Happy Atheist Forum

Religion does offend me a lot.
Religion DIVIDES people; kills friendship; destroys family harmony; blocks brain development!
CHEATS CHILDREN.
Promotes parasitic living.
All those vicious evils of religion should be taken very seriously and a worldwide effort to discredit it should be a daily occurrence!

I'm listening to a program about a couple being prosecuted for importing and using RU486, an abortion drug.
An old law was used, it had never been used before to prosecute a woman.
Anyway the couple was found innocent.
The obligatory christian right to lifers were there, not happy that their will had been thwarted.
These guys offend me, trying push their twisted ancient morals on the rest of us.

I have heard christians doing good work amongst the poor and no, spreading the word doesn't seem to be their driving force.
These guys don't offend me at all.

That nose has got me worried, I think I need a wider brimmed hat.

LOL!
Sorry about the nose...
I try not to sneeze while posting.

Certain aspects of religion offend me greatly. I get offended when I hear of people being judged by religious people as soon as they find out they aren't religious. I get offended when people come to my door and tell me I'm going to hell (a rare occurrence, I must say). I'm offended by the fact that millions of kids around the world are born into indoctrination before they have a chance to spread their intellectual wings. There's too many facets of religion which piss me off to write here although I will say, all the religious people I know personally are some of the most selfless and genuinely good people I've ever had the good fortune to know.
There's plenty about religion which does not offend me in the slightest.

Good points.
But ALL religions have a venomous sting, depending only on number of adherents.
As soon as a religion attains to the official stardom in a given country, evangelisation by force ensues!
My warning about [ANY] religion is to avoid supporting it with cash!

Yes it does.

Every part of my body detests it.

It does more injustice to its followers than it does me. So no, I wouldn't say it offends me, it does, however, annoy me.

Quote from: "Asmodean"It does more injustice to its followers than it does me. So no, I wouldn't say it offends me, it does, however, annoy me.

I like that point of religion doing more harm to its own supporters.
Quite true.

I wouldn't say that religion offends me, but it does worry me. Especially now that fundamentalist/evangelical Christians are getting more and more into politics. Many of them would rewrite history to make the US a Christian nation and turn it into a theocracy. And I do not want religious people making decisions for me as to what I can and cannot do.

Another concern I have about Christianity is that they are compelled to convert non-Christians by any means necessary, usually by force or some sort of coercion.

I have no problem with what people believe and if they want to believe their delusions more power to them. When religion spills over and affects me and others who don't want to be affected then I have a problem with it. Then it offends me.

Quote from: "Fininho"

Quote from: "Asmodean"It does more injustice to its followers than it does me. So no, I wouldn't say it offends me, it does, however, annoy me.

I like that point of religion doing more harm to its own supporters.
Quite true.

I'd suggest that measuring harm(/injustice), no matter how you define it, is too complex of a business to be able to make such an absolute statement.  Would not harm to anyone affect society to some degree--a larger equation of which you are, unavoidably, a part?

I generally find hypocrites offensive.
I find offensive those that would treat others differently from how they themselves would want to be treated.
I find offensive those that would rob another of their human right to happiness and freedom.
I find offensive those that would commit acts I would view as inhuman or irrational--whether in the name of religion, as traditionally defined, or of any other entity/agenda/belief/whatever.

I have observed that many individuals plainly guilty of the above claim to subscribe/belong to a religion, as traditionally defined.  I have concluded based on evidence and experience that religion, as traditionally defined, often fuels or is easily misconstrued as sanctioning such behavior.

But the concept of religion itself does not necessarily offend me.  If you listed specific religions, I might be able to provide my own subjective ranking of them on a scale of likelihood that any of its members might commit acts I would consider to be offensive, but I don't know how much use that would be.

Quote from: "m-w.com"re·li·gion
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

faith
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 b (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction

By the above, "religion" could certainly be defined as something, and could take a form, which I could hardly consider offensive and which I could easily find myself subscribing to.

I don't know if religion offends me -- certainly, some aspects of religion offend me, and some religious people offend me, but religion itself? No, not really -- although it does scare me. Religion is very dangerous to the world, and it needs to be stopped (peacefully, of course). But the very idea of religion doesn't get my heart racing or anything.

Religion, no; religiousity, sometimes.

Religion itself irritates me because it promotes blatant falsehoods but when it comes to the religious themselves my opinion varies from person to person. Some religious people are lovely but others are complete bastards. It all depends on how much they allow their views to be guided by their religion and which of their religions beliefs they choose to follow.

Religion is an affront to the entire human race. For me, religion is personally offensive in act or word; a deliberate act that causes disrespect to anyone that doesn't hold a particular flavour of those doing the disrespecting; an intentional slight and/or insult to all humans.

Religion offends me.  I see it as psychological abuse, at least for the young who only know what they have been taught.  It makes a lot of money, doesn't pay taxes, interjects into peoples private lives where it has no business, and priests are getting away with abusing children.  This all offends me a lot.  

I know people find peace in religion and maybe some good things do come from it ( although I cant think of any), but until religion is truly separate from the government I have to live with and until it is held under the same laws as everyone else, I will find it offensive.

I find religious people who are actively trying to interject their ideals into other people's lives offensive too.  I hate feeling like I'm being judged, I take serious offense to that.  

Tonight I went with my brother and his wife, who have taken me in since I fell on hard times and was left without a home or access to much-needed medical care, to a Christian concert, held at a very large Baptist church, featuring two recently signed female singers who are currently on tour throughout the country, before heading to Brazil. One of the two young ladies who performed happens to be the daughter of the former pastor of the (very evangelical, fundamentalist, pentecostal) church where I used to, and my brother and sister inlaw still attend (and are very actively involved). Many of her old acquaintances from there showed up to support her and her great talent. At one point during the show she was almost in tears as she acknowledged our presence, and the fact that we had seen her very first solo performances in school and church, to the rest of the audience. It was a special moment for her, as well as for us. The music was interesting and well written and her voice was amazing and powerful. I received a very warm hug from someone I have not seen in 20 years, and after the show, another from the singer, who also remembered me, even though she had been but a child the last ime I saw her. It was very nice.

I didn't notice that all their songs were about Jesus or anything, because all during the performance I was thinking about the woman I love, whom I have not yet met in person, and of whose identity and declarations I've yet to recieve much in the way of verification, and vice-versa - a person whose relationship with me is founded entirely, if you get right down to it, on faith, our faith in the love each of us has for the other. I'm sure I was moved by many of the same emotions as the rest of the audience.

I wasn't offended by one thing the entire evening.


I have many other stories like this.

And some not so much like it.

In general, I avoid being offended by religious people.
I am offended by religion because religion has a dormant venomous sting to apply to dissenters or conscientious objectors when the opportunity arrives.
It is only a matter of number of followers - I said that already.
Big churches hide big problems.
You go to a nice meeting, but you will never be aware of internal struggles with personalities and finances!
Churches exploit their members - always!

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"I'd suggest that measuring harm(/injustice), no matter how you define it, is too complex of a business to be able to make such an absolute statement.

And my statement was not intended to be absolute, but rather a statement of personal perspective.

I was raised in a Christian household and so my conversion to atheism went through many phases.

At first I wanted to believe that science/history could be compatible with Christianity. Then I started questioning the bible itself. And the more I questioned, the more questions I had. At some point, I discarded the bible. But something in me was still hanging on. I wanted to believe that god exists, even if he's not the god of the Jews/Christians. I see now that without religion, all he would be is a god of my own imagining. Pure fiction.

Now that I am an atheist, religion is starting to offend me more and more. It seems to me that this tremendous fraud is being perpetrated by people who just don't know any better. The biggest issue I have with religion is it's omission of fact. Just keep quite about anything that makes us look bad. I thought the church was a house of god and as such would expect the truth instead of the dogmatic, biased view they have of information. Anything to protect their reputation (such as it is).

I feel like I have wasted 15 years of my life trying to "prove" or "disprove" something that so easily could have been shown for what it is with a little honest information. And I'm pissed off! You can take your religion and shove it!

And thats not to mention the larger issues surrounding education, persecution, bigotry, fraud, tax exemptions, terrorists, genocide, suicide cults, authoritarians (telling everyone how to live their lives), the guilt and condemnation that comes with religion, the abuse of which leads to some of the most heinous crimes committed against humanity in recorded history. Not to mention that you're living your life according to a delusion that was invented by people because they just didn't know any better.

I think it's high time we abolished this childish practice and start having more "faith" in our own abilities and reason.

Bless you, fazFwQo83!
Well put.
Perhaps the worst is religion cheating children with religious stories of gods, prophets, popes, father christmas, and more crap!
I say: down with religion - peacefully, of course, not to emulate its heinous crimes throughout history.
Peacefully, by educating people not to support it with cash!
I say: more bakeries than churches in my town!

Good post, faz.  :hmm:

Something to ponder.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I wonder, could the amount of offence one takes from religion, measured against one's own thick-skin threshhold be corelated to the process of becoming an atheist... For instance, would we who never were religious generally tend to be more, less or equally offended by it than someone who has just newly abandoned a faith..?  

Something to ponder.

Yes I think so, someone trusted has been lying to them, it's kind of like they have been mentally abused.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"I'd suggest that measuring harm(/injustice), no matter how you define it, is too complex of a business to be able to make such an absolute statement.

And my statement was not intended to be absolute, but rather a statement of personal perspective.

I realize that.  Perhaps I chose a bad word in "absolute" and should have removed it altogether.  What I really meant was that it would be difficult for anyone to make such a statement, even subjectively from their own perspective.  Given the difficulty of it, mightn't others find legitimate value in a description (even brief) of how you arrived at stating it?

Religion doesn't offend me; it's not a personal affront aimed at me.  On occasion, people do, not because they're religious, but because they're goddamned douches.  I don't care what anyone believes or doesn't believe, so long as they keep it out of my face.

Atheism might not be the direct result of religion's BAD FRUIT throughout the ages, but it is certainly helping many thinking people to become disenfranchised with this human disgrace.

Quote from: "trexshinigami"... I know people find peace in religion and maybe some good things do come from it ( although I cant think of any) ....

I live in a rough neighborhood, with a thick population of homeless people.  Catholic Charities operates a complex here which provides a hot breakfast daily, shower facilities, an address for those still looking for work, assistance with rent and bills for those who still have homes, public computers to provide Internet access for job searches, holiday meals with gifts for the kids, assistance in finding and affording substance-abuse programs, and I'm perhaps missing some more programs they offer.

There's a food bank in Oxnard which is run by a coalition of Protestant churches that organizes the rescue of nearly-expired food from local supermarkets and disburses it from its warehouse at no charge.

There are many more I can't think of right now, but it's 6:15 AM and I'm barely awake.

Quote from: "Fininho"Bless you, fazFwQo83!
Well put.
Perhaps the worst is religion cheating children with religious stories of gods, prophets, popes, father christmas, and more crap!
I say: down with religion - peacefully, of course, not to emulate its heinous crimes throughout history.
Peacefully, by educating people not to support it with cash!
I say: more bakeries than churches in my town!

Completely agree. Indoctrinating innocent children would go in the heinous crimes against humanity category, in my opinion. And I love bakeries. More bread for the people I say!

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"There's a food bank in Oxnard which is run by a coalition of Protestant churches that organizes the rescue of nearly-expired food from local supermarkets and disburses it from its warehouse at no charge.

Yes I agree that is a good thing, , I knew when I was saying 'I couldn't think of any', someone would have a few examples.  I would never disagree feeding hungry people or helping children would be a negative thing.

Charity is all well and good, but why does god get the credit when it is people who work hard for their money and people who donate and people who run the charity and people who distribute the food? Seems like this god character gets more credit than he's due?

Thump, the downside of Catholic charities is that it does it in the name of a dogma that in the past was used to kill innocent people.
You can see this war-god in the hands of every priest every morning: the Sacred Wafer, made of cheap wheat flour, with no salt, raised in the air and subjected to an occult litany in old Latin to convert it into the body of an obscure Jewish youngster who they say lived a parasitical life in Galilee 2000 years ago!!
NO!
Charity done in the name of that prefabricated christ is not good!
Yes, let other men do charity but WITHOUT failed Jewish messiahs.
"Give us today our daily bread" was a prayer that Jesus taught but NEVER produced results!
TWO THOUSAND YEARS of praying the same request while there is more and more famine & poverty in the world is enough proof that the pope is a religious charlatan like his priests-agents in my town!

Quote from: "fazFwQo83"Charity is all well and good, but why does god get the credit when it is people who work hard for their money and people who donate and people who run the charity and people who distribute the food? Seems like this god character gets more credit than he's due?

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see I wasn't crediting god, but pointing out a couple of good things that religious organizations provide.

Quote from: "Fininho"Thump, the downside of Catholic charities is that it does it in the name of a dogma that in the past was used to kill innocent people.
You can see this war-god in the hands of every priest every morning: the Sacred Wafer, made of cheap wheat flour, with no salt, raised in the air and subjected to an occult litany in old Latin to convert it into the body of an obscure Jewish youngster who they say lived a parasitical life in Galilee 2000 years ago!!
NO!
Charity done in the name of that prefabricated christ is not good!
Yes, let other men do charity but WITHOUT failed Jewish messiahs.
"Give us today our daily bread" was a prayer that Jesus taught but NEVER produced results!
TWO THOUSAND YEARS of praying the same request while there is more and more famine & poverty in the world is enough proof that the pope is a religious charlatan like his priests-agents in my town!

Please stop preaching at me.  I'm well aware of the short-comings of religion.  I was merely pointing out that there are good things that come from religious organizations.  None of the above screed changes the fact that the Catholic Charities organization does do some good sometimes.

Fair enough. I apologise.

Religion is basically a set of morals and that some God put them in place. The more people who believe in those morals but don't follow them, the worse the world gets. So yes, I am offended by religion.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"Given the difficulty of it, mightn't others find legitimate value in a description (even brief) of how you arrived at stating it?

On a personal level, my statement is very simple. I live in a country, where very little ever happens in the name of any deity (or under its banner). Thus, religions in general have not been a thorn in my side except for some schmucks coming before sunrise with a pile of books. Religion does, however, demand the abandonment of reason by its followers in some important aspects of education and life in general, substituting individual thinking with a hive mentality which is often archaic, baseless and the like.

As such, religion does, in fact, do more injustice (as I see that last part of previous paragraph as an injustice to an individual's intellectual freedom and integrity) to their own than they do me in little more than mildly annoying me personally.

QuoteI live in a country, where very little ever happens in the name of any deity (or under its banner).

I want to live there.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"Given the difficulty of it, mightn't others find legitimate value in a description (even brief) of how you arrived at stating it?

On a personal level, my statement is very simple. I live in a country, where very little ever happens in the name of any deity (or under its banner). Thus, religions in general have not been a thorn in my side except for some schmucks coming before sunrise with a pile of books. Religion does, however, demand the abandonment of reason by its followers in some important aspects of education and life in general, substituting individual thinking with a hive mentality which is often archaic, baseless and the like.

As such, religion does, in fact, do more injustice (as I see that last part of previous paragraph as an injustice to an individual's intellectual freedom and integrity) to their own than they do me in little more than mildly annoying me personally.

For me, even if I lived in a country such as you (which, I agree with Gawan, I'd quite possibly love to...where is it?), the difficulty in arriving at a similar statement myself would be the complex and often unpredictable interconnectedness of society.  To take it to the extreme, even if I were a hermit living off the grid in a remote, isolated location (if such a place hospitable to hermit life truly exists today) and engaged in literally zero interaction with anyone but myself, I could still imagine scenarios in which religion might yet result in more harm to me than to its followers.  For example, if I fell victim to fallout from a fundamentalist show of force on a nuclear scale.  To lessen the extremes, if my world view was simply such that I felt the suffering of any or all of my fellow men-kind is ultimately shared by all (as in I highly value the survival and well-being of my species as a whole), any ill consequences of religion could be viewed as equally harming to everyone, including myself.  As one final scenario to consider, if religion has in some way impeded the scientific progress of man (I say that as though it were hypothetical...hah?) such that a looming cancer within my body will not be discovered as quickly or will not be as curable as it otherwise could have been and I die as a result, has religion done me an injustice...and how much of one in comparison to that of its followers?  All difficult scenarios for me to consider when evaluating how much relative harm it does one over another.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"Given the difficulty of it, mightn't others find legitimate value in a description (even brief) of how you arrived at stating it?

On a personal level, my statement is very simple. I live in a country, where very little ever happens in the name of any deity (or under its banner). Thus, religions in general have not been a thorn in my side except for some schmucks coming before sunrise with a pile of books. Religion does, however, demand the abandonment of reason by its followers in some important aspects of education and life in general, substituting individual thinking with a hive mentality which is often archaic, baseless and the like.

As such, religion does, in fact, do more injustice (as I see that last part of previous paragraph as an injustice to an individual's intellectual freedom and integrity) to their own than they do me in little more than mildly annoying me personally.

That's one most offensive part of religion: abandonment of reason!
Religion steals your brain: the biggest robbery in the universe!
Priests come to you and demand that you shut down your own most precious faculty and use theirs!
You are threatened to close down your most precious sense and go use that of a pope, a priest or any other religious charlatan and impersonator!
Religion is very offensive exactly because of that.
You lose your own brain, your mind, your heart, and have to use the defective one of your "spiritual tutor"!!
Yes, down with religion across the globe, for it is run by thieves.

In general, history/politics/humanity offends me,  sometimes, when I think about something that I have done, I offend me.

Why should religion be any different.

I hope that if everyone has the same view..........there might be hope for us.

Humans are trying to build a better world for the next generations.
Religion has been a curse throughout history, with MANY innocent victims.
All done in the name of some fantastic god of love, mercy and grace!
A terrible disgrace!!

Quote from: "hunterman317"Religion is basically a set of morals and that some God put them in place. The more people who believe in those morals but don't follow them, the worse the world gets. So yes, I am offended by religion.

All gods are anthropomorphic idols made in the image and likeness of the superstitious artist.
And they survive on the victims' CASH.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "fazFwQo83"Charity is all well and good, but why does god get the credit when it is people who work hard for their money and people who donate and people who run the charity and people who distribute the food? Seems like this god character gets more credit than he's due?

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see I wasn't crediting god, but pointing out a couple of good things that religious organizations provide.

Please stop preaching at me.  I'm well aware of the short-comings of religion.  I was merely pointing out that there are good things that come from religious organizations.  None of the above screed changes the fact that the Catholic Charities organization does do some good sometimes.

Thump, My argument wasn't specifically directed at you, just the principle of giving credit where none is due. Also, I do apologise if I came across all preachy, I don't mean to be ... it's just an observation. Please don't take it personally.

It is sad that most Christians - as a conspicuous example - don't recognise that Christianity has been a redundant failure after two thousand years of evangelisation!
"Thy kingdom come" is a prayer that has been uttered - in my estimation - some 100 TRILLION times, and no nice kingdom ever came!
Besides, we are no longer inclined to kingdoms: they have all been brutalised tyrannies.
It is said that Yahweh invented the monarchies while the Devil preferred democracies.
The Bible describes a revolt in heaven, where a minority wanted to overthrow the tyrannical monarchy of Yahweh, but failed.
Lucifer wanted democratic rights in heaven: one angel one vote!
Yahweh wanted a dictatorship forever.
But Lucifer will have other opportunities; he is indestructible.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"where is it?

Norway. We do a lot of good here, we do. For instance, imagine the map of Norway, Sweden and Finland... Without us here, Scandinavia would look eerilly penis-like  

Quote from: "fazFwQo83"Thump, My argument wasn't specifically directed at you, just the principle of giving credit where none is due.

Are you saying that religious organizations deserve no credit for their good works?

QuoteAlso, I do apologise if I came across all preachy, I don't mean to be ... it's just an observation. Please don't take it personally.

If you reread my post, you'll see that my "preaching" comment wasn't directed at you.

Religion deflowers your brain from its purity in thinking for yourself.
You are instructed to think with the deflowered brain of your religious tutor.
Children are terrible victims of this type of molestation.

Quote from: "Fininho"Humans are trying to build a better world for the next generations....

I dont think that is even close to being correct.   Humanity is too selfish to worry about the future.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "fazFwQo83"Thump, My argument wasn't specifically directed at you, just the principle of giving credit where none is due.

Are you saying that religious organizations deserve no credit for their good works?

Not at all, but religious organisations give the credit to god. I'm saying we should give the credit to the people who make it happen and leave god out of it. I'm saying that people often identify compassion and kindness with religion and god. I'm saying that it's rubbish. People are capable of great compassion and we don't need some imaginary god character to motivate us to help another human being.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteAlso, I do apologise if I came across all preachy, I don't mean to be ... it's just an observation. Please don't take it personally.

If you reread my post, you'll see that my "preaching" comment wasn't directed at you.

Sorry about that. I misread your post.

All gods are human creations.
You can go check around your suburb and see.
I arrived at that conclusion because there's one Pentecostal church down the road here, shouting so loud to its god that it annoys people three blocks away!
It is obvious that the god they shouting to is deaf and they are all a bunch of losers!

Quote from: "Fininho"It is said that Yahweh invented the monarchies while the Devil preferred democracies.

By whom? Citation?

Quote from: "Fininho"The Bible describes a revolt in heaven, where a minority wanted to overthrow the tyrannical monarchy of Yahweh, but failed.

QuoteRevelation 12:7-9
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled downâ€"that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

From: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:7-9&version=NIV)

Doesn't say "Lucifer." In fact, Lucifer in Latin means "Light Bringer." So how did he get mixed up with Satan?

Quote from: "Fininho"Lucifer wanted democratic rights in heaven: one angel one vote! Yahweh wanted a dictatorship forever.

Cite?

Quote from: "Fininho"But Lucifer will have other opportunities; he is indestructible.

Quote1. Nebuchadnezzar called by this name (Isaiah 14:12)

from: http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/Lucifer/Nave (http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/Lucifer/Nave)

This is the only place in the Bible where Lucifer is mentioned by name.

Oddly enough Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Neo Babylonian empire, where the Jews got the idea of an evil being in opposition to a benign creatior. Before, the Satan was a title, he was Yahweh's attorney general, Yahweh's employee. I believe it means "the accuser" or "adversary." Before being conquered by the Babylonians, the idea that any being could challenge Yahweh was unthinkable.  The Jews go this idea from Zoroastrianism, which has a benign creation who is opposed by and evil being.

Satan was mentioned one time in 1 Chronicles, most of Job (where he had a starring role,) and once in Zechariah in the Old Testament. But not in Genesis. What it says:

QuoteGenesis 3:1
[ The Fall ] Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

(emphasis mine). It doesn't say Lucifer, it doesn't say Satan. We have to look at what is there and not what we *want* to be there. Of course there is the referral back to this passage in Revelations, but a lot of time had passed by the time Revelations had been written down.

Satan is mentioned numerous times in the New Testament, but by this time the Jews had been influenced by Zoroastrianism. By the time we get to the New Testament, "Satan" means something completely different. Most of what people "know" about the war in heaven is from John Milton's Paradise Lost.

Revelation is the most violent book of the entire Bible.
I believe the apostle John was addicted to Hashish in his old age to alleviate body pain.
Hence his horror visions!
It is in Revelation where John sees the god he imagined existed incinerating the entire Cosmos to make new heavens and a new Earth!
But I ask: what on earth was wrong with the heavens, for heaven's sake that Jehovah had to burn up everything in heaven?!!!...

Faith offends me.  Base a religion on hope and I won't be offended.

Quote from: "fazFwQo83"Not at all, but religious organisations give the credit to god. I'm saying we should give the credit to the people who make it happen and leave god out of it. I'm saying that people often identify compassion and kindness with religion and god. I'm saying that it's rubbish. People are capable of great compassion and we don't need some imaginary god character to motivate us to help another human being.

I agree that the association between the Christian god and good works is nonsense, and that "god" as a motivating concept is incredibly weak.  However, I was making my point in reply to this post another member made saying that they saw no good that religion does; I was pointing out an example I've seen of religion doing good, without reference to whatever they might claim as inspiration.

QuoteSorry about that. I misread your post.

No sweat, just sayin'.

Quote from: "Fininho"It is obvious that the god they shouting to is deaf and they are all a bunch of losers!

Much like the very same ones who are currently providing me with free housing, food, and medicine, plus help with buying clothing and other essential needs. Sure it's because we're family, but if they're losers, what does that make me - other than a needy disabled person, who happens to be transgender, lesbian, and an atheist living comfortably in a Christian home, until I can get out on my own?

You know you do come off preachy; preaching to the choir for the most part, it seems, but preaching all the same, which is against the rules of this forum, btw. And you seem rather to have something of an agenda, like justifying your vitriol for all things Christian (which you broadly label "religion"). Why? Do you need to be angry at something? And if so, why come here to collect a group of cheerleaders, when you can just as easily sit and stew in the quiet of your own home. No justification or cheaply solicited validation needed.

Don't get me wrong; I get it. There are a lot of things about a lot of religions that do offend me very much. There are a lot of religious people who do things because of their religious beliefs, and certainly there are many beliefs which, in themselves, offend me. But you're shoving them all together into one group and in doing so, you are also talking about my family. ALL of my family. And yes, many of them have offended me with their religiosity too. But those are only minor aspects of who they are.

As far as I'm concerned, the people who hold such offensive beliefs and exhibit such offensive behavior are not the perpetrators, but the victims of, as Droid pointed out, faith... not religion, which is too abstract a concept to cause any real offense in itself.

If you need a chorus of people chanting along with you about what offends you, at least talk about specific things that are offensive about specific tenets or behaviours, without generalizing all adherents to all religions as if they are equally responsible for spoiling your day.

Simply repeating "Religion is offensive, boo Christians!" gets us nowhere.


[/bitchy rant]


 

Funny thing is other denominations of Christianity offend me, quite deeper than any other religion or anti-religion stance out there.

Quote from: "Achronos"Funny thing is other denominations of Christianity offend me, quite deeper than any other religion or anti-religion stance out there.

Ah.  I see you now label yourself as Orthodox Christian.  I was thinking you must be that or Catholic.  Your thought processes don't run in Protestant lines.  May I ask if you're Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, or some other?

Why do other denominations offend you?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Achronos"Funny thing is other denominations of Christianity offend me, quite deeper than any other religion or anti-religion stance out there.

Ah.  I see you now label yourself as Orthodox Christian.  I was thinking you must be that or Catholic.  Your thought processes don't run in Protestant lines.  May I ask if you're Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, or some other?

Why do other denominations offend you?

I.D. may I ask a personal question to you? Are you yourself in a quest to find God? Do you want to believe there is a God? It seems your curiosities suggest as such.

I go to a Greek Orthodox Church and my friend we could spend at quite a length discussing how important Orthodoxy is and my disdain with the other denominations, such as those which misinterpret Scripture. Greek, Russian, Antiochian, are still the same church but just in different jurisdictions.

I will try to be as brief as possible, but if you want me to I can elaborate a great deal on what separates my faith amongst the others in Christianity (and yes there is one correct faith)

So here is what we believe, The Scriptures are true-holy, just and good. But they were NEVER meant to stand alone. Their enforcer and interpreter-indeed, their writer-is the Church. The Church is also the doer of the Word. And the way things are done and have been done is preserved for us in a holy tradition. But even the Church did not originate her tradition.

That tradition has one source: God Himself. To begin with, the Apostles received it from Jesus Christ and passed it on unchanged and undiminished to the churches which they formed. Jesus had told the Twelve that they still had truth to learn, that the Holy Spirit would lead them into it.

There is alot more, but as we know the Great Schism happened in 1054 which the Roman patriarch at the time disbanded and began the Roman Catholic church (himself becoming the Pope). Then in 1517 began the Protestant Reformation and now we have more denominations than we can count. Plus with all of these theological debates and ambiguities caused by misinterpretations in Scripture, out of itself arose cults such as Mormonism, JWs, Christian Science, New Age Movement etc. It split up the faith and secularized it, instead of it being one Church and one Faith. If we stayed as one Church, the world we are living now would be entirely unrecognizable.

This will sound egregious, but I feel it was the work of Satan that caused such a split to cover up the truth.

One of the things I get offended in religion is Christians appearing from all sides with their PRIVATE interpretations [of the Bible], and next disdain the private interpretations of other students!!
It's a bankrupt policy!
It is bankrupt because such a fabulous Almighty - as they want to promote - would have had enough time to present a document in clear language where nobody would need to interpret anything!
What would have been that Almighty's problem to avoid speaking straight to intelligent readers, for Pete's sake!!!

Quote from: "Achronos"I.D. may I ask a personal question to you? Are you yourself in a quest to find God? Do you want to believe there is a God?

No and no.

QuoteIt seems your curiosities suggest as such.

I am in a perpetual quest to ascertain the nature and extent of truth.

Faith offends me intellectually because it attempts to make the subjective objective and thus is oxymoronic.  Hope, by contrast, glories in the subjective precisely because it's subjective - delights in the subjective as the self's most personal property.  Faith offends me morally because it is inutile and ultimately insane, because it is socially inappropriate in a cosmopolitan milieu, because it is inauthentic in that it demands self-deceit in order to subsist, and because, all too often, it incites injustice.

QuoteI go to a Greek Orthodox Church and my friend we could spend at quite a length discussing how important Orthodoxy is and my disdain with the other denominations, such as those which misinterpret Scripture. Greek, Russian, Antiochian, are still the same church but just in different jurisdictions.

One of your mental attributes that marks you as something other than Protestant is your willingness to take poetic paradox as a moral guide.  That's an Eastern modality.  Protestantism is more heavily Western.

QuoteI will try to be as brief as possible, but if you want me to I can elaborate a great deal on what separates my faith amongst the others in Christianity (and yes there is one correct faith)

So here is what we believe, The Scriptures are true-holy, just and good. But they were NEVER meant to stand alone. Their enforcer and interpreter-indeed, their writer-is the Church. The Church is also the doer of the Word. And the way things are done and have been done is preserved for us in a holy tradition. But even the Church did not originate her tradition.

That tradition has one source: God Himself. To begin with, the Apostles received it from Jesus Christ and passed it on unchanged and undiminished to the churches which they formed. Jesus had told the Twelve that they still had truth to learn, that the Holy Spirit would lead them into it.

Yes.  It always amused me that the Protestants based their revolution on the idea that Scripture was God-breathed... an idea they didn't originate, but took as authoritative from the very organization whose authority they were rejecting and revolting against.  Apparently the Pope lied about everything else except that one thing.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"where is it?

Norway. We do a lot of good here, we do. For instance, imagine the map of Norway, Sweden and Finland... Without us here, Scandinavia would look eerilly penis-like  ;)

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I am in a perpetual quest to ascertain the nature and extent of truth.

Because of our visceral desire for God. Even atheists have proven this, unknowingly.

QuoteFaith offends me intellectually because it attempts to make the subjective objective and thus is oxymoronic.  Hope, by contrast, glories in the subjective precisely because it's subjective - delights in the subjective as the self's most personal property.  Faith offends me morally because it is inutile and ultimately insane, because it is socially inappropriate in a cosmopolitan milieu, because it is inauthentic in that it demands self-deceit in order to subsist, and because, all too often, it incites injustice.

That is the whole point of faith. Faith is to have a reason, to have a knowledge, to have a sense of security and understanding, that the 'ideology' is indeed a real fact.

Not some abstract placebo, like Oprah's "The Secret". Please stop this, "Faith is on the basis of reaching out into the unknown." Jesus never proposed such a case. Nor did the Apostles, neither God himself in the Tanakh.

QuoteYes.  It always amused me that the Protestants based their revolution on the idea that Scripture was God-breathed... an idea they didn't originate, but took as authoritative from the very organization whose authority they were rejecting and revolting against.  Apparently the Pope lied about everything else except that one thing.

Jesus Christ destroys religion. Yes, even Christian "religion". Biblical Christianity is not a religion.

Quote from: "Fininho"Religion does offend me a lot.
Religion DIVIDES people; kills friendship; destroys family harmony; blocks brain development!
CHEATS CHILDREN.
Promotes parasitic living.
All those vicious evils of religion should be taken very seriously and a worldwide effort to discredit it should be a daily occurrence!

I suppose in general I don't fret much about the religious among us, even though I do wish the entire population of the world was secular.  I am concerned about the Christian Right and am increasingly worried about radical Islam.  The latter are truly dangerous and unless moderate Muslims are prepared to assert themselves, I think the crazies could do some serious damage to our freedoms in the secular West.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I am in a perpetual quest to ascertain the nature and extent of truth.

Faith offends me intellectually because it attempts to make the subjective objective and thus is oxymoronic.  Hope, by contrast, glories in the subjective precisely because it's subjective - delights in the subjective as the self's most personal property.  Faith offends me morally because it is inutile and ultimately insane, because it is socially inappropriate in a cosmopolitan milieu, because it is inauthentic in that it demands self-deceit in order to subsist, and because, all too often, it incites injustice.

I wanted to delve deeper into this. In most areas of life, we are concerned with the truth. A cashier has to know how much change she is given. A nurse has to apply just the right amount of medication to a patient. A mathematician checks and double-checks his proofs. A jury listens to all the facts to sort out the truth in a trial. A history teacher has to get the names and dates right. A scientist publishes her work for peer review to ensure everyone gets the same results. In all of these cases and more, what’s important is not opinion; rather, it is truth. Yet, it seems that when it comes to questions of religion and spirituality and the accompanying moral questions, we become relativists. Instead of asking who God really is, we ask, “Who is God to me?” Instead of asking what it means for God to become a man, we suggest, “That’s okay for some people to believe if they want.” Instead of asking whether God expects something of us, we judge religious expectations by what we ourselves want. The pursuit of objectivity goes out the window, and subjectivity reigns.

This fundamental problem is made worse because of the lack of familiarity with the tools of spiritual knowledge; that is, most people are not doing what it takes in order to see what is true. If an astronomer refused to use a telescope, or if a biologist refused to use a microscope, we wouldâ€"at bestâ€"regard them as having incomplete knowledge in their fields. From the Christian point of view, what is lacking is purity of heart; as Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Also lacking is the guidance to achieve that purity from those who have seen God and passed on their experience to the next generation. Plato defined that same problem when he wrote The Republic and included the famous allegory of the cave. In this allegory, prisoners chained up in a cave for their whole lives believe that all reality is defined by the shadows they see on the wall. If one of the prisoners escaped, found his way to the surface, and saw the sun and all reality for what it is, how could he describe his experience to people whose reality is defined by shadows? When he stumbles back into the cave, trying to adjust back to life in the darkness, those in the cave may well ridicule him as having been damaged by his experience rather than enlightened. Such is the plight of many believers today.

Let me submit that the great spiritual battle of our time is not a struggle between believers and atheists; rather, it is a struggle between pride and humility. We expect and demand humility in almost every area of life: what really matters is what is objectively true, not what one of us happens to think is true. We ourselves are not what is important. But when it comes to ultimate questions, we set aside humility and place ourselves at the center of the universe. This temptation to pride is common, even to believers in God. One of the basic assumptions is that truth is not relative, and that Orthodox Christianity represents the fullness of the truthâ€"the locus of the revelation of God in Christ. From that basic position, we will analyze various religious groups and their teachings, seeing what we share and where we differ. Because truth is not relative, all human beings must be willing to set aside what we would prefer to be true and embrace what really is true, changing ourselves, our attitudes, and our beliefs whenever necessary. It has become unfashionable in our time to speak as though a particular belief is true  and another is false. And yet even within my lifetime, I recall quite clearly how many religious groups in our culture used to think of their own beliefs as true, and then logically conclude that any other beliefs were therefore false.

Today however, this conclusionâ€"and especially speaking publicly about itâ€"is seen as not being loving (a word now used to mean nice). Indeed, in our time a public disagreement about religion is sometimes considered offensive. Living in an age of political correctness, we are given new pieces of cultural theology to profess:

All religions are basically the same.

What matters is living a good life.

We all worship the same God.

Religion is a private matter.

Don’t impose your beliefs on others.

No religion has everything right.

We’ll find out what’s true when we get to heaven.

These kinds of statements have one common assumption behind them: that beliefs about God and the ultimate nature of reality are not very important. That is why they should not be discussed publicly. That is why their details do not really matter. That is why we should not try to win people over to our faith. There is no such thing as truth. Everything is relativeâ€"except, perhaps, that everything is relative. Yet for nearly everything else in lifeâ€"whether it is politics, healthcare, or even the scoring records of your favorite football teamâ€"we demand seriousness, detail, and accuracy. Distracted by such transient things as these, our culture has successfully ignored a basic syllogism: If there really is a God, then who he is and what he might want from us are more important than anything else in the universe. As believers, we are not in the nice business. We are in the truth business. Obviously, as an Orthodox Christian, it is my belief that the Orthodox Christian faith is uniquely true. I would not be Orthodox if I did not believe it was the truth revealed by God in his son Jesus Christ. My faith is such that, if I encountered a part of the Orthodox faith that made no sense to me or struck me as incorrect, then it is I who needs to be reformed, not the Orthodox Church. Indeed, this is the view of all classical, traditional religions, rather than the modern consumer-style understanding of faith which is popular in our cultureâ€"that each person is the arbiter of what is true and false, that he can pick and choose what bits of spirituality and belief he likes from a sort of religious buffet.

The nature of truth, however, is that it is true, no matter what anyone says about it. In the face of truth, there is no opinion. Most people already believe this, but do not often apply it to the question that matters most: who is God and what does he want from me? There is good and there is evil. There is truth and there is falsehood. These basic assumptions, based on our own everyday experience, should inform all of our thoughts and actions regarding what is ultimately true.

If you have ever joined Facebook, then you probably know that users can put together profiles of themselves detailing various bits of information about who they are and what they do. One of the details that can be specified is labeled Religious Views. This is what most people think of when they think about religion, that it is a question of views, that religion is an opinion you hold, something you think. (Notice that Facebook does not even use the term beliefs.) For most traditional religions, however, faith is not merely a set of views; rather, religious faith is a whole way of life, a purposeful way of living that has a set of goals at its heart which inform everything in that way of life. In this, Facebook is representing a secularist philosophy, which is not so much an outright denial of spiritual truths as it is a compartmentalization of elements of life into neat categories which have nothing to do with each other. In this box, I keep my views on economics. In this one are my views on cable television. In this one I have my reading preferences, and in this one I keep my religion. Even the word religion itselfâ€"not a word I prefer to use in regards to Orthodox Christianityâ€"means something quite different. The Latin religio means reconnection. To build and rebuild links. What you are trying to link yourself to will vary from one religion to another, but the key is that there is something happening there. It is not just something you think or agree with, and it is not just about you; there is an Other.

Here is a fundamental truth about all religious practice: what you believe and what you do make a difference. If this is true, then we must also accept that if you change what you believe and what you do, you will get different results.This is true of everything in life. My brother is a chemical engineer. My sister is a biologist. (You may wonder what happened to me.) They know this to be true. If you do not believe them, ask a doctor. Ask a physicist, ask a psychologist, ask a brick layer, ask a janitor. They will all tell you that what you believe and what you do make a difference. If you change those things, you will get different results. What concerns me is that we often do not apply this basic principle to what matters most in human life. In a religious context, this fundamental truth means different religionsâ€"because they believe differently and practice differentlyâ€"will yield different results. Sometimes those different results are all put under one label like salvation. But what does it mean to be saved? To a Hindu practicing yoga, salvation means release from the physical body and being absorbed into the oblivion of the universe; the annihilation of individual personhood in Nirvana. I guarantee that is not what salvation means to a Baptist. But what a Baptist means by salvation and what an Orthodox Christian means by it are not the same thing either. As such, the members of those different faiths have different methods of trying to get where they want to go. Furthermore, because there exists truth and falsehood, and because most religions have traditionally claimed that their faith was true and that others are at least somewhat false, that means that some religious believers are fundamentally mistaken about their beliefs and practices. This means they are not going to get the results that they think they will.

In the Orthodox Christian faith, our one and only purpose in life is to become more like Jesus Christ. Whether we go to heaven when we die is only one element in a much larger picture. That picture, ultimately, is of the Holy Trinity. An Orthodox Christian’s life has one goal: union with the Holy Trinityâ€"the Father, Son, and Holy Spiritâ€"the One God who created all things. The path to that union is Jesus Christ, the God-Man, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. Salvation is the attainment of eternal life. In John 17, in his prayer to the Father before his crucifixion, Jesus defines what this means. He said, “And this is life eternal: that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” To know Godâ€"that is what eternal life means, not just living forever. He later prays, “And the glory you have given me, I have given them. That they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent me, that you have loved them as you have loved me.”

Thus, in the Orthodox Christian faith, being savedâ€"having eternal lifeâ€"means knowing God in Jesus Christ. It also means receiving from Jesus the glory he has from his Father. In reality, salvation is about far, far more than getting out of hell when we die. It is a deep, intimate knowledge of God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.In this deep knowledgeâ€"which is experience rather than accumulation of factsâ€"those who are being saved receive the very glory of God. Going to heaven or hell at the moment of death simply means that our experience of God in this life continues into the next, although amplified. If we love God and know him deeply, our experience in the next life will be endless intense joy. If we reject God in this lifeâ€"or simply ignore himâ€"our experience of his love will be alien to us and felt as suffering. He pours out the same love on everyone. Some want it, some don’t.

This is why doctrine matters. This is why heresy is so very dangerous. All of our doctrine is oriented toward an intimate knowledge of God, because the character of our knowledge of him will determine our eternal vector, our perpetual experience in the life to come. This knowledge depends on our adherence to living out correct doctrine in our daily lives. Let us say I was a practicing homosexual. This is not true, but because some people believe it, it affects their relationship with me. Also let's say I am a priest, it may even affect relationships between members of my parish community. My relationships with many people would break down. Some people may even approve of this and try to get closer to me, but those relationships would also be based on a distorted reality. Those outside our parish may hear the rumor and never visit or consider joining. Those closest to meâ€"my wife and familyâ€"will have their lives badly disrupted if they believe the rumor. It will destroy my family life, which would reverberate across our extended family, friends, the parish unity, and so onâ€"all because of a false belief about who I am. Perhaps the rumor is not so serious. Let us say it was believed I had a drinking problem. The effects of that rumor would likely be just as serious, though nowhere near as explosive. In any case, all of those relationships are affected, not merely by the moral actions of those involvedâ€"that is, whether they have done good or evil to each otherâ€"but by what they believed about each other and how they act on those beliefs.

Magnify all of those effects by the worship and the knowledge of the very God of the universe. Some false doctrines about him can cause unimaginable spiritual destruction. Others are of lesser effect. But all of them, to one degree or another, take us away from a true, pure knowledge of the only true God. That will affect how and whether we receive his glory, and how we experience him in the next life. Living a moral life according to the law of God is indeed critical for life in Christ, but it is not enough. Religion is not just ethics. We must know God for who he truly is. This is why doctrine matters.

Quote from: "Achronos"Plato defined that same problem when he wrote The Republic and included the famous allegory of the cave. In this allegory, prisoners chained up in a cave for their whole lives believe that all reality is defined by the shadows they see on the wall. If one of the prisoners escaped, found his way to the surface, and saw the sun and all reality for what it is, how could he describe his experience to people whose reality is defined by shadows? When he stumbles back into the cave, trying to adjust back to life in the darkness, those in the cave may well ridicule him as having been damaged by his experience rather than enlightened. Such is the plight of many believers today.

You are talking about, perhaps, what philosophers call qualia.  The cave scenario seems a clumsy one.  In the case of the cave prisoner, he can expose his companions to the same experience if he simply unchains them and takes them to the surface--quite easy to achieve, physically.  Why not adopt a better analogy: the problem of proving to a blind man that color exists as a property of objects, and of describing the experience of colors to him.  You can certainly do the former, but the latter is far more difficult (if not impossible).  You could explain the concept of light, explain that it occurs at varying wavelengths each appearing as a unique color to the eye, that he is limited in his ability to naturally detect/sense it, and you could easily create an instrument that would map the color of an object into something he can perceive -- numbers (frequencies), perhaps, or sounds.  He can then take the instrument and apply it to every object around him and come to discover that the reported color agrees with what those with sight have stated.  Indeed an entire civilization of blind men could actually come to discover the property of color themselves, given enough time and the motivation to lead them to it.  However, a blind man can never actually 'experience' color in exactly the same way as you...so he will never exactly know what you mean when you say something looks "red".  But is there really a difference, now that he knows how to determine that something is red, and that red exists?

Well, the problem is, you are claiming that you possess a sense beyond my own which you have used to gain an experience beyond my comprehension, and yet you have no ability to create a similar instrument that could prove the existence of that which you perceive by it through consistent, repeatable methods, nor can you even offer a meaningful explanation to aid in comprehension of your description.  Science has shown no indication that such a sense exists, nor any indication that there is any force or observation to be perceived by it.  It seems entirely to be an invention in the minds of believers.  Can you explain to me, physically, repeatably, how I can perceive God in the same way that you claim to have, even if I may not be able to experience it the same way you do?  Please do not say "by studying the Bible and following its teachings" -- a great many have done this who yet have never gained such an experience.  Ah, but they did it wrong, right?  They just didn't try hard enough...long enough.  Well there is no such problem with the blind man and color.  Give him the instrument, tell him how to use it, and he will have no difficulty whatsoever in ascertaining the color of the very first object he tests.  So you must tell us precisely which teachings to follow, and precisely how to study, and precisely what words to pray toward the sky--you must describe, physically, how to replicate the experience, in every last detail.  Then we can test for ourselves.  Until you can do this, and the rest of us can verify, then I will assume you are just making things up.

I occasionally suffer from sleep paralysis (or, "old hag syndrome").  It can be a terrifying experience...until you know what it is, and that others experience it, too.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"You are talking about, perhaps, what philosophers call qualia.  The cave scenario seems a clumsy one.  In the case of the cave prisoner, he can expose his companions to the same experience if he simply unchains them and takes them to the surface--quite easy to achieve, physically.  

But in Plato's scenario it is not suggested that the others could escape, so the scenario only works in the constraints of what it presents. Now you saying the escapee could unchain the others is added to the scenario but takes away the point.

QuoteHowever, a blind man can never actually 'experience' color in exactly the same way as you...so he will never exactly know what you mean when you say something looks "red".  But is there really a difference, now that he knows how to determine that something is red, and that red exists?

Of course the difference is that he couldn't create what red actually looks like, but beleives based on faith that such a color exists. The only thing he could determine what is red is what is pointed out to him.

Science is the logical analysis of the items existing in this creation based on only one authority that is perception (Pratyaksha Pramanam). Even in the ancient logic, all the authorities (Pramanas) are based on perception only. You see the fire giving smoke. This is deduction or perception. When you see the smoke coming from a distance and do not see the fire, you say that fire exists there and this is induction or inference (Anumana Pramanam). But this induction is based on your previous deduction only. Somebody says to you that fire gives smoke. If that person is your dearest, you believe it and infer the fire from the smoke. This is authority of word ‘Shabdha Pramanam’.

Though you have not seen the fire, your dearest person has seen the smoke coming from fire. Like this all the authorities are based on perception only. I do not find any scripture of any Religion, which contradicts the experience of perception. There are four ways of authority. 1) Sruthi, which is the original scripture. 2) Smrithi, which is the commentaries of Scholars on the original scripture. 3) Yukthi, the logical analysis based on deduction, induction etc., 4) Anubhava, the experience based on the perception of the items in this world, which may be direct or indirect. Out of these four ways, the fourth way is the most powerful. If anything contradicts the fourth way, that is not valid or it may be a misinterpretation based on misunderstanding of the Sruthi or Smrithi or Yukthi. Thus Science and Philosophy are not separate. The very frame of the spiritual knowledge is Science only. Thus Science is the basic foundation and over all underlying structure of all the Scriptures.

A true Scientist should always stand on the perception and should not deny the experience derived by perception. If he denies, he is not a scientist. All top most scientists were philosophers and spiritual people only. Those scientists have travelled along the river of Science and reached its end, which is the ocean of spiritual knowledge called as philosophy. Philosophy is pervading all the branches of Science. Every branch of Science gives Ph.D as the final degree. Ph.D means Doctor in Philosophy. If Science and Philosophy are different, why this word Philosophy is regarded so much by all the branches of Science? Philosophy means the essence of the knowledge of every branch that is experienced when one reaches the end of that branch.

Therefore, the spiritual knowledge, which is the ocean is the Philosophy in which all branches of Science and all the Religions merge and loose their identity. A scientist who has not reached the end of Science and who is still travelling in the river only denies the existence of the ocean, since he is still perceiving the limiting boundaries of his knowledge â€" river. Such river-travellers are called as atheists. They neither see the ocean nor see the other rivers. Even the follower of any particular Religion is in the state of this atheist only. He is no better than these atheists because he believes that God is a particular form only, which is a small part of this creation. Some other followers believe God as formless, who is the all-pervading cosmic energy. Since cosmic energy is also a part of the creation, their form of God is very big. These atheist-scientist believe that this creation is God. Thus all these are atheists only. All these atheists, who may be scientific atheists or religious atheists, will realize the true nature of God only when they reach the end of the Science or Religion.

A scientific atheist is contradicting his own authority, which is the perception. When the human incarnation performs the inexplicable miracles, how can they deny the perception of such miracles? You may do that miracle in an alternative way, but that does not contradict the different path of the original miracle. One may get first class by copying. Such false first class cannot contradict the genuine first class. The result is same, but the process is different. You may produce ash by putting a fine powder of wet salt in the grews of your hand like a magician. The same ash may be produced by a divine miracle also. Since the result is same, can you argue that the process also should be same? Since the first class result is same in the case of the original student and a fraud student, do you mean that the hard work of the original student is fraud?

Do you mean that the original and fraud students are one and the same? Therefore, the same result can have two different processes. Since the result is same, processes need not be same. Do you mean that a result has only one process? Is it not contradicting the very fundamentals of Science? A Chemical compound can be produced in several ways (Hess Law). Since the compound is same, do you mean that the alternative reactions are also one and the same? Same Chennai city can be reached by several ways. Since the end City is same, do you mean that all the paths are not different? Do you mean that all the paths are merged as one path only and thus there is only one path to reach the Chennai city? Therefore, conservative scientists and conservative religious followers can be categorized as immature analysts. The immaturity indicates their position in the river and maturity indicates their position in the end of the river, which is the ocean. Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg etc., are the top most scientists who have travelled and travelled along the Science River and reached the final spiritual ocean.

QuoteCan you explain to me, physically, repeatably, how I can perceive God in the same way that you claim to have, even if I may not be able to experience it the same way you do?

Personally, I believe that Christianity is superior to other religions because the message of Christ speaks more fundamentally and completely to the human condition than any other belief systems before or after (and yes everyone has a belief system). In his own words,

"I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Here Christ calls us to action, urging us to live the life he showed us how to live, and to see for ourselves whether his message resonates with our hearts. Far from an intellectual assent, the actualization and realization of these words in my life is what my 'faith' is based upon.

My experience is different from many others (I was an atheist for 20 years), how could I ever pyshically show you what is in my heart? The way I experience God was in my very heart, I tried my best to escape, to deny, but I couldn't do it anymore. I was doing everything in my power to escape from the truth when in actuality I was damning it.

I believe that each indiviudal's experience will be different; there is no certain way to pray, no certain way to study, or any of that to experience God. Constantine's came in the form of a cross in the sky, Putin was transformed (again) after a car accident, and so on and so forth. And yes it would be so much easier if we had just a glimpse of Himself (or a certain way to carry out), but I don't believe that path was ever meant to be easy.

Quote from: "Achronos"But in Plato's scenario it is not suggested that the others could escape, so the scenario only works in the constraints of what it presents. Now you saying the escapee could unchain the others is added to the scenario but takes away the point.

The point is, how do you describe a perception or experience to another lacking sufficient basis for understanding/comparison.  You must do so either by describing it in terms they can understand, or drawing comparisons to that with which they are familiar, or by simply showing them so they can experience it for themselves.  In the cave scenario as you presented it, I could argue all of these things are quite easily possible, unlike the religious experiences to which you referred.

Quote from: "Achronos"Of course the difference is that he couldn't create what red actually looks like, but beleives based on faith that such a color exists. The only thing he could determine what is red is what is pointed out to him.

How do you conclude any of that?  There is no faith involved, you can prove it to him.  And you can provide him (or he can provide himself) a mechanical, repeatable means to detect it himself, without your help.  That was my point.  Additionally, understanding how it works, he certainly could "create" red, or do you mean he could not create an image of red in his mind?  He could create an image as he imagines it but perhaps that image would differ in some way from how a sighted man can imagine it.  But, is there really a difference there?  That is a difficult philosophical question.  I feel like I am repeating myself here and like you really made no effort to understand.

Quote from: "Achronos"...

I hope you are copying and pasting all of that hinduism/metaphorical business from somewhere, perhaps a collection of arguments you've previously prepared, because it's not really worth your time to try so hard at convincing me of the existence of the supernatural.  I am aware of the "problem of induction".  It is a philosophical argument; meanwhile, in the real world, science continually reveals new knowledge and new applications for knowledge with real utility in the world based on inductive reasoning.  Is it possible that the laws of nature will not always be as they seem now, or have not always been?  Perhaps.  When that day comes, I'll start caring.  Meanwhile I'm going with what is in front of me.  It is impossible to do otherwise.

Quote from: "Achronos"A scientific atheist is contradicting his own authority, which is the perception. When the human incarnation performs the inexplicable miracles, how can they deny the perception of such miracles?

I've never witnessed a miracle firsthand.  I've never met someone who has, and can show proof of it along with proof that they did not simply hallucinate/dream/imagine it.  If I did witness a "miracle" myself, and could be certain I was lucid and not hallucinating, I would assume there is a natural explanation to which I am simply currently ignorant.  This would not be a contradiction of the authority of my perception; I would accept that I had perceived it and I would conceive of many possible explanations for it, not all of which would be easily falsifiable.  If all falsifiable explanations were investigated and falsified, I would simply move on because there is no other alternative.  Totally unfalsifiable would be that something supernatural (or beyond my normal ability to perceive/comprehend) was the cause.  I am not interested in considering all of the totally unfalsifiable explanations because to do so would be to descend into madness.  Fortunately, I am nowhere near such madness (at least in my own opinion), because I have never witnessed a miracle.

Quote from: "Achronos"....The same ash may be produced by a divine miracle also...

...Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg etc., are the top most scientists who have travelled and travelled along the Science River and reached the final spiritual ocean.

Prove that ash may be produced by a divine miracle.  Then I will be happy to talk about all the rivers and spiritual oceans you'd like.

Quote from: "Achronos"Personally, I believe that Christianity is superior to other religions because the message of Christ speaks more fundamentally and completely to the human condition than any other belief systems before or after (and yes everyone has a belief system). In his own words,

"I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Here Christ calls us to action, urging us to live the life he showed us how to live, and to see for ourselves whether his message resonates with our hearts. Far from an intellectual assent, the actualization and realization of these words in my life is what my 'faith' is based upon.

My experience is different from many others (I was an atheist for 20 years), how could I ever pyshically show you what is in my heart? The way I experience God was in my very heart, I tried my best to escape, to deny, but I couldn't do it anymore. I was doing everything in my power to escape from the truth when in actuality I was damning it.

I am genuinely, sincerely glad that you have chosen to practice at least some of the teachings of Christ as far as gentleness and humbleness of heart.  I am happy his message, as you interpret it, has resonated within your heart and has allowed you to find rest for your consciousness.  I can quite easily imagine how remaining as gentle and humble as possible would lead a person to enjoying a much more personally fulfilling life than the opposite.  I strive for the same way of living, myself, and it is not always easy.  But I do not do it because I believe in the supernatural.  I strive for it because I believe it to be wise and fulfilling--the most productive way to contribute to the society of which I am a part.

Quote from: "Achronos"I believe that each indiviudal's experience will be different; there is no certain way to pray, no certain way to study, or any of that to experience God. Constantine's came in the form of a cross in the sky, Putin was transformed (again) after a car accident, and so on and so forth. And yes it would be so much easier if we had just a glimpse of Himself (or a certain way to carry out), but I don't believe that path was ever meant to be easy.

To summarize, you could not do as I asked.  Therefore whenever you speak of a special ability to see something which I cannot, or perceive something beyond my own ability, I will continue to assume you are making things up.

Faith is not superior to reason.
When you say "I have faith" you had to reason about that!
You cannot put out any statement without processing the thought in your brain: hence reason having all the power.
In truth, you cannot say "I have faith" without asking permission to reason to say it.

Reason itself is a matter of faith.

Rhetorically, only.
Religious faith is illusion - not reality.

Quote from: "Achronos"Reason itself is a matter of faith.

Reason may require you to trust, but only when it's reasonable  

Quote from: "Achronos"My faith is such that, if I encountered a part of the Orthodox faith that made no sense to me or struck me as incorrect, then it is I who needs to be reformed, not the Orthodox Church.

This is horrifying, sickening, infuriating.  It is intellectual evil.  Like a glimpse of the fangs of an approaching vampire, reading these words has tempted me to lift up a technological device or other artifact of science like a crucifix to ward off an abominable wickedness that this way comes.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"This is horrifying, sickening, infuriating.  It is intellectual evil.  Like a glimpse of the fangs of an approaching vampire, reading these words has tempted me to lift up a technological device or other artifact of science like a crucifix to ward off an abominable wickedness that this way comes.

Me, I'd just call it intellectually bankrupt... Or self unaware. Or... Eh well... Gimme one of those devices you have there for warding  

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Achronos"My faith is such that, if I encountered a part of the Orthodox faith that made no sense to me or struck me as incorrect, then it is I who needs to be reformed, not the Orthodox Church.

This is horrifying, sickening, infuriating.  It is intellectual evil.  Like a glimpse of the fangs of an approaching vampire, reading these words has tempted me to lift up a technological device or other artifact of science like a crucifix to ward off an abominable wickedness that this way comes.

If the Orthodox Church presents the truth as such, I cannot merely pick and choose what I want. I can't decide "Oh I'll do this" and "I won't do that", which you see in alot of the modern Christian denominations. So I would need to change my ways in order to be fuller in the truth of the Word of God. You might see that as an intellectual prison, but quite the contrary for to me it represents everything that is intellectually good. Remember there is no opinion in the face of truth, that is exactly what I wanted to strive for in the Christian faith.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"To summarize, you could not do as I asked.  Therefore whenever you speak of a special ability to see something which I cannot, or perceive something beyond my own ability, I will continue to assume you are making things up.

As far as I am concerned (considering I was an atheist), it was my intellectual criticism that slowly lead me to realize the reality that Jesus Christ did exist, and continues to be seated on the right hand of God.

However, I needed one final proof. I challenged Christ to provide for me, a change of heart and well-being (even if there are facts that prove he existed and is indeed the Messiah that the Old Testament was pointing to), the final proof was for my heart to be changed (via his sovereign grace), to showcase that there is such a thing as "being born again" or "being regenerated as a new creature".

And such a change has happened. But don't think this is special pleading, for it is a personal experience that is for the purpose of proving to me that he exists. I cannot prove to you, that I was once a sinner, and I am now a person saved. Hence, this is also known as experiential theology.

EDIT:

Quote from: "Fininho"Rhetorically, only.
Religious faith is illusion - not reality.

"Faith is to believe what we do not see. The reward of this faith is to see what we believe." - Augustine

"Faith is only as valid as its object. You could have tremendous faith in very thin ice and drown.… You could have very little faith in very thick ice and be perfectly secure." - Stuart Briscoe

"Faith commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate facts; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on the above conviction; and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct." - W. H. Griffith Thomas

The bible itself illustrates such a use of 'faith'.

1 Samuel 12:7
(7) Now therefore stand still, that I may reason with you before the LORD of all the righteous acts of the LORD, which he did to you and to your fathers.

Isaiah 1:18
(18) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Isaiah 41:21
(21) Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.

Acts 24:25
(25) And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

1 Peter 3:15
(15) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

1 Thessalonians 5:21
(21) Prove all things (πανÏ,,α δοκιμαζεÏ,,ε - "Test everything"); hold fast that which is good.

1 John 4:1
(1) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Acts 17:11
(11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Faith is not an abstract placebo (like Oprah's "The Secret") - because if it were, then there should be no reason for trying to understand who Jesus Christ is, whether he really exists or not, and that I shouldn't even be discussing this because I would rather go on with some sort of emotional hype like an Emu sticking its head in the sand and ignorantly telling myself that "I am safe".

The relation of faith to reason is of utmost importance for the thinking believer. The problem of how to combine these aspects of person-hood has existed from the earliest apologists. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all struggled. Augustine made the first serious attempt to relate the two, but the most comprehensive treatment came at the end of the medieval period when Christian intellectualism flowered in the work of Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas held that faith and reason intertwine. Faith uses reason, and reason cannot succeed in finding truth without faith. Reason accompanies, but does not cause, faith. Faith is consent without inquiry in that faith’s assent is not caused by investigation. Rather, it is produced by God. Commenting on Ephesians 2:8â€"9, Aquinas contended that “free will is inadequate for the act of faith since the contents of faith are above reason...That a man should believe, therefore, cannot occur from himself unless God gives it.” Faith is a gift of God, and no one can believe without it.

Nonetheless, “this does not prevent the understanding of one who believes from having some discursive thought of comparison about those things which he believes” (On Truth, 14.A1.2). Such discursive thought, or reasoning from premises to conclusions, is not the cause of the assent of faith, but it can and should accompany it. Faith and reason are parallel. One does not cause the other because “faith involves will (freedom) and reason doesn’t coerce the will”. A person is free to dissent, even though there may be convincing reasons to believe.

As a matter of tactical approach in apologetics, if the authority of Scripture is accepted (faith), appeal can be made to it (reason). “Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But Mohammedans [see Islam] and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other...We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent” (Summa Theologica, 1a.2.2).

However, some Christian truths are attainable by human reason, for example, that God exists and is one. “Such truths about God have been proved demonstratively by the philosophers, guided by the light of the natural reason.”

Reason or philosophy can be used in three ways, Aquinas says:
1. It demonstrates the “preambles of faith” (that God exists, that we are his creatures).

2. It analyzes teachings of philosophers in order to reveal corresponding concepts in Christian faith. Aquinas gives the example of Augustine’s 'On the Trinity', which draws on philosophy to help explain the Trinity.

3. It opposes attacks against faith from logic (Gentiles, 1.9).

Reason can be used to prove natural theology, which studies the existence and nature of one God. It can be used to illustrate supernatural theological concepts, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. And it can be used to refute false theologies. The apologist directs the person to accept two kinds of truth about divine things and to destroy what is contrary to truth. The person is directed to the truths of natural theology by the investigation of the reason and to the truths of supernatural theology by faith.

Aquinas’s view of the relation of faith and reason blends positive elements of presuppositionalism and evidentialism, of rationalism and fideism. Aquinas stresses the need for reason before, during, and after beliefs are acquired. Even the mysteries of faith are not irrational.

On the other hand, Aquinas does not believe that reason alone can bring anyone to faith. Salvation is accomplished only by the grace of God. Faith can never be based on reason. At best it can only be supported by reason. Thus, reason and evidence never coerce faith. There is always room for unbelievers not to believe in God, even though a believer can construct a valid proof that God exists. Reason can be used to demonstrate that God exists, but it can never in itself persuade someone to believe in God. Only God can do this, working in and through their free choice.

These distinctions of Aquinas are eminently relevant to the discussion between rationalists and fideists or between evidentialists and presuppositionalists. With regard to belief that God exists, Aquinas sides with the rationalists and evidentialists. But with respect to belief in God, he agrees with fideists and presuppositionalists.

Quote from: "Achronos"However, I needed one final proof. I challenged Christ to provide for me, a change of heart and well-being (even if there are facts that prove he existed and is indeed the Messiah that the Old Testament was pointing to), the final proof was for my heart to be changed (via his sovereign grace), to showcase that there is such a thing as "being born again" or "being regenerated as a new creature".

And such a change has happened. But don't think this is special pleading, for it is a personal experience that is for the purpose of proving to me that he exists. I cannot prove to you, that I was once a sinner, and I am now a person saved. Hence, this is also known as experiential theology.

Recommended reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

Religion can and does provide a sense of community and meaning for people. In this sense, I cannot say that it offends me.
However, any religion that condemns me in such a condescending manner simply because I reject its idea on the 'truth' of existence, then it does offend me.

Quote from: "Cite134"However, any religion that condemns me in such a condescending manner simply because I reject its idea on the 'truth' of existence, then it does offend me.

And it's that Christian piety which offends me as well, that is no way to present any religious beliefs in my opinion. I urge you as well to look into that condemnation but of course never believe in something out of fear. If someone told me I was going to hell, I would take it as face value and not automatically reject what they believe. They could be interpreting the certain faith a wrong way.

Speaking of my own faith, Jesus Christ doesn't want to condemn anyone, his love for each person is like the amazon river watering a lilly.

I think that religion inspires people to do good, beautiful, bad and ugly things.
It is the dark side of religion, that offends me.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Cite134"However, any religion that condemns me in such a condescending manner simply because I reject its idea on the 'truth' of existence, then it does offend me.

And it's that Christian piety which offends me as well, that is no way to present any religious beliefs in my opinion. I urge you as well to look into that condemnation but of course never believe in something out of fear. If someone told me I was going to hell, I would take it as face value and not automatically reject what they believe. They could be interpreting the certain faith a wrong way.

Speaking of my own faith, Jesus Christ doesn't want to condemn anyone, his love for each person is like the amazon river watering a lilly.

Why not? I would reject anything a human/dogma would say about what's going to happen (especially me) after death. Especially if they just assume that's what's going to happen.
I looked into it and the bible told me enough of what I needed it to disregard it as 'truth'. I wouldn't just find Christianity offensive in this case, though. ANY religion that does so is offensive to me.
&
So your interpretation is the true one? What makes one interpretation any more wrong than yours?
Hell? Not scared at all. Can't be scared of something I do not believe exists in the first place.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "fazFwQo83"Not at all, but religious organisations give the credit to god. I'm saying we should give the credit to the people who make it happen and leave god out of it. I'm saying that people often identify compassion and kindness with religion and god. I'm saying that it's rubbish. People are capable of great compassion and we don't need some imaginary god character to motivate us to help another human being.

I agree that the association between the Christian god and good works is nonsense, and that "god" as a motivating concept is incredibly weak.  However, I was making my point in reply to this post another member saying that they saw no good that religion does; I was pointing out an example I've seen of religion doing good, without reference to whatever they might claim as inspiration.

With that being said, I would have to concede that while religion certainly has it's dark side, they [good people who belong to religious organisations] do some good along the way too.

Many Christians wish they could be labelled "pragmatic believers": believing only the good side of their faith.
I could go along with that, if my support would not be a terrible offence to those many innocent victims of religions!
Islam is a case in point.
It is a terribly belligerent faith, with a terribly dark side.
Do I then applaud only its mild face?
No, not even that.

Quote from: "Achronos"Because of our visceral desire for God. Even atheists have proven this, unknowingly.

You realize that you are assuming your premises, right?

QuoteThat is the whole point of faith. Faith is to have a reason, to have a knowledge, to have a sense of security and understanding, that the 'ideology' is indeed a real fact.

Security?  Yes.  "Knowledge"?  Not so fast.  Faith is about believing even though you cannot know.

Also, you'll need to present evidence that your "ideology" is factual in its claims.

QuoteJesus Christ destroys religion. Yes, even Christian "religion". Biblical Christianity is not a religion.

Unfortunately for your argument, the presence of over 30,000 different sects show that either:

1) Your claim that "Jesus destroys religion" is wrong; or
2) There is no Jesus Christ.

Also, your assertion that modern Christians aren't really Christians is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"No True Scotsman fallacy.

Being an atheist, it makes the guy learn about a lot of fallacy types, shades and models.  :hmm:

Quote from: "Wiki"The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[1]

    Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." [Brighton is not part of Scotland.] The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. [Aberdeen is part of Scotland.] This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
    â€"Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

A simpler rendition would be:

    Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
    Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
    Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

An example of a political application of the fallacy would be in asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.[2]

Quote"Speaking of my own faith, Jesus Christ doesn't want to condemn anyone, his love for each person is like the amazon river watering a lily."

It sound fantastic love, but the reality is so crudely horrible that the saying should be banned.
Jesus' love my foot!
What love?!...
I can tell you of several coarse LIES this impersonator told in the gospels!
He lied to his best friends.
I believe Jesus was addicted to hashish.

Look people, if you are a real athiest:

1. God just doesnt exist,  only humanity exists.  Period.

2. Humanity creates the gods and monsters.

3. Religion is just a series of stories created by humanity.

4. In the end, your dead.   Humanity might survive, but who cares, your dead.

It is not any more complicated then that.  Dont be offended by religion, be offended by humanity.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"wiki

Of course! The all birds can fly-fallacy, as I have learned it.  

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"1. God just doesnt exist,  only humanity exists.  Period.

2. Humanity creates the gods and monsters.

3. Religion is just a series of stories created by humanity.

4. In the end, your dead.   Humanity might survive, but who cares, your dead.

To which the theist responds:

1. God exists.

2. God created humanity.

3. Religion is a series of stories revealed by God.

4. In the end, you go to heaven or hell.

At that point, we have four options:

1. Walk away from the conversation.

2. If proximity permits, punch the theist in the face.

3. Repeat our allegedly self-evident claims again, more loudly and with a redder face.

4. Defend our claims with logic.

The first option negates the reason for this message board's existence.  The second is sub-human.  The third is sub-human.  The fourth is what often gets done here.

If you insist on 4, I would use reason, not logic.

Logic gets us to where we are,  Reason makes someone stand up and yell 'WTF is wrong with us?'

Your #3 & #4 and bacon greese, will just get you a heart attack.

Your #2 would feel real good.

Chuckle and walk away with #1, which might alieve the heart attack.

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"If you insist on 4, I would use reason, not logic.

On another thread, when I asked you to differentiate the two, you replied as follows:

QuoteLogic gets you shroders cat.
Reason says the cat doesnt care what you think.

I have no idea what that is intended to clarify, since Schroedinger made no claims as to what the cat cared about.

Some are willing to classify intuition as a form of thinking, such that, logic and intuition are two distinct forms of thinking.  I can accept that definition.  But even if I do, I can't use intuition to defend truth claims.  Intuition is a leap from observation to conclusion across mental territory the brain keeps hidden.  That hidden mental territory, by virtue of its being hidden, renders intuition useless for defending truth claims.

If reason isn't identical to logic, then unless it includes intuition, I have no idea what reason is.  What is it?  If reason is thinking, and thinking is logic and intuition, then I'm left with logic when debating.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The second is sub-human.  The third is sub-human.

...but oooh, how fun!  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Security?  Yes.  "Knowledge"?  Not so fast.  Faith is about believing even though you cannot know.

A knowledge, not all knowledge.

QuoteUnfortunately for your argument, the presence of over 30,000 different sects show that either

Remember I said biblical Christianity and the interpretation of the Bible needs to be derived from the church, I believe I have explained the importance of this elsewhere if not I can explain it again.

In the Gospel story of the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus made this clear. “‘Sir,’ the woman said to him, ‘I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.’ Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, believe me, the our cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father…. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him’” (Jn. 4:19-21, 23). She asked him a question about cult (the outward practice of religion), and in reply Jesus changed the whole perspective of the matter. Nowhere in the New Testament, in fact, is Christianity presented as a cult (in its technical sense) or as a religion. Religion is needed where there is a wall of separation between God and man. But Christ who is both God and man has broken down the wall between man and God. He has inaugurated a new life, not a new religion.

Christianity often appears, however, to preach that if men will try hard enough to live Christian lives, the crucifixion can somehow be reversed. This is because Christianity has forgotten itself, forgotten that always it must first of all stand at the cross. Not that this world cannot be improved â€" one of our goals is certainly to work for peace, justice, freedom. But while it can be improved, it can never become the place God intended it to be. Christianity does not condemn the world. The world has condemned itself when on Calvary it condemned the One who was its true self. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not” (Jn. 1:10). If we think seriously about the real meaning, the real scope of these words, we know that as Christians and insofar as we are Christians, we are, first of all, witnesses of that end: end of all natural joy; end of all satisfaction of man with the world and with himself; end, indeed, of life itself as a reasonable and reasonably organized “pursuit of happiness.” Christians did not have to wait for the modern proponents of existentialist anxiety, despair and absurdity to be aware of all this. And although in the course of their long history Christians have much too often forgotten the meaning of the cross, and enjoyed life as if “nothing had happened,” although each one of us too often takes “time off” â€" we know that in the world in which Christ died, “natural life” has been brought to an end.

QuoteAlso, your assertion that modern Christians aren't really Christians is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

I have not asserted that modern Christians aren't really Christians; who am I to judge? I can only assert that my orthodox faith is the truth of Christ (which historically it is) but it is also hard for me to hold back on judgment on the other denominations in Christianity, after all we are all in the quest for truth so discernment must be made.

Quote from: "Achronos"after all we are all in the quest for truth so discernment must be made.

I am on no such quest. I tend to only look for the truth when presented with a potential lie. And something makes me suspect I'm not the only one.

I find more time to enjoy my life when I'm not roaming the realm of science, fiction and philosophy in search for answers where there are no good ones to be had.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Security?  Yes.  "Knowledge"?  Not so fast.  Faith is about believing even though you cannot know.

A knowledge, not all knowledge.

There is another post that you made here that contradicts this statement.

QuoteRemember I said biblical Christianity and the interpretation of the Bible needs to be derived from the church,

If you could link to this post, I'd appreciate it.

QuoteIn the Gospel story of the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus made this clear. “‘Sir,’ the woman said to him, ‘I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.’ Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, believe me, the our cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father…. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him’” (Jn. 4:19-21, 23).

First, this god is not perfect if it "seeks" worshipers.
Second, (quote in red), one does not need the church in order to worship in spirit. And another 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

QuoteBut Christ who is both God and man has broken down the wall between man and God. He has inaugurated a new life, not a new religion.

Jesus was not the messiah. Could not be. Do a search here for this topic. If Jesus ushered in no new religion, why are you not a Jew?

QuoteChristianity often appears, however, to preach that if men will try hard enough to live Christian lives, the crucifixion can somehow be reversed. This is because Christianity has forgotten itself, forgotten that always it must first of all stand at the cross. Not that this world cannot be improved â€" one of our goals is certainly to work for peace, justice, freedom.

You are right. Christianity has forgotten the basic precepts of itself. Christianity is not conducive to any other ideology with exception to communism. I submit, your goal is to achieve salvation within the basic precepts of your non religion.

QuoteBut while it can be improved, it can never become the place God intended it to be.

You speak for an impotent, therefore an imperfect god....this is laughable.

QuoteChristianity does not condemn the world. The world has condemned itself when on Calvary it condemned the One who was its true self. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not” (Jn. 1:10). If we think seriously about the real meaning, the real scope of these words, we know that as Christians and insofar as we are Christians, we are, first of all, witnesses of that end: end of all natural joy; end of all satisfaction of man with the world and with himself; end, indeed, of life itself as a reasonable and reasonably organized “pursuit of happiness.”

What is this wishy washyness you spew? Did you just not say that some of your goals are to "work for peace, justice, freedom"?...IOW, pursuit of happiness?

Quotewe know that in the world in which Christ died, “natural life” has been brought to an end.

Honestly...you know nothing of the sort.

QuoteI have not asserted that modern Christians aren't really Christians; who am I to judge?

Hey...if Saul/Paul can judge, you can as well.

QuoteI can only assert that my orthodox faith is the truth of Christ (which historically it is)

So what happened during the 300 years before your orthodox church and Jesus's death?

Quotebut it is also hard for me to hold back on judgment on the other denominations in Christianity, after all we are all in the quest for truth so discernment must be made.

Who are you to judge....indeed...*rolling my eyes*

Assertion after contradiction after fallacy. You are as unbelievable as your orthodoxy would have it.

Good point about god seeking worshipers!
Indeed, he/she/it is an impersonator of a kind!
That also offends me: when people start throwing you verse from the Bible!
I know the Bible very well: I studied it for 35 years!
I don't need any more verses in my life, for Pete's sake!!!

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"2. If proximity permits, punch the theist in the face.

Isn't this just an appeal to authority fallacy?

Also, not recommended in America, as we are lawsuit-happy nation.

Not recommend if the person is bigger than you, can fight, etc.

Quote from: "tunghaichuan"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"2. If proximity permits, punch the theist in the face.

Isn't this just an appeal to authority fallacy?

Quote from: "Wiki"Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to the stick" or "appeal to force"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"wiki

Of course! The all birds can fly-fallacy, as I have learned it.  

I like that, it gets old cracking wise about kilts and all.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Security?  Yes.  "Knowledge"?  Not so fast.  Faith is about believing even though you cannot know.

A knowledge, not all knowledge.

Nonsense.  Faith is not knowledge, nor is knowledge faith.  Your false equivocation here debases both words.  

QuoteNowhere in the New Testament, in fact, is Christianity presented as a cult (in its technical sense) or as a religion.

What, then, do you think Paul was doing, if he wasn't founding a religion?  That too is part of the New Testament.

Quote from: "Thump"Also, your assertion that modern Christians aren't really Christians is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Quote from: "Achronos"I have not asserted that modern Christians aren't really Christians; who am I to judge? I can only assert that my orthodox faith is the truth of Christ[/i] (which historically it is) but it is also hard for me to hold back on judgment on the other denominations in Christianity, after all we are all in the quest for truth so discernment must be made. [Emphasis added]

In other words, you're not judging them, but you are discerning? This is a distinction without a difference.  No matter how you try to finesse it, you are certainly committing this fallacy; I have emphasized where you've repeated this error.  That you are so blasé in so doing does you no good credit.

And, sorry for the run-on posting, but:

Quote from: "Droid"If reason isn't identical to logic, then unless it includes intuition, I have no idea what reason is. What is it? If reason is thinking, and thinking is logic and intuition, then I'm left with logic when debating.

Reason is the application of the real world to logic, in the effort to weed out flawed premises, in order to avoid issues with GIGO:

"All hammers eat spinach.
This is a hammer.
This eats spinach."

This is why "unreasonable" is often used as a near-synonym for "batshit crazy".

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"

QuoteLogic gets you shroders cat.
Reason says the cat doesnt care what you think.

I have no idea what that is intended to clarify, since Schroedinger made no claims as to what the cat cared about.

Care was kind of the wrong word (language sucks),  I wasnt trying to imply that the cat was thinking, or wanting to be alive/dead.  More along the lines 'shroedingers view of reality doesn't effect the cat'

What I am trying to say is Schroedingers logical conclusion about reality is just wrong.  Reality is what it is, not what shroedinger/cat thinks/wants/claims/needs/believes/even observes it to be.  He needed to sit back add a little reason and ask himself 'WTF was I thinking?'.    By reason, I mean a little common sense, ie being reasonable.

Logic by itself, is unreasonable.  Something along the lines, statics don't lie, but liers use statistcs, or logic is a set of rules that are true/reason is sometimes wrong, everyone (christians/athiests) use logic without reason.

You find in 1 Peter, the instruction "Add to your faith KNOWLEDGE" - gnosis.
Properly interpreted - my way - it disenfranchises faith.
Once you add knowledge to faith, faith is discredited.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Nonsense.  Faith is not knowledge, nor is knowledge faith.  Your false equivocation here debases both words.  

Faith is reliable, but on the other hand all knowledge is derived from the senses. The human intellect can not operate without phantasms or sensory data. And yet, the human intellect is not dependent on a corporeal organ for its proper operations and the human soul is incorruptible. There is one human soul for each human person and that soul is the form or act of the human body. It is the business of the intellect to know natures and essences in their common or absolutely considered natures. But still, a knowledge both of itself and of particular things is possible for the human intellect. The final cause for mankind is salvation and felicity in beholding God.

QuoteWhat, then, do you think Paul was doing, if he wasn't founding a religion?  That too is part of the New Testament.

As I said it is never presented as such, this is due to Christ being the only way to make communion to the Father. Sin is what divided us between God, but it was because of Christ that bridged the gap. I also don't want to give the wrong distinction that the Son and the Father are separate entities, for both are with the Trinity as well as the Holy Spirit. Anyway how could Paul 'found' a religion when clearly Jesus Christ broke the boundary between us and God? As the original Church was established, Jesus Christ is the head of the church and rightfully so.

Quote from: "Thump"In other words, you're not judging them, but you are discerning? This is a distinction without a difference.  No matter how you try to finesse it, you are certainly committing this fallacy; I have emphasized where you've repeated this error.  That you are so blasé in so doing does you no good credit.

[/quote]

Judging them in regards to pointing out theological issues but I personally have to discern the truth because it is important to me. It may not be so important to another Christian, but it is absolutley vital for how my mind operates. I'm not deriding a certain person based on their theological approach to Christianity, but there are differences present and it is those differences that have caused me to find the truth.

Quote from: "Achronos"Faith is reliable, .........(snip)

What?  I need help getting past your first 3 words, please help me.

Quote from: "Achronos"Faith is reliable, but on the other hand all knowledge is derived from the senses. The human intellect can not operate without phantasms or sensory data. And yet, the human intellect is not dependent on a corporeal organ for its proper operations and the human soul is incorruptible. There is one human soul for each human person and that soul is the form or act of the human body. It is the business of the intellect to know natures and essences in their common or absolutely considered natures. But still, a knowledge both of itself and of particular things is possible for the human intellect. The final cause for mankind is salvation and felicity in beholding God.

Other than this word-salad, what support have you?  Bald claims bereft of evidence do not support make.

QuoteAs I said it is never presented as such, this is due to Christ being the only way to make communion to the Father. Sin is what divided us between God, but it was because of Christ that bridged the gap. I also don't want to give the wrong distinction that the Son and the Father are separate entities, for both are with the Trinity as well as the Holy Spirit. Anyway how could Paul 'found' a religion when clearly Jesus Christ broke the boundary between us and God? As the original Church was established, Jesus Christ is the head of the church and rightfully so.

You dodged my question.  PLease go back, re-read, and provide a cogent answer.

Quote from: "Thump"Judging them in regards to pointing out theological issues but I personally have to discern the truth because it is important to me. It may not be so important to another Christian, but it is absolutley vital for how my mind operates. I'm not deriding a certain person based on their theological approach to Christianity, but there are differences present and it is those differences that have caused me to find the truth.

[/quote]

Again, this fallacy is present.  My point is this:  you realize that many of them say that you are not a true Christian.  From where I stand, you're both right.  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"You dodged my question.  PLease go back, re-read, and provide a cogent answer.

Don't feel too special, Thump... he dodged quite a few of mine too  

Darn.  <kicking dirt>

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Other than this word-salad, what support have you?  Bald claims bereft of evidence do not support make.

Is this in reference to the 'soul'? If so I would be happy to explain.

QuoteYou dodged my question.  PLease go back, re-read, and provide a cogent answer.

Ugh, one step forward, two steps back.

Let's examine what I said:

QuoteAs I said it is never presented as such, this is due to Christ being the only way to make communion to the Father. Sin is what divided us between God, but it was because of Christ that bridged the gap. I also don't want to give the wrong distinction that the Son and the Father are separate entities, for both are with the Trinity as well as the Holy Spirit. Anyway how could Paul 'found' a religion when clearly Jesus Christ broke the boundary between us and God? As the original Church was established, Jesus Christ is the head of the church and rightfully so.

I  have already established not only in this thread but in the "Challenge for Christians" thread, but I will touch a little bit on this again. Christ was both man and God and he inaugurated a new life not a new religion, by abolishing the previous dichotomies, e.g., between "natural" and "supernatural", "sacred" and "profane" or "spiritual" and "material", which were the only justification and raison d'etre of religion. Christ himself was the answer to ALL religion, to all human hunger for God. Christian worship in general is the end of cult, of the "sacred" religious act isolated from, and opposed to, the "profane" life of the community. Religion is only a fragment of human life, not its wholeness. This is the reason why pagans in the first centuries had accused Christians of atheism, namely because the latter had no concern for any sacred geography, no temples and no cult in the traditional sense; they had essentially deviated from the predominant stereotypes of relgion.

So to answer your question simply, no Paul did not start a 'religion'.

Quote from: "Thump"JAgain, this fallacy is present.  My point is this:  you realize that many of them say that you are not a true Christian.  From where I stand, you're both right.  

I don't think others reject that I am a true Christian, but with the fragmentation in the faith there has to be a separation of what is true and what I will simply call half-truth. What I mean by half-truth is somehow there are Christians who think they can get around the actual crucifixion of Christ by just living a good Christian life; but it all starts at the Cross. Christianity itself is very simple at its core, Jesus Christ is the only way to have life with the Father again (Also considering both are one and the same); the sin that Adam caused has been reversed and death has been conquered. Jesus payed the ransom, and now we can have eternal life because of Him.

Forget all the dogmas, forget all the theological disputes within the faith, and see it for what it is. And now look at the protestants tripping over themselves because they themselves scrutinize the Bible so much it causes such problems with outsiders in the faith and they have to continually build new modern arguments to fight off anything new society throws at it. Protestantism is very circular: "I know the Bible is true because the Bible tells me so", that is absolutely ridiculous and that is something I think we both can agree on.

Religion is circular thinking.
Religion is a man thinking with another man's brain.
It is insulting, because you have your own brain to make normal use of it.
Religion attacks your brain to destroy it: then you have to use that of a "spiritual tutor".
Religion was to be an inoffensive pastime between meals if nobody got hurt.

Quote from: "Achronos"Protestantism is very circular: "I know the Bible is true because the Bible tells me so", that is absolutely ridiculous and that is something I think we both can agree on.

Agreed.  Orthodoxy is likewise very circular: "I know Church doctrine is true because the Church tells me so"; that is equally ridiculous.  Empiricism and logic are the only paths to knowledge, with intuition a powerful source of hypotheses.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Achronos"Protestantism is very circular: "I know the Bible is true because the Bible tells me so", that is absolutely ridiculous and that is something I think we both can agree on.

Agreed.  Orthodoxy is likewise very circular: "I know Church doctrine is true because the Church tells me so"; that is equally ridiculous.  Empiricism and logic are the only paths to knowledge, with intuition a powerful source of hypotheses.

Not exactly. Orthodox Christianity begins with the first Pentecost in Jerusalem and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Christ's small circle of disciples. It is then that the Orthodox Church was born. The Apostles, it is true, had been historic witnesses to Christ's messianic ministry and resurrection before the Spirit of God descended on them. Still, it was with this event that they felt authorized to preach the Gospel to the world. Only then were they able to fully understand the mystery of Easter, that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and begin their mission. The expansion of the early Christian movement, however, was not without problems, nor was it spontaneous. Persecution and martyrdom awaited most of its initial members. The aggressive new missionary community, nevertheless, was destined to survive and grow in numbers. By the third century it had become a "mass phenomenon." Though unevenly scattered, it constituted possibly as much as ten percent of the total population of the Roman Empire. As such, it was sufficiently strong to compel the Roman emperors to end the persecutions. The Church, arguably, could no longer be ignored - numerically or ideologically; hence the legal recognition of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine at the beginning of the fourth century (312), and its subsequent recognition as the official religion of the empire by the end, under Theodosius (392).

The causes of this success are understandably complex. The disciplined close-knit structure of the Church, its social solidarity and internal cohesion, its care for the poor and the deprived did not go unnoticed. Both the hostile critic and the ordinary pagan observer were aware of these advantages. Furthermore, the persecution and martyrdom of Christians - despite the streak of cruelty in some who observed these punishments - could not but raise doubts and questions for many individuals. Nor did Christianity's message of equality before God fail to make its impression on the stratified urban population of the ancient world. Finally, Christianity's exclusiveness, the intimate sense of belonging, as well as its universality attracted new adherents. Ultimately and at a deeper level, however, it was the saving message of the Gospel that was the principal cause of Christian expansion. This message promised not only reconciliation and forgiveness of sin, but liberation from the bondage of death and corruption. "Christians were Christians," as one scholar has put it, "only because Christianity brought to them liberation from death." Above all, through Christ's own resurrection, man's own incorruptibility, his own future physical resurrection and deification was assured. To be in Christ, as St. Paul says, is to be a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). It is to the simple appeal of the primitive proclamation of the Gospel, in sum, that we must turn for the more probable cause of Christian expansion.

In a very real sense, the first four centuries of the Christian era were among the most creative. The Christian victory was undeniably revolutionary both for the Roman Empire and the European civilization that followed. From the perspective of the Church itself the period was even more significant. It is then that the Church achieved a certain self-identity, even self-awareness, which has since remained normative for Orthodoxy. Two developments which affected its self-understanding -- one institutional and the other doctrinal -- will suffice to illustrate this truism. The Church was initially without a New Testament. "Scripture" invariably simply meant the Old Testament. Increasingly, however, the Church saw the need to bring together all the writings of apostolic origin or inspiration into a single canon. This collection of twenty-seven books still constitutes the total apostolic witness for the Church and is identical with our present New Testament. In sum, one of the most significant events in the history of Christianity during this period was its transformation, to borrow Harnack's phrase, into a religion of two Testaments. These writings, it is worth pointing out, were received and acknowledged by the community of the Church because they coincided with its own Tradition and the witness of the Holy Spirit indwelling in its midst since Pentecost. Strictly speaking, Christians lived solely by this Tradition decades before the content of the New Testament was determined. In the circumstances, Scripture in the Orthodox Church is routinely interpreted within the context of Tradition. As Father Georges Florovsky famously argued, it is within this larger setting of the Church's living memory (Tradition) that Scripture discloses its authentic message.

Equally crucial for the life of the Church was the formation of its administrative structure. As a rule, the ministry of the Apostles was itinerant, not stationary. After founding a community the Apostles would depart for another mission, leaving behind others to administer the new congregation and preside over the Eucharist and Baptism. In effect, a local hierarchy developed whose functions were stationary, administrative, and sacramental in contrast with the mobile authority of the Apostles. The presiding officer of each community, especially at each Sunday eucharistic meal, was the episcopos, or bishop, who was assisted by priests and deacons. By the early second century, this settled system with its threefold pattern of bishop, priest, deacon was already in place in many areas. There was nothing unusual in this development. After all, the Last Supper -- the first liturgy -- could not have taken place without the Lord's presiding presence. Indeed, from the beginning, the existence of a presiding head was taken for granted by the Church. This establishment of a local "monarchical" episcopate is still at the very center of Orthodox ecclesiology.

If the early fourth century marks the end of the period of persecutions and the Church's formative age, it also marks the dawn of the medieval period. With the fourth century we are standing on the threshold of a new civilization -- the Christian empire of medieval Byzantium. Clearly, Constantine's recognition of Christianity was decisive. Equally momentous doubtless was his decision to transfer the imperial residence -- the center of Roman government -- to Constantinople in 330. The importance of this event in the history of Eastern Christianity can hardly be exaggerated. This capital situated in the old Greek city of Byzantium, soon became the focus of the new emerging Orthodox civilization. Historical opinion remains divided on the question of Byzantium's contribution to civilization. Still, its lasting legacy lies arguably in the area of religion and art; it is these which give Byzantine culture much of its unity and cohesion. The new cultural synthesis that developed was at any rate clearly Christian, dominated by the Christian vision of life, rather than the pagan. We need only turn to Justinian's (532) "Great Church" of the Holy Wisdom -- the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople -- to understand this. But if Constantinople, the "New Rome" became the setting for this new civilization, it also became the unrivaled center of Orthodox Christianity. It is during this pivotal period in the history of the Church that the city's bishop assumed the title of "ecumenical patriarch."

The Byzantine Empire was characterized by a remarkable endurance: it survived for over a millennium until its fall to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. We will therefore limit ourselves to an outline of this age, to the events and developments which exercised the greatest influence on the life of the Church. The seven ecumenical councils with their doctrinal formulations are of particular importance. Specifically, these assemblies were responsible for the formulation of Christian doctrine. As such, they constitute a permanent standard for an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the persons of Christ, the incarnation. The mystery of the divine reality was evidently not exhausted by these verbal definitions. All the same, they constitute an authoritative norm against which all subsequent speculative theology is measured. Their decisions remain binding for the whole Church; non-acceptance constitutes exclusion from the communion of the Church. This explains the separation from the body of the Church of such groups as the Jacobites, Armenians, Copts, and Nestorians. Ultimately, acceptance of these councils by the entire community of the Church is what gave them validity and authority. By and large, however, their reception was also due to the great theologians of the age; their literary defense of the theology of these councils was decisive. As we should expect, the writings of such Fathers and saints as Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril, and Gregory of Nyssa, still constitute an inexhaustible theological source for the contemporary Orthodox Christian.

But the seven ecumenical councils are significant for another reason. The visible threefold ministerial structure of the Church was already a reality in many communities by the post-apostolic period, as we have had occasion to observe. Each of these self-contained local churches, with its own independent hierarchical structure, was a self-governing unit. However, precise standards governing the relations of these churches with each other had not been defined. Still, a certain "power structure" modeled in the main upon the organization of the Roman Empire eventually emerged; even before the fourth century a provincial system had developed in which churches were grouped in provinces. In such cases it was customary to give greater honor to the "metropolitan" or bishop of the capital city (metropolis) of each province. Similarly, given the importance of certain cities in the Roman administration, special precedence was accorded the presiding bishop of the three largest cities in the empire: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. All the same, such developments in which a church was ranked according to its civil importance in the administrative divisions of the Roman state, had evolved by common consensus without any ecclesiastical legislation to support it. This problem was eventually addressed by the ecumenical councils. For example, the Fathers of the first council (325) formally recognized the status of the three dioceses of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. With the emergence of Constantinople as the new capital of the empire, this patriarchal system was further modified. After all, the change wrought in the civil administration by Constantinople's new status could not but affect ecclesiastical structure. A rearrangement of the existing pattern was obviously necessary. At the council of 381, Constantinople, as the "New Rome," was accordingly given second place after the old Rome, while Alexandria was assigned third place. This legislation received further confirmation at the fourth council of Chalcedon (451), when Constantinople, along with Jerusalem, was granted patriarchal status.

Orthodoxy believes that it possesses both the unity and the faith which alone will produce the reunion all Christians seek. It is also at the same time fully aware of the scandal of Christian division. These simple facts explain the active role it has played since the 1920s in the ecumenical movement and in the later World Council of Churches founded in Amsterdam in 1948. From the movement's very inception it was the ecumenical Patriarchate that took the initiative and leadership by supporting a policy of full participation. Before long, numerous other Orthodox jurisdictions followed suit, thanks to the encouragement of Constantinople.

Not all Orthodox, it is true, are of one mind about this policy. Some, understandably, believe that the Orthodox idea of the Church is incompatible with the confessional ecclesiology that often dominates the World Council. Doubtless the Protestant notion that the historic aggregation of separated churches are separations in the Church itself is unacceptable to the Orthodox. As one distinguished Orthodox theologian notes, this line of Protestant reasoning negates all that the Orthodox hold about the unity and sacramental fullness of the Church. For all that, the Church has chosen to participate in the ecumenical movement because of the command to love all humanity whether divided or not. Besides, participation does not imply equality with our Protestant brethren, or compromise on our part. On the contrary, we are there as members for dialogue and to bear witness to the only common ground on which all genuine Christian unity must be founded. As the Orthodox statement at the Evanston Assembly of 1954 states, it is to "the faith of the ancient, united and indivisible Church of the seven ecumenical councils, namely, to the pure and unchanged and common heritage of the forefathers of all divided Christians" that we bear witness. The late Georges Florovsky never ceased stressing that the search for Christian unity is a "noble and blessed endeavor."

Quote from: "Achronos"Not exactly. Orthodox Christianity begins with the first Pentecost in Jerusalem and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Christ's small circle of disciples. It is then that the Orthodox Church was born.

Or so the Church has told you.  You deem Church doctrine to be true, and your only basis for that, is that the Church tells you so.  You have given the Church final authority over your mind.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Achronos"Not exactly. Orthodox Christianity begins with the first Pentecost in Jerusalem and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Christ's small circle of disciples. It is then that the Orthodox Church was born.

Or so the Church has told you.  You deem Church doctrine to be true, and your only basis for that, is that the Church tells you so.  You have given the Church final authority over your mind.

Well there has to be some trust that must be placed into those that did witness Christ and his Resurrection. Then the gospel was spread and the church founded.

Since the original church was founded, it had to form councils to dispell the heretics of its day and have theological concepts as concrete fact in regards to the Church (For example there was disputes amongst the follows of Arius on Christ's actual nature, hence why Constantine formed the 1st Ecumenical Council in Nicea and invited ALL bishops to attend to discuss and sign a creed so the church can have something to base itself on).

I joined the orthodox church because I agreed 100% with it's theology first and foremost. Had it slightly altered, like the Catholics did with their 'filoque' clause, I would not be in an orthodox church.

So what the Church has told me I also agree it to be true based upon the theology and history of the Church. But also please keep the distinction that I am not worshiping a 'Church' sort of speak but worshiping Christ

Quote from: "Achronos"Well there has to be some trust that must be placed into those that did witness Christ and his Resurrection. Then the gospel was spread and the church founded.

I disagree, a group of people that saw an event a few days ago, will report completely different stories.  Look at all the theories of the 9/11 event.

How is the witnessing that was present at the forming of the morman church, any different then the witnessing present at the forming of chrstianity?

Should we also  place the same trust in those that did witness the founding of mormanism?

You need more then one source.   The bible says zombies rose from the dead and wondered around, on the night that Jesus supposidly rose from the dead.

Funny how that didn't make it into the "Roman Times" newspaper.

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"I disagree, a group of people that saw an event a few days ago, will report completely different stories.  Look at all the theories of the 9/11 event.

But all of those people will come to the conclusion that two airplanes crashed into the WTC and those two buildings themselves collapsed. The theories on who actually plotted them, are just theories. We know the truth because we have witnessed the event.

QuoteHow is the witnessing that was present at the forming of the morman church, any different then the witnessing present at the forming of chrstianity?

This is where we get into a debate over Mormonism vs Christianity, and how Mormonism goes against the very doctrine of Scripture eventhough they themselves consider themselves as Christians. Joseph Smith's claims of his 'revelation' from God are easily refuted doctrinally.

QuoteYou need more then one source.   The bible says zombies rose from the dead and wondered around, on the night that Jesus supposidly rose from the dead.

There are quite a number of eyewitness accounts of the empty tomb who were not believers in Christ. Heck St. Thomas himself did not believe the resurrection until he saw it for himself, and when Jesus made himself present to Thomas he believed it.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"I disagree, a group of people that saw an event a few days ago, will report completely different stories.  Look at all the theories of the 9/11 event.

1. But all of those people will come to the conclusion that two airplanes crashed into the WTC and those two buildings themselves collapsed. The theories on who actually plotted them, are just theories. We know the truth because we have witnessed the event.

QuoteHow is the witnessing that was present at the forming of the morman church, any different then the witnessing present at the forming of chrstianity?

2. This is where we get into a debate over Mormonism vs Christianity, and how Mormonism goes against the very doctrine of Scripture eventhough they themselves consider themselves as Christians. Joseph Smith's claims of his 'revelation' from God are easily refuted doctrinally.

QuoteYou need more then one source.   The bible says zombies rose from the dead and wondered around, on the night that Jesus supposidly rose from the dead.

3. There are quite a number of eyewitness accounts of the empty tomb who were not believers in Christ. Heck St. Thomas himself did not believe the resurrection until he saw it for himself, and when Jesus made himself present to Thomas he believed it.

I inserted 1-3 above to reference the following
1. There are other theries, but we know they are false, because most ofthem are just silly.
2. So christian witnesses are more reliable then morman witnesses.  I am not talking about the validity of mormanism, I am talking about the reliability of witnesses.
3. Did St. Thomas witness the resurection, or did he see an empty tomb?  Maybe it could have been hungry rats, but that would be silly.  How about his disciples bribing the guards, and taking his very dead body?  Are there any other examples in history of followers taking the body of their fallen leader?

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"I inserted 1-3 above to reference the following
1. There are other theries, but we know they are false, because most ofthem are just silly.

Depends on what you mean by 'silly', perhaps to you they don't sound 'reasonable' enough right?

Quote2. So christian witnesses are more reliable then morman witnesses.  I am not talking about the validity of mormanism, I am talking about the reliability of witnesses.

There was only one witness in Mormonism if I'm not mistaken, and that was Joseph Smith, who's very credibility should be doubted. Now Jesus Christ, who is both human and God, had plenty of people witness him. Some rejected him as the messiah as he lived, even Jews wouldn't accept him as the Messiah because it would break their tradition and sometimes those Pharisees were only in the tradition because of wealth (Jesus pointed out their hypocrisies) and power. Eventhough there were witnesses doesn't mean there weren't people who didn't believe he was the son of God.

Remember those that worship Jesus are worshipping God; people who are in Mormonism must accept that JS was a prophet which goes against the Bible itself. Nothing more needed to be revealed once Christ came, he was the redeemer of man and nothing more needed to be added or taken away.

Quote3. Did St. Thomas witness the resurection, or did he see an empty tomb?  Maybe it could have been hungry rats, but that would be silly.  How about his disciples bribing the guards, and taking his very dead body?  Are there any other examples in history of followers taking the body of their fallen leader?

Yes when Jesus resurrected, he appeared himself to Thomas. Hence the popular phrase "Doubting Thomas".

Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. Neither the Jewish nor the Roman leaders, who guarded the tomb (Matthew 27:62) would have taken the body. Rather, both had every motive to produce the body publicly in order to humiliate the disciples and nip their movement in the bud. And since the scene in question was right at Jerusalem, it was completely within their power to locate the corpse should it still have existed. Yet to their dismay, no such body was ever produced. If the Jews had the body, they would have wheeled it in at the day of Pentecost when all Jerusalem was in an uproar because of Peter's sermon on the Resurrection of Christ.

Likewise, is highly unlikely that Jesus' followers could have removed the body with a Roman guard protecting the tomb, plus a large stone door. And it won't work to charge them with inventing the account of the sleeping guards in Matthew. 28:11. That story would only have served as apologetic propaganda had the guards stayed awake. Why would the disciples (or anyone else) want to risk their lives to steal Christ's body? The biblical record shows the disciples were scared, discouraged and disheartened. Their only motive could have been to deceive. But everything we read about these men indicates they were good and honest. How could they have gone out the rest of their lives and daily preached that Christ had risen from the dead when they knew all along it was a lie? Would they have sacrificed and suffered so greatly for something that they know was an outright deception? It would have been foolish to hide the corpse and fake a resurrection. The consequences of their loyalty to Jesus included beatings, imprisonments, and even death. No sane person chooses these for what they know is false. Under such pressures, liars confess their deceptions and betray their cohorts. The other Apostles too, overcame fear to brave suffering, imprisonment, and even death, as they proclaimed the good news of the risen Christ across their world. Is it thinkable that these people would die so willingly for a mere myth?

The explosive growth of the Church is strong evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Significantly, it wasn't the powerful, but commoners, burdened with every cultural strike against them (1 Corinthians 1:26), whose Resurrection message peaceably transformed the Roman Empire. Who would ever have predicted such an “impossible” feat? Yet it actually did happen.

This debate is getting silly, its just a story, I am going to chuckle and move on.

I as well.

Quote from: "Achronos"Is this in reference to the 'soul'? If so I would be happy to explain.

Explain this:

QuoteAnd yet, the human intellect is not dependent on a corporeal organ for its proper operations and the human soul is incorruptible.

How, exactly, is intellect not reliant on the brain?  Surely you know of the case of Phineas Gage.  Surely you're aware that damage to particular parts of the brain results in particular forms of disability.  Thus, when you say "the human intellect is not dependent on a corporeal organ", you are either being disingenuous, or ignorant.  Consciousness (and thus intellect) is dependant on a functioning brain.  How many dead physicists have discovered new laws?  (Protip: none).

QuoteUgh, one step forward, two steps back.

<buncha repetition snipped>

So to answer your question simply, no Paul did not start a 'religion'.

Really, now?  Why, then, is he a saint?  Why, exactly, he write his letters (which, by the way, are canonical), if not to tell others about this "deity" and how to honor him?

QuoteI don't think others reject that I am a true Christian, but with the fragmentation in the faith there has to be a separation of what is true and what I will simply call half-truth.

I wasn't asking your opinion.  I was pointing out a fact.

QuoteWhat I mean by half-truth is somehow there are Christians who think they can get around the actual crucifixion of Christ by just living a good Christian life; but it all starts at the Cross. Christianity itself is very simple at its core, Jesus Christ is the only way to have life with the Father again (Also considering both are one and the same); the sin that Adam caused has been reversed and death has been conquered. Jesus payed the ransom, and now we can have eternal life because of Him.

... yet there are other Christians who believe that there is such a thing as original sin.  No doubt you'll say that they're wrong.  Also, I have no doubt that they say you are wrong.  

How is it that the message of such a perfect god can be so muddled?  Why must he rely on such fallible human messengers?

QuoteForget all the dogmas, forget all the theological disputes within the faith, and see it for what it is.

I think I beat you to the punch there, partner.  Quite simply: it's bullshit.  You'll get there too.

QuoteAnd now look at the protestants tripping over themselves because they themselves scrutinize the Bible so much it causes such problems with outsiders in the faith and they have to continually build new modern arguments to fight off anything new society throws at it. Protestantism is very circular: "I know the Bible is true because the Bible tells me so", that is absolutely ridiculous and that is something I think we both can agree on.

Protestantism, like your faith, is wrong, I agree.  Your faith, however, is biblical, and you're doing no honor to it by denying such a thing.

Is that a cock I hear crowing?

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"More along the lines 'shroedingers view of reality doesn't effect the cat'

I came back to this thread specifically looking for your prior post about reason, because I wanted to reply to it, saying, I think I know what you were getting at!  I somehow had missed this later post that I'm now replying to.

Here is what I was going to say.  I'll pretend I'm quoting it from the same reality Schroedinger's cat resides in when he's still in the box! :headbang:

QuoteLogic by itself, is unreasonable.  Something along the lines, statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics

I agree - so long as the subject of inquiry is the natural world.  If we're discussing algebra, logic suffices.

Quoteeveryone (christians/athiests) use logic without reason.

I agree - so long as the subject of inquiry is the natural world, and logic is being employed without the discipline of empiricism.

I think that when arguing a point, we forget that everything is real world.

Its to easy to get sucked into the imaginary world.

I feel terrible when:
I hire a children's video for my two year old and it turns out to be a highly religious children's education piece. It's just not right to brainwash people this way. It does make me feel sick.
I see in the newspaper that the Pope makes public statements that it is immoral to use Condoms when millions are dying from AIDS
Countries either pass laws for Civil Unions rather than allow same sex marriages. How is it up to the government to decide on who people should be allowed to love?
Governments outlaw stem cell research because religous outfits deem it as immoral. Needless suffering and disabilities.
Women are not treated as equals and are not allowed to hold high positions within religous organisations. I am all for equal rights.
It is a crime to euthanise suffering people. Needless suffering.
People behave like sheep and regurgitate what they have been taught and do not question, challenge or adapt these teachings as it applies to them and their knowledge and experiences
...
The list goes on.

Your government is sending some tax money [from you as a taxpayer] to support those movie companies support the pope [or the other way around]!
It works well that way for your roman pope.
That is also VERY offensive to me!!
I'm told, the American taxpayer is forced to contribute with cash to hep the pope go.
I'm not sure if the Senate approved it, or it's in the Constitution to help the pope DECEIVE children!
You tell me, please.