9
   

Atheists, smarter than religious people

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 11:06 am
Foley, Most of us understand different things from dictionaries and resources available to us through books and the internet. If the internest defines one religion one way, and somebody comes out and tells us it's wrong; we have a conflict.

However, I appreciate your taking the time to tell us how you interprest your religion. That's not wholly unrealistic, considering all Catholics (just an example) don't think alike.

What I'm trying to say is that your Hinduism is probably not the same as the majority of Hindus - as defined by many resources.

That's okay with me, and I appreciate your "take" on what you believe.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 02:08 pm
I know Hindus who conceive of their religion not altogether as does Foley. And I know many (and there are millions) of Buddhist who do not share my understanding of Buddhism. But most of those who disagree with Foley and with me are followers of popular Hinduism and Buddhism, versions not much more sophisticated than Pat Robertson's Christianity.
We must distinguish between "low" (exoteric?) and "high" (esosteric?) levels of all religions
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 04:27 am
Religion, when practice, is a means to explore the self and the world it resides in, to grow in the understanding of both and achieve a more harmonic existence.

Religion, when preached, has more similarities with politics.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 12:39 pm
Very good.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 01:34 pm
What if, to practice my religion, I must spread the word?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 03:03 pm
Write a book. But is it a truly religious precept to proselytize? That may reflect one's compact with a "religious" organization, but does it reflect one's relationship with the object of religious inquiry itself?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 03:29 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Write a book.
Funny!
JLNobody wrote:

But is it a truly religious precept to proselytize?
I don't know.
JLNobody wrote:
That may reflect one's compact with a "religious" organization, but does it reflect one's relationship with the object of religious inquiry itself?
If the content of a certain religion dictates spreading the word is a moral mandate, I must follow, no? I am pretty sure you could also make an argument that to practice a some religions, I must make war, under certain circumstances.
0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 04:13 pm
I think it's safe to say that proselytizing is expected as a practicing Christian. Jesus' last instructions, according to Matthew, were to "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations..."

The violence and bloodshed caused by those seemingly innocuous words will never be equaled by any other single command.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 04:16 pm
the irony, ofcoarse, is that that so-called command (of god) was the creation of man.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 04:45 pm
Thanks, C.I., I was about to give in when you entered. My sense of religion (re-connecting the individual with the Cosmos) differs from the "religion" claimed for ideological communities we call churches.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 05:23 pm
Chumly wrote:
What if, to practice my religion, I must spread the word?

They you're a tool.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 05:53 pm
Screw you guys I'm going home!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 08:59 pm
Chumly, you mean just for the night, right? I think you're just as stuck on us as we are on you. See you later.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Feb, 2007 09:44 pm
tycoon wrote:
I think it's safe to say that proselytizing is expected as a practicing Christian. Jesus' last instructions, according to Matthew, were to "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations..."

The violence and bloodshed caused by those seemingly innocuous words will never be equaled by any other single command.


Do you understand the difference between use and misuse? Apparently not.

Aside from that:

To assert that Christ's words (or anyone else's words, ever) 'caused' violence and bloodshed (or anything else) is ludicrous.

Words don't 'cause' anything. People choose their own actions and reactions.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 12:39 am
Quote:
Words don't 'cause' anything. People choose their own actions and reactions.



100% Wrong ! Words arn't simply about "reality".....they create reality. The word "missionary" segments social reality into those who are "saved" and those who need "saving".

The limits of my language are the limits of my world. Wittgenstein.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 12:41 am
real wrote: Words don't 'cause' anything. People choose their own actions and reactions.

Seems real was never in the military service.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 01:34 am
real life wrote:
tycoon wrote:
I think it's safe to say that proselytizing is expected as a practicing Christian. Jesus' last instructions, according to Matthew, were to "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations..."

The violence and bloodshed caused by those seemingly innocuous words will never be equaled by any other single command.


Do you understand the difference between use and misuse? Apparently not.

Aside from that:

To assert that Christ's words (or anyone else's words, ever) 'caused' violence and bloodshed (or anything else) is ludicrous.

Words don't 'cause' anything. People choose their own actions and reactions.


If you REALLY believe this, then all the bad AND the good of christianity is by the actions and reactions of it's followers. Jesus's words would be trivial and insignificant.

Or do they only cause positive actions?

False. Invalid.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 08:38 am
fresco wrote:
Quote:
Words don't 'cause' anything. People choose their own actions and reactions.



100% Wrong ! Words arn't simply about "reality".....they create reality. The word "missionary" segments social reality into those who are "saved" and those who need "saving".

The limits of my language are the limits of my world. Wittgenstein.


Calling you a missionary all day long would not make you a missionary.

Telling you to be a missionary would not either.

However, you choose your own actions.

If it were otherwise, I could control the whole world by what I say.

It ain't so.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 08:40 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
real wrote: Words don't 'cause' anything. People choose their own actions and reactions.

Seems real was never in the military service.


Weak point, CI.

Did anyone in the military ever disobey an order?

Words don't 'cause' anything.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 11:20 am
real, Your brain is so twisted, it doesn't comprehend the simplest of examples. Too spatial for you?
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 11:27:16