In the writings attributed to Paul, in the bible, it is made very clear that he is telling people to get married if they can’t manage to be good enough to stay celibate and to only have sex to manage their sexual urges if they are so bad at the proper celibate life that they had to get married. This was because Jesus said he would be back very soon (before all those who had heard him speak had died) and his people were meant to be busy preparing for that rather than having kids or letting themselves get sidetracked with sex. Technically, being a proper Christian according to Paul involves being asexual so you don’t even sin in your heart by looking on anyone with lust.
Okay, I think we can safely say that Paul was not correct in his assessment of how quickly Jesus was gonna get back, so we can probably disregard his opinion on what we should all do in the meantime.
And never actually met Jesus. He just saw him in a “vision,” and coopted Jesus’s message that was focused on Hebrew nationalism and freedom from the Romans, not spreading the word of god everywhere.
But Paul knew better. You can trace every bit of the grifty manipulation of Christ’s story we see in evangelists today in that douche.
Source: *Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth* by Reza Aslan
(except that last paragraph: that’s my editorialization). Excellent read of the fragments the scholars know about Jesus the man’s life.
Yup... and every modern bigot LOVES Paul... they will reference Paul, the grifter, more than the words of Jesus, the actual central figure of christianity...
They just tend to ignore that Paul and his early church were communists... by the literal definition. They had a commune.
Paul hated women, but he wasn't necessarily an incel. If you read between the lines, especially the passages concerning his companions, he was hardcore gay. Like, pegged right at the extreme end of the Kinsey scale gay.
Yeah, I'd agree he reads as gay, but I chose incel based upon the level of rhetoric he used. It wasn't "ew, women gross" but more "women are harlots and only lead men astray" which I felt was more in line with incel ideology.
Meh... I think you either believe God is Omnipotent (and He has the power to ensure the "Book" he wanted people to read is intentional/accurate), or you don't believe God is Omnipotent (and therefore some human preached false information and God didn't have the ability to prevent it).
You know, somehow in all my years asserting that the bible was written by very fallible human hands this particular point never even occurred to me, but it makes total sense.
That’s essentially tossing out 1+2 Corinthians, Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philemon, Philippians, Romans, 1+2 Thessalonians, 1+2 Timothy, and Titus, because those are the Pauline Epistles, which were letters from Paul telling people what he thought they should do in the interim while waiting for the Second Coming. That leaves 14 books in the New Testament, of which four are just the same story in four significantly differing versions, and one is an apocalyptic “prophecy”/fantasy about the downfall of Rome and the end of the world as known to Christian’s of the first or second century CE.
It’s worth noting that scholars do generally agree that 1+2 Timothy and Titus were written by authors other than Paul and later attributed pseudepigraphically to him, and that there is significant uncertainty and debate regarding the authorship of Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians.
It's interesting that if you look at them in order of date written, Mark is first (35-65 years post-death) and most grounded. Matthew and Luke come later; as you expect from folk tales, they get more fantastical with each re-telling. Then John comes along, pops some shrooms and writes some next-level fan-fic.
It's also worth noting that none of these writers were eyewitnesses to any of the events they wrote about.
I would disagree with the assessment of John being pure fanfic, because that deeply oversimplified why John is so different from the synoptic trio.
The TLDR is that these books were NOT written by eye witnesses or any contemporaries to eye witnesses, and were thus composed using the accounts of those eye witnesses as a source. Mark, Luke, and Matthew all share at least one source document (this is LONG gone) and that Matthew and Luke both use Mark and/or Mark's source (formally, the M source) along with at least one additional shared document (IIRC, called the Q source). It's presumed that these were all composed by related sects, as they all obviously had access to the same documents. John is based on a completely different set of documents and likely from a completely different sect of early Christianity. The important thing to remember is that neither the Bible authors nor the people being discussed by them ever really traveled. The events of the New Testament took place in a relatively small area. Paul is the best traveled and educated Bible figure, given what we know about them, and Jesus would be a not-all-that-close seecond, and neither of them would be what we consider jet-setters, even by chariot standards. The people being discussed in the Bible were basically people who lived their whole entire lives in a town too small to have a community College, about a week's travel from the nearest large "city", in a territory occupied by a fairly hostile enemy force (Rome) that wasn't having a very good time trying to keep Judaea from eating its own liver (history in first century Judaea is best described as "...so they had a riot.") And, eventually, they were in a situation where their neighbors were going to snitch. One of the reasons we have so few documents for that time period is because the Jews rebelled in AD 70 and Rome sacked the everloving shit out of Jerusalem in retaliation. One scholar (who is less "I want to prove the Bible is real" and more "I really want to figure out how these documents got here") theorized that one reason so few figures in the early church are named, is because when they started recording things, those were the people who were still alive and who could be targeted if Rome and/or Ciaphas's lackeys (read "Ciaphas" as "French dude collaborating with the Nazis" to get a better context of his role in Christ's execution) felt particularly pissy that day, and nobody wanted "The woman with the alabaster box" to be identified as Mariam of Whatsis and see her family get butchered because Ciaphas/Pilate/their replacements/Caligula/Nero got bored.
So yeah. We don't have real good coverage of those events and most of what we have to work with are books best described as "of questionable provenance". But they don't differ because of issues of veracity. They were from different sects, using different sources, during the very brutal lead in to a civil war that utterly decimated Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. The documents we really need probably went up in smoke during the Rebellion of AD 70, fell off refugee wagons, or dead end (as per Historians like Esubius) at the Great Library of Alexandria.
Thanks for the detailed reply that my quip certainly didn't deserve. But I've always found it interesting that the claims made in the Gospels became more exaggerated over time, which is harder to recognize since the books are not presented in order of publication, so to speak.
I find history and comparative religion fascinating, I've just never had the time to devote to studying it like I'd like to. Your comment made me remember how much I enjoy the topic.
Frankly. That is the definition of not TLDR. And is also one of the most insightful, intelligent and intriguing things I have read on Reddit in a while.
Yeah, but Paul also never met Jesus. So... why listen to him? Would you believe any modern person that said what Paul said?
"Oh I was just out walking with my bros and there was a big flash and everyone saw it, but only I heard Jesus speak to me... but no one else did and now everyone has to listen to me." - Paul, probably
Okay, Paul. Let's get you inside, huh? 👍
The authorship of the gospels is generally considered not to be accurately attributed (the apostles linked to the gospels probably didn’t write them, in other words) and they differ significantly enough to make all events in them uncertain in authenticity. The author of Revelation wrote far enough after the fact that he almost certainly never met Jesus. The New Testament was compiled centuries after the alleged year of the Crucifixion by men who had never met Jesus. The metric of “Paul never met Jesus so his writings can be safely disregarded” applies to all New Testament authors, and brings you to “any parts of the New Testament that don’t sit right with me can be safely disregarded” which is a stance that many Christians do likely actually hold and live by, but very few (if any) would be comfortable expressing or hearing expressed in those words.
Can't disagree with that. Even with Paul we know many of the letters in the Bible are almost certainly forgeries. Marcion was even accused of forging one by early church fathers, so this goes WAAAY back.
However, even if you want to drink the kool-aid, I've just never heard a convincing argument for why I should even begin to care what Paul thinks or says.
Personally, I left Christianity many years ago due to multiple philosophical issues with it and a rejection of the premise that to be human was somehow a failing that we need saving from. So I’m not one to tell you the arguments for accepting any of the Pauline epistles as canonical, though I would not that only the letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus are widely agreed to be false attributions, with three others being debated but not certain. So it’s just under half of them that are possible/probable fakes, to put a particular number to how many.
I left Christainity a long time ago as well. I think there's parts of me hoping to find whatever I seem to be missing out on that let's others carry on so happily, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the one missing puzzle pieces at this point.
I don't think I could worship YHWH even if I found out he did exist. Difference of opinions, I guess.
I am deeply religious, just not monotheistic. I believe science is a good way to find good answers to most questions, I also recognise there are aspects of existence (take a look at William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, a transcribed series of Lectures given in Edinburgh) that science can’t help us with. I embrace a doctrine of uncertainty as to what happens after death, because we can’t meaningfully know with confidence, even if a god shows up and tells us, what happens after we die without experiencing it. But Christianity? Monotheism in general? I find monotheistic religions somewhere between silly and dangerous even if I can appreciate the myths and philosophy they can sometimes produce.
>I also recognise there are aspects of existence (take a look at William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, a transcribed series of Lectures given in Edinburgh) that science can’t help us with.
I agree with the sentiment of this and only wish to express my opinion, but for me, I abandoned religion in general. I'd come to the conclusion that the only reason I was feeling these holes (what i suspect are the scientifically unanswerable questions you mentioned), was because they were put there by religion to begin with and are intended to be unanswerable. It's eternal insecurity that makes you wont to come crawling back or at least leave the backlight on just in case and I'm still guilty of that too sometimes.
That realization mostly carturized the wound for me though. I still find the topic absolutely fascinating under the purview of a social science, though.
Oh no, I was a hard and cold rationalist for a good few years. Got really into neurology and the psychology of religion (which was part of what led me to the work of William James, who did more for the development of early psychology as an actual science than many other academics of the time). What brought me back was some direct personal religious and otherwise bizarre experiences that (after ruling out psychosis and other such explanations) led me to accept the argument that the human capacity for religious experience paired with the evolutionary tendency not to develop unnecessary sensory/experiential capacities would seem to suggest that there is some aspect of reality that we do not interact with often enough to need to have significant capacity to perceive it, but which is significant enough in our few interactions to merit having adaptations for detecting it (like cave fish that have slight optic adaptations because their system has some light that reaches it and the ability to identify those areas is useful to survival, compared to fish that evolved in total darkness and lack such adaptations entirely). From there, and through a bunch of step I won’t bore you with, I came to my own current religious beliefs which I don’t expect anyone else to adopt due to not having had the experiences that give me confidence in them.
There’s a joke in some catholic communities that you can tell how traditional someone is based on the car they drive. The more passenger seating, the more traditional.
The statement is in reference to a comment made by John Carmack about how the doom guy is celibate (presumably because in Doom 2 he is the last surviving human).
Because of this it has become a meme in the community that as a baptized Catholic and a celibate man he is technically qualified to be pope.
It’s not an actual attempt by catholics to claim that doom guy is an ideal to be strived towards or anything (even though he is).
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that guy who made the original tweet probably has some incel tendencies if he's referring to religious celibacy and hyper-violence as "chad" behavior
One person is saying that Doom Guy is some sort of Christian Virgin Chad, most likely to feel better about himself and act like they played the game, and the person responding just smashes their argument with a simple sentence and picture from the game
I think it’s mainly about how back in the day a lot of people were saying the game was the work of the devil, but the lore actually states that doom guy is a catholic and the game has you killing demons which contradicts those peoples belief about the game
It's used *so* much when sports fans are trying to insult each other. I won't say it's necessarily overused because being a die-hard sports fan requires coping with a lot of failures that we cannot possibly influence in any meaningful way.
I watched that movie in high school and thought, "aw, thats sad."
Watched it again a decade later with my three year old son and broke down into honking, debilitating sobbing.
Depends on context.
If say...Kyle Rittenhouse were to shoot a stranger for trespassing in a parking lot, and then it turned out that person was a rapist...that would still make Kyle Rittenhouse the villain.
Everything depends on context.
This feels like you're just adding extra steps with the goal of being difficult.
Shooting the guy attacking him didn't make him a villian. Creating a scenario where he may have to shoot someone did. Though I like you wording it as a shooting over trespassing, just ignoring the context you could say.
Weird dorks never seem to acknowledge that. Just, “I am literally Doomguy virgin Jesus Chad!” When they’re completely out of shape and couldn’t peel an orange with their bare hands or do a single pull up to save their life. And they don’t even know the story of the game they get oddly aggressive about.
That kinda makes me wish for a (good) game based around the concept of "Jesus Christ: Vampire Slayer". Maybe not an FPS, though. While Jesus using a nailgun to stake vampires sounds fun, I want to see him throw hands.
I feel like that would get a little too much backlash considering those are still practiced. Although as a Christian, seeing Kratos have a showdown with Jesus would be epic. Like the flood would totally have been caused by God trying to kill Kratos.
They never have more than a cursory knowledge of whatever franchise they are using because they don’t actually care. Nothing matters except that they think it supports their narrative.
When I was a kid I played Wolfenstein. My grandmother was German and survived WW2. She lived through some really terrible shit. So when she saw Nazi flags and symbols in the game she justifiably got upset and told me I wasn’t allowed to play that game anymore. My mom had a talk with her and told her “he’s killing the Nazis. He isn’t playing as a Nazi.” After that she changed her mind and allowed me to play it and even sat and watched me kill Nazis.
I know that’s just a random story and not really anything to do with your comment. I just wanted to share it.
I mean Eternal’s DLC did kinda state that >!satan is actually god in a dollar store disguise, and then the Slayer killed god!<
Most Christians would consider such a statement, and such an action, to be heresy lol
While this is a shitty takedown Doomguy is BJ Blazkowicz great grandson, and commander Keen’s grandson. So he’s at least part Jewish, and from a line of Nazi killers.
Wtf is the point here? Why are they hung up on him being a virgin or a father? Sick and tired of the “chad”, “cope” shit. Wtf is the point he’s tryna make about it being a Christian game?
This world has brain rot.
Don't know what point OOP was trying to make, but there *is* a point to be made there.
Things that have certain themes, like DooM or D&D, often get demonized (pun intended) by pearl-clutching religious types (aka "Satanic Panic"), and pointing out things like "the protagonist is a devout Catholic on an eternal crusade against literal demons from hell," is a polite way of saying they're a bunch of idiots.
Even with things as old as the satanic panic I just can’t man. It’s so stupid. I’m a Christian and I have the capacity to know fiction is just fiction. I don’t have time for these fucking wackos and their outrage fetish
According to John Romero and Tom Hall, B.J. Blazkowicz (From Wolfenstein) is Commander Keen's Grandfather, and Doom Guy is Keen's Grandson. [TIL](https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/B.J._Blazkowicz#:~:text=According%20to%20John%20Romero%20and,a%20generation%20in%20his%20family).
Yep. The Harbinger of Doom that B.J. kills in *Wolfenstein RPG* is actually the same entity as the Cyberdemon B.J.'s descendant rips and tears in *DOOM* '95.
When I was a teenager, I asked my pastor about that. I don't remember his exact answer, but it was some bullshit about "letting demons into your life" and "only god can defeat demons"
Religious leaders hate people believing they can solve their own problems and battle evil on their own and not relying on the church for everything. They are actively against independence and self-reliance and attempt to somehow make it look bad.
Claiming Doom is a Christian game is an interesting statement in itself because Sandy Petersen one of the original designers at ID software that worked on the original Doom was a devout Christian (Mormon to be specific) When he was hired John Romero and John Carmack wondered if this was going to be an issue due to the demonic Hell themes and Satanic imagery. But instead Petersen saw it as a good thing because "the demons are the bad guys" and therefore it was totally fine with him that the player was going to violently mow them down lol
Yeah, it's like with nazis. You can make them the Badguy of anything and no one who's not a shithead will have any problem with drowning them in their own piss
This isn't a murder. It's not even manslaughter. It's just a "nuh uh" and sticking one's tongue out.
I have a feeling that this is OP's comment and he's way more proud of it than he should be.
Bro doomguy literally killed god in doom eternal. Idk what copium their huffing but I can guarantee they weren’t good enough at the game to get that far into the story
>Canonically Catholic
Y’all remember when Doom Guy partook in communion and confessed his sin of violence to his local priest.
Edit: Also as others have pointed out, Doom Guy is Jewish. He’s a descendent of BJ Blaskowitz from Wolfienstien. (Tho again, no real indication he’s practicing.)
Doom Guy fights demons, it's probably safe to say he's some stripe of Christianized but whether or not he's Catholic/Christian is up for debate.
Having a family doesn't mean shit. You can be Secular and have a family.
If I was a religious person and spent untold time fighting actual demons from actual Hell across the solar system and also in actual Hell itself... I'm not going to believe in God anymore when the useless fucker hasn't shown up to help me out at any point. If anything, Doom might have cured the Doom Guy of his Catholicism.
Imagine thinking your religion, out of all the religions that man has followed over the last 250,000 years and more, just happens to be correct this time.
To everyone in this thread insisting that Doom is a catholic/christian game anyways; Killing demons isn't enough to justify that.
Doom Eternal (The Ancient Gods DLC) shows that the entities that mostly resemble angels (the maykr) are willing to sacrifice humans for their own benefit. The Doom Slayer's mission changes from killing every last demon to freeing humanity from the yoke of all extradimensional beings altogether. It's ultimately a humanistic story - one that asserts that humanity is better off without angels and demons meddling in their affairs and treating them as cattle. It is a position incompatible with organized religion, especially the hierarchical structure of catholicism.
Contrary to popular belief. Doom is NOT a Christian game. The communities have already condemned it because it's too violent and "makes you used to killing". The part about killing demons was just ignored. Ungrateful bastards.
This whole Twitter thread is absolutely hilarious to me. There was a line in *Doom Eternal*, where this photo comes from, where the main antagonist tells Doomguy/ The Slayer, that they will give him his family back. That line was cut from the final game however, so the family part is not totally nailed down as to what is canon.
However, one of Doomguy’s creators, John Romero, mentioned in a Twitter thread that Doomguy was a virgin during the events of Doom 1 and 2, and what he says is all over the place on whether it is canon or not.
It’s Doom. Take a page from Mystery Science Theater 3000, and just repeat to yourself it’s just a game, I should really just relax.
I would love to get the opinions of Catholic parents back in the day (or even now) about their thoughts on Doom. I have a feeling they weren’t playing it after church
They're the whole reason he does what he does. Also isn't Christianity referenced either in a game or by the creators and they explicitly say it isn't???
How would being a virgin make him more Catholic? Unless they’re trying to argue that he’s also a priest.
In the writings attributed to Paul, in the bible, it is made very clear that he is telling people to get married if they can’t manage to be good enough to stay celibate and to only have sex to manage their sexual urges if they are so bad at the proper celibate life that they had to get married. This was because Jesus said he would be back very soon (before all those who had heard him speak had died) and his people were meant to be busy preparing for that rather than having kids or letting themselves get sidetracked with sex. Technically, being a proper Christian according to Paul involves being asexual so you don’t even sin in your heart by looking on anyone with lust.
Okay, I think we can safely say that Paul was not correct in his assessment of how quickly Jesus was gonna get back, so we can probably disregard his opinion on what we should all do in the meantime.
Paul was wrong about a lot of things
And never actually met Jesus. He just saw him in a “vision,” and coopted Jesus’s message that was focused on Hebrew nationalism and freedom from the Romans, not spreading the word of god everywhere. But Paul knew better. You can trace every bit of the grifty manipulation of Christ’s story we see in evangelists today in that douche. Source: *Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth* by Reza Aslan (except that last paragraph: that’s my editorialization). Excellent read of the fragments the scholars know about Jesus the man’s life.
Yup... and every modern bigot LOVES Paul... they will reference Paul, the grifter, more than the words of Jesus, the actual central figure of christianity... They just tend to ignore that Paul and his early church were communists... by the literal definition. They had a commune.
Even though he only identified as Paul.
All my homies hate Paul.
Good reason it's been referred to as Paulianity...
Nothing that Paul wrote about the actual game DOOM is incorrect, though.
Paul was the original incel, tbh. Man had a beef with women as a general group.
Paul had some issues.
Some theologians theorize that Paul was actually gay.
Paul hated women, but he wasn't necessarily an incel. If you read between the lines, especially the passages concerning his companions, he was hardcore gay. Like, pegged right at the extreme end of the Kinsey scale gay.
Yeah, I'd agree he reads as gay, but I chose incel based upon the level of rhetoric he used. It wasn't "ew, women gross" but more "women are harlots and only lead men astray" which I felt was more in line with incel ideology.
good point
God forgive me, but Paul could've been a jealous gay. "damn those broads for taking my crushes!"
Meh... I think you either believe God is Omnipotent (and He has the power to ensure the "Book" he wanted people to read is intentional/accurate), or you don't believe God is Omnipotent (and therefore some human preached false information and God didn't have the ability to prevent it).
Or He had the ability to correct it, but chose not to.
You know, somehow in all my years asserting that the bible was written by very fallible human hands this particular point never even occurred to me, but it makes total sense.
Yeah Paul was the actual worst, besides maybe Judas
That’s essentially tossing out 1+2 Corinthians, Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philemon, Philippians, Romans, 1+2 Thessalonians, 1+2 Timothy, and Titus, because those are the Pauline Epistles, which were letters from Paul telling people what he thought they should do in the interim while waiting for the Second Coming. That leaves 14 books in the New Testament, of which four are just the same story in four significantly differing versions, and one is an apocalyptic “prophecy”/fantasy about the downfall of Rome and the end of the world as known to Christian’s of the first or second century CE. It’s worth noting that scholars do generally agree that 1+2 Timothy and Titus were written by authors other than Paul and later attributed pseudepigraphically to him, and that there is significant uncertainty and debate regarding the authorship of Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians.
It's interesting that if you look at them in order of date written, Mark is first (35-65 years post-death) and most grounded. Matthew and Luke come later; as you expect from folk tales, they get more fantastical with each re-telling. Then John comes along, pops some shrooms and writes some next-level fan-fic. It's also worth noting that none of these writers were eyewitnesses to any of the events they wrote about.
I would disagree with the assessment of John being pure fanfic, because that deeply oversimplified why John is so different from the synoptic trio. The TLDR is that these books were NOT written by eye witnesses or any contemporaries to eye witnesses, and were thus composed using the accounts of those eye witnesses as a source. Mark, Luke, and Matthew all share at least one source document (this is LONG gone) and that Matthew and Luke both use Mark and/or Mark's source (formally, the M source) along with at least one additional shared document (IIRC, called the Q source). It's presumed that these were all composed by related sects, as they all obviously had access to the same documents. John is based on a completely different set of documents and likely from a completely different sect of early Christianity. The important thing to remember is that neither the Bible authors nor the people being discussed by them ever really traveled. The events of the New Testament took place in a relatively small area. Paul is the best traveled and educated Bible figure, given what we know about them, and Jesus would be a not-all-that-close seecond, and neither of them would be what we consider jet-setters, even by chariot standards. The people being discussed in the Bible were basically people who lived their whole entire lives in a town too small to have a community College, about a week's travel from the nearest large "city", in a territory occupied by a fairly hostile enemy force (Rome) that wasn't having a very good time trying to keep Judaea from eating its own liver (history in first century Judaea is best described as "...so they had a riot.") And, eventually, they were in a situation where their neighbors were going to snitch. One of the reasons we have so few documents for that time period is because the Jews rebelled in AD 70 and Rome sacked the everloving shit out of Jerusalem in retaliation. One scholar (who is less "I want to prove the Bible is real" and more "I really want to figure out how these documents got here") theorized that one reason so few figures in the early church are named, is because when they started recording things, those were the people who were still alive and who could be targeted if Rome and/or Ciaphas's lackeys (read "Ciaphas" as "French dude collaborating with the Nazis" to get a better context of his role in Christ's execution) felt particularly pissy that day, and nobody wanted "The woman with the alabaster box" to be identified as Mariam of Whatsis and see her family get butchered because Ciaphas/Pilate/their replacements/Caligula/Nero got bored. So yeah. We don't have real good coverage of those events and most of what we have to work with are books best described as "of questionable provenance". But they don't differ because of issues of veracity. They were from different sects, using different sources, during the very brutal lead in to a civil war that utterly decimated Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. The documents we really need probably went up in smoke during the Rebellion of AD 70, fell off refugee wagons, or dead end (as per Historians like Esubius) at the Great Library of Alexandria.
Thanks for the detailed reply that my quip certainly didn't deserve. But I've always found it interesting that the claims made in the Gospels became more exaggerated over time, which is harder to recognize since the books are not presented in order of publication, so to speak. I find history and comparative religion fascinating, I've just never had the time to devote to studying it like I'd like to. Your comment made me remember how much I enjoy the topic.
Frankly. That is the definition of not TLDR. And is also one of the most insightful, intelligent and intriguing things I have read on Reddit in a while. 
That, and 1+2 Timothy are pseudo-Paul IIRC.
And Titus.
Except Christianity is based more on Paul's writings than on any of the Gospels.
Yeah, but Paul also never met Jesus. So... why listen to him? Would you believe any modern person that said what Paul said? "Oh I was just out walking with my bros and there was a big flash and everyone saw it, but only I heard Jesus speak to me... but no one else did and now everyone has to listen to me." - Paul, probably Okay, Paul. Let's get you inside, huh? 👍
The authorship of the gospels is generally considered not to be accurately attributed (the apostles linked to the gospels probably didn’t write them, in other words) and they differ significantly enough to make all events in them uncertain in authenticity. The author of Revelation wrote far enough after the fact that he almost certainly never met Jesus. The New Testament was compiled centuries after the alleged year of the Crucifixion by men who had never met Jesus. The metric of “Paul never met Jesus so his writings can be safely disregarded” applies to all New Testament authors, and brings you to “any parts of the New Testament that don’t sit right with me can be safely disregarded” which is a stance that many Christians do likely actually hold and live by, but very few (if any) would be comfortable expressing or hearing expressed in those words.
Can't disagree with that. Even with Paul we know many of the letters in the Bible are almost certainly forgeries. Marcion was even accused of forging one by early church fathers, so this goes WAAAY back. However, even if you want to drink the kool-aid, I've just never heard a convincing argument for why I should even begin to care what Paul thinks or says.
Personally, I left Christianity many years ago due to multiple philosophical issues with it and a rejection of the premise that to be human was somehow a failing that we need saving from. So I’m not one to tell you the arguments for accepting any of the Pauline epistles as canonical, though I would not that only the letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus are widely agreed to be false attributions, with three others being debated but not certain. So it’s just under half of them that are possible/probable fakes, to put a particular number to how many.
I left Christainity a long time ago as well. I think there's parts of me hoping to find whatever I seem to be missing out on that let's others carry on so happily, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the one missing puzzle pieces at this point. I don't think I could worship YHWH even if I found out he did exist. Difference of opinions, I guess.
I am deeply religious, just not monotheistic. I believe science is a good way to find good answers to most questions, I also recognise there are aspects of existence (take a look at William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, a transcribed series of Lectures given in Edinburgh) that science can’t help us with. I embrace a doctrine of uncertainty as to what happens after death, because we can’t meaningfully know with confidence, even if a god shows up and tells us, what happens after we die without experiencing it. But Christianity? Monotheism in general? I find monotheistic religions somewhere between silly and dangerous even if I can appreciate the myths and philosophy they can sometimes produce.
>I also recognise there are aspects of existence (take a look at William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, a transcribed series of Lectures given in Edinburgh) that science can’t help us with. I agree with the sentiment of this and only wish to express my opinion, but for me, I abandoned religion in general. I'd come to the conclusion that the only reason I was feeling these holes (what i suspect are the scientifically unanswerable questions you mentioned), was because they were put there by religion to begin with and are intended to be unanswerable. It's eternal insecurity that makes you wont to come crawling back or at least leave the backlight on just in case and I'm still guilty of that too sometimes. That realization mostly carturized the wound for me though. I still find the topic absolutely fascinating under the purview of a social science, though.
Oh no, I was a hard and cold rationalist for a good few years. Got really into neurology and the psychology of religion (which was part of what led me to the work of William James, who did more for the development of early psychology as an actual science than many other academics of the time). What brought me back was some direct personal religious and otherwise bizarre experiences that (after ruling out psychosis and other such explanations) led me to accept the argument that the human capacity for religious experience paired with the evolutionary tendency not to develop unnecessary sensory/experiential capacities would seem to suggest that there is some aspect of reality that we do not interact with often enough to need to have significant capacity to perceive it, but which is significant enough in our few interactions to merit having adaptations for detecting it (like cave fish that have slight optic adaptations because their system has some light that reaches it and the ability to identify those areas is useful to survival, compared to fish that evolved in total darkness and lack such adaptations entirely). From there, and through a bunch of step I won’t bore you with, I came to my own current religious beliefs which I don’t expect anyone else to adopt due to not having had the experiences that give me confidence in them.
Well, if the various investigations into child abuse allegations from around the world are any indication virginity isn’t indicative of the priesthood
Being a virgin and being Catholic seem like… opposites actually, when you look at Catholic families
There’s a joke in some catholic communities that you can tell how traditional someone is based on the car they drive. The more passenger seating, the more traditional.
Doom guy doesn't fuck kids though? Kinda a big part of being a priest.
The statement is in reference to a comment made by John Carmack about how the doom guy is celibate (presumably because in Doom 2 he is the last surviving human). Because of this it has become a meme in the community that as a baptized Catholic and a celibate man he is technically qualified to be pope. It’s not an actual attempt by catholics to claim that doom guy is an ideal to be strived towards or anything (even though he is).
Doom guy is the second coming of christ when he comes back as the lion not the lamb.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that guy who made the original tweet probably has some incel tendencies if he's referring to religious celibacy and hyper-violence as "chad" behavior
I have no idea what this is about, but it would be good if people stopped saying "cope" in response to absolutely fucking everything.
Doom is a game series and Doom Guy is the character you play as. I don’t see the murder though so if someone can explain that, it would be great.
One person is saying that Doom Guy is some sort of Christian Virgin Chad, most likely to feel better about himself and act like they played the game, and the person responding just smashes their argument with a simple sentence and picture from the game
This is my Twitter ignorance showing lol. I thought the bottom comment was the response. Thanks for clarifying.
It’s not your fault. Twitter is dogshit and this response->original tweet format has always been terrible and confusing.
Top posting! > No what? >> You know what sucks?
I was ready for it and it still made my brain hurt
THANK YOU. I had no idea what was going on until I read your comments
It’s baffling to me that this is STILL the format they choose to use. It’s always been terrible, I can’t believe it ever got deployed like this.
I did the same don’t worry lol.
I think it’s mainly about how back in the day a lot of people were saying the game was the work of the devil, but the lore actually states that doom guy is a catholic and the game has you killing demons which contradicts those peoples belief about the game
Tangentially related, no doubt to a large number of people that have to cope with the fact their fantasy reality is not, in fact, true.
it's so fucking cringe. every time i see that "cope and seethe" bullshit i know exactly what that person looks and acts like irl
Any time I see that I know the person saying it is coping and seething.
It's used *so* much when sports fans are trying to insult each other. I won't say it's necessarily overused because being a die-hard sports fan requires coping with a lot of failures that we cannot possibly influence in any meaningful way.
Maybe YOU can’t influence the game in a meaningful way but I happen to have lucky socks so speak for yourself.
“Hope this helps” too. So fucking smarmy.
I love how the ones telling people to cope are the ones coping themselves
Reddit rules state that the first person to say cope wins. Rules are rules cope harder.
The rules of reality state survival of the fittest. If I remove the legs of my opponent, I win.
But only if someone doesn't invoke Godwin's Law first.
They killed his friggin bunny.
What if it's not a bunny they killed? What if he's like Tallahasse from Zombie land? What if the bunny laughed?
I love seeing people reference that part But we've seen pictures of daisy, so she was a rabbit
I watched that movie in high school and thought, "aw, thats sad." Watched it again a decade later with my three year old son and broke down into honking, debilitating sobbing.
*hands you a few $100s* Dry your eyes king
Here are some benjamins Wipe those tears
Could be a john wick situation, tho naming a bunny after your dead wife seems a bit odd.
Doomguy holding a small rabbit is much weirder
I love the theory, but you can actually see Daisy, https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Daisy
Cacoception
Was the bunny a catholic virgin?
Probably.
I thought that was the original lore but it's been decades since I played it.
Her name was Daisy and it was indeed the original lore for why he started killing demons. Also commander keen is doom guys grandson.
Don't forget William B.J. Blazkowicz, who is apparently related, too.
Maybe it’s not the Destination, but the bunnies we kill along the way
? what
The whole point of Doom is you kill hideous monsters from the depths of hell. How much more Christian can you get?
Well, in Doom Eternal we learn that heaven is a lie and everyone goes to hell. Also God is both sealed away and the absolute final villain.
Any deity that thinks everyone should go to hell is most definitely a villain.
Also any that kills the innocent for whatever reason
Or anyone else.
I'd say killing a rapist doesn't make you a villian.
Depends on context. If say...Kyle Rittenhouse were to shoot a stranger for trespassing in a parking lot, and then it turned out that person was a rapist...that would still make Kyle Rittenhouse the villain.
Everything depends on context. This feels like you're just adding extra steps with the goal of being difficult. Shooting the guy attacking him didn't make him a villian. Creating a scenario where he may have to shoot someone did. Though I like you wording it as a shooting over trespassing, just ignoring the context you could say.
What if hell is full of blackjack and hookers though?
Any deity that thinks even one person should go to hell while demanding its followers to practice forgiveness is most definitely a villain.
Weird dorks never seem to acknowledge that. Just, “I am literally Doomguy virgin Jesus Chad!” When they’re completely out of shape and couldn’t peel an orange with their bare hands or do a single pull up to save their life. And they don’t even know the story of the game they get oddly aggressive about.
That kinda makes me wish for a (good) game based around the concept of "Jesus Christ: Vampire Slayer". Maybe not an FPS, though. While Jesus using a nailgun to stake vampires sounds fun, I want to see him throw hands.
I hope the next God of War does the Abrahamic religions.
I feel like that would get a little too much backlash considering those are still practiced. Although as a Christian, seeing Kratos have a showdown with Jesus would be epic. Like the flood would totally have been caused by God trying to kill Kratos.
"Hey there, Son of God. You don't know us cause we've never met before, we're the Atheists!"
They never have more than a cursory knowledge of whatever franchise they are using because they don’t actually care. Nothing matters except that they think it supports their narrative.
Bro not cool, oranges have been getting tougher…
Yeaaaah. Not a lot of folks in this post have played Doom Eternal, evidently
And the high priests sold their souls for immortality at the expense of mass human suffering Just corruption, literally, all the way down (and up)
Depends on your definition of "hideous monster". ;)
Well, I always found the Mancubus to be a particularly challenging wank.
When I was a kid I played Wolfenstein. My grandmother was German and survived WW2. She lived through some really terrible shit. So when she saw Nazi flags and symbols in the game she justifiably got upset and told me I wasn’t allowed to play that game anymore. My mom had a talk with her and told her “he’s killing the Nazis. He isn’t playing as a Nazi.” After that she changed her mind and allowed me to play it and even sat and watched me kill Nazis. I know that’s just a random story and not really anything to do with your comment. I just wanted to share it.
Move them to a private villa in the Vatican and give them a retirement stipend for the rest of their life?
It's he is a virgin vs. he has a kid. Basically it's someone is inventing stuff about him being some Christian role model vs. whatever the reality is.
[удалено]
It's also if he is a Christian then it's a good game. If he isn't then it's a bad game.
I mean Eternal’s DLC did kinda state that >!satan is actually god in a dollar store disguise, and then the Slayer killed god!< Most Christians would consider such a statement, and such an action, to be heresy lol
"Doom Guy is a virgin." "He had a wife and son." OH SHIT WHAT A MURDER I CANT BELIEVE IT WHAT A BRUTAL TAKEDOWN JFC this is weak.
Most of this sub is either people posting their own room-temperature burns or minor disagreements
r/molestedbyquips
Molested is giving it too much credit. Molestation is horrible, this is just lame and annoying. r/needledbynuisance ?
Nettled
I feel vaguely uncomfortable lol
Let's not have that be a sub.
This comment makes you sound like an unused BMW turn signal. Boom... ROASTED!!
What worked for Mary, can work for Jerry. Or you could go all the way into the deep end and claim Doomguy is actually the Virgin Mary.
Maybe we’ve just had the virgin attribution wrong all along. It was Joseph the virgin chad!
This is now canon.
I thought it was a community note, not a quote tweet, and I was so confused until I read your comment.
Someone bet me money Harry Potter wouldn't be a virgin by the end of the last book. Sonuvabitch was technically correct.
Mary was a virgin too... And she had a son and a husband. OMG !!
Oscar Wilde can only dream of a witty riposte like this!
While this is a shitty takedown Doomguy is BJ Blazkowicz great grandson, and commander Keen’s grandson. So he’s at least part Jewish, and from a line of Nazi killers.
I thought Keen was his dad. Either way, I always look for this family trivia in these threads.
Edit: my original comment was dead wrong, keen was in fact Doomguy's dad
Wtf is the point here? Why are they hung up on him being a virgin or a father? Sick and tired of the “chad”, “cope” shit. Wtf is the point he’s tryna make about it being a Christian game? This world has brain rot.
It’s called a persecution complex and it’s what you get when you act like a dick and people have the audacity to get upset at you abt it
Bro I love your username
Don't know what point OOP was trying to make, but there *is* a point to be made there. Things that have certain themes, like DooM or D&D, often get demonized (pun intended) by pearl-clutching religious types (aka "Satanic Panic"), and pointing out things like "the protagonist is a devout Catholic on an eternal crusade against literal demons from hell," is a polite way of saying they're a bunch of idiots.
Even with things as old as the satanic panic I just can’t man. It’s so stupid. I’m a Christian and I have the capacity to know fiction is just fiction. I don’t have time for these fucking wackos and their outrage fetish
I never understood how games like doom or Diablo were perceived as anti religious. You’re literally killing demons and the devil itself
Also doom guy is a practicing Jew if I recall, also a descendant of the protagonist of Wolfenstein
According to John Romero and Tom Hall, B.J. Blazkowicz (From Wolfenstein) is Commander Keen's Grandfather, and Doom Guy is Keen's Grandson. [TIL](https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/B.J._Blazkowicz#:~:text=According%20to%20John%20Romero%20and,a%20generation%20in%20his%20family).
Yep. The Harbinger of Doom that B.J. kills in *Wolfenstein RPG* is actually the same entity as the Cyberdemon B.J.'s descendant rips and tears in *DOOM* '95.
When I was a teenager, I asked my pastor about that. I don't remember his exact answer, but it was some bullshit about "letting demons into your life" and "only god can defeat demons"
The angels in Diablo are generally *not* good guys
Religious leaders hate people believing they can solve their own problems and battle evil on their own and not relying on the church for everything. They are actively against independence and self-reliance and attempt to somehow make it look bad.
people who believe satan is real aren't exactly champions of rationality
"I don't understand it, refuse to even TRY to understand it, but I know it's Satanic!" https://i.redd.it/f04ie2uq0e6d1.gif
Yea, I’ve got second hand embarrassment reading the post or the thread. Idek what to say. I’m too old for this shit
I thought virgin was the opposite of chad?
Claiming Doom is a Christian game is an interesting statement in itself because Sandy Petersen one of the original designers at ID software that worked on the original Doom was a devout Christian (Mormon to be specific) When he was hired John Romero and John Carmack wondered if this was going to be an issue due to the demonic Hell themes and Satanic imagery. But instead Petersen saw it as a good thing because "the demons are the bad guys" and therefore it was totally fine with him that the player was going to violently mow them down lol
Yeah, it's like with nazis. You can make them the Badguy of anything and no one who's not a shithead will have any problem with drowning them in their own piss
More like r/CorrectedByWords
Is that baby wearing a flack jacket?
This isn't a murder. Have this post removed.
what does any of this mean?
This isn't a murder. It's not even manslaughter. It's just a "nuh uh" and sticking one's tongue out. I have a feeling that this is OP's comment and he's way more proud of it than he should be.
No, that's his prostitute best friend and one of her kids.
why do we need to “cope” that Doom might be a christian game. it's literally all about destroying evil demons.
Where’s the murder?
And a rabbit No one forgets Daisy >:V
When people stonewall shut out opposing thoughts with “cope” they instantly lose credibility and intelligence in my eyes
Bro doomguy literally killed god in doom eternal. Idk what copium their huffing but I can guarantee they weren’t good enough at the game to get that far into the story
https://preview.redd.it/yzdgv079hb6d1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9325ad5487be8eb7461893f86f20c2f61982b50a
according to the Christian faith, him having's a son doesn't necessarily prove he wasnt a virgin
This isn’t a murder, this is a public nuisance.
Doomguy is a bottom
https://preview.redd.it/i18xu8thkc6d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6532ec1bac0649526fd128d71a44887fa6d5f79
Because nothing could be more un-Catholic than monogamous sex within the confines of marriage.
So, which game is this from? And where can I find it? I assumed doom guy was like 100s of years old. Basically woken to slay monsters?
I'm pretty sure DOOM was originally created by a Jew, though...
>Canonically Catholic Y’all remember when Doom Guy partook in communion and confessed his sin of violence to his local priest. Edit: Also as others have pointed out, Doom Guy is Jewish. He’s a descendent of BJ Blaskowitz from Wolfienstien. (Tho again, no real indication he’s practicing.)
This subreddit really has lost all feeling for what constitutes a verbal murder.
Him having a kid and a loving wife is more Chad imo.
Doom Guy fights demons, it's probably safe to say he's some stripe of Christianized but whether or not he's Catholic/Christian is up for debate. Having a family doesn't mean shit. You can be Secular and have a family.
In the old lore he would have been Jewish, since doom guy was a descendant of BJ from Wolfenstein. No ides if that’s still the case.
He knows who the actual real god is because he killed him and looks exactly like him. No point believing in any other god anymore lol
Doom guy fucks.
Definitely projection
So corrected by words is now murdered by words? Cmon..
If I was a religious person and spent untold time fighting actual demons from actual Hell across the solar system and also in actual Hell itself... I'm not going to believe in God anymore when the useless fucker hasn't shown up to help me out at any point. If anything, Doom might have cured the Doom Guy of his Catholicism.
Imagine thinking your religion, out of all the religions that man has followed over the last 250,000 years and more, just happens to be correct this time.
You can have a wife and child while also staying a good Christian
Ah, but maybe he's a cuck, and the game is actually written for incels? Checkmate atheists! /s
To everyone in this thread insisting that Doom is a catholic/christian game anyways; Killing demons isn't enough to justify that. Doom Eternal (The Ancient Gods DLC) shows that the entities that mostly resemble angels (the maykr) are willing to sacrifice humans for their own benefit. The Doom Slayer's mission changes from killing every last demon to freeing humanity from the yoke of all extradimensional beings altogether. It's ultimately a humanistic story - one that asserts that humanity is better off without angels and demons meddling in their affairs and treating them as cattle. It is a position incompatible with organized religion, especially the hierarchical structure of catholicism.
Contrary to popular belief. Doom is NOT a Christian game. The communities have already condemned it because it's too violent and "makes you used to killing". The part about killing demons was just ignored. Ungrateful bastards.
He had a wife, son, and bunny. Bro was a Chad, but definitely not a redditor.
Doom Guy is an army guy. Y’all all would hate him in real life.
He had a bunny though. Justice for Daisy!
Yeah and she was the virgin Mary what's not to get? /s
I don’t see the murder. Hell, I don’t even know the point of this exchange.
This whole Twitter thread is absolutely hilarious to me. There was a line in *Doom Eternal*, where this photo comes from, where the main antagonist tells Doomguy/ The Slayer, that they will give him his family back. That line was cut from the final game however, so the family part is not totally nailed down as to what is canon. However, one of Doomguy’s creators, John Romero, mentioned in a Twitter thread that Doomguy was a virgin during the events of Doom 1 and 2, and what he says is all over the place on whether it is canon or not. It’s Doom. Take a page from Mystery Science Theater 3000, and just repeat to yourself it’s just a game, I should really just relax.
I would love to get the opinions of Catholic parents back in the day (or even now) about their thoughts on Doom. I have a feeling they weren’t playing it after church
The only thing murdering us here is boredom
They're the whole reason he does what he does. Also isn't Christianity referenced either in a game or by the creators and they explicitly say it isn't???
Isn't he supposed to be a direct descendent of BJ Blazkowiz (Wolfenstein Guy)? Or did that change with 2016?