Christianity is not a religion. at all.

Post Reply New Topic

If I criticize your religion harshly, and you personally get hurt as a result (even if I may not have used ad hominem against you), it's not my problem; it's yours.

Sorry, but I have to explore this, the scientist in me will not let go.

Does the same rule [if I diss you and you feel hurt, tough, not my bad] apply to:

1. your politics

2. your sexuality

3. your choice of significant other

4. your personal hygiene

5. your ethnicity

6. your stance on global warming

7. your taste in literature

8. your taste in cinematic entertainment

9. your athletic prowess

10. your career choices

I could go on, but this will establish a perimeter.

Note that I am sincerely requesting data covering areas I see as important as potentially contributing to my understanding.

Heckling at this point I would not indulge myself.

Yes (as in the same rule applies)



No. My sexuality is a part of my nature.



Depends on the motive.



Yes. It's my fault if I'm dirty.



My ethnicity is me. No.



Yes. Feel free to criticize.



Yes.



Yes.



What for?



Depends.

Summing up:

In general, you maintain that it is reasonable for a person to feel hurt by attacks on what he IS - sexuality [which you do not consider a choice], ethnicity, stature, facial structure, intelligence- I did not probe the issue of weight, but I will assume for now that falls in with partner choice].

But on the other hand you seem to say it is unreasonable to feel hurt by attacks on one's personal choices - career, politics, religion [which you apparently do consider a choice, though some might disagree], grooming.

This appears to put you in the Free Will camp. Not criticizing, I am there myself, just thinking out loud.

Well, thank you. I think you will find - as I have repeatedly found - that many people DO feel hurt by attacks on their choices. Some of them have been known to strike back. I KNOW.

I would advise not placing too much confidence in your conviction that certain topics SHOULD NOT hurt people. Especially since there are different ideas around on what areas ARE choice as opposed to nature.

I think , What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.

I attempt not to offend and to not be offended.
-I fail quite a bit at both but that is my intention-

Religion is a choice. That's why you can change it. You can't change your nature, though.

I am begging you pardon, but you are operating with a flawed data base.

The religious organization with which you associate is a choice and you can readily change it. Your rituals and spiritual practices are learned behaviors and you can change them.

But my religion in the sense of belief system, NOT of organization NOR of practices, is not something I chose. Not something I would ever have chosen. You could say it was chosen for me, like a Christmas present, and that might not be far from the truth.

In any case, you are back to front - a majority of those polled say that it is precisely with respect to your choices that criticism can hurt most.

Amen

People love not taking responsibility for their problems and there are many creative ways to avoid taking responsibility for their lives. Christians blame the devil for all their problems and the way their life is going, if not the devil then they blame god, much in the same way someone might blame the government or politicians.

Saying Christianity is not a religion is like saying the Beatles are not a band.

It is a matter of definitions, which despite my all too frequent and less than subtle attempts to point up the need for clear definitions most peopkle swill not bother thinking about.

Correction: most people will not bother thinking

It is no fun to have a reasonabl;e discussion where people make their meanings clear. Much nicer to foam at the mouth and talk at cross purposes.

Christianity is a religion [or is a cluster of religions] by many of the normallty accepted definitions.

One knows where the poster was coming from, but it was bad tactics to put that out without groundwork.

a strict set of definitions is as good as impossible as they change through their use and associations.

Po po po.

I am not postulating a single set of inflexible definitions which would indeed be impossible even if desirable.

Were it possible we would be machines and there would not be languages anf THEN where would harmless drudge Philologos be?

But -

until recently getting onto the web from here involved modem and phone line. I tell the device to connect, it dials the number, then squawk sqweak sqip brrrrrt as the two modems - that on my machine and that at the other endof the phone line - establish a set of mutually agreed definitions they can use TO COMMUNICATE FOR THIS SESSION. There were different outcomes different days.

I do NOT see why it is asking so much to talk with definitions agreed FOR THE OCCASION [you will note that I operate different definitions in different discussions]

As we agree on a language.

Saying that Christianity is not a religion is like saying that Islam is the religion of peace.

This "god" guy that you are talking about sounds like a jerk. So, for some reason he makes people like only homosexual sex but he thinks it is an abomination and will send those who practice go to hell. Why is this guy making things so much harder for these few people than other guys?

There you go again. People who do not think about it or read about it really should not make pronouncements on a theology they do not know enough to misundetrstand.

So Gak66 says [and doubtless he can back it up] "homosexuality is a sin"

And you [instead of pointing out that his wording is seriously flawed - I do not know that anybody says homosexuality is a sin, only that certain behaviors are sins] complain that God is "making things harder for the homosexual few"

Passing lightly over the vexed question as to whether the percentage of homosexuals in the population actually rates your "few" ....

Are you NOT aware:

A. that all of us here, even those closest to God, are sinners

B. that there is no God-given rating scale. Some religious organizations will rank insulting a priest higher [lower?] than leering at a stripper, but those are human rankings, not God's.

C. that the temptations to sin set before an aging heterosexual academic introverted recovering book store addict are neither more nor fewer and neither greater nor less than those facing his rather younger homosexual club owner relative?

We are given DIFFERENT talents to match DIFFERENT callings, and DIFFERENT temptations to match DIFFERENT paths.

But all the evidence is that each gets an essentially equal hand to play in life.

Please recheck your sources.