The Religion forum

[Sorcerer]

My wife and I are two such Christians... we are modified (heavily) by other teachings, including Pagan and Buddhist ideas, including the idea of finding "contentment" as opposed to "happiness" (given as emotional states are fickle and apt to change on a whim). However, at our core, we are Christian.

Granted, we also believe that most major religions are/could be the very same teachings/people, but with different labels and recorded from different viewpoints. Case in point - what's to say Yahweh, Jehova, Allah, etc aren't the same entity, but appearing in differing forms to different people?

Admittedly this is off-topic now, but you raise an interesting point about the definition of being a christian (or any other religion). To what extent can you ignore some of the core teachings but still define yourself in that way? Is this how the different sects formed, with people rejecting some teachings in favour of new interpretations? Take islam: I saw a chart which showed something like 20 different sects, I couldn't name them all, but you have sunni, shia, and the one Assad belongs to (allawites?) and a lot more.

As far as the different religions all being the same basically, their teachings are quite different, no? I don't think that works. (But I'm no expert, so correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[Sorcerer]

Even if your views have travelled far from the tenets of your faith,
there is great satisfaction and comfort in keeping to the traditions you were brought up with.
Why abandon your culture?
Many Christians don't believe in the Virgin Birth, the Creation myths, or even in an afterlife.

I am totally gob-smacked by that (I'm assuming you're not winding me up).

This a science forum overall, and supposed to be logical, so I'm having serious trouble accepting that people can be christians when they don't believe in the teachings. How does that work?

 

[(Q)]

I am totally gob-smacked by that (I'm assuming you're not winding me up).

This a science forum overall, and supposed to be logical, so I'm having serious trouble accepting that people can be christians when they don't believe in the teachings. How does that work?

I have asked that question many times and have always received illogical replies.

Of course, they admit it's illogical, but they accept that, no problem. That's the point.

You and I can sit around trying to find a reasonable and rational explanation, but there just isn't one. Those folks call themselves Christians.

Dawkins had make available an extra questionnaire added to the census some years ago, asking relevant questions about religion. He managed to glean some very interesting answers and statistics. He found the results required that he ask more questions for the sake of clarity, asking what people considered being a Christian was all about. He did that in the last round of census and found that many people who called themselves Christians (45%) defined being a Christian simply as being 'a nice person'.

 

[lightgigantic]

Moderation is never about the ideological foundation of the moderator but how well they moderate. For instance I never had any issue when jamesr moderated the religion forum but I had tons of issues when skinwalker was on the job ( he tried to issue me with infractions for copyright infringement for posting a cartoon image pulled from the Internet). I also have issues with bells being moderator ... but to a lesser degree since she tends to flame and goad in a manner she cannot tolerate being reciprocated while ... so far .... somehow being restrained on a leash without delving into infractions. Iow if you have issue with a moderator I think the basis for having a legitimate complaint should be in regard to the behavior of them and not simply some accusation based on their ideological affiliation...

... after all, moderation is about sustaining a certain level of behaviour as opposed to kowtowing some ideological stance, isn't it?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Not only lay people.
Many of them are priests and ministers.

Read this:
(It's a bit old, from 2002, but the stance is probably even more prevalent today)
Quarter of clergy do not believe in the Virgin Birth
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lergy-do-not-believe-in-the-Virgin-Birth.html

 

[Sorcerer]

I realise this is all off-topic, and if the mods want to move it onto a new thread then that's fine.

(Q) & CK, that is totally amazing. So these people stand there and preach something they don't believe in? And say so privately. That is just disgraceful. At least with politicians you know they're lying.

 

[Baldeee]

the forum is about religion.
religion deals with a god and its relation to society
if anyone is offended by that then STFO of the forum.
how simple can it be?

What does this have to do with the standard of moderation?
Are you trying to provide for biased moderation (perceived or actual)?
Or for why a religious person should be the moderator?

On this latter point, you do know that religion can affect everyone: theist and atheist?
For one it is more a choice, the other not.

 

[leopold]

philosophical meanderings, questions about who and what we are.
questions about why we, as a people, do, say, and believe, what we do.
religion is intimately tied up in all of that, and philosophy is a valid subject to discuss on a science board.

 

[leopold]

What does this have to do with the standard of moderation?

it doesn't have anything to do with the standards of moderation.
it's not my place to pass judgement on syne, only to speak as to how he came to be and the correct method to address the issue.
the mod team speaks for itself.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Most Christians don't believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.
They consider the Bible's creation myths as a metaphor for man's falling out with God,
however that occurred. A metaphor for the need for reconciliation.
Once you have dismissed Adam and Eve, that traditional pillar of Christianity, the other pillars fall easily.

 

[Sorcerer]

philosophical meanderings, questions about who and what we are.
questions about why we, as a people, do, say, and believe, what we do.
religion is intimately tied up in all of that, and philosophy is a valid subject to discuss on a science board.

Someone back on topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Quote:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]


Personally, I would include philosophy as a valid subject on this forum based on the bold definition, but not the casual one, and would therefore exclude religion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Someone back on topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Quote:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]


Personally, I would include philosophy as a valid subject on this forum based on the bold definition, but not the casual one, and would therefore exclude religion.

and to do that you would have to provide a philosophical basis for your ideas ..... usually there is about half a dozen such threads running in the religion forum, if you find the time

:shrug:

 

[Sorcerer]

and to do that you would have to provide a philosophical basis for your ideas ..... usually there is about half a dozen such threads running in the religion forum, if you find the time

:shrug:

I don't agree. I go with a definition of philosophy which seems reasonable to me. If you go with the casual definition then it includes anything you want to discuss, and avoids the points made in the bold part, and so degenerates into pub gossip. If you want to do that, you should go to the pub. And don't ever tell me what I have to do.

 

[leopold]

I go with a definition of philosophy which seems reasonable to me

my, that's so . . . peer reviewed of you.

 

[Sorcerer]

my, that's so . . . peer reviewed of you.

You're trolling again, just like you did before. Take a section and ignore the rest. You're not supposed to change what someone else has posted, which you've just done. And then you make a trivial and bitchy comment. I suppose that's 16,111 pieces of garbage which you've posted. Do it one more time and you're on ignore.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't agree. I go with a definition of philosophy which seems reasonable to me. If you go with the casual definition then it includes anything you want to discuss, and avoids the points made in the bold part, and so degenerates into pub gossip. If you want to do that, you should go to the pub. And don't ever tell me what I have to do.

at the crux of your point is that religion has no rational philosophical basis ... given that well over 75% of all philosophical schools of thought involve some transcendental sort of premises, you have a bit of (philosophical) explaining to do ... as opposed to (philosophical) evading .... and once again, what better forum to do that in then the religion forum?

:shrug:

 

[Sorcerer]

at the crux of your point is that religion has no rational philosophical basis ... given that well over 75% of all philosophical schools of thought involve some transcendental sort of premises, you have a bit of (philosophical) explaining to do ... as opposed to (philosophical) evading .... and once again, what better forum to do that in then the religion forum?

:shrug:

Well, I differentiate between religion and philosophy, as I explained above, because of my definition of the latter. You can see that, no doubt. The bold type does not relate to religion. So it is impossible in that case to debate philosophy on a religion thread, which is why there is a religion thread and a philosophy thread, which are separate. No doubt there were some very smart people who set up this forum that way, so that people wouldn't get confused. And this isn't a religion forum, it's a science forum, and this is a site feedback thread not a religion thread, and I stay away from that thread because it doesn't belong on this forum, and my whole argument is that we should get rid of it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, I differentiate between religion and philosophy, as I explained above, because of my definition of the latter. You can see that, no doubt. The bold type does not relate to religion. So it is impossible in that case to debate philosophy on a religion thread, which is why there is a religion thread and a philosophy thread, which are separate. No doubt there were some very smart people who set up this forum that way, so that people wouldn't get confused. And this isn't a religion forum, it's a science forum, and this is a site feedback thread not a religion thread, and I stay away from that thread because it doesn't belong on this forum, and my whole argument is that we should get rid of it.

If you want to make philosophical assertions (ie religion cannot be categorized as a philosophical discipline) minus any philosophical framework you are simply not being philosophical.

Its a small thing but its what distinguishes philosophy from half-assed opinions.

:shrug:

 

[Bells]

Moderation is never about the ideological foundation of the moderator but how well they moderate. For instance I never had any issue when jamesr moderated the religion forum but I had tons of issues when skinwalker was on the job ( he tried to issue me with infractions for copyright infringement for posting a cartoon image pulled from the Internet). I also have issues with bells being moderator ... but to a lesser degree since she tends to flame and goad in a manner she cannot tolerate being reciprocated while ... so far .... somehow being restrained on a leash without delving into infractions. Iow if you have issue with a moderator I think the basis for having a legitimate complaint should be in regard to the behavior of them and not simply some accusation based on their ideological affiliation...

... after all, moderation is about sustaining a certain level of behaviour as opposed to kowtowing some ideological stance, isn't it?

Restrained on a leash?

Lovely.

Insinuating I am a dog again, I see.

How very Christian of you.

I won't moderate you when I am discussing anything in a thread with you, LG. But if I ever notice you trolling anyone else and I am not participating in that particular thread or discussion, then I can and will moderate you.

 

[lightgigantic]

Restrained on a leash?

Lovely.

Insinuating I am a dog again, I see.

are we to insinuate that when you describe yourself and others as "baying for blood" that this is a reference to being a dog ... or that it is yet another example of your convenient information assimilation issues that you appear to be able to turn on and off to suit your needs?

How very Christian of you.

Another example of your fine information analysis skills ....

Feel free to find the post where I identified myself as a christian.
You simply hijack your intelligence and argue from the platform of hysteria with no other purpose than accelerating people to fit designated stereotypes and roles for your scripted strawmen.

I won't moderate you when I am discussing anything in a thread with you, LG. But if I ever notice you trolling anyone else and I am not participating in that particular thread or discussion, then I can and will moderate you.

I am not sure how that places your trolling, goading and flaming in a positive light .... especially when it is done simultaneously with warnings that one is a moderator and reminders about what they can do.
:shrug: