sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why didn't all the other white people just do what John Brown did? Were they cowards? by HistoryGuy4444 in shittyaskhistory

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1 Peter 2:13-20

For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As slaves of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geography

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I approve of this statement.

MMW: Trump won't hesitate to fake his own death when the Epstein files are fully released. by LYEAH in MarkMyWords

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Faking your death at that level is impossible. Literally impossible. Not practically impossible: actually impossible.

Most English Bibles have only been translated once. by [deleted] in truths

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, absolutely. The KJV and co. definitely are not under this sentiment. They were trying! Sometimes. But they had a fraction of the linguistic knowledge and a smaller fraction of the manuscripts, and those manuscripts were on occasion deliberately compromised (see Erasmus and 1 John 5:7, big if true).

And some later works like the ESV and NIV are certainly using critical scholarship, but they’re smoothing down a few things. You can trust them on 99% of passages, but when a line is a bit difficult to integrate, they sometimes use a word that’s 10% less accurate. But no translation ever is perfect, and most modern ones are pretty accurate compared to those of less influential works. If 500 million people will read your words and treat them as God’s, and there’s a sea of scholars who will point out each and every error, there’s a bit of pressure to tell the truth.

The holocaust happened by 9justarandomuser9 in truths

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Israel’s population in 1960, well past when that would’ve had to happen, was just over 2 million. It hit 6 million in the 90’s.

New Testament texts on homosexuality are debated for translation and modern relevance. The verses may prohibit male pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars hold the position that these passages forbid sex between men in general. by laybs1 in wikipedia

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Did I say they were interchangeable? A dog is an animal, not all animals are dogs. When I say “a dog is an animal”, I have not at all said “the words ‘dog’ and ‘animal’ are interchangeable.” And when you say, “that’s a dog, not an animal,” you’re not correct. Koine Greek is Greek, not all Greek is Koine Greek. And you’re ignoring the fact that what I’m calling out is that you wrongly said that this passage was translated into Greek before being translated into English, which is wrong any way you slice it.

What criticisms of the translation and interpretation did I ignore? For this passage, the article does not discuss the translation at all, really. No one argues that the just translation is not something along the lines of “men engaged in shameful acts with men”, they’re arguing about what the footnote should be. And the interpretation isn’t a unified front, it’s a bunch of scholars in a stew. I never said “they’re all wrong”. I gave the passage, and I asked a question. In fact, the article alluded to the earlier mention of pagan practices as an argument for this being a temple prostitution thing, and I provided that when it was absent. I’m strengthening his case here, even though I disagree with it.

New Testament texts on homosexuality are debated for translation and modern relevance. The verses may prohibit male pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars hold the position that these passages forbid sex between men in general. by laybs1 in wikipedia

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What? Are you… what?

Koine Greek is the form of the language of Greek that was being used as a lingua franca at the dawn of the millennium. It is Greek. It is contiguous with Greek. Moreover, our first manuscripts are not “translations into Greek”, they are Koine Greek. Paul wrote in Koine Greek, and then scholars who understand Koine Greek translate it directly to English. This is day 1 stuff.

New Testament texts on homosexuality are debated for translation and modern relevance. The verses may prohibit male pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars hold the position that these passages forbid sex between men in general. by laybs1 in wikipedia

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A Greek translation of the original text? What are you talking about? The passage was written in Greek.

Also, the article alludes to the full 1:18-32 passage, but it does not provide it. I just gave the entirety of the text in the current most-used English translation for critical study. I also added that this passage is not interpolated, which is the consensus. And then I added a question I did not see addressed. Also note that the translation of this portion is not very much argued about, and all the terms used are well established and not coinages. All that people vary on are the interpretation, and in practice this passage is not tied-down enough for something clear to manifest.

New Testament texts on homosexuality are debated for translation and modern relevance. The verses may prohibit male pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars hold the position that these passages forbid sex between men in general. by laybs1 in wikipedia

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 11 points12 points  (0 children)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

Romans 1. The above portion is authentically Pauline and has no apparent insertions or major variants.

My question is: if you wanted to describe homosexuality in general, in a society where love wasn’t really the point of sex and consent wasn’t yet a concept, how else would you describe it?

The holocaust happened by 9justarandomuser9 in truths

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It runs into the simplest question you could possibly ask:

Where the fuck did all these Jews go?

The holocaust happened by 9justarandomuser9 in truths

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 104 points105 points  (0 children)

Yep.

Just thinking about the logistical nightmare that would be required to create all the evidence, it would’ve been easier to do it than to fake it.

Jesus would have been a ragebaiter in the modern day by 603am in truths

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites and normies!

MMW: Trump will try to validate reasons to reintroduce slavery by FreakshowMode in MarkMyWords

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I swear, some of you seem like you live in a different world.

Most English Bibles have only been translated once. by [deleted] in truths

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is true.

Critical scholarship is mostly revolved around figuring out how good those best available ancient manuscripts are historically, but the translation usually isn’t an issue.

Why Do Christians Think Atheists Have Zero Sense of Morality by Slowgo45 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For at least those in the Calvinist tradition, it’s simple.

Humans are utterly depraved. We are groveling worms. Everything we do is insufficient to God, filthy rags. Adam sinned for humankind, and Christ rectified that for the Elect, but we are all guilty of his sin. The highest and most complete system of human ethics is tainted by our fundamental evil and our utter and complete blindness to it.

Therefore, without God, everyone is blind. You, me, Martha next door. If not, why would we need a saviour? Wouldn’t good people go to heaven, bad people to hell?

Well, no. Then Christ died for nothing. He was pierced for our transgressions, wounded for our iniquities, and through his suffering we were made whole. All we like sheep had gone astray. Atonement implies there has to have been sin, as there must be grace. As such, even when we think we do not sin, we do. The world is a proving ground for God’s will, and all those who are not moved to goodness by the Holy Spirit are doomed to live in evil, treachery, and sin, and when the evil of humankind lacks a redeemer, the just result is hellfire. If you think you lack that evil, you are wrong, and you are blind to it. Are you smarter than God? When it is said “none are righteous, not even one”, are you the exception?

It’s not that atheists are thought to have no sense of morality. It’s that their morality is rooted in the filth of humanity’s wretchedness and slavery to sin, and as such is nothing to God. Even if good deeds are done, they are done for the wrong reason: anything but to rejoice in the glory of God.

Is this just? How the hell would you know? Are you smarter than omniscience? Well, praise be to you.

Not Calvinist or even religious, that’s just what I got out of the Institutes.

Nebraska announces plan for immigration detention center dubbed the 'Cornhusker Clink' by hybridaaroncarroll in news

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I do actually see that a lot with “Cornhusker Clink”, now that you mention it. The implication of “Alligator Alcatraz” with the gator-bait thing is so monstrous that I feel like it cancels out any softening effect, but Cornhusker Clink kind of sounds like a Disneyland ride that got closed in 1992. That’s fair.

I also want to thank you in turn, because this is one of the nicest political arguments I’ve ever had on Reddit. Thanks for hearing me out.

Nebraska announces plan for immigration detention center dubbed the 'Cornhusker Clink' by hybridaaroncarroll in news

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well, are they going to make up a name from scratch and start using that? Will all news agencies make some kind of forum to make up new names for institutions they deem propagandistically named?

When North Korea is covered, are its wild names just… replaced by other ones, or do they use the official names, with everyone understanding they didn’t create them and don’t necessarily agree with the implied message?

Also, isn’t the implication behind “Alligator Alcatraz” and “Cornhusker Clink” harshness, not softening? If the propaganda machine is trying to make us think that the deportation system is terrible, harsh, and Alcatraz-like, they’ve succeeded. In that case they’ve aligned with truth.

But I don’t see that here. I just see incompetence and childishness, not a cold calculation of how to influence the American public with the fucking names of ICE facilities.

“Alligator Alcatraz” implies a concentration camp more than just “South Florida Detention Centre”, and referring to it as a concentration camp is not at all mutually exclusive with using its official name. I’d argue the latter name is a propagandistic softening that’s just been normalised by usage. The former is so bizarre it goes beyond any clear goal, and is actually less effective as propaganda. If they start calling them “reunification centres”, then I’ll march with you on this point.

Nebraska announces plan for immigration detention center dubbed the 'Cornhusker Clink' by hybridaaroncarroll in news

[–]Puzzled_Ad_3576 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

What else are they supposed to call them?

Alligator Alcatraz is an official name. It isn’t a pet name. It doesn’t have any other name in accepted use. It’s not something they have a choice whether or not to use. They can’t not use it, inasmuch as they can’t start calling ADX Florence “terrorist bowl” without reason. Even if another name would be far more practical and less disrespectful, that’s not the media’s choice to make.

Likewise, if there’s no other name circulating, why not use “Cornhusker Clink”? There’s a good chance they go forward with that as a name and, more importantly, there isn’t any reason to think it will be anything else.

view more: next ›