Which religion suits me?

najmelliw wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Kate, do you expect sufferers of schizophrenia to be the experts on schizophrenia?

One who suffers from it can provide insights into it's workings, but they couldn't be trusted to study it objectively.

You compare religion to an affliction, a disease. To religious people, that could indeed qualify as an insult Eorl.

Yes, but it isn't intended to be one, any more than the a schizophrenic is meant to be offended by being told he's schizophrenic.

People in cults react badly to being accused to having been brainwashed. This is no different at all.

Taking offense is a product of the way a closed mind views other points of view.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

najmelliw wrote:
Eorl wrote:
Kate, do you expect sufferers of schizophrenia to be the experts on schizophrenia?

One who suffers from it can provide insights into it's workings, but they couldn't be trusted to study it objectively.

You compare religion to an affliction, a disease. To religious people, that could indeed qualify as an insult Eorl.

Yes, but it isn't intended to be one, any more than the a schizophrenic is meant to be offended by being told he's schizophrenic.

People in cults react badly to being accused to having been brainwashed. This is no different at all.

Taking offense is a product of the way a closed mind views other points of view.

Oh I see.

So I could say:

Quote:

You're stupid.

And the way we KNOW you are stupid is that you take exception to someone calling you stupid.

It's proof.

That's your argument in a thimble.

(Ever wonder why it's not taken seriously?)

0 Replies

No, but you're close.

My argument in a thimble is:

Just because you're stupid, doesn't make you an expert on stupidity.

To get back to the original point: Just because you're a Christian, doesn't make you an expert on Christianity. Just because you aren't a Christian, doesn't mean you can't be an expert on Christianity.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Yes, but it isn't intended to be one, any more than the a schizophrenic is meant to be offended by being told he's schizophrenic.

People in cults react badly to being accused to having been brainwashed. This is no different at all.

Taking offense is a product of the way a closed mind views other points of view.

I see your point, but the things you compare religion with are bound to leave a foul taste. You could have used firemen, or any other profession for example. By deliberately choosing for 'schizophrenia' and 'cults' you already cast a negative burden on 'religion'.
There are plenty of open minded religious people out there who don't mind to discuss their believes freely and unconditionally, without resorting to dogma's. I myself talked to at least two such individuals that I can remember. Further on, I have also spoken to a couple of persons who stringendly adhere to the scientific theories and react badly when alternatives are suggested. Could I then be justified in stating the same thing about adherence to the scientific explanations you state about religion?

Eorl wrote:

No, but you're close.

My argument in a thimble is:

Just because you're stupid, doesn't make you an expert on stupidity.

To get back to the original point: Just because you're a Christian, doesn't make you an expert on Christianity. Just because you aren't a Christian, doesn't mean you can't be an expert on Christianity.

That's clear enough, and I agree. But, the danger herein lies in having people who don't believe in Christ tell christians that they shouldn't believe, claiming stupidity on the side of the Christians as justification for their own theories. Talk about setting bad blood!

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

No, but you're close.

My argument in a thimble is:

Just because you're stupid, doesn't make you an expert on stupidity.

To get back to the original point: Just because you're a Christian, doesn't make you an expert on Christianity. Just because you aren't a Christian, doesn't mean you can't be an expert on Christianity.

No, actually your point had more to do with objectivity than knowledge.

The entire post in response to kate's remark about non-Christians claiming to be 'experts' ran like this:

Eorl wrote:

Kate, do you expect sufferers of schizophrenia to be the experts on schizophrenia?

One who suffers from it can provide insights into it's workings, but they couldn't be trusted to study it objectively.

You imply that a Christian could not be trusted to study Christianity objectively , but that an atheist, for example, would be objective.

I think this is hardly the case.

In my view, no one is completely objective and no one lacks the capacity to exercise some objectivity.

(It is similar to the discussion I had a few weeks ago with another member who claimed that Josephus should not be used to support one's position when discussing the OT. After all, the member opined, as a Jew he would have knowledge and respect for the Jewish canon.)

Of course, your attempt to slime Christians by comparing them with schizophrenics was a classic example of your objectivity.

0 Replies

Quote:

LaVey claimed that "[Satanists] have a disease called independence that needs to be recognised just like alcoholism." [wikipedia.org]

0 Replies

bravo, Real Life.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Quote:
LaVey claimed that "[Satanists] have a disease called independence that needs to be recognised just like alcoholism." [wikipedia.org]

It should be noted that this is to be taken very tongue in cheek, and was intended as a shot at the prevalence and popularity of 'victim status' in society.
What has this to do with anything anyway?

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

echi wrote:
Quote:
LaVey claimed that "[Satanists] have a disease called independence that needs to be recognised just like alcoholism." [wikipedia.org]

It should be noted that this is to be taken very tongue in cheek, and was intended as a shot at the prevalence and popularity of 'victim status' in society.
What has this to do with anything anyway?

I had been considering whether religion, in general, could be accurately described as a dependency, or was it just Christianity?. I thought the best place to start would be the Church of Satan. I still don't know much about Satanism, but that quote appears, at least, to display real objectivity. That's interesting. Not what I expect from a religion. Anyway, I found it relevant to this discussion, and I thought I should post it.

0 Replies

Anton Szandor LaVey (1930-1997), along with Charles Manson, Timothy Leary, and other messianic pop gurus, was a notorious figure of the 1960s' subculture of social experiment. As the flamboyant High Priest of the Church of Satan and the author of the Satanic Bible, he served as an ideal bogeyman for the sensation-seeking American media of that tumultuous period.

His curious celebrity was based largely on a self-created legend. This carefully-orchestrated legend may, in the final analysis, be LaVey's most enduring legacy. LaVey disseminated his legend through interviews with journalists, personal discussion with his disciples, and two LaVey-approved [auto]biographies (apparently ghostwritten by LaVey himself). The first of these, 1974's The Devil's Avenger (credited to LaVey associate Burton Wolfe), embellished on the fabrications Wolfe had already sketched in his introduction to the Satanic Bible. The second, 1990's Secret Life of a Satanist (credited to Blanche Barton, LaVey's live-in secretary and mother of his son), contradicted many of LaVey's own claims in the earlier volume, while putting forth new legends for public consumption. As social historians and scholars of occult movements begin to study LaVey's life and times in an objective historical context, a wealth of information concerning the man beneath the Devil horns has come to light.

LEGEND: Claimed that "Anton Szandor LaVey" was his genuine birth name.

REALITY: Born "Howard Stanton Levey".

LEGEND: Claimed his parents were Joseph and Augusta LaVey.

REALITY: Parents were Michael and Gertrude Levey.

LEGEND: The 15-year-old ASL played second oboe with the San Francisco Ballet Orchestra, making him the youngest musician ever to play with that prestigious institution.

REALITY: There was no "San Francisco Ballet Orchestra" in 1945. The San Francisco Ballet was accompanied by a local orchestra, whose records show that none of its three oboists was named "Levey" or "LaVey".

LEGEND: ASL was exposed to the savagery of human nature during his stint as a San Francisco Police photographer in the early 1950s.

REALITY: San Francisco Police Department past employment records include no "Howard Levey" nor "Anton LaVey". Frank Moser, who was a SFPD photographer in the early 1950s, said that ASL never worked for the Department.

LEGEND: ASL studied criminology at San Francisco City College during the Korean War.

REALITY: SFCC has no record of ASL's enrollment at any time.

LEGEND: ASL wrote the Satanic Bible, his principal work, to fulfill his congregation's need for a scriptural guide.

REALITY: The Satanic Bible was conceived as a commercial vehicle by paperback publisher Avon Books. Avon approached ASL for some kind of Satanic work to cash in on the Satanism & witchcraft fad of the late 1960s. Pressed for material to meet Avon's deadline, ASL resorted to plagiarism, assembling extracts from an obscure 1896 tract - Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard into a "Book of Satan" for the SB, and claiming its authorship by himself. [Ironically these MiR passages are the ones most frequently quoted by ASL disciples.] Another third of the SB consists of John Dee's "Enochian Keys", taken directly but again without attribution from Aleister Crowley's Equinox. The SB's "Nine Satanic Statements", one of the Church of Satan's central doctrines, is a paraphrase, again unacknowledged, of passages from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. The last words in the SB - "Yankee Rose" - have been puzzled over for years by readers. "YR" is actually the name of an old popular tune in ASL's nightclub repertoire.

http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding has no real bearing either - well, maybe a thin connection since this thread is talking about preferred religions, and some people refer to Satanism as a religion. I just think its interesting how full of shyt the great Levay was.

0 Replies

I don't want to derail this thread. It's a little quote and I found it to be relevant. If you're telling me that it is not relevant because Satanism is not really a religion, then maybe we should start a new thread. I don't know. Dok?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
No, but you're close.

My argument in a thimble is:

Just because you're stupid, doesn't make you an expert on stupidity.

To get back to the original point: Just because you're a Christian, doesn't make you an expert on Christianity. Just because you aren't a Christian, doesn't mean you can't be an expert on Christianity.

No, actually your point had more to do with objectivity than knowledge.

The entire post in response to kate's remark about non-Christians claiming to be 'experts' ran like this:

Eorl wrote:
Kate, do you expect sufferers of schizophrenia to be the experts on schizophrenia?

One who suffers from it can provide insights into it's workings, but they couldn't be trusted to study it objectively.

You imply that a Christian could not be trusted to study Christianity objectively , but that an atheist, for example, would be objective.

I think this is hardly the case.

In my view, no one is completely objective and no one lacks the capacity to exercise some objectivity.

(It is similar to the discussion I had a few weeks ago with another member who claimed that Josephus should not be used to support one's position when discussing the OT. After all, the member opined, as a Jew he would have knowledge and respect for the Jewish canon.)

Of course, your attempt to slime Christians by comparing them with schizophrenics was a classic example of your objectivity.

I don't expect any Christian to see the simple logic of what I've said. When you think it's "truth" and "reality" (just like a schizophrenic would) then you are never going to react other than to take offense.

I'll stand by my comparison, as it is accurate. Clearly I did not say that religion is a mental disease (although I think it is very close...maybe more like a virus). I was simply pointing out that just being an expert in any field whatsover does not require one to be a supporter/believer/participant/victim of said field.

Who would you expect would do the most objective audit of the Republican party...a Republican Party member?...a Democrat Party member?.....or someone who's neither?

I'm always amused when a Christian cries foul over such petty things, while happily condemning my "soul" to eternal damnation.

My mere existence as a logical, non-brainwashed person is insult enough, is it not?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
No, but you're close.

My argument in a thimble is:

Just because you're stupid, doesn't make you an expert on stupidity.

To get back to the original point: Just because you're a Christian, doesn't make you an expert on Christianity. Just because you aren't a Christian, doesn't mean you can't be an expert on Christianity.

No, actually your point had more to do with objectivity than knowledge.

The entire post in response to kate's remark about non-Christians claiming to be 'experts' ran like this:

Eorl wrote:
Kate, do you expect sufferers of schizophrenia to be the experts on schizophrenia?

One who suffers from it can provide insights into it's workings, but they couldn't be trusted to study it objectively.

You imply that a Christian could not be trusted to study Christianity objectively , but that an atheist, for example, would be objective.

I think this is hardly the case.

In my view, no one is completely objective and no one lacks the capacity to exercise some objectivity.

(It is similar to the discussion I had a few weeks ago with another member who claimed that Josephus should not be used to support one's position when discussing the OT. After all, the member opined, as a Jew he would have knowledge and respect for the Jewish canon.)

Of course, your attempt to slime Christians by comparing them with schizophrenics was a classic example of your objectivity.

I don't expect any Christian to see the simple logic of what I've said.

Can't see what's not there. Especially when you distort what you said.

Eorl wrote:

When you think it's "truth" and "reality" (just like a schizophrenic would) then you are never going to react other than to take offense.

But when YOU think it's truth, then it's truth, right?

Eorl wrote:

I'll stand by my comparison, as it is accurate. Clearly I did not say that religion is a mental disease (although I think it is very close...maybe more like a virus).

So, you 'did not say it' , but you meant it?

Eorl wrote:

I was simply pointing out that just being an expert in any field whatsover does not require one to be a supporter/believer/participant/victim of said field.

No, your point was regarding objectivity. You also demonstrated that you lack it.

Eorl wrote:

Who would you expect would do the most objective audit of the Republican party...a Republican Party member?...a Democrat Party member?.....or someone who's neither?

Nice try at triangulation. Sorry, painting yourself as a dispassionate 'neither' doesn't wash.

Eorl wrote:

I'm always amused when a Christian cries foul over such petty things,

Glad you are smiling. Does broadbrushing make you happy?

Eorl wrote:

while happily condemning my "soul" to eternal damnation.

If you can't point out where I said this, what is the point of bringing in this strawman?

Eorl wrote:

My mere existence as a logical, non-brainwashed person is insult enough, is it not?

Not.

Your existence is no insult to me. You are a legend in your own mind, apparently.

It is always funny to hear someone who asserts that only they and a few cognoscenti are 'logical' and 'not brain washed' and that the overwhelming majority of the world

http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/millennium15.asp

are the blind fools, ignorant brain washed robots, etc (add to that now 'the virus afflicted, near-schizophrenic', courtesy of Objective Eorl ) because they believe in God.

0 Replies

Can I take it, then, that you agree with Kate. A non-religious person cannot be an expert on religion?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Can I take it, then, that you agree with Kate. A non-religious person cannot be an expert on religion?

I've made no such claim.

And I don't think kate did either. As Lucy Van Pelt said :

Quote:

Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it, Charlie Brown?

And neither can the non-religious claim that he is 'objective' while the believer is not.

Most atheists and agnostics that I have spoken to, especially on this forum, are nowhere near objective.

As I stated earlier, no one is completely objective.

And no one lacks the capacity to exercise some objectivity ( whether[/u] they do so, or not, is another issue).

0 Replies

I do seem to remember agreeing with you that no-one was objective. I certainly haven't claimed to be.

Despite all the smoke and mirrors, you seem to agree with me - that you don't have to be a Christian to be an expert on Christianity.

(I do think an atheist (or even better, an agnostic) would be more likely to be objective about Christianity, even if I am not....but that is NOT the point I'm making.)

0 Replies

So you're not even gonna address that (sort of harsh-spirited) strawman you raised, about RL "condemning you to hell", or some such?

And you're not even gonna retract your assertion that RL was saying a non-religious person can't be an expert on Christianity (he made no such claim)?

All he's said on this thread is that a non-religious person is not necessarily more objective than a Christian about Christianity.

Having had your non-arguments bared, are you gonna have the integrity to even acknowledge where you are clearly wrong, Eorl?

0 Replies

I agree wiv you all... Shocked

I think that "religion" very mush deepens on the fings dat control us...

we controlled by technology?.. or do we just rely on it...

I am having a very surreal day, but I'm here listening to you guys...

I would like to start being honest and truthful (although I am always honest and truthful)...

I have had SERIOUS issues with good and evil. If I'm allowed to join this conversation - just realise there will be far too many powers operating for you all to have your say.

That saddens me. I truthfully BELIEVE...

I will try and stay locked onto this website today :wink:

Today I am being [GOOD]... and having problems because of that... LOL

0 Replies

"snood"... et al....

I'm doing my best to keep up....

jus wanted to say I was still here...

My knowledge is VAST...

If you want to limit me to basic opinions - I'm still here.

This is an easy thing 4me.... the hardest thing to deal with is real-life - I progressed to a RE-all life...

*opening gambit [LOL] Cool

But when I say RELIGION and FAITH (confusing issues)... sometimes cause conflicts...

I'm listening to... "Mystify me" - by INXS - and I will try to stay online...

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I just think its interesting how full of shyt the great Levay was.

It is also interesting that the site you pulled that information off of was a giant scam. The 'first church of satan' consists of one 'John Allee', and a handful of internet wannabes. The man was promptly removed from the CoS after revealing his true colors and ineptitude, and, like many others before and after him, focussed his disgruntled rejection into a slanderous smear campaign. Originally he went by the name of 'Lord Egan', and after getting busted faking 'Lord Egans' death (shortly after the death of ASL;you know what they say about imitation and flattery) he all but disbanded his little lonely hearts club.
Aside from that, a basic understanding of Satanism (which you obviously lack) would enlighten you as to the benefits of constructing a false reputation for personal gain. Even if any of your cut and paste job were true, it wouldn't undermine the man or his philosophy. As usual snood, it seems you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Perhaps you should stick to the arid one liners that constitute the overwhelming majority of your posts here at A2K?

echi wrote:

I don't want to derail this thread. It's a little quote and I found it to be relevant. If you're telling me that it is not relevant because Satanism is not really a religion, then maybe we should start a new thread. I don't know. Dok?

Satanism is a religion, as it contains elements of both ritual and dogma. The key difference between Satanism and most other religions is it is supported by philosophy rather than theology or supernatural beliefs.

0 Replies

Which religion suits me?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know