The Opposition Thread


These supposed Christians, who endorse the oppression of others, and the refusal to help refugees, would be served by reminding them of the parable of the sheep and the goats. I may have posted this before, but I feel it is central to the teachings of Christ, and sadly ignored by many.

"But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’

“The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, because you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

“Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’

“Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, because you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


In times like these, we need to use quotes when describing self-professing “Christians”. People who don’t read the bible they claim to believe. Nor practice what the bible teaches, mainly because they don’t read.

It’s people like these that turn off many intellectuals. The bible even have a verse for it and Paul the Apostle quotes it in the letter to Rome. As it is written: “- God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

Incidentally, a lot of them fit the classic picture of hypocrites. They can add in whatever justification or state whatever their reasons are for not following the commands of Jesus that they profess to be followers of. But in fact they are hypocrites. And real big ones at that.


You are overthinking this.

“Lying is bad” is a stated belief. If the parent lies, then they have contradicted it.

The parent may also have unstated beliefs, but the existence of those unstated beliefs is irrelevant to the M-W definition.


You are probably right. =)


I basically turned around on hypocrisy vis-a-vis internal consistency after reading a book about psychology and animal welfare, which I may have pimped in other threads because it’s so good, and it really did make me re-think the way I think about, well, most everything:

Basically, he pointed out some very common hypocrisy in terms of views on animal welfare (e.g. why is eating a factory farmed chicken nugget acceptable when cock-fighting isn’t). Rather than railing against people who hold these beliefs, his overall point was: we are all hypocrites, in that we all hold many, many mutually contradictory beliefs within ourselves about all sorts of things, all the time. And that’s okay, and normal. The idea that we have to be internally consistent to have a respectable POV is a weird contortion brought about by the backwards application of formal logic into human psychology. It’s just not a useful concept, the way that “the chair is dreaming” is a phrase we can construct because of language, but that has no functional meaning.

I can still dislike it when people are internally inconsistent, but I should recognize that this, too is an arbitrary opinion that I have, and that I’m not going to apply it universally. I guess you can accuse this of being a post-modern interpretation, and…well, I guess it is. But the idea of people having internal mental inconsistencies just doesn’t concern me anymore.

The public statement / public action definition is one I do still find meaningful, in some ways, because its usually a game theory-defection kind of situation.


I suspect a lot of individuals who think they can say let’s separate shopping from politics but not for abortion are in the same camp as let’s separate church from state… but not Christianity. It’s a fundamental difference not in values so much as how you even begin to process the world and those in it.


I think part of the issues here are treating moral statements as true/false rather than value judgements.


The question is how you do balance out self-preservation with helping others? There are billions who need what I have more than I do, but I need to save what I have so that I don’t become needy later.


You give all you can. I mean… Christ literally says “Sell all your shit and give it to the poor.”

Now very few people expect you to be as holy as Jesus, but giving as much as you possibly can is one of the basic tenants of Christianity.


You’re supposed to help your fellow man… and yes, sometimes that means enduring hardship yourself.

And what Christ said is that you are to love your fellow man as much as you love Him, which is to say that you are really supposed to love them MORE than yourself.

This isn’t really a deep policy argument, as it’s a religious one… If you don’t believe in Christ, then it carries little weight beyond the obvious merit in doing good for other people. But if you DO believe in Christ? Then this is what he taught. And in this particular passage, He makes it known what happens to goats.


The actual command is “Love your neighbour as you love yourself.” Christianity is characterized by self-sacrifice.


Well it’s supposed to be, at least.


Well yeah - their mascot is a dude bleeding out nailed to a piece of wood, as payment for the rest of our collective sins.


This is… something.


I love it!

The use of one’s bare ass as a taunt is such a wonderful, primal thing. Equal parts “I fear nothing from you, to the point that I’m showing you my bare ass because you can’t do anything about it” and “My ass. Look my ass, you jerk. It’s hairy, and poop comes from it on the regular. This is what I think of you.”


This Alison answerde, ‘Who is ther
That knokketh so? I warante it a theef.’

‘Why, nay,’ quod he, ‘God woot, my swete leef,
I am thyn Absolon, my dereling!
Of gold,’ quod he, ‘I have thee broght a ring;
My moder yaf it me, so God me save,
Ful fyn it is, and ther-to wel y-grave;
This wol I yeve thee, if thou me kisse!’

This Nicholas was risen for to pisse,
And thoghte he wolde amenden al the Iape,
He sholde kisse his ers er that he scape.
And up the windowe dide he hastily,
And out his ers he putteth prively
Over the buttok, to the haunche-bon;
And ther-with spak this clerk, this Absolon,
‘Spek, swete brid, I noot nat wher thou art.’

This Nicholas anon leet flee a fart,
As greet as it had been a thonder-dent,
That with the strook he was almost y-blent;
And he was redy with his iren hoot,
And Nicholas amidde the ers he smoot.

Of gooth the skin an hande-brede aboute,
The hole culter brende so his toute,
And for the smert he wende for to dye.
As he were wood, for wo he gan to crye—
Help! water! water! help, for Goddes herte!’


Man, old or middle or whatever English is nonsense.

But that’s brilliant.


Middle English. If it were Old English, I very much doubt you’d be able to understand it. Even for Middle English, we moderns can only understand Chaucer so well because he wrote in what became the dominant dialect. Gawain, which was written around the same time, is way more impenetrable for modern English readers.


For instance,

HWÆT, WE GAR-DEna in geardagum,
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!
oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas, syððanærest wearð
feasceaft funden; he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum weorðmyndum þah,
oð þæt him æghwylc ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan; þæt wæs god cyning!

I remember studying it at school. It’s all but impenetrable without a dictionary and some guidance as to letters.

It’s fun to listen to.


And people wonder why the modern language is so dumb and full of nonsensical rules with piles of exceptions!