23 Sep 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFeel free to enjoy your day of the marmot
[b]I missaply nothing. Your primal post at this thread is pure nonsense and you are unable to back it up.
And that answers my post… how, exactly?
Define religion as you understand it and explain what exactly are you following.
Laughable. Right out loud laughable.
You actually quote my definition of what constitutes a religion, a ...[text shortened]... personal interests.
😵[/b]
Oh, now I see.
Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?[/b]
😵
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSpace is above the cause-effect law but, since this is not mentioned in the "holy scripture" of your religion, which in your opinion is not a religion, you dismiss it and you accept the idea of an intelligent god who "created" the space. This religious idea is as irrational as, say, the concept of the Christian Trinity, but that's another story
Suspending belief for a strain much greater than the suggestion deserves, pray tell, from whence cometh the space?
😵
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: "Oh, now I see.
[b]I missaply nothing. Your primal post at this thread is pure nonsense and you are unable to back it up.
And that answers my post… how, exactly?
Define religion as you understand it and explain what exactly are you following.
Laughable. Right out loud laughable.
You actually quote my definition of what constitutes a religion, a ...[text shortened]... personal interests.
😵[/b]
Oh, now I see.
Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?[/b]
Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?"
Because I had to assure myself beyond the slightest trace of doubt that your are indeed a sophist instead of being merely ignorant
😵
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo let's enjoy some more of you, Freaky!
[b]I missaply nothing. Your primal post at this thread is pure nonsense and you are unable to back it up.
And that answers my post… how, exactly?
Define religion as you understand it and explain what exactly are you following.
Laughable. Right out loud laughable.
You actually quote my definition of what constitutes a religion, a ...[text shortened]... personal interests.
😵[/b]
Oh, now I see.
Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?[/b]
edit: "And that answers my post… how, exactly?"
😀
edit: "Laughable. Right out loud laughable.
You actually quote my definition of what constitutes a religion, and then brazenly challenge me to define religion. Brilliant stroke of deflection, sir. Brilliant."
This is not a definition but your personal deduction about the way you in person understand the essence of the religion. Anyway, regardless of your personal understanding, Christianity is in fact a religion because it does demand “certain physical and psychological and/or emotional demands upon its adherents”.
So for starters let me know:
1. Is the Christian religion founded on the life and teachings of Jesus?
2. Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God and your saviour?
3. Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected?
4. Do you believe that your relation “with the Creator of the universe” is achieved solely through Christianity?
5. Do you worship the Christian Triune God, the “One alone who gets all the glory either we believe or we reject the gift of salvation”?
edit: “Unless, of course (and as has been the one of the main thrusts of this entire thread), that said belief system is the impetus behind such contribution.
The …impetus behind such contribution is solely science and philosophy, and not the miscellaneous religious beliefs.
Edit: “Perhaps you are privy to more insight than the rest of us. I, for one, was completely unaware that any of the folks mentioned dedicated all of their scientific endeavors to Manchester Unlimited. Who knew? Blackpool would have made more sense, but, hey, to each their own, right?”
I repeat once more that it is irrelevant to whom a scientist dedicates his scientific contribution. If a scientist dedicates his scientific contribution to his wife and to his children, would you claim that he brought up his achievements because he wanted to declare how much he loves them?
😀
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHeditr: "And that answers my post… how, exactly?"
[b]I define religion as it is defined by the science of sociology. So go on, define religion and show me "what a religion truly is" -and prove that I am ignorant
As has been the case repeatedly, you missapply what has been clearly stated. Go back and read my posts. My words challenged your grasp of the concept of religion if you consider my approach ...[text shortened]... m at all. Your efforts otherwise lend nothing to the conversation than adding confusion.[/b]
It answers your post by means of common sens and historically verified facts as they are presented in detail at every single post of mine at this thread addressed to you, but you are desperate to prove that your absurd claims are justified. So, once more, I will offer you another chance to understand that your first post of this thread is bonkers😵
Well, the Christian tradition relying on Plato and Aristotle has not produced a satisfactory schema of the Universe and failed to bring up a rational theory of reality. Aristotle offered a sophisticated analytical apparatus that covered in full the Christian theory of reality and the Christian theology, and his remarkable corpus of work, which is a legacy of the Hellenic culture, is still the cultural foundation of the Western civilization. This means, in order my Grecian English are Greek to you, that the "ruling Christian ideology" is not the agent that triggered the expand of the Western civilisation. In fact Christianity tried to turn the Human into the passive religionist who has lost his sapienza, reason and reasonableness, as well as the understanding of the Ultimate Purpose/ cause and Ultimate Good. The Christian religious personages tried to replace philosophy, free thinking and thought, creative imagination and traditional aestheticism by the idea of salvation.
During the 4th up to the 12th century AD we monitor a gradual submission of reason and reasonableness to the myth and desire of the religious mind. The perceptive insights of the Greek philosophers were violently displaced by the dark reductionist myth of obedient unthinking slaves of monotheism. The adoption of Christianity, which is indeed a modified Judaism, by Constantine forced the European civilization to replace the ancient Phoenician-Egyptian-Assyro-Babylonian-Greek-Roman cosmology by a primitive Judeo-Christian myth of creation, and this left no room at all for questioning the Ultimate Cause. This irrational religious approach had been always censoring the impulses of thought, suppressing the production of undesirable signs, scientific discoveries and free cultural expression for centuries, up to the brief period of the European Enlightenment. As a matter of fact, up to the 18th century the forces of intellect and analytical processes and imagined systems of cosmos could not appear freely.
This is history, Freaky, these are validated facts. If you want -just for a change- to bring up an efficient argument in order to back up your absurd claim as you expressed it at your first post of this thread, take your sweet time and dig amongst else the following:
Aristotle, Complete Works, 2 vols., ed by Jonathan Barnes. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1984
Deely, John, ed. by Brooke Williams, and Felicia Kruse. Frontiers of Semiotics. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana UP, 1986
Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana UP, 1979 [1976]
Herzen, Alexander. Pis’ma ob izuchenii prirody (Letters on Studying Nature). Moscow: OGIZ, 1944
Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers., 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1991
Russell, Bertrand. The Origins of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1980
Makolkin, Anna. The Genealogy of Our Present Moral Disarray Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2000
Makolkin, Anna. “On Aristotelian Universals” in Anatomy of Heroism (2000)
Makolkin, Anna. “On Heroic Civilizations” in ibid
Makolkin, Anna. “Nietzsche, the Founder of Dionysean Church” in The Genealogy of Our Present Moral Disarray, 103–118 (2000)
😵
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleThis is not a definition but your personal deduction about the way you in person understand the essence of the religion.
So let's enjoy some more of you, Freaky!
edit: "And that answers my post… how, exactly?"
😀
edit: "Laughable. Right out loud laughable.
You actually quote my definition of what constitutes a religion, and then brazenly challenge me to define religion. Brilliant stroke of deflection, sir. Brilliant."
This is not a definition ...[text shortened]... hat he brought up his achievements because he wanted to declare how much he loves them?
😀
Let’s make this real easy for you, shall we? You seem to struggle mightily with the basic meanings of some otherwise fairly simple concepts. To wit:
“A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a word or phrase.”
“Deduction is an argument or reasoning process where the conclusion follows from the premises with logical necessity.”
See the problem here? I clearly defined what a religion is, yet you call it a deduction… which my statement about religion clearly is not On top of that, your intent to make my statement out to be somehow subjective (and therefore inferior) falls woefully flat, as deduction is by nearly every standard a good thing!
Anyway, regardless of your personal understanding, Christianity is in fact a religion because it does demand “certain physical and psychological and/or emotional demands upon its adherents”.
Name them.
So for starters let me know:
1. Is the Christian religion founded on the life and teachings of Jesus?
Yes. Christianity is founded on the life, teachings and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God and your saviour?
You’re batting 1000. Yes and yes.
3. Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected?
It’s really uncanny! Yes.
4. Do you believe that your relation “with the Creator of the universe” is achieved solely through Christianity?
You lost me there.
5. Do you worship the Christian Triune God, the “One alone who gets all the glory either we believe or we reject the gift of salvation”?
Back on track, sir.
The …impetus behind such contribution is solely science and philosophy, and not the miscellaneous religious beliefs.
We weren’t discussing their spiritual contributions, we were discussing their other contributions which were a result of their spiritual holdings.
I repeat once more that it is irrelevant to whom a scientist dedicates his scientific contribution. If a scientist dedicates his scientific contribution to his wife and to his children, would you claim that he brought up his achievements because he wanted to declare how much he loves them?
You may repeat it until you’re blue in the face--- a state you likely find yourself in most of your conversations, given your inability to maintain a cohesive discussion. Nonetheless, the point has been made. Either you continue to ignore it, call it something other than what it is or finally come to grips with it.
It’s your call, really.
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleSpace is above the cause-effect law
Space is above the cause-effect law but, since this is not mentioned in the "holy scripture" of your religion, which in your opinion is not a religion, you dismiss it and you accept the idea of an intelligent god who "created" the space. This religious idea is as irrational as, say, the concept of the Christian Trinity, but that's another story
😵
Really? How so?
but, since this is not mentioned in the "holy scripture" of your religion, which in your opinion is not a religion, you dismiss it and you accept the idea of an intelligent god who "created" the space.
Actually, space is mentioned in the Bible.
Care to take another swing?
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleEvery so often, you should breathe.
editr: "And that answers my post… how, exactly?"
It answers your post by means of common sens and historically verified facts as they are presented in detail at every single post of mine at this thread addressed to you, but you are desperate to prove that your absurd claims are justified. So, once more, I will offer you another chance to understand t ...[text shortened]... r of Dionysean Church” in The Genealogy of Our Present Moral Disarray, 103–118 (2000)
😵
24 Sep 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour five answers about the nature of your religion prove that you do follow certain physical, psychological and emotional demands that are required from the Christian religion, which are the following:
[b]This is not a definition but your personal deduction about the way you in person understand the essence of the religion.
Let’s make this real easy for you, shall we? You seem to struggle mightily with the basic meanings of some otherwise fairly simple concepts. To wit:
“A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a word or p ...[text shortened]... it something other than what it is or finally come to grips with it.
It’s your call, really.[/b]
The Christian religion is founded on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who is (considered by the Christians and by yourself) the son of God and your saviour, who died and was resurrected. Furthermore, you accept (along with the majoriy of the Christians) that you worship the Christian Triune God, the “One alone who gets all the glory either we believe or we reject the gift of salvation”.
I assume that you worship the Christian Triune God with every power of yourself, therefore you worship him mentaly and physically. So it is obvious that you do follow a religion although you insist that you do not follow a religion
😵