5
   

What does the upside down star(pentagram) mean to you?

 
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 04:08 pm
mesquite wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
snood wrote:
Intrepid - just for the record, I read the same posts as every one else, and I didn't take away from it that you think Christians are better than everyone else, or that they're the only ones who know right from wrong.


Thank you Snood. I was not saying that, as you wisely picked out. I said that there is a difference. I have never said that Christians are better, or worse, than anybody else. I am only speaking to what works for me.


What then did you mean by a difference when you wrote these words and put the emphasis on "IS"?
Intrepid wrote:
I have also seen young children brought up in Christian and non-Christian homes and there IS a difference in their perception of good and bad. I am not saying that all Christians are good. Just as in anything you have your bad apples. However, when children are brought up in a truly honest religious family they get exposure to others with the same moral values. They have a wider exposure to those things that are considered right and good. No, I am not talking about fanatical religionism.


Saying there is a difference is NOT saying they are better. If you have a problem with that, I cannot explain it any better.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 04:22 pm
Kirk,
Given that a number of posters (myself included) have apparently so poorly and consistently misunderstood you, pray tell, why keep it a great big secret page after trembling page? Spit it out Shatner!
Intrepid wrote:
I have also seen young children brought up in Christian and non-Christian homes and there IS a difference in their perception of good and bad.
What "IS" this "difference in their perception of good and bad" of which you claim you have intimate first hand knowledge?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 04:29 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Since you posted your pie chart, you have not provided a link. You have only mentioned aherents-dot-com. That's not the same as providing a link. Since you are unwilling to provide one, i can only assume that your source is horsie poop, and you know it.


That is where I got the chart!!!!! sheesh


Well duh . . . no ****, Sherlock . . . now, how about posting a link?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 05:26 pm
Chumly wrote:
J_B wrote:
Not that I doubt there will eventually be studies attempting show a cause and effect relationship between the correlation described in Paul's article, he clearly states his study is preliminary and only demonstrates a correlation and was not robust enough to establish causality.
If the study in question was viewed in isolation, your viewpoint as per causality would have more merit, however for more definitive causality scenarios I suggest historical impetuses such as found in religious censorship, religious war, religious pogroms, religious bigotry, religious prejudice etc. Further all the US's military forces have the participation (and hence tacit endorsement) of the Christian Clergy and the US president GWB himself often evokes god in his morally questionable doings.


Chumly, it's not my viewpoint as per causality, it's the viewpoint of the author of the study you posted. He identified a correlation but clearly stated he could not conclude causality. Any number of effects can be shown to have a correlation in a study but no substantive conclusions can be drawn from them without further study. I actually have no viewpoint toward causality and you once again are attributing thoughts to me that I don't have.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 05:30 pm
Setanta wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Since you posted your pie chart, you have not provided a link. You have only mentioned aherents-dot-com. That's not the same as providing a link. Since you are unwilling to provide one, i can only assume that your source is horsie poop, and you know it.


That is where I got the chart!!!!! sheesh


Well duh . . . no ****, Sherlock . . . now, how about posting a link?



http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

It took writing 'adherents.com' into a search engine. (?????)
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 05:33 pm
Chumly wrote:
Kirk,
Given that a number of posters (myself included) have apparently so poorly and consistently misunderstood you, pray tell, why keep it a great big secret page after trembling page? Spit it out Shatner!


That "a number of posters perceived something a certain way doesn't necessarily mean anything - it so happens that "a number of posters" have an axe to grind against religions in general, and about Christianity in particular.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 05:40 pm
Sheesh! This thread has really detoriorated. I thought it was about pentagons or -grams or whatever when I so thoughtlessly joined in. Sorry to intrude, folks. Carry on.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 05:45 pm
snood wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Kirk,
Given that a number of posters (myself included) have apparently so poorly and consistently misunderstood you, pray tell, why keep it a great big secret page after trembling page? Spit it out Shatner!


That "a number of posters perceived something a certain way doesn't necessarily mean anything - it so happens that "a number of posters" have an axe to grind against religions in general, and about Christianity in particular.


What I find fascinating is the fact that my forays into this forum are typically intended to rail against most fundy positions and a simple statement to Intrepid that I felt he was doing a disservice to other religions (which he later agreed with) has put me at apparent odds with someone over his perception of my religiosity. Amazing, actually. Fundy types on both side of the aisle should occasionally remove their blinders..
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 05:52 pm
Get a grip, Snood--Captain Kirk there was willing to post his pie chart, and get snotty with people, but couldn't be arsed to post a link. Why should he get a free ride on something lke this--anyone else who were questioned would post a link. Most folks around here citing figures like that provide the link in the initial post. Mr. "My Name is not Bill" was too good to do that, eh? I find your prejudice showing that you defend him when he's being silly and snotty.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 05:59 pm
Setanta's obvious dislike of me since I joined A2k is more than apparent. It is unfortunate that threads get derailed due to this situation. This topic has gone way off course, as Merry Andrew has so rightly pointed out.

99.9% of the time I post a link to what I write. I purposely did not this time because I wanted to see if Set would go off on a rant. He did. C.I. (sorry to bring him into this) almost never posts a link and Set defends the fact that he does not.

Equality would be a refreshing thing to see. Of course, C.I. does not profess/confess to being a Christian. Those who do are sure to come under the words of Setanta. Truth be damned.

BTW.... Where did I get "snotty"?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 06:02 pm
Horseshit--you're lying. Provide your evidence that C.I. never posts links and that i defend him for that. In a single thread, i asked Bernard for links, and others mentioned that C.I. had provided none. As i pointed out in that thread, i was responding to Bernard's post, and asking him for a link. I was not responding to C.I.'s post.

Your paranoia is pathetic enough, it's disgusting that you make up lies to justify your hatefulness. Wonderful christian character you display there, Bill.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 06:08 pm
J_B wrote:
Chumly wrote:
J_B wrote:
Not that I doubt there will eventually be studies attempting show a cause and effect relationship between the correlation described in Paul's article, he clearly states his study is preliminary and only demonstrates a correlation and was not robust enough to establish causality.
If the study in question was viewed in isolation, your viewpoint as per causality would have more merit, however for more definitive causality scenarios I suggest historical impetuses such as found in religious censorship, religious war, religious pogroms, religious bigotry, religious prejudice etc. Further all the US's military forces have the participation (and hence tacit endorsement) of the Christian Clergy and the US president GWB himself often evokes god in his morally questionable doings.


Chumly, it's not my viewpoint as per causality, it's the viewpoint of the author of the study you posted. He identified a correlation but clearly stated he could not conclude causality. Any number of effects can be shown to have a correlation in a study but no substantive conclusions can be drawn from them without further study. I actually have no viewpoint toward causality and you once again are attributing thoughts to me that I don't have.


If as you claim you "actually have no viewpoint toward causality" the following three examples contradict your assertion.
J_B wrote:
As a new parent I searched out a faith tradition for my children for that very reason. We ended up UUs, which is more heavily entrenched in promoting morals and values than any other faith I found. It's exactly why we chose it.
J_B wrote:
I agree with Intrepid that exposure to a faith tradition that is steeped in morals has some advantages for children.


Further one would logically assume that you consider the answer to my below question to constitute "evidence"
Chumly wrote:
Question for those of faith: do you have any evidence to support the view that those of a religious upbringing are less violent and/or warlike?

J_B wrote:
Quakers, Mennonites, and UUs are all professed pacifist religions.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 06:08 pm
Relying on the judgement of some knowledgeable experts (A2K members) may be far more productive in identifying obvious truths than trying to develop a list of unfounded accusations in randomly selected pieces of posts. Ciao.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 06:40 pm
Hi Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
Relying on the judgement of some knowledgeable experts (A2K members) may be far more productive in identifying obvious truths than trying to develop a list of unfounded accusations in randomly selected pieces of posts. Ciao.
If this post is for me (no way to tell in fact) I have no idea who these "knowledgeable experts" are that you deem "may be far more productive in identifying obvious truths". Further if they are so-called "obvious truths" there would appear to be no need of the so-called "knowledgeable experts".

Finally I have no idea what this so-called "list of unfounded accusations" are that you refer to, nor what "randomly selected pieces of posts" you suggesting .

Then again for all I know you have directed this post to someone else, or to no one in particular.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 06:40 pm
Chumly, believe it or not, I have no agenda and do not pretend to have the answers for anyone but myself. Nor do I believe I have ever claimed otherwise. Correction, I do tend to fight against any attempts towards an American theocracy, but it really doesn't matter to me what others believe just so long as they stay out of my shorts.

My simple observation to Intrepid about his choice of wording has taken you and I down a merry path of misunderstanding and confusion. You claim my posts were... whatever you claimed they were, I'm not willing to go back and look. You apparently have recently reread them and pulled out certain snippets that you feel support your view of my religosity. So be it. I will restate my assertion that I took my children to a church without creeds or dogma because I could not embrace certain tenets of <fill in the blank>. Morals and values are not restricted to faith traditions, I never said otherwise. Certain faith traditions have a history of embracing pacifism, including the one I have chosen.

Here are the Principles and Sources of UU. You tell me which ones you object to:

Quote:
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.


Love and peace,

J_B
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 06:56 pm
oops, forgot the Sources:

Quote:
The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

* Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
* Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
* Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
* Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
* Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
* Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support.


http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 07:07 pm
Hi J_B,

Yuppers, for some pretty funny reasons we did the Who's On First? and for any part I played, it was without malice or ill intent.

To move the dialogue in what might be a more interesting direction, let me simply present a salient query or two:

Can you provide a merited argument as to why the teachings of morality need be accompanied with a belief in the supernatural? If you cannot provide such merited argument, why are you an adherent to a belief system which is based of the supernatural, when clearly no supernatural activity is to be found? Do you believe that the teachings of morality can have as good, or better efficacy without the accompanying belief in the supernatural? If no why not?

Caveat: I'll assume the questions are pertinent unless directed otherwise, which might stop the "Who's on First?" humors. Then again, it could simply end up being a byproduct of our combed communications stylings and we will have to laugh it off.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 07:24 pm
Chumly wrote:
Hi J_B,

Yuppers, for some pretty funny reasons we did the Who's On First? and for any part I played, it was without malice or ill intent.

To move the dialogue in what might be a more interesting direction, let me simply present a salient query or two:

Can you provide a merited argument as to why the teachings of morality need be accompanied with a belief in the supernatural? Nope If you cannot provide such merited argument, why are you an adherent to a belief system which is based of the supernatural, when clearly no supernatural activity is to be found? It isn't, hence "free and responsible search for truth and meaning" Do you believe that the teachings of morality can have as good, or better efficacy without the accompanying belief in the supernatural?Certainly If no why not?

Caveat: I'll assume the questions are pertinent unless directed otherwise, which might stop the "Who's on First?" humors. Then again, it could simply end up being a byproduct of our combed communications stylings and we will have to laugh it off.



Chumly, a non-dogmatic, non-creedal religion is a misnomer to many, yourself included, I'm guessing. Religion can be defined as a collection of like-minded individuals who find support and strength in each other's company. Spirituality can also be independently defined. Rejection of creeds and dogma and the inclusion or exclusion of a belief in a super-natural power do not define religion.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 07:36 pm
I note there is a modest disclaimer that one could be a UU and not believe in anything supernatural at all, nonetheless one of the major impetuses of UU is still the underlying pretext of the supernatural in one form or another. And this combination of the supernatural with morality is pivotal to my as yet unanswered questions

I am familiar with the rationale of an interdisciplinary faith structure, but from a supernatural perspective, it is no more or no less merited than a single religion or some group or religions.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 07:43 pm
As to you view that "....a non-dogmatic, non-creedal religion is a misnomer to many, yourself included, I'm guessing" look here as per my somewhat tongue in cheek but still (arguably) merited Rational Theists Step Forward (it gets more interesting as the post goes on)

J_B wrote:
Religion can be defined as a collection of like-minded individuals who find support and strength in each other's company.
I must disagree because if that is you definition of religion, then dog breeders getting together at dog shows are religious events. As would my buddies and I in my rock band be considered a religious group.
J_B wrote:
Spirituality can also be independently defined.
Don't let me stop you, I have already posed the query earlier.
J_B wrote:
………exclusion of a belief in a super-natural power do not define religion.
OK please name a recognized identifiable religion which has zero congruence to any belief in any supernatural powers in any way. I am not saying three is no such thing but I am saying I am not aware of any.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 03:27:50