Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Not in this context. We need a new thread.

Can you offer evidence for you position or not? Looks like I'll need to add 'evasive' to my summerisation. Contect has nothing to do with it, any argument need evidence that supports it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

By its nature the gospel message is confrontational. Hence the reason why we are at this point. Ask your friend if he has ever been given a hard time about his faith.

Nope, he never has, possibly because he never goes around antagonizing people. I have personally had many lively debates with them and he has always done his best to argue his points with evidence and a minimum of logical fallacies. The reason that you find people become short-tempered with you may have something to do woth your personality rather than your beliefs. I can't ever remeber getting annoyed with someone because of their religious beleifs, but I often get annoyed at people who are annoying because of personality defects, persection complexes, zealotry etc...

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Its still virtuous to give a placebo if its the best that you have.
Dont complain about the remedy if it works.

Why not have a placebo that hasn't caused untold suffereing? Avoiding problems by convincing yourself that a giant invisible man will sort them out may work in the short-term, but in the long term it's not going to do much good.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

To embrace the concept of God & his promises with no proof requires courage. The Bible & Christian history is replete with examples of this concept put into action. Ask your friend.

Until you show how the bible is factual this claim is redundant. It takes 'courage' to repeatedly slam your testicles into a drawer too.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I found out long ago that a person reveals what they truely are under stress. With all your smarts this is what you are reduced to when you are pressed to the limit. Humanism is but a mask you put on but we know what you really look like.

Yup, mid-length ash blone hair (although I occasionally dye it red/pink), 5'10/11, slim build (although I'm working on that) and vaguely non-descript clothes, plus my trademark coat/second skin.

I don't see why you think that I am stressed as I have merely pointed some a few of your major character flaws and suggested that you improve them so that you are able to intergrate into society with greater ease and gain some respect from the fellow board members; because if their posts in this thread are to be believed, they don't seem to have much for you currrently. Constructive criticism never hurt anyone.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Can you offer evidence for you position or not? Looks like I'll need to add 'evasive' to my summerisation. Contect has nothing to do with it, any argument need evidence that supports it.

I agree with you but my course lies in a different path than the "evidence" route.
The net offers each of us a considerable ammount of firepower but my goal has been accomplished several times over.
I am evasive but its for a reason.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

The reason that you find people become short-tempered with you may have something to do woth your personality rather than your beliefs.

My religion means having a personality that confronts the status quo.
(Matthew 5:13-14) The way I have behaved is patterned after many Biblical principals. Practice of these principals have become apart of my personality.

The same can be said of all of you.

Your tirade of descriptive words about me is a revelation of what you believe but I feel it is lost upon our audience. Perhaps not to the most perceptive readers, but my tactic thus far is to expose the the "natural man" in action. I do this in order to show what a person looks like without God & His message. Painful as this process may be this is another aspect of what my religion means to me.
Jesus suffering at the hands of his captors shows us the ugliness of human nature so that we can learn from his sacrifice. He provoked people too in debate & actions that confronted the status quo of his day.
Its a model for me as well to help people see themselves.


Look at what you think of your fellow man.
{conceited, cowardly, infruriating, dense, passive-agressive, obstinate, idiotic, bragging, self-righteous, childish, foolish zealot}

These are just some of the colorful terms thrown my way. By labeling me with such terms you are in essence saying you are none of these things &
that you are an authoritative judge of human character and what it should be.
Would a conceited person acts this way?
In dealing with mentally inferior person (idiotic), your solution isn't to help but to browbeat your fellow man. Is this a brave act?
How about self-righteousness, and zealotry. Your stand has been as strident as mine. How are you supposed to demonstrate your intelligence if you don't model by example.

We can take this to the next level. When you are ready lets continue.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

The net offers each of us a considerable ammount of firepower but my goal has been accomplished several times over.

Yup, trolling.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I am evasive but its for a reason.

See above.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

My religion means having a personality that confronts the status quo.

And what is this 'status quo'? I've met hardcore, life-long punks who are less confrontational than you.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

(Matthew 5:13-14) The way I have behaved is patterned after many Biblical principals. Practice of these principals have become apart of my personality.

13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.

So you're salty?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Your tirade of descriptive words about me is a revelation of what you believe but I feel it is lost upon our audience.

I'm saying, or in some cases repeating what everyone is thinking.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

but my tactic thus far is to expose the the "natural man" in action. I do this in order to show what a person looks like without God & His message. Painful as this process may be this is another aspect of what my religion means to me.

Am I the only one thinking 'Phelps'?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Look at what you think of your fellow man.
{conceited, cowardly, infruriating, dense, passive-agressive, obstinate, idiotic, bragging, self-righteous, childish, foolish zealot}

I don't think that about my fellow man, I just think that about you, and for good reason.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

These are just some of the colorful terms thrown my way. By labeling me with such terms you are in essence saying you are none of these things &
that you are an authoritative judge of human character and what it should be.

Nope, I'm just saying what you strike me (and I guess the majority of other people) as.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

In dealing with mentally inferior person (idiotic), your solution isn't to help but to browbeat your fellow man. Is this a brave act?

I tried to help you understand things like logic and reason but you refused my help.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

How about self-righteousness, and zealotry. Your stand has been as strident as mine. How are you supposed to demonstrate your intelligence if you don't model by example.

I've provided evidence for my positions and have said that I would change my mind if anyone could present some evidence that I was wrong. You have done the opposite.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

We can take this to the next level. When you are ready lets continue.

By all means continue to alienate others and embarres yourself if that's what your imaginary friend tells you do to. My imaginary friend tells me that you hanged yourself long ago and have done nothing but troll and give other Christians a bad name.

Quote:

We can take this to the next level.

This thread is going nowhere, largely because you refuse to provide a viewpoint or argument which runs concurrent with any definable and understandable basis. Kinkymagic and others have continually brought up points which you continually choose not to address because you clearly have no answer. The parts of discussion you do have "answers" for, are not testable and/or verifiable.

I understand why you feel the need to impress your views upon everyone that you come across but I don't condone it. Its an ego thing, not done out of earnest happiness for all, but in re-affirming and cementing your sense of religious idealogy in your own mind. This is one of the problems I have with organized religion. It makes an argument that 'truth' determines fact.

I don't believe Kinkymagic is the same as you at all. I believe he grows tired with the imbalances of your argument, which isn't really 'yours' per se, but rather an argument that was crafted by politicians and bureaucrats for the purposes of control roughly 2 thousand years ago; an argument which was never satisfactory and an argument which causes excessive strife and lack of understanding in the world.

Thats the way I see it at least.

Originally Posted by Smelnick

All I hear is BLAH BLAH BLAH!!

Please don't be frustrated because i'm not playing the game the way you want me to. We know each of us is entrenched in our own positions and really i'm not out undermine your education. You have already made up your mind before I came along.
This debate has gone on since antiquity, and you are not at a loss for the information that sustains your position.
My direction follows what my religion means to me which handles matters we have yet to tackle with sufficiency in this discussion. The matter in question is the notion of
a moral construct and how it weighs in your life. I think this is the weakest aspect of my opponents positions and thus the focal point of my direction.

Your information is strong to be sure but your practice of what you know is a different story.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Please don't be frustrated because i'm not playing the game the way you want me to. We know each of us is entrenched in our own positions and really i'm not out undermine your education. You have already made up your mind before I came along.
This debate has gone on since antiquity, and you are not at a loss for the information that sustains your position.
My direction follows what my religion means to me which handles matters we have yet to tackle with sufficiency in this discussion. The matter in question is the notion of
a moral construct and how it weighs in your life. I think this is the weakest aspect of my opponents positions and thus the focal point of my direction.

Your information is strong to be sure but your practice of what you know is a different story.

You understand that neither side of the fence has one iota of proof for what they believe, right?

That's why it's "religion" and not "fact."

Let's play a game: how many times can LordSword repeat himself in one thread? I'll give $20 to the winner who guesses right.

I feel kind of cheap just jumping in here, linking some content and running off again, but you're all already doing a great job, I'm not sure what else I could add.

I was a victim of religious childhood indoctrination, and I really enjoyed both watching this peice and reading the book.

What's probably funny is that my parents (still firmly religious) tried to stop me watching the documentary when it originally aired, and also tried to stop me getting hold of a copy of the book.

I'm sure LordSword has heard of (and probably dislikes) Richard Dawkins, and I'd agree he does seem a bit strange sometimes, but it doesn't change what he's saying.

First is a documentary that ran on TV here; and of course religious groups tried to stop it being shown =/
Part 1
Part 2

2nd is the book, which references / elaborates on certain parts of the film.
Book

Every religious person who, upon starting a discussion such as what you guys are having with but with me, has so far refused to seriously either watch the film or read the book :/

Maybe it has been said already in the thread, but I'm curious about what kind of Christian LordsSword is, and what you people are targeting exactly when talking about "Christianity".

I mean, even beyond the Catholic / Protestant schism, differences between Protestant sects can be huge. I know it's not a strict theologists discussion (lol), but still, I think it would be interesting to know what everyone has in mind when they use the word "Christian". It is, after all, a rather complex thing to define, don't you think?

Originally Posted by niki

Maybe it has been said already in the thread, but I'm curious about what kind of Christian LordsSword is, and what you people are targeting exactly when talking about "Christianity".

I mean, even beyond the Catholic / Protestant schism, differences between Protestant sects can be huge. I know it's not a strict theologists discussion (lol), but still, I think it would be interesting to know what everyone has in mind when they use the word "Christian". It is, after all, a rather complex thing to define, don't you think?

My definiton is anyone who thinks Jesus is 'magic'.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

My definiton is anyone who thinks Jesus is 'magic'.

Well, the thing there are a lot of dissensions among the people who do. Do you make any difference between them, or are all *religious* people the same, regardless of their religion ?

What of someone who doesnt actually believe Jesus was the son of God, but takes inspiration of his sayings to lead his everyday life ? Is he still religious, or can he be regarded as someone who would live by some philosopher's words ?

Jesus' words are hardly condemnable, especially in our western societies that, let's face it, are heavily influenced by the Christian philosophy, at least morally. If you reckon Jesus' teachings are good, in the end, why does it matter that someone elevates his beliefs to the notion of sacred or not ?

Originally Posted by niki

... why does it matter that someone elevates his beliefs to the notion of sacred or not ?

I could be wrong, and I agree with what you're saying, but I think he was implying the whole "song of god" thing.

You know, that Mary never had sex with anyone but...well, God I guess? I don't even know. It's a kind of silly thing for me to conceive of, so forgive me if I'm not on-spot with those details.

What Jesus taught was pretty right on. I don't think anyone really disputes that.

It's how the Christians revere him as "magic" because he is alleged to be the "Son of God." Which is cool and all, but it is a defining point of Christianity.

"Do you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior" and all that.

Originally Posted by niki

Well, the thing there are a lot of dissensions among the people who do. Do you make any difference between them, or are all *religious* people the same, regardless of their religion ?

Of course there are differences between them. I was merely giving out my definion of a Christian. What people are like is not based soley on their belief system.

Originally Posted by niki

What of someone who doesnt actually believe Jesus was the son of God, but takes inspiration of his sayings to lead his everyday life ? Is he still religious, or can he be regarded as someone who would live by some philosopher's words ?

If he doesn't beleive that Jesus was magic but agrees with him on things like nieghbourly love etc... then no, he's not particularly religious. I agree with much of what Jesus said, in the same way that I agree with much of what Siddhārtha Gautama said.

Originally Posted by niki

Jesus' words are hardly condemnable, especially in our western societies that, let's face it, are heavily influenced by the Christian philosophy, at least morally. If you reckon Jesus' teachings are good, in the end, why does it matter that someone elevates his beliefs to the notion of sacred or not ?

What is to say that all of his teachings are good? Look at how Lsword quotes from Scripture every chance he gets. Jesus might have said that you should love your neighbour, but he also said that everyone who doesn't worship him is going to hell.

Besides, if you'll accept Jesus' divinity on blind faith you'll probably accept a lot of other things too, things like creationism. If you're willing to ignore critical thinking and common sense for one thing you might as well ignore it for everything.

Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable. I guess I'm too used to those crazy Atheists out there.

I'll try to answer the initial thread question. I'm a Catholic. I am a strong defender of the feudal system as you could find it in French early to mid medieval times, at least on a coherency level. I believe that judging the Catholic dogma, and thus part of every Christian dogmas, out of this particular historical context is a nonsense, because Christian Catholicism was designed not only as a religion, but as a complete model of society.

The King is the messenger of God, and as such he must command and protect the people according to Christ's and God's sayings. The Clergy both serves the people and command the Kings according to Christ's and God's sayings. The people place their physical and spiritual salute into the King's and Clergy's hands and as such owe them part of their labor.

From this comes the justification of what we consider today silly dogmas. Christian religion, unlike others, can be seen at several levels, depending on your education and spiritual development. The uneducated peasants need their imagery of heaven and hell, and the Christian thinkers (one would be amazed at the incredible intellectual activity of those times) need it equally, at different levels. What's beautiful is that the peasant, the exalted noble and the wise clergyman all join together in this sacred imagery of Christianity in some sort of spiritual harmony, despite the classes.

After this, we can argue on the theory of the system and how it was actually applied (eventhough it's far to be as horrible as people have it pictured in school history books), but all I'm saying is that judging Christianity by today's standards alone wihout being aware of it's history is absolutely pointless.

As for me, then, I do not live in Feudal times, and as such am influenced by everything that happened in between and by my own times. I am by no mean a very devout person, in that I rarely go to church, read the bible, or even pray. I reject most of the first testament and consider hardcore creationists like somewhat confused children.

However, I indeed have Faith. The sacred imagery and spirituality of Christianity has a great place in my life, but then again, I believe it has for most of us westerners, even those criticizing it. My inner reasonings are paved of historical and religious references and I actually believe they are indeed indissociable from another.

Quote:

Christian religion, unlike others,

I was raised as in a family that is Taoist/Buddhist/ and Confucian hybrid, which later slowly taken over by a new generation of Pentecostals, but mainly because the older generation of the family has die off, but a lot of those values and philosophy remains. But what I have encounter in my upbringing neither lacks depth nor lack of history, and it also does not lack of people who believe in those belief systems. It makes me chuckles whenever westerners talks about their religion, which often horribly lacks introspection whenever it is compare to likes of Hindu or Buddhism, and held it as something of pinnacle of religious or spiritual experience.