Religion

[Clem Fandango]

No, they just study the source material objectively... because that is what Christianity is, above all: a doctrine. And the information for that doctrine comes mostly from two books.

Right, but you can read the bible a million times and gain very little insight into Christianity. There's been two thousand years of theology since they were written.

 

 

 

For example, when you analyse a political ideology, what you actually analyse is the main source of information for that ideology (i.e. if you want to scrutinise Communism, you need to read Marx and Engels, not what their followers say).

Well no, other way around. If you want to understand Communism, you have to know what actual Communists are advocating.

[Fonz]

 

 

The stuff you mentioned is the reason I said I have no love for organised religion. The issue isn't that I think religion is good- I don't- the issue is that New Atheists have no grasp of theology and don't really understand Christianity in any meaningful way.

 

No, they just study the source material objectively... because that is what Christianity is, above all: a doctrine. And the information for that doctrine comes mostly from two books.

 

For example, when you analyse a political ideology, what you actually analyse is the main source of information for that ideology (e.g. if you want to scrutinise Communism, you need to read Marx and Engels, not what their followers say). So, Marwin's statements about sexism and homophobia in Christianity are true, because, evidently, it's part of the source material. It's great that preeminent Christian figures don't support that anymore; still doesn't invalidate the fact that it was written in the books they follow. Those texts aren't going to be changed any time soon.

 

The bulk of the Christian community, however, is just a group of regular humans who adapt their views to their sociocultural contexts and whatnot (there also extremists, but what religion doesn't have them?).

 

2 books meaning old testiment and new? i thought the bible is actually 40 books split into 2 halves?

 

The term "book" has been used to refer to an extensive narrative sequence since the Greek epics (closer to what we'd call a "chapter" nowadays), but what I meant was the common, contemporary definition of the term, i.e. two full, hard-covered publications that you can buy at your local library.

And there are 66 books in the Bible, by the way.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Black_MiD

[feckyerlife]

 

No, they just study the source material objectively... because that is what Christianity is, above all: a doctrine. And the information for that doctrine comes mostly from two books.

Right, but you can read the bible a million times and gain very little insight into Christianity. There's been two thousand years of theology since they were written.

 

 

 

For example, when you analyse a political ideology, what you actually analyse is the main source of information for that ideology (i.e. if you want to scrutinise Communism, you need to read Marx and Engels, not what their followers say).

Well no, other way around. If you want to understand Communism, you have to know what actual Communists are advocating.

 

but technically the bible isnt everything or am i wrong? i thought the Constantine who had the bibe written, had over 400 books/stories presented to him and only selected 66?

 

ninja edit

Edited February 24, 2015 by feckyerlife

[S0lo]

-snip.

 

Right, how about you don't talk to me like you're dropping mad knowledge, when I know all of this already? Mainstream religion in modern, industrialised societies is not comparable to religion in broadly- and notoriously- superstitious African countries. I was clearly talking about mainstream Western Christianity, I'm not going to defend the entire spectrum of beliefs labelled Christian, give me a little credit. In fact, I wasn't even really defending Western Christianity, so don't talk to me like I'm an apologist.

 

 

 

The stuff you mentioned is the reason I said I have no love for organised religion. The issue isn't that I think religion is good- I don't- the issue is that New Atheists have no grasp of theology and don't really understand Christianity in any meaningful way.

 

 

Just stop digging! By insulting me because i wasn't somehow telepathically able to see that, while you posted one thing, you actually meant the other. There isn't even a hint of you indicating that you were talking about "Mainstream" Western Christianity (again with the buzzwords"), but you clearly stated the opposite with "... No Christian authority supports any of the things you mentioned". Again; No. Christian.Authority.

 

Unless "No" has just been redefined and now means "None of the representatives of European and North-American Christianity" you are in no position to speak up against me deconstructing your logical shortcomings. You want a little credit? earn it! Fact is, you know little to nothing, your arguments are easily debunked as shoddily strung together generalizations and your grasp on language is inconsistent at best... here,let me demonstrate once more:

 

"Mainstream religion in modern, industrialised societies is not comparable to religion in broadly- and notoriously- superstitious African countries."

 

Once again, what you say and what you mean are two different things. We do not live in industrialized societies anymore, we live in post-industrial societies at best, and even that term has a ripe small by now. But hey, i guess you meant the right thing, right? Just like when you say that Western and African religion aren't comparable, but mean they aren't interchangeable. Everything can be compared to everything, that is the function of the term. I can compare my analytical approach and logic based argumentation to your incoherently worded , methodologically unethical ego show all day long, and we will keep on getting the same results which are obvious to anyone reading this.

 

You want to be taken serious in your rhetorical efforts? Start by yourself taking serious what you talk about, how you research and analyze itt, and at what conclusions you finally arrive at. Right now, as is, you are a joke.

 

Goodbye.

 

Edit: i have obviously worked with some of the asinine terms and empty phrases this young snake oil peddler has put in the center of his argument, butt that was just to not waste anymore time on him. A term like "Mainstream Western Christianity" as base for a comparative argument is in itself already the disqualification for any further "findings". I never had the slightest intention of engaging him the subject matter, as he obviously himself has no idea what that consists of. I couldn't resist to expose the hack job though. just for the f*ck of it.

Edited February 24, 2015 by King S0lo

[Fonz]

 

No, they just study the source material objectively... because that is what Christianity is, above all: a doctrine. And the information for that doctrine comes mostly from two books.

Right, but you can read the bible a million times and gain very little insight into Christianity. There's been two thousand years of theology since they were written.

 

 

 

For example, when you analyse a political ideology, what you actually analyse is the main source of information for that ideology (i.e. if you want to scrutinise Communism, you need to read Marx and Engels, not what their followers say).

Well no, other way around. If you want to understand Communism, you have to know what actual Communists are advocating.

 

Those theological reinterpretations are mostly extensions to the religion, and they've led to spin-offs, variations of sorts, upon the same religion. The actual doctrine, however, is set in stone, as are those ideologies.

 

Just like Leninism is an reinterpretation/extension of the actual Marxism expressed in Marx's works, many theologians offer different interpretations of the source material. (sorry about the commie examples; it's just that I was discussing something with a communist earlier and this was the first thing I thought of )

[Clem Fandango]

 

-snip.

 

Right, how about you don't talk to me like you're dropping mad knowledge, when I know all of this already? Mainstream religion in modern, industrialised societies is not comparable to religion in broadly- and notoriously- superstitious African countries. I was clearly talking about mainstream Western Christianity, I'm not going to defend the entire spectrum of beliefs labelled Christian, give me a little credit. In fact, I wasn't even really defending Western Christianity, so don't talk to me like I'm an apologist.

 

 

 

The stuff you mentioned is the reason I said I have no love for organised religion. The issue isn't that I think religion is good- I don't- the issue is that New Atheists have no grasp of theology and don't really understand Christianity in any meaningful way.

 

 

Just stop digging! By insulting me because i wasn't somehow telepathically able to see that, while you posted one thing, you actually meant the other. There isn't even a hint of you indicating that you were talking about "Mainstream" Western Christianity (again with the buzzwords"), but you clearly stated the opposite with "... No Christian authority supports any of the things you mentioned". Again; No. Christian.Authority.

 

Unless "No" has just been redefined and now means "None of the representatives of European and North-American Christianity" you are in no position to speak up against me deconstructing your logical shortcomings. You want a little credit? earn it! Fact is, you know little to nothing, your arguments are easily debunked as shoddily strung together generalizations and your grasp on language is inconsistent at best... here,let me demonstrate once more:

 

"Mainstream religion in modern, industrialised societies is not comparable to religion in broadly- and notoriously- superstitious African countries."

 

Once again, what you say and what you mean are two different things. W e do not live in industrialized societies anymore, we live in post-industrial societies at best, and even that term has a ripe small by now. But hey, i guess you meant the right thing, right? Just like when you say that Western and African religion aren't comparable, but mean they aren't interchangeable. Everything can be compared to everything, that is the function of the term. I can compare my analytical approach and logic based argumentation to your incoherently worded , methodologically unethical ego show all day long, and we will keep on getting the same results which are obvious to anyone reading this.

 

You want to be taken serious in your rhetorical efforts? Start by yourself taking serious what you talk about, how you research and analyze itt, and at what conclusions you finally arive.and what your Right now, as is, you are a joke.

 

Goodbye.

 

Who the f*ck do you think you're talking to you petulant little c*nt? I'm quite sure nobody has ever lashed out at me like that over such a minor miscommunication as me neglecting to specify the scope of my argument. Quite ironic you'd accuse me of having an ego when clearly this dick measuring contest is so important to you that you fall to pieces and begin slamming on your keyboard the minute someone uses a bored looking emoticon.

 

I think people do take me seriously, as I have an established reputation, unlike you, who rocked up three weeks ago and thinks he can begin lecturing people in italics. It's poor form. And by the way, the use of the words 'industrial' (as opposed to agrarian) and 'comparable' (referring to valid academic comparison) made perfect sense in the context in which I used them. I didn't mean 'post-industrial' and I didn't mean 'interchangeable.'

[Coin]

The Bible itself has undergone numerous rewrites, exlusion of books, inclusion of others and several differing versions in print as-of-now. I wouldn't really go so far as to call it set in stone. Certainly I don't think that future rewrites are out of the question, for certain sectors.

The point Melchior is making (unless I am misunderstanding) is quite simple. The bible is but one component of Christianity and reading it doesn't really make you an expert there of, or even necessarily provide much in the way of meaningful insight. There's a lot more to factor in than that.

It's similar to one of the many Islam-related threads where someone claimed to have read the Quran once and rubbishing the highest authorities in Islam re: their interpretation.

[AlienTwo]

The bible is but one component of Christianity and reading it doesn't really make you an expert there of, or even necessarily provide much in the way of meaningful insight. There's a lot more to factor in than that.

I tend to agree with this as a large number of "Christians" have read very little of this book and know very little of it's actual contents, aside from what their local pastor has told them. That, the words of the man behind the pulpit, has more merit these days to a large swath of Christians (in the US, at least).

[Fonz]

 

The Bible itself has undergone numerous rewrites, exlusion of books, inclusion of others and several differing versions in print as-of-now. I wouldn't really go so far as to call it set in stone. Certainly I don't think that future rewrites are out of the question, for certain sectors.

The point Melchior is making (unless I am misunderstanding) is quite simple. The bible is but one component of Christianity and reading it doesn't really make you an expert there of, or even necessarily provide much in the way of meaningful insight. There's a lot more to factor in than that.

It's similar to one of the many Islam-related threads where someone claimed to have read the Quran once and rubbishing the highest authorities in Islam re: their interpretation.

 

Very true, but the reason I considered it the biggest component is that most of the knowledge we have about it comes from it. Despite the differing versions of it, one still has access to all of the main texts. I didn't mean it was immutable, but rather "solidly set", since there's really not much we can do but read those texts if we wish to get knowledge of the fundamental principles of it. The fact that there are many versions of it doesn't help its credibility too much, in my opinion (not trying to be a dick). An all-knowing God should have foreseen the confusion this would cause and solved it by making his message crystal clear. Otherwise, what's the point in Biblical truths? (this is valid for most religions, to be honest)

 

It is possible that there will be further revisions of it as there have been many in the past (even some interpolations to historical documents to support it!), but I don't think they would be so obvious, especially at a time when Christianity and any documents pertaining to it (no matter how minimally) are given so much attention. Stranger things have happened, though.

[Pe4chy.96]

What about people who call themselves as religious, and act violently on behalf of religion? It happens not only in the middle east, also at the US (KKK), India...

 

Do you think its a religious or a social problem?

[S0lo]

 

 

-snip.

 

Right, how about you don't talk to me like you're dropping mad knowledge, when I know all of this already? Mainstream religion in modern, industrialised societies is not comparable to religion in broadly- and notoriously- superstitious African countries. I was clearly talking about mainstream Western Christianity, I'm not going to defend the entire spectrum of beliefs labelled Christian, give me a little credit. In fact, I wasn't even really defending Western Christianity, so don't talk to me like I'm an apologist.

 

 

 

The stuff you mentioned is the reason I said I have no love for organised religion. The issue isn't that I think religion is good- I don't- the issue is that New Atheists have no grasp of theology and don't really understand Christianity in any meaningful way.

 

 

Just stop digging! By insulting me because i wasn't somehow telepathically able to see that, while you posted one thing, you actually meant the other. There isn't even a hint of you indicating that you were talking about "Mainstream" Western Christianity (again with the buzzwords"), but you clearly stated the opposite with "... No Christian authority supports any of the things you mentioned". Again; No. Christian.Authority.

 

Unless "No" has just been redefined and now means "None of the representatives of European and North-American Christianity" you are in no position to speak up against me deconstructing your logical shortcomings. You want a little credit? earn it! Fact is, you know little to nothing, your arguments are easily debunked as shoddily strung together generalizations and your grasp on language is inconsistent at best... here,let me demonstrate once more:

 

"Mainstream religion in modern, industrialised societies is not comparable to religion in broadly- and notoriously- superstitious African countries."

 

Once again, what you say and what you mean are two different things. W e do not live in industrialized societies anymore, we live in post-industrial societies at best, and even that term has a ripe small by now. But hey, i guess you meant the right thing, right? Just like when you say that Western and African religion aren't comparable, but mean they aren't interchangeable. Everything can be compared to everything, that is the function of the term. I can compare my analytical approach and logic based argumentation to your incoherently worded , methodologically unethical ego show all day long, and we will keep on getting the same results which are obvious to anyone reading this.

 

You want to be taken serious in your rhetorical efforts? Start by yourself taking serious what you talk about, how you research and analyze itt, and at what conclusions you finally arive.and what your Right now, as is, you are a joke.

 

Goodbye.

 

Who the f*ck do you think you're talking to you petulant little c*nt? I'm quite sure nobody has ever lashed out at me like that over such a minor miscommunication as me neglecting to specify the scope of my argument. Quite ironic you'd accuse me of having an ego when clearly this dick measuring contest is so important to you that you fall to pieces and begin slamming on your keyboard the minute someone uses a bored looking emoticon.

 

I think people do take me seriously, as I have an established reputation, unlike you, who rocked up three weeks ago and thinks he can begin lecturing people in italics. It's poor form. And by the way, the use of the words 'industrial' (as opposed to agrarian) and 'comparable' (referring to valid academic comparison) made perfect sense in the context in which I used them. I didn't mean 'post-industrial' and I didn't mean 'interchangeable.'

 

 

 

You are in such complete misunderstanding of is what is actually happening, arguing with you at this point would be ethically wrong.You clearly have no grasp of reality. I will spare you the embarrassment of having your act further deconstructed by me. It just wouldn't be fair. One last thing though

:

---------> Derives one's intellectual credibility from amount of time having been part of a video game forum

 

---------> Calls it "Reputation"

 

Guess what?

 

Edited February 24, 2015 by King S0lo

[Fonz]

What about people who call themselves as religious, and act violently on behalf of religion? It happens not only in the middle east, also at the US (KKK), India...

 

Do you think its a religious or a social problem?

Both. Our social dynamics have evolved, but violence is still a part of religious texts. Most considerate believers extract useful lessons from the texts, adapt them to their environment and abandon the religious extremism contained in them, but that doesn't eliminate it.

It does take a nutjob to act on that, though, which is a social problem. I do think that an all-knowing entity would certainly know how social dynamics would evolve and would have made a timelessly moral and pertinent message.

 

Fundamentalist individuals really just take it all literally, no room for reinterpretation. Depending on your perspective, they're either being exemplary followers or just misapplying their religion's teachings.

 

I guess you could say that humans would still discriminate without religion (probably true), but any vehicle for these behaviours is up for some sharp criticism, in my opinion.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Black_MiD

[Clem Fandango]

You are in such complete misunderstanding of is what is actually happening, arguing with you at this point would be ethically wrong.You clearly have no grasp of reality. I will spare you the embarrassment of having your act further deconstructed by me. It just wouldn't be fair.

Right, well you haven't actually "deconstructed" anything, all you've done is tell me stuff I already knew, and which was well outside the scope the discussion. Oh, and hilarious claiming I was using the wrong words when I hadn't. So you've proved nothing, contradicted nothing.

 

You're just a pompous tit throwing your toys out the pram.

 

 

---------> Derives one's intellectual credibility from amount of time having been part of a video game forum

---------> Calls it "Reputation"

Except I was talking about etiquette, not credibility. Do try and keep up.

[sivispacem]

I'm going to call time on this little pissing match before it gets any further out of hand.

[Eurotrash]

Surprised this thread wasn't locked yet. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, the one true god:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2015 by Eurotrash