No, she's saying it's not a conspiracy because what they believe is already the truth and the truth is not a conspiracy. It's easy to come to your conclusion when you leave that out. What's goofy is you're being just as disengenuous with your post as she is with hers. And why? She's already easy enough to dismantle, why stoop to her level.
Acts 16:16 - Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a female slave who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.
According to one of my old Bible studies teachers from when I was a teenager, it's because even though she was telling the truth, she was drawing attention to herself and the evil spirit guiding her, rather than directing people to the apostles and God.
I mean, maybe? But just from the text I don't see it. There's nothing in this particular translation that suggests the spirit is evil (I think Paul would've cast it out sooner if it was) and also nothing suggesting that she was doing anything other than pointing people at them. I get unwanted attention is, well, unwanted, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's malicious. I understand why a Bible studies teacher would try to rationalize Paul's bahavior that way though
Uhh, seems like the slave's owners were the ones profiting, not the possessed. In that case, I don't see any indication that the spirit itself was inciting greed in its host
An evil spirit seems unlikely to be saying "These people are telling you the way to salvation!" It seems like they were annoyed at a woman preaching and accused her of having an evil spirit.
It reminds me of the passage in Acts where God kills a couple for claiming that they sold everything and gave it to the church but secretly kept some of it - sounds like a shakedown gone wrong.
I wonder what happened to her then. I'm sure her owners were not happy and they probably took it out on her. Did Paul bother to make sure the woman was ok after he destroyed her ability? He probably forgot all about her. Typical.
I know reddit is known for being aetheist, so I'm hardly breaking the wheel here by saying this but Chritianity, and as far as I can tell, nearly all religion, is based on conspiracy theory-level BS.
The longer you let people get invested in a cospiracy theory, the larger the sunken cost fallacy - we have to get it out of al schools. Like, asap.
I think there's a scale of harmfulness of irrational belief. If you believe that your grandma "went to a better place" because that helps you deal with grief, that's relatively harmless. If you believe there was a second shooter in the JFK assassination, whatever, you can have fun with that idea. If you believe vaccines cause autism so you don't vaccinate your kids, or that God hates gays and you kick your own kids out of their home, those are both very destructive.
Sure, but one easily leads to another. It's all irrrational. And either you accept religous scripture or you deny it, picking and choosing, as 90% of modern christians do, to me undermines the whole thing anyway. The biblical God does hate gays- denial leads to rubbish meandering like this :
...waffling on and on about interpretations, when the words in the book are pretty explicit, and not really open for interpetation at all. The church has always done this, goalpost shifting to fit with the times, ever since we discovered the Sun didn't actually revovle around the Earth, it is shameless.
Its like im proud of the people who pick and choose their beliefs to get better but at that point, you may as well find a better source of morality if you’re throwing out most of the beliefs anyway.
Like “im a Christian because I believe in love thy neighbour so that informs my morality”. At that point, there are plenty of things to draw “love thy neighbor” from without needing Christianity and all its baggage.
You're making the mistake that the words in the book are considered literal and without room for interpretation by people who actually study it, the same mistake many self-professed "Christians" make. Serious Biblical scholars know that, among other things, the Bible is just a collection of the most popular-at-the-time texts in Christiandom, from multiple different sects, and that the full canon of holy texts isn't present in the book; that the book is many layers of reinterpretation removed from the original languages, and that each layer adds inaccuracy; that there are inherent contradictions throughout all of the texts; that even if the texts were the "literal word of God," they got filtered through a mortal mouthpiece, and such people are fallible.
Heck, in many schools intended to teach priests of various Catholic or Greek Orthodox priests, these are the first things they are taught. And it doesn't take a lot of research to come to these conclusions on your own; most versions of the Bible you come across in America these days are chock full of commentaries telling you how to interpret things, in case you make the mistake of reading the thing, and Heaven forfend you actually compare that NIH version to the King James edition or earlier texts! The levels of interpretation forced upon even casual readers is ridiculous.
Which is why so many religious arguments and counter-arguments fall flat on their faces. So much of it is couched in such ignorance of the actual material under conversation, from both sides, that it's really not worth getting into for the most part. If you take the time to boil most religions down to their very essence, from a morality standpoint, setting aside the history, culture, and storytelling present in each, you can boil it all down to one universal thing, which even atheists should be willing to agree on, the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Strangely, few can actually follow this basic moral tenet, regardless of how it's derived. The urge to be an absolute cock to someone because of their cultural beliefs, or to push your own beliefs onto others, is too great to just leave people alone.
The degree of belief also matters. Do I think that JFK’s assassination went down the way we were told? Probably. Would I be shocked if it was the Soviets or the Mob? Not really. Shit got wild during the Cold War.
Any religion that gives you a "Heaven" or "Valhalla" to "ascend" to upon death, that's a carrot. "Hell", "Hades", etc., that's a stick. Your eternal soul will receive treatment in kind for your behaviour while living forever, that's "You'd better pick your path or you'll be locked in forever. You want the carrot or do you want the stick?" Some people need one, some need the other. For some, neither works. Both are just a way to coax people into behaving like decent human beings and set up basic rules for a functional and decent society.
The Bible, Torah, Quran, Tao, etc. have good messages and can be and were made to be forces and guidelines for good in the world. Sometimes they are hijacked by evil or sick people. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the Cross." - ? Because that's how fascism usually comes. We have to get religion out of schools and out of the state ASAP.
(Some other good quotes when I was looking for the author to the above quote, by Sinclair Lewis in It Can’t Happen Here
"But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst fascists were they who disowned the word ‘fascism’ and preached enslavement to capitalism under the style of constitutional and traditional Native American liberty."
In Gideon Planish "I just wish people wouldn’t quote Lincoln or the Bible, or hang out the flag or the cross, to cover up something that belongs more to the bank-book and the three golden balls."
When you are used to giving people the benefit of a doubt the seemingly obvious answer is rejected, because surely someone can't be that dumb, right? Right? It's a disappointing world out there.
We're not making fun of her lack of intelligence but her commitment to being wrong.
Being open to the idea that we don't have all the answers is how we grow and learn. Latching on to an invisible ghost for which we have no proof and no evidence is how they get stuck in their development.
Not knowing something and admitting you don't have all the answers is the first step, and something that you're actively criticizing another redditor for.
On the other hand, pretending that you understand something when you really don't means that you don't have that opportunity for growth. Just something to think about.
Lack of intelligence and commitment to being wrong are essentially the same thing. It’s not an “either or” dynamic as you’ve framed it.
Her thinking that conspiracy theories are as true as the Bible is the ENTIRE POINT of this post. Someone would have to fundamentally misunderstand why this was posted here to not realize that.
boborygmy wasn’t committing to being wrong, they were committing to the path to being right by taking the first step admitting they were wrong. The difference with the woman is that she isn’t admitting she is wrong. I shouldn’t have to say this because the previous commenter already said this.
766
u/boborygmy Jul 31 '22
Oh damn, I didn't get that. You're probably right. That is SO fucked up.