unofan
Well-known member
Whatever gramps. You know you think you're just being hip by using Twitter. Don't deny it.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
- Thread starter St. Clown
- Start date
- Status
Whatever gramps. You know you think you're just being hip by using Twitter. Don't deny it.
Whatever floats your boat. Be happy in your work.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
According to this particular pastor, it's okay for single Christians to have sex.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/s...pleasurable-and-affirming-pastor-says-168372/
I agree with her. Telling people "no" only makes them want it more.
According to this particular pastor, it's okay for single Christians to have sex.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/s...pleasurable-and-affirming-pastor-says-168372/
I agree with her. Telling people "no" only makes them want it more.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
There was an interesting conversation the other day at another site about "religion" in the USA....
Some thoughts in response:
What is "religion"?
-- how about, for an operative definition, "religion" is any belief system that explains to us why we should behave in a moral and ethical manner.
Is atheism a "religion"?
-- based on the definition above, it is a non-theistic religion, yes. Atheists generally behave in a moral and ethical manner. In fact, in an earlier post, I included a link to an article from a philosophy journal that argued that morality and ethics are a "natural law" that do not need theistic justification: they are "the right thing to do" whether a Deity exists or not.
From my perspective, I don't care why people behave in a moral and ethical manner, my concern is strictly that they do so. Whatever works, as long as it does work, is fine with me.
There was an interesting conversation the other day at another site about "religion" in the USA....
Some thoughts in response:
What is "religion"?
-- how about, for an operative definition, "religion" is any belief system that explains to us why we should behave in a moral and ethical manner.
Is atheism a "religion"?
-- based on the definition above, it is a non-theistic religion, yes. Atheists generally behave in a moral and ethical manner. In fact, in an earlier post, I included a link to an article from a philosophy journal that argued that morality and ethics are a "natural law" that do not need theistic justification: they are "the right thing to do" whether a Deity exists or not.
From my perspective, I don't care why people behave in a moral and ethical manner, my concern is strictly that they do so. Whatever works, as long as it does work, is fine with me.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Halt. Your definition is misplaced. It fits the question "What is an ethical philosophy?"
The critical test for "religion" is the belief in supernatural powers that affect human beings. Without some sort of Man in the Sky (or the tree, or vested in Gaia, or in Nice Thoughts) there aint no religion.
Halt. Your definition is misplaced. It fits the question "What is an ethical philosophy?"
The critical test for "religion" is the belief in supernatural powers that affect human beings. Without some sort of Man in the Sky (or the tree, or vested in Gaia, or in Nice Thoughts) there aint no religion.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
That is only one of the dictionary definitions, hence, by definition, it is not necessarily "the" critical test.
Also, your definition of "religion" excludes Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism from the list of the world's "religions" and the "Nice Thoughts" part does seem to include a moral and ethical atheist, does it not?
other dictionary definitions include "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" or "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
If I ask you why you behave in a moral and ethical manner, and you reply "because it is the right thing to do" then your response conforms to the third definition.
It always amuses me that you have faith that you behave the "right" way yet resist saying so because a particular word makes you uncomfortable... "non-theistic religion" conforms 100% to what you just posted.
So silly. I say "ethical philosophy" is equivalent to a non-theistic religion and your answer seems to confirm it.....an organized system of beliefs about right and wrong. "religion" does not necessarily require a belief in a Deity.
That is only one of the dictionary definitions, hence, by definition, it is not necessarily "the" critical test.
Also, your definition of "religion" excludes Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism from the list of the world's "religions" and the "Nice Thoughts" part does seem to include a moral and ethical atheist, does it not?
other dictionary definitions include "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" or "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
If I ask you why you behave in a moral and ethical manner, and you reply "because it is the right thing to do" then your response conforms to the third definition.
It always amuses me that you have faith that you behave the "right" way yet resist saying so because a particular word makes you uncomfortable... "non-theistic religion" conforms 100% to what you just posted.
So silly. I say "ethical philosophy" is equivalent to a non-theistic religion and your answer seems to confirm it.....an organized system of beliefs about right and wrong. "religion" does not necessarily require a belief in a Deity.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
I didn't say a deity, I said supernatural. All of the faiths you list fall under my definition.
I'm not sure if there are any religions that lack an ethical element (though Episcopalian sure looks like a candidate
), but that's not the critical test for precisely the reason that there are ethical systems which don't include magical thinking.
I didn't say a deity, I said supernatural. All of the faiths you list fall under my definition.
I'm not sure if there are any religions that lack an ethical element (though Episcopalian sure looks like a candidate
), but that's not the critical test for precisely the reason that there are ethical systems which don't include magical thinking.Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
This is my point of view also. There is much in the OT about it, but if Jesus is God then let's look at the NT. The primary Jesus perspective comes from Matthew: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
So it depends on how you interpret this. If you refer to 'a woman' as any woman, then sex is probably a sin. This may seem odd because you could look at your wife and have those feelings and you'd be committing adultery?...there's no provision here for this. If you believe that 'a woman' refers to a married woman (as we're talking about adultery), then it means that you have committed adultery by looking lustfully at a married woman. In that case, there's no solid evidence that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Couple that with the Golden Rule and if you make both parties truly happy, then where's the harm.
This is my point of view also. There is much in the OT about it, but if Jesus is God then let's look at the NT. The primary Jesus perspective comes from Matthew: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
So it depends on how you interpret this. If you refer to 'a woman' as any woman, then sex is probably a sin. This may seem odd because you could look at your wife and have those feelings and you'd be committing adultery?...there's no provision here for this. If you believe that 'a woman' refers to a married woman (as we're talking about adultery), then it means that you have committed adultery by looking lustfully at a married woman. In that case, there's no solid evidence that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Couple that with the Golden Rule and if you make both parties truly happy, then where's the harm.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Also, hetero women completely off the hook....
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Jesus wasn't big on family ties (if you want to be truly holy, leave your family and follow me) and I suspect he just didn't consider marriage to be a big deal. Like most mystics Jesus at least implied a dualism between heaven-sent immaterial software and animalistic material hardware, and the whole Project was to accentuate the former and only do so much maintenance for the latter that you kept your system up and running. This has always seemed to me to both creepy and naive, but be that as it may it doesn't lead one to extol the virtues of any sort of emotional-physical connection like erotic or familial love.
Of course it's all being filtered through the Church Fathers, who had a special hate on for women, so we'll never really know what the Big J really had to say about love, let alone sex. He can't be as messed up as Calvin (scourge my sinning soul) or Luther (I could use a laxative), anyway. And let's not even start on this fink.
Jesus wasn't big on family ties (if you want to be truly holy, leave your family and follow me) and I suspect he just didn't consider marriage to be a big deal. Like most mystics Jesus at least implied a dualism between heaven-sent immaterial software and animalistic material hardware, and the whole Project was to accentuate the former and only do so much maintenance for the latter that you kept your system up and running. This has always seemed to me to both creepy and naive, but be that as it may it doesn't lead one to extol the virtues of any sort of emotional-physical connection like erotic or familial love.
Of course it's all being filtered through the Church Fathers, who had a special hate on for women, so we'll never really know what the Big J really had to say about love, let alone sex. He can't be as messed up as Calvin (scourge my sinning soul) or Luther (I could use a laxative), anyway. And let's not even start on this fink.
Last edited:
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Depends on your perspective I guess. I think Jesus had limited time and resources...say what you need and say it again. And even then, many will get it wrong.
In terms of 'animalistic material hardware', I don't think society needed any coaching on that. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Likewise, the golden rule is pretty prominent. And I would imagine one doesn't need to stretch it too far from a heavily focus on your enemies well to treating your family or spouse well. Seems to me the big problem that required his attention was people putting hate on each other (kinda relevant today as well).
Depends on your perspective I guess. I think Jesus had limited time and resources...say what you need and say it again. And even then, many will get it wrong.
In terms of 'animalistic material hardware', I don't think society needed any coaching on that. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Likewise, the golden rule is pretty prominent. And I would imagine one doesn't need to stretch it too far from a heavily focus on your enemies well to treating your family or spouse well. Seems to me the big problem that required his attention was people putting hate on each other (kinda relevant today as well).
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
If you did not believe Jesus was/is God or from God, 5mn, how would your philosophy change? What would be different if it was just a philosophy for living to you and nothing more?
If you did not believe Jesus was/is God or from God, 5mn, how would your philosophy change? What would be different if it was just a philosophy for living to you and nothing more?
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
So, I do work on strategy. And for a service business, you must know what the service's purpose is (e.g., customer relationships or profit) first. Once you know that, you must know the extent to which you're pursuing the service (e.g., are you growing it or shrinking it). From the purpose and the extent of pursuit, you develop it's strategy.
Now in the New Testament, there is the spiritual side which Kep brought up (how you treat God) and the human side that I brought up (how you treat others). Both exist. I am of the opinion 'the purpose' in the strategy analogy above is the human side, the life philosophy as you put it. It drives the direction of our behavior. For me, the life philosophy could exist without Jesus being God. But what Jesus=God does is that it increases the relevancy, the importance, even the implications of the life philosophy. And therefore, Jesus being God or coming from God makes a difference in the 'extent to which' I'm pursuing the life philosophy as in the above strategy analogy.
One might consider it suboptimal if your belief wavers and that moves the prioritization of the life philosophy down (right philosophy, low priority)...or if you mis understand 'the purpose' and are on the wrong philosophy like Westboro (off target philosophy, high priority). I fully believe atheists can have the same life philosophy and sometimes it can be a priority (right philosophy, high priority) - which is great. But atheist charity and self sacrifice to service others statistically is nowhere near what it is for Christians and so on average, the prioritization just can't be nearly as high as it is for Christians...which is the outcome we'd expect based on the previous paragraph.
So, I do work on strategy. And for a service business, you must know what the service's purpose is (e.g., customer relationships or profit) first. Once you know that, you must know the extent to which you're pursuing the service (e.g., are you growing it or shrinking it). From the purpose and the extent of pursuit, you develop it's strategy.
Now in the New Testament, there is the spiritual side which Kep brought up (how you treat God) and the human side that I brought up (how you treat others). Both exist. I am of the opinion 'the purpose' in the strategy analogy above is the human side, the life philosophy as you put it. It drives the direction of our behavior. For me, the life philosophy could exist without Jesus being God. But what Jesus=God does is that it increases the relevancy, the importance, even the implications of the life philosophy. And therefore, Jesus being God or coming from God makes a difference in the 'extent to which' I'm pursuing the life philosophy as in the above strategy analogy.
One might consider it suboptimal if your belief wavers and that moves the prioritization of the life philosophy down (right philosophy, low priority)...or if you mis understand 'the purpose' and are on the wrong philosophy like Westboro (off target philosophy, high priority). I fully believe atheists can have the same life philosophy and sometimes it can be a priority (right philosophy, high priority) - which is great. But atheist charity and self sacrifice to service others statistically is nowhere near what it is for Christians and so on average, the prioritization just can't be nearly as high as it is for Christians...which is the outcome we'd expect based on the previous paragraph.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Thanks for addressing the question, 5mn.
Thanks for addressing the question, 5mn.
Belief that Jesus was not God got Him crucified. After all, if you claim to be God and I don't believe you, you must be a blasphemer.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
Or he could just be clinically insane. Which might not go over well if God doesn't look kindly on the mentally ill, then the guy's going to Hell for being sick.
Or he could just be clinically insane. Which might not go over well if God doesn't look kindly on the mentally ill, then the guy's going to Hell for being sick.
Re: Religion Thread: That's Me In the Corner...
We live in a different world. Take Zack Parise, for example. I'm sure there are some doubters out there, but all anyone has done to him is give him 110 million.
We live in a different world. Take Zack Parise, for example. I'm sure there are some doubters out there, but all anyone has done to him is give him 110 million.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
- Status