this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
928 points (98.3% liked)
Funny
6703 readers
361 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ah yes the eternal debate on tolerance of evil.
I think you can "love" someone without tolerating their nonsense. It's all about being willing to find a consensual way of interacting. Theoretically it may be impossible, but we can still try.
Ironically this is the whole 'love the sinner, not the sin' bit that Christians love to use to excuse their own intolerance.
Yeah, I think a lot of modern Christians are unaware of how masochistic and sadistic they really are. They get so hung up on the idea that they have a "get out of jail free" card that it justifies all the rest of their behavior, even when that behavior is explicitly called out in their manual lol
I have an ex who cheated on me. I'm not holding on to anger about it, I do honestly hope they've found happiness, but I want nothing to do with them again and if they showed up at my door I would tell them to leave.
Yeah, the paradox of tolerance.
My favorite solution that I've heard, is to treat tolerance not as a moral imperative, but rather as a social contract.
Anyone who is tolerant will have tolerance extended to them. Those who are intolerant, on the other hand, can fuck right off.
Yes, I've never really seen the paradox as a paradox for that reason. The question, rather, should be what precisely we require from the social contract. The old question of "where is the line at which point my freedom impacts your freedom". But no matter where that line is, it means that if someone spews hate, you're allowed to respond in kind
(Morally, that is. If it's covered by law then legally it should be handled through the justice system and responding in kind would fall under vigilante justice)
They did that in east europe (fucking off), founded ISIS, flooded an area with drugs and overran it.
Yeah the Internet has insulated people from how a society works. They can "fuck off"... to where? Somewhere they'll still vote and encourage people to follow their example? Somewhere without people telling them they're wrong where they can become more and more extreme?
It's like prison. Yeah let's take all the people that have a proclivity for crime and put them together. Then teach them to obey the system by using it to punish and traumatize them. After all, they deserve it. They'll realize that, any day now.
The way I practice it is that everyone gets a basic level of tolerance. Free speech, basic human rights, and a low level of respect and decency. But until you treat others the same there will be a social friction wherever you go and eventually a hard line. Like, no, we don't want you in here if you're just going to be an asshole everyday. Come back in a week and we'll see if you've learned some self-control.
Secularly everything has to be a social contract because there is no moral authority.
Well, for your own moral behaviour, you'd be the authority...
You're saying the same thing.
To love someone is sometimes to say them that their actions are evil.
No I'm pretty sure its more about telling them everything that sucks about them is totally fine and even good actually.
It's been 2000 years, how have we not gotten the hang of this already
Pretty sure love is more than 2000 years old.
Unless you believe in incredibly-young-earth creationism, where the OP and all your memories older than dinner last night are just a lie planted here by god to trick us into thinking the world is more than 16 hours old.
What is blud yapping about 🗣️🗣️🗣️
Just saying Christianity didn't invent love, and making fun of religious excuses.
I'm talking about interpretation of Jesus' words (•-•")
Dude we don't even know if he existed, and even if he did we know he wasn't even the coolest guy the romans executed on a cross.
If we don't know he existed then we don't know if most people until recent history existed
Nah, there aren't a lot of reliable documents, holy books don't count.
Why don't "holy books" count?
Not historical sources, full of dubious claims.
Find him in roman records, or letters about 'this hippie bastard, Christ or something, was a total dick when he came into the office to pay his taxes today. Gods, why do I even do this fucking job? I'm having serious anxiety issues, and at 23, im past middle age. I'm afraid I won't ever...' Or literally any reliable source.
Your book about fucking wizards is not a reliable source, and if you get to say Jesus definitely existed; I get to say gandalf actually existed. Also magneto (that even had pictures in the primary source!)
Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Celsus, Tacitus, Thallus, Phlegon, etc
How come?
Because its got wizards and makes a lot of strong claims, including about wizards, that aren't corroborated NY actual real historical documents, which we have for some of the times and places mentioned, including the Roman empire, who kept absolutely fucking anal records-in fact, when it split, we literally still use the word for half of them (byzantine)as the word for 'absolutely fucking anal retentive bureaucracy'.
Youre working with more literary analysis and like 'oh hey here's an accurate description of an eclipse, so this person probably saw one, they were in this part of the world, so we can guess when it was written' type stuff than historical details. An ancient stone dildo tells us so much more about a culture than your book about wizards.
Okay, for a start, from the time of Jesus, we don't have very many records. And the Byzantine empire didn't exist until 300 years later, coincidentally when Christianity really took on. A good example is Pompeii. Basically all evidence we have for it is archaeological. There is only one written record which is written by a guy -surprise- who also mentions Jesus. The eruption of Mt Vesuvius was likely witnessed by around 250,000 people and killed many upper-class romans. In fact, the writings about Jesus are extraordinary as so many of them survived and exist in such a close timeframe to the existence of Jesus.
Secondly,
Gonna assume by wizards you mean Jesus being God.
This is circular reasoning. "Jesus couldn't have been God because there is no proof of Jesus being God, and the Bible isn't proof because Jesus couldn't have been God because there is no proof"
Basically you're saying "Prove to me Jesus is God" "Okay, here's your proof" "I reject your evidence because it claims Jesus is God when Jesus clearly isn't God"
Thirdly, there's archeological evidence of an early Church existing and early New Testament manuscripts from the second century. There's even a stone tablet mentioning Pontius Pilate, which before it was discovered, critical atheists claimed was a fictional character.
Archaeology counts, dude.
No you can't prove to Mr that 'Jesus was god', because you would first need to prove god exists. I would've heard by now if you could do that.
So anything youre saying does that I can safely dismiss as made up fantasty nonsense.
I'm saying "prove this was a real dude who lived and was much better at community organizing than carpentry, and this is the same guy who some people think was an immortal wizard who isnt actually a wizard its complicated but whats important is he fought a balrog or whatever and helped frodo get the one ring to mordor before fucking off with him to valinor". And apparently you can't even keep the question straight.
What sort of archaeology would Jesus leave behind?
I don't know or care, I don't talk this much about the bodies of much cooler communists who I know existed.
Jesus literally rose into heaven, you can go see His empty tomb in Jerusalem as well lol.
Oh shit. Yeah, that's proof he was a real guy.
Yep. Also means heaven and hell are real places. Which one?
Pretty sure we're in hell, but youve been outside; you know this.
Is it?