quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My understanding is that an agnostic while you didn't write that...is a belief in a creator and doesn't need to make [him] a god in the biblical sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My understanding is that an agnostic while you didn't write that...is a belief in a creator and doesn't need to make [him] a god in the biblical sense.

"gnosis" is Greek. It means "knowledge". In Greek, adding the letter "a" denotes an opposite. So, "agnosis" ("agnostic", anglicized) means, literally, without knowledge.

So, if I were the kind of person who chose to be offended, this would almost be an affront to my declaration of belief in God.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The problem I have with Catholicism is that it trains people to go through the motions. I'm sure there are plenty of very spiritual Catholics that aren't "religious." But, relying on attending mass and saying what you're supposed to say, kneeling when you're supposed to kneel means jack shit, if it's not coming from within (which is true for any religion).

Going to mass and just going through the motions doesn't make you spiritual and closer to God, just like standing in a garage and going "vroom vroom" doesn't make you a car.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR
I'm an atheist because, I don't like the God I read about in the Bible or the Quran. So I've decided that, even if they were, 101% proven to be real Gods. I still wouldn't like them! They are mean Gods, with horrible character and personalities.
I mean, sometimes when over-zealous Christians start the saving you from hell thingy.

I'm like, you want me to like someone who is gonna send me to hell, unless I suck up to him?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I'm overly rational. Make of that what you will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
It's pretty interesting (to me) that some of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known (Socrates, Aristotle, et al.) agreed that creation logically implies a creator.
 
In other words, I think the case has been "proven" as much as it can be.
 
Now, just because I believe in a creator doesn't mean that my beliefs fall in line with any particular definition or description of that creator. Does this make me "non-religious"? I tend to think it does, until I find an organized religion that believes exactly as I do.
   Michael

I think that makes you "spiritual." I was raised Catholic, got saved and was a Protestant/Evangelical/Non-Denominational/What-the-fuck-ever. In that Church (not going to speak for all churches of the same or similar faiths, but just for that one), it was common for "being religious" to be a negative term. The ultimate example being Catholicism, with the robotic recitation of words, phrases and actions. I've gone to a Catholic mass probably 10 times (funerals, confirmations, etc.) in the last 30 years, and I still know when to kneel and when/what to recite. It's almost sickening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67
I have decided you are a whore. My opinion means nothing.
You play every card.
Mess with our gentlemen American men. Go right ahead, see what meets you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My understanding is that an agnostic while you didn't write that...is a belief in a creator and doesn't need to make [him] a god in the biblical sense.

"gnosis" is Greek. It means "knowledge". In Greek, adding the letter "a" denotes an opposite. So, "agnosis" ("agnostic", anglicized) means, literally, without knowledge.

So, if I were the kind of person who chose to be offended, this would almost be an affront to my declaration of belief in God.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: HandThatControls

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

You have only used two facets and ignored all the others.

Broadbrush answer: Individual choice. Whatever floats your boat at the time.
Whatever other reason you want to inject into the argument is just superfluous and irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

It's pretty interesting (to me) that some of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known (Socrates, Aristotle, et al.) agreed that creation logically implies a creator.
 
In other words, I think the case has been "proven" as much as it can be.
 
Now, just because I believe in a creator doesn't mean that my beliefs fall in line with any particular definition or description of that creator. Does this make me "non-religious"? I tend to think it does, until I find an organized religion that believes exactly as I do.
 
 
 
Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I'm overly rational. Make of that what you will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Svale

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

You have only used two facets and ignored all the others.

Broadbrush answer: Individual choice. Whatever floats your boat at the time.
Whatever other reason you want to inject into the argument is just superfluous and irrelevant.

What are the other facets?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I think that makes you "spiritual." I was raised Catholic, got saved and was a Protestant/Evangelical/Non-Denominational/What-the-fuck-ever. In that Church (not going to speak for all churches of the same or similar faiths, but just for that one), it was common for "being religious" to be a negative term. The ultimate example being Catholicism, with the robotic recitation of words, phrases and actions. I've gone to a Catholic mass probably 10 times (funerals, confirmations, etc.) in the last 30 years, and I still know when to kneel and when/what to recite. It's almost sickening.

Actually, it's worse than even all of that. I was raised a Traditional Catholic (Latin Mass, No meat on Friday EVER, etc.) and, as a first son in a Catholic family, I was slated for the seminary.
 
I can still recite the entire Mass (pre-1958) in Latin and, when I say my prayers, I do recite the Confiteor in Latin.
 
I don't necessarily see these as negatives, per se. I adopt religious practices from all over. When my son died, I observed the Jewish tradition of having someone always with his body (I met the plane from Germany at the airport and flew with his coffin). When I pray, I usually kneel. Things like that.
 
I incorporate things that speak to my heart into my practices and those things are not limited strictly to one denomination or another.
 
 
 
Michael

The problem I have with Catholicism is that it trains people to go through the motions. I'm sure there are plenty of very spiritual Catholics that aren't "religious." But, relying on attending mass and saying what you're supposed to say, kneeling when you're supposed to kneel means jack shit, if it's not coming from within (which is true for any religion).

Going to mass and just going through the motions doesn't make you spiritual and closer to God, just like standing in a garage and going "vroom vroom" doesn't make you a car.

That being said, you've incorporated traditions of differing religions. It seems like you're doing it not because that's "what you're supposed to do," but because it's what you've determined to be the right thing to do. That makes you not religious, in the context my former church members used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HandThatControls

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
It's pretty interesting (to me) that some of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known (Socrates, Aristotle, et al.) agreed that creation logically implies a creator.
 
In other words, I think the case has been "proven" as much as it can be.
 
Now, just because I believe in a creator doesn't mean that my beliefs fall in line with any particular definition or description of that creator. Does this make me "non-religious"? I tend to think it does, until I find an organized religion that believes exactly as I do.
   Michael

I think that makes you "spiritual." I was raised Catholic, got saved and was a Protestant/Evangelical/Non-Denominational/What-the-fuck-ever. In that Church (not going to speak for all churches of the same or similar faiths, but just for that one), it was common for "being religious" to be a negative term. The ultimate example being Catholicism, with the robotic recitation of words, phrases and actions. I've gone to a Catholic mass probably 10 times (funerals, confirmations, etc.) in the last 30 years, and I still know when to kneel and when/what to recite. It's almost sickening.

I disagree with your identifying those actions as "robotic" as that implies they are simply mass-produced prayers (yeah, I went there - what you goinna do about it?) without thought and ignores their intended purpose. There is supposed to be personal contemplation and reflection taking place along with the words and that individualizes the experience. I describe myself as a non-practicing Catholic. That means I was raised in the faith and no longer take part but I do not have any antipathy towards the church. I see the good and bad in the church but since I cannot accept ALL the tenants of the faith I will not disrespect it by being a shopping cart Catholic and just throwing out the beliefs I do not like. I have only been in church since I was 18 for weddings and funerals but I am there for the people around me and not the church. It took a bit for the family to accept but over the years they discovered it was nice to have someone at home making sure the black beans and rice, Deviled Crabs and Media Noche sandwiches are hot and ready when they walk in the door after Midnight Mass.
I am surprised that on a fetish site someone would see it as robotic and not as the powerful ritual it is. The rituals of the Catholic church have been honed over many centuries and greatly assist the faithful in finding, maintaining and practicing their faith. Are fetish rituals just robotic actions? Tell that to my Kitty Kat who insists on greeting me by rubbing left cheek to left cheek three times followed by three nose to nose dabs and then three more rubs of right cheek to right cheek and finished with my payoff of a nice lip to lip peck. This does not make her robotic, this makes her happy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The problem I have with Catholicism is that it trains people to go through the motions. I'm sure there are plenty of very spiritual Catholics that aren't "religious." But, relying on attending mass and saying what you're supposed to say, kneeling when you're supposed to kneel means jack shit, if it's not coming from within (which is true for any religion).

Going to mass and just going through the motions doesn't make you spiritual and closer to God, just like standing in a garage and going "vroom vroom" doesn't make you a car.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
That is a hypothesus on your part DS. I think it would be more apt to say- it means nothing to you . Many people do not see any point to mortification of the flesh; a service model for the church.
It is somewhat funny, in a way.
Many dominants believe in high protocol - teaching positions to a submissive and yet cannot see that perhaps some people are reached the same way. But there are studies that support the contention.
That said, I am a charismatic - and hate when the church goes back even an iota towards 'telephone pole' catholicism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The problem I have with Catholicism is that it trains people to go through the motions. I'm sure there are plenty of very spiritual Catholics that aren't "religious." But, relying on attending mass and saying what you're supposed to say, kneeling when you're supposed to kneel means jack shit, if it's not coming from within (which is true for any religion).

Going to mass and just going through the motions doesn't make you spiritual and closer to God, just like standing in a garage and going "vroom vroom" doesn't make you a car.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
That is a hypothesus on your part DS. I think it would be more apt to say- it means nothing to you . Many people do not see any point to mortification of the flesh; a service model for the church.
It is somewhat funny, in a way.
Many dominants believe in high protocol - teaching positions to a submissive and yet cannot see that perhaps some people are reached the same way. But there are studies that support the contention.
That said, I am a charismatic - and hate when the church goes back even an iota towards 'telephone pole' catholicism.

You, too, missed my follow up response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The problem I have with Catholicism is that it trains people to go through the motions. I'm sure there are plenty of very spiritual Catholics that aren't "religious." But, relying on attending mass and saying what you're supposed to say, kneeling when you're supposed to kneel means jack shit, if it's not coming from within (which is true for any religion).

Going to mass and just going through the motions doesn't make you spiritual and closer to God, just like standing in a garage and going "vroom vroom" doesn't make you a car.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

It's pretty interesting (to me) that some of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known (Socrates, Aristotle, et al.) agreed that creation logically implies a creator.