RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions

RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/14/2014 10:09:49 PM)
quote: The same with my elderly mom's church I used to take her to. While recuperating from two emergency heart surgeries, she had problems swallowing food and all the church ladies took turns bringing her homemade soups every day. They laid hands on her in prayer, which has a medically recognized beneficial effect called "therapeutic touch" which many nurses and other health care providers practice on patients, and this was a great comfort to her. Her pastor visited her daily, so along with my presence, she was not left there by herself alone for one single day. The whole church turned out to pay their respects to her at her viewings and funeral in the middle of winter. I took them all out to a lunch buffet to show my gratitude and donated to their women's missionary fund. When Dad had a quadruple bypass, folks from his and Mom's (Catholic) parish rallied round amazingly. I've had a similar experience with my Episcopal community in DC. They came with me to radiation and chemo, visited me during seven hospital stays (so far), and bring communion when I'm too weak to come to church. My brother, who's hugely involved in his community, says he's never seen such support as St. Margaret's has given me. quote: Religion, in addition to individual spirituality, is best practiced as kindness to others in action, thought, and in deed. And let God's people say, "AMEN!" I've long been struck by how the most vivid judgment description in the Bible (Matthew 25:31-46) is all about how we treated one another. And I love how some folks are surprised to learn that they've been doing godly work through their kindness. [:)]

Musicmystery -> Erosion of Progress by Arguments about Religions (6/15/2014 7:55:06 AM)
At it's best, religion provides a sense of community that's sorely lacking in modern US society. (by that, I don't mean that's necessarily the best feature, just that WHEN religion is at it's best, that happens)

vincentML -> RE: Erosion of Progress by Arguments about Religions (6/16/2014 11:23:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery At it's best, religion provides a sense of community that's sorely lacking in modern US society. (by that, I don't mean that's necessarily the best feature, just that WHEN religion is at it's best, that happens) I agree with your first point. It is especially true in small, homogeneous communities, I think. But isn't it ironic that America, being judged the most religious nation in the West, might be judged to have a severely shattered social structure? As to your second point, WHEN has religion never been coercive?

Musicmystery -> RE: Erosion of Progress by Arguments about Religions (6/16/2014 11:49:53 AM)
I'm astounded at how many people don't understand how the English language works. The restrictive relative clause "that's sorely lacking in modern US society" modifies the phrase "a sense of community," not the noun "religion." So that "second point" is not a point I made. No point in disagreeing with it.

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/16/2014 12:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Oh come on now, should we practice tolerance to stupidity? Don't we tolerate yours? Back in the day they just burned the fucking heretics at the stake. Christian tolerance.[8\|] Church organization burned heretics at the stake. Don't confuse Church organization with religion just as we don't confuse forum with lifestyle. The confusion lies in your reading of history. Christian laity participated in countless pogroms against Jews throughout the centuries. Tis the exclusivity and violence of Christianity that has been an ugly sore in Western history. Just as bad as its fellow Abrahamic religion, Islam. It is the religion that teaches hate to those who hold 'heretical' views. "Laity" describes non-governing church members so you are agreeing with me that Church "laity" participated in countless non-Christian acts. Yes, that is well documented. But since this was against the teachings of the Christian Messiah then one cannot deny these were people only calling themselves Christians and not actually Christians. It is simple logic and truth as is the Word. Be angry if you must, but be angry at those long dead who did not live a Christ taught and therefore were not Christian in name or belief.

Musicmystery -> RE: Erosion of Progress by Arguments about Religions (6/16/2014 12:51:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML America, being judged the most religious nation in the West Btw, that's not strictly true -- some nations in Europe come out ahead, and the US is in decline. http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf

GotSteel -> RE: Erosion of Progress by Arguments about Religions (6/16/2014 2:52:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I agree with your first point. It is especially true in small, homogeneous communities, I think. But isn't it ironic that America, being judged the most religious nation in the West, might be judged to have a severely shattered social structure? Music's right Italy and Poland are more religious (as well as some eastern block shitholes). quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML As to your second point, WHEN has religion never been coercive? Huh? I don't see where you're getting that.

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 7:07:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Oh come on now, should we practice tolerance to stupidity? Don't we tolerate yours? Back in the day they just burned the fucking heretics at the stake. Christian tolerance.[8\|] Church organization burned heretics at the stake. Don't confuse Church organization with religion just as we don't confuse forum with lifestyle. The confusion lies in your reading of history. Christian laity participated in countless pogroms against Jews throughout the centuries. Tis the exclusivity and violence of Christianity that has been an ugly sore in Western history. Just as bad as its fellow Abrahamic religion, Islam. It is the religion that teaches hate to those who hold 'heretical' views. "Laity" describes non-governing church members. Being a Christian church member does not automatically mean you are a Christian just as being a member of the CM forum does not mean you are a Dom or a submissive. So, you are agreeing with me that Church "laity" participated in countless non-Christian acts. Yes, that is well documented. But since this is and was against the teachings of the Christian Messiah then one cannot deny these were people only calling themselves Christians while not following Christ which is the true definition of a Christian rather than one based on what Church they attend. It is simple logic and truth as is the Word. Be angry if you must, but be angry at those long dead who did not live as Christ taught and therefore were not Christian in name or belief.

GotSteel -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 7:34:47 AM)
Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 10:21:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy. You think so? Obviously I think that a CHRISTian by definition follows CHRIST and if they don' then they are not, no matter what they call themselves. I don't think this fits your description of my argument since the goalpost is never shifted, it is absolute whereas the church indeed shifted the definition of Christian, as have other posts here, to agree with their arguments which indeed fit the description of "The No True Scottsman Fallacy"

DomKen -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 10:27:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy. You think so? Obviously I think that a CHRISTian by definition follows CHRIST and if they don' then they are not, no matter what they call themselves. I don't think this fits your description of my argument since the goalpost is never shifted, it is absolute whereas the church indeed shifted the definition of Christian, as have other posts here, to agree with their arguments which indeed fit the description of "The No True Scottsman Fallacy" You have no idea what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. But you did definitely commit it. It was a classic.

mnottertail -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 10:28:40 AM)
quote: So, you are agreeing with me that Church "laity" participated in countless non-Christian acts. Leo changed god's day of worship. High ranking church officials have committed pederasty, and popes have helped quash retributions. Pius assisted the Nazis. the Borja popes involved the church in 'religious' wars. Innocent and Gregory at least....the inquisition. Don't try to bullshit anyone.

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 10:41:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: So, you are agreeing with me that Church "laity" participated in countless non-Christian acts. Leo changed god's day of worship. High ranking church officials have committed pederasty, and popes have helped quash retributions. Pius assisted the Nazis. the Borja popes involved the church in 'religious' wars. Innocent and Gregory at least....the inquisition. Don't try to bullshit anyone. All of whom were not following Christ but making it up as they wanted it to go. Kind of like your post.

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 10:42:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy. You think so? Obviously I think that a CHRISTian by definition follows CHRIST and if they don' then they are not, no matter what they call themselves. I don't think this fits your description of my argument since the goalpost is never shifted, it is absolute whereas the church indeed shifted the definition of Christian, as have other posts here, to agree with their arguments which indeed fit the description of "The No True Scottsman Fallacy" You have no idea what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. But you did definitely commit it. It was a classic. You think so? In what way?

mnottertail -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 10:47:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: So, you are agreeing with me that Church "laity" participated in countless non-Christian acts. Leo changed god's day of worship. High ranking church officials have committed pederasty, and popes have helped quash retributions. Pius assisted the Nazis. the Borja popes involved the church in 'religious' wars. Innocent and Gregory at least....the inquisition. Don't try to bullshit anyone. All of whom were not following Christ but making it up as they wanted it to go. Kind of like your post. Well, you can slobber out of any side of your mouth you want, but you were only in 'laity' when you meant lamity, like the shit you spew. Fucking factless shit is factless shit. There isnt anyone who follows 'christ' in this religious shit. Not one.

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 10:50:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy. You think so? Obviously I think that a CHRISTian by definition follows CHRIST and if they don' then they are not, no matter what they call themselves. I don't think this fits your description of my argument since the goalpost is never shifted, it is absolute whereas the church indeed shifted the definition of Christian, as have other posts here, to agree with their arguments which indeed fit the description of "The No True Scottsman Fallacy" "No true Scottsman fallacy" refers to supporting an argument by changing the measurement to fit an argument. Defining Christians based on following the written Word of Christ and his examples does not fit the description "No True Scottsman fallacy" since the measurement is there for all to see rather than one I make up or even how forum posters change the description to fit their argument, the measurement they use now excludes the Word and includes Popes for example.

Arturas -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 10:54:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: So, you are agreeing with me that Church "laity" participated in countless non-Christian acts. Leo changed god's day of worship. High ranking church officials have committed pederasty, and popes have helped quash retributions. Pius assisted the Nazis. the Borja popes involved the church in 'religious' wars. Innocent and Gregory at least....the inquisition. Don't try to bullshit anyone. All of whom were not following Christ but making it up as they wanted it to go. Kind of like your post. Well, you can slobber out of any side of your mouth you want, but you were only in 'laity' when you meant lamity, like the shit you spew. Fucking factless shit is factless shit. There isnt anyone who follows 'christ' in this religious shit. Not one. There are treatments available for this behavior.

mnottertail -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 10:56:57 AM)
LOL. That horseshit must have come from wiki. That is not the fallacy. Our religion teaches people to be kind and peaceful and loving. Anyone who does evil acts certainly isn’t acting in a loving manner, therefore they can’t really be a true member of our religion, no matter what they say. So, now we have shifted from your no true scotsman of 'laity' (not true scotsmen) to just a few of the numerous examples the entire church hierarchy having acted in non-christian ways. And presumed no true scotsman before to which got is referring, and resultantly you spew more turds of ignorance.

Zonie63 -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 12:01:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ah the old No True Scotsman Fallacy. You think so? Obviously I think that a CHRISTian by definition follows CHRIST and if they don' then they are not, no matter what they call themselves. I don't think this fits your description of my argument since the goalpost is never shifted, it is absolute whereas the church indeed shifted the definition of Christian, as have other posts here, to agree with their arguments which indeed fit the description of "The No True Scottsman Fallacy" "No true Scottsman fallacy" refers to supporting an argument by changing the measurement to fit an argument. Defining Christians based on following the written Word of Christ and his examples does not fit the description "No True Scottsman fallacy" since the measurement is there for all to see rather than one I make up or even how forum posters change the description to fit their argument, the measurement they use now excludes the Word and includes Popes for example. The only thing is, is the "measurement" really there for all to see? When even what constitutes the "Word of Christ" is in dispute, as well as how people choose to interpret that word. And really, isn't it up to Christ to decide whether or not someone is a true Christian? It's not up to mere mortals to pass those kinds of judgments. It may not be the exact same thing as the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy, although it may be faulty from a different angle, since you seem to be arguing that there really is such a thing as a "true Christian." But then, even the belief itself says "Judge not, lest ye be judged," so even if there is a true Christian out there, the belief itself would prohibit pointing out who this person is.

dcnovice -> RE: The Erosion of Progress by Religions (6/18/2014 12:47:55 PM)
quote: And really, isn't it up to Christ to decide whether or not someone is a true Christian? "Do you consider yourself a Christian?" [the interviewer] asked. I sighed and said, "My problem with that is that so many people who publicly identify themselves as Christians are such jerks about it." The woman laughed, as did the people in the sound booth behind her. . . . I said I often wondered if being a Christian was something we could, or should, claim for ourselves; that if being a Christian meant incarnating the love of Christ in my own life, then maybe it would be best to let others tell me how well, or how badly, I'm doing. KATHLEEN NORRIS, THE CLOISTER WALK

Page: << < prev 23 24 25 [26] 27 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875