concerned.”
So pardon me if I’m not impressed with trying to pray away those consequences.
That is a primary intention of the three Abrahamic religions, hence all the old societal law embedded in the texts. Hence why so many prefer cherry picking the laws, even the “believers” know they’re outdated.
They’re intended as a means to rule people but in much much smaller numbers. The population base is far too unwieldy for any of it, and has been for a while.
I’m digressing.
The idea of prayer is embedded in that form of rule. Don’t ask the leadership, ask god. It’s not my fault god didn’t answer your prayers, that’s on you for not having enough faith. Here, let me help you with that by advising you to tighten up your obedience to the societal laws we put in the text, then you can try praying again. Maybe, if you’re good enough, maybe then your prayer will be answered. Just don’t ask me, the leadership, to try to solve it.
It’s a great way to get people to put their heads down and obey the (religious) government. Again though, intended for smaller population at inception.
There are rather more than three Abrahamic religions, there’s also:
Amongst others
While there are certainly some bonkers deviations at the level of theology (Mormonism theology tends to be childishly literal where it departs from Nicene Christianity, as it is at its heart an anti-intellectual and inherently out-group long-con), and of course there are the extra sacred texts and culty tendencies, Mormons view themselves as firmly within the Christian tradition, and they are culturally more in line than not with Christians than other Abrahamic adherents. I think it’s stretching to count them as an entirely different religion.
Muslims also view themselves within christianity, as true followers of a christ which they believe to not be God. They believe that Mohammed restored the true religion, similarly to how Mormons see Joseph Smith as restoring the true religion. The main difference is that Mormons are starting to now use the Christian label- which would be the same if a Christian started claiming to be Muslim (one who submits) or a Protestant using the label “Catholic” (Universal)(Which most mainline Protestants actually do). Doesn’t mean they’re the same religion as a Mohammed-following-Muslim or the same denomination as Roman Catholicism
I think it’s fairer to describe Mormons as nontrinitarian Christians, sort of a “neo-Arian heresy”. They specifically believe Christ to be part of a uniquely divine trinity with God the Father and the Holy Ghost, and that Christ died to redeem humanity and was resurrected (at which point he floated home for the weekend then stopped in on all the Jewish folks living in the Americas, of course).
They also believe he was created as a “first among equals” son of God and, once you tug on a couple of uniquely Mormon threads, that God the Father probably had actual relations with Mary to conceive Jesus’s body, which after resurrection was “perfected” and divine, just like his dad’s.
So anyway, Jesus holds a centrality to Mormon religion in a way he simply doesn’t for Islam, even with the large number of roles Muslims believe Jesus played and will play in the future. While his nature is different for Mormons, his role in their faith is much more analogous to “vanilla” Nicene Christianity. He is part of a tripartite Godhead and is their Savior, and faith in that is necessary for an individual’s salvation.
Thomas Aquinas would roll his eyes at the unexplored repercussions of it all, but Mormons have thirteen “articles of faith” that we were supposed to learn as kids. A lot of the nonsense follows from a half-educated conman in WAY over his head trying to keep it all going and expand his own authority (including the authority to sleep with whomever he wanted) but specifically NOT to move beyond something his adherents would identify as Christian.
Even if he failed at that, and you can argue he did, I would argue that the specifics of the theological niceties only tell part of the story, and the Mormon movement has to be viewed in its cultural context, and Mormons have always self-identified as Christians in a way that was not merely semantic.
LDS Mormons aren’t Arian, they are tritheist.
Mormonism as well contains additional overriding scripture, like how Islam has the Qur’an in comparison with Christianity or how Christianity has the New Testament in comparison with old Judaism. Which seems make them separate religions, as all of these extra scriptures make the faiths significantly different from each other.
All of these religions have God as the centrepoint (although LDS Mormonism could be less so due to it being polytheist)
Yes, Mormonism puts a focus on a character called Jesus who’s somewhat based on Jesus of Nazareth which Islam also does, but there’s also a sect of Hinduism which does the same. Is this Christianity, too?
Okay, I think at some point we’re talking past each other more than to each other. You are clearly much more invested than I am in the relative truth claims, categorization, and internal consistency of various bronze-age mythologies and their propagandized descendants.
You’re drawing bright lines in places that I don’t find particularly interesting as a non-believer more interested in secular history than apologetic theology. Still, I suspect the bright lines are very important in that context. If you would like to claim this one as a win, please feel free. Have a lovely weekend!
Fair, one does not “win” an argument on the internet 🤣
you can say rape on lemmy
Baha’i* the guy’s title is Baha’u’llah
Thanks and apologies I’ve edited this in my post
No worries, most people haven’t even heard of it before :)
Using they/them when referring to the Christian god. Perfect.
Yep. I figure God can put their pronouns in a quick update (no doubt written in flames on a wall somewhere - basic courtesy, nowadays), or is probably content with the neutral terms.
The Bible wasn’t written with gendered pronouns. Although God did choose to become a man, so I think this justifies the He/Him pronouns
Jesus was trans. He identified as male, but given the circumstances of his birth, he could only have X chromosomes…
This gives another point- Jesus must have gotten the Y chromosome from the Holy Spirit, so the Holy Spirit must also be male. Referred to God the Father as “Father”, too. So the whole Trinity is male, therefore the Christian God can’t really be described as not Male.
He actually had what seemed like a pretty good long term plan. Buuut probably beacuse the line did not go up in the short to medium term he was ousted. I think ( Im not really sure why they fired him ).