Members GuyaGuy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by sonaboy No - i'm seriously not - you're just failing to note the difference between religion and a sense of determined conviction using scientific principles. "religion" did NOT put this machine into existence - knowledge did. religious groups may have commissioned men to devise a way to create the actual machine, but they didn't just WILL THIS MACHINE INTO EXISTENCE by divine power.that's ridiculous. of course it is ridiculous.no-one has claimed that an invention was just willed into existence. that would be magic. and i could reply with a similar retort "knowledge didn't put this machine into existence--hard work and craftsmanship did." but that's not what either of us is talking about.my point is that religion is in part what gave the inventors the "sense of determined conviction" that you sepak of. but more important than the invention itself is how it is used. the message is the medium. (sic) Gutenberg's press was made a religious tool from the beginning--but also a tool of the growing democratic movement, both political and religious. this press has been the basis of our education, knowledge, and social structure for centuries. Originally posted by sonaboy our country evolved out of a democratic representative republic, directly modeled after roman representative society (civile Quiritium), all the way down to the slave class, a people of property in the care of the ruling class.any system passed to us through European rule, directly came to us through study of the roman system of law.Protestantism only changed the power structure of the church, not the entire system of government by the ruling class. right. and that system was inherited from the greeks in the same way that the renaissance inherited/resurrected its democratic ideals from the same two sources, which is why law students in many european countries find out that most of their first year of studies is roman law, much to their chagrin. ("how's this gonna help me make lotsa money?") protestantism and the democratic movement of the renaissance are inseparable. they are merely two sides to the same coin. one is democracy in the state, the other in the church.it's important not to view things as isolated. printing a bible in german isn't just a religious thing. it has huge socio-political implications. it defines a nation by its tongue. it makes knowledge available that was before esoteric. it permits the questioning of the powers that be. if one can question the king's church, one can question the king. Originally posted by sonaboy absolutely incorrect - the fact that christianity (protestantism) was paired with the humanist movement was more residue of luck, than design. the humanist movement in fact, was vigorously fought by the Jesuits, the intellectual arm of the Catholic Church designed to construct competing theories and systems, most famously illustrated by the trials of Gallileo.in fact, this episode basically laid bare the differences between the church in power, and the emerging class of scholars who wished to seek absolute truth. at many points, they were incompatible. residue? sure, i'll buy that. but if we look back and see it as residue that doesn't mean we have to ignore the importance of the beliefs of those of the humanist movement. note that Galileo was for a non-literal approach to scripture--evidence of strong protestant views creeping into the Church. of course the Church opposed this, because it challenged its authority. also note that the church was opposed to his heliocentrism becuase it challenged the geocentric view inherited from--yup--Aristotle. this, too is residue. humanist residue from a millenium and a half previous. one man's world view is another man's residue is another man's history book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuyaGuy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by Ultra.Fuzz I wonder why your nickname is Esperanto... it's his native tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIKILOCKEDOUT Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by GuyaGuy it's his native tongue. Actually Esperanto cannot be anybodies native tongue since it is a modern language invented very recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ultra.Fuzz Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 TIKIROCKER has got some sense of humor indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuyaGuy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by Ultra.Fuzz TIKIROCKER has got some sense of humor indeed. you'll have to forgive him. australian is his mother tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIKILOCKEDOUT Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Gents ...Esperanto (?spsymbolr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuyaGuy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Gents ... http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/EsperantOh and countries have capital letters ... Australia etc http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/list?p=sense+of+irony+amongst+australians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=sense+of+irony+amongst+australians&go=Go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Esperanto Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Esperanto...I thought every pseudo-intellectual on the net knew what that was...actually surprised the username was still available ..So does anybody know Din Rodef is? Wikipedia to the rescue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuyaGuy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by Esperanto Esperanto...I thought every pseudo-intellectual on the net knew what that was...actually surprised the username was still available..So does anybody know Din Rodef is?Wikipedia to the rescue er.... i'm hoping all of us were ironic. see my previous post. is Din Rodef still around? (the HCFXer, that is.) ginboonmiller-or whatever his name is--tried to scare him off before he started XHCFX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIKILOCKEDOUT Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by GuyaGuy ginboonmiller-or whatever his name is--tried to scare him off before he started XHCFX. Sounds about right ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kestral Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Esperanto Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by GuyaGuy er.... i'm hoping all of us were ironic. see my previous post. yeah I fell for it hook line and sinker..and thought it was funny too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sonaboy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by GuyaGuy of course it is ridiculous.no-one has claimed that an invention was just willed into existence. that would be magic. and i could reply with a similar retort "knowledge didn't put this machine into existence--hard work and craftsmanship did." but that's not what either of us is talking about.my point is that religion is in part what gave the inventors the "sense of determined conviction" that you sepak of. but more important than the invention itself is how it is used. the message is the medium. (sic) now you're completely ignoring what i originally said. what is the problem with conceding that RELIGION was not the primary catalyst of invention? that argument is ridiculous. it may have been the inspiration, but not the design.and how it is used is NOT the issue - what guides invention is the original point of dispute. scientific design and refinement made the machine in theory, a builder's work constructed it - whoever commissioned the work is irrelevant. if you take "religion" out of the picture, the physical properties and actual item STILL WORKS and EXISTSright. and that system was inherited from the greeks in the same way that the renaissance inherited/resurrected its democratic ideals from the same two sources, which is why law students in many european countries find out that most of their first year of studies is roman law, much to their chagrin. ("how's this gonna help me make lotsa money?") protestantism and the democratic movement of the renaissance are inseparable. they are merely two sides to the same coin. one is democracy in the state, the other in the church.it's important not to view things as isolated. great - as long as we both understand that protestantism didn't CREATE the system of democracy like you first claimed, and merely imitated it, then we're good. thanks for taking the long way around to agreeing with me.it's important to give credit where credit is due for initiating a system of government and law, and protestantism didn't initiate the idea or practice of the modern democracy - it had already been put in place centuries before.residue? sure, i'll buy that. but if we look back and see it as residue that doesn't mean we have to ignore the importance of the beliefs of those of the humanist movement. note that Galileo was for a non-literal approach to scripture--evidence of strong protestant views creeping into the Church. what's important is who's right.beliefs and authority change with culture, but math is forever.and once again, we now come full circle to why fundamentalism is so dangerous and the darkness it brings needs to be actively oppressed by the light of reasoning and those who have a better understanding of things. fundamentalism worships power and authority, not progression through proof. understand i'm not necessarily lumping protestantism in with fundamentalism.but that doesn't mean that both arms wouldn't unite in a stranglehold if this was needed to maintain power and influence over logical reasoning. if you want to raise the importance of WHAT people believe, over the actual facts being debated and how they change the world, then it sounds like you'll be quite the apologist in about 60 years, when the fundamentalist challenges to the school of evolution are finally seen for what they are. will you focus on the religious affiliations of the evolutionary proponents, and say, "See? they were right AND they were also men of faith. religion put the modern evolutionary theory into the books." ?your stance on Galileo is just as revisionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members preservation Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 ugh. i can't resist these discussions even though they bend all out of shape and all over the place. just to clarify what *this* christian believes, as close to what Jesus instructed as i can get- (that said i'm learning more every day and will never achieve some super status, the goal is really just to strengthen my personal relationship w/ God & do as he commands. that may sound 'OMG FRIGGIN NUTZ' to some of you, but...well oh well.)its impossible for anyone to understand the Christian faith w/out first coming to understand the fact that a moral law exists. man didn't create it, in fact we try so hard to avoid it, but man is the only thing in nature that this law is adhering to.by acknowleding that this Right and Wrong exist, we can see that we're flawed. to get Right, we need salvation, and in the Christian faith that salvation is acceptance of Christ.Christ never said "go on TV, get rich, tell a bunch of lies, hate gay people, judge others, get heavily involved in politics,..." yet SO MANY people form their opinions of Christ and Christians by what they see on TV. TV airs sensationalism., of course its more important to show what dumb thing Pat Robertson said last night than the help a christian community is offering to another one-anyway, i've accepted Christ and i'm still not near anything like perfection. i never will be. i DO have Christ in my life though , and b/c of that i'm commanded to love my neighbor. i'm not to judge. i don't have to accept everyone's actions, but i do have to accept that person- b/c they are a creation of God just as i am - and that God loves his creation. i don't hate 'fags'. i don't condemn people to hell. i can't pass judgement, and i when i do in the back of my head for certain things, its my own mistake.i just get really frustrated when people equate Christians w/ what they see on TV- or what some misled Christians say.to avoid this you have to look at their God, and not judge their God by his follower's actions.i doubt this will have much of an impact on anyone here, as it seems everyone is pretty grounded in what they believe to be the truth- but i thought it'd be helpful to at least include what one christian on this board thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sonaboy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 i don't equate every christian i see to the nutjobs on television. i speak from direct experience, having spent 20 years in the church. but my point still stands - there's dangerous elements at work in the modern christian church, which most members don't seem to be concerned about eliminating. they are letting too many power-hungry fundamentalists assume to be the voice and face of the movement - much like the other side of the fundamentalist coin in Islam. both are dangerous, but since i live HERE, i'm more concerned with this phenomenon in the christian church, since more of them affect my immediate surroundings than muslims do. the fox is in the henhouse. why isn't there a concerted effort within the church to eliminate these dark beacons, and re-assert the core teachings of the shepard? i know there is activism in the modern church - why isn't it being used for more noble purposes? if the church spent half as much energy cleaning house as they do for their campaigns against popular movies they find offensive, or the like..where's that energy when we need twisted rhetoric from fundamentalist wackjobs refuted and the offender and his followers stripped of their credibility? there is a distinct LACK of open investigation, inquisition and debate between church leaders and those who use their names for nefarious purposes. why not expose these people for who they are WITHIN the official church? why hasn't an official council within the church demanded a public audience with guys like Robertson, to openly debate his transgressions? expose this man OFFICIALLY. is that so hard?! where's the evangelical spirit when we need followers of these despots reformed and led back to the fold? i don't see this. all i see are more and more churches aligning themselves as cultural warriors against the secular world, as they ignore the deception and conspirators in their own houses. i find that unsettling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members preservation Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 you might not see it, but are you really searching ? i agree that there are problems w/in the modern church. so does this group:http://www.vivalarevolution.org/ the only way i can see to make a change is to do as Jesus instructed, to love and teach by example. and y'know, i'm VERY open to suggestions. i don't see how we could storm churches nation-wide and 'make things right'. after Christ's ascension Peter & Paul were all over the Mediterranean giving instructions to new and fledgling churches. i think holding to those instructions are key, and many christians feel the need to waver or to take a different interpretation. does that make me...MORE christian than someone else? i dunno, i don't really care. even if i did its not my place to sort that kind of stuff out. i just try to hold as close to the Bible as possible, as i believe its the living word of God. some churches are still super-close to what Paul prescribed a body of believers to do- some churches are completely opposite. there have been both kinds since the inception of the church- i just think the only way to get 'right' is to focus on GOD, not politics. to focus on love, as other issues in comparison are less important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sonaboy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 see my edits above. i know there are groups like this, but i'm still talking OFFICIAL rebuke of these assholes. i'm not talking about a STORMING of churches - i'm talking about official investigation and reconcilliation. there have to be official counsels that decide these very things. why don't these organizations start reforming within their own houses. my guess is, it's too late, and they already have too much political power at stake to begin divisive debates. you may disagree, but the naked political pursuits of the church in the last decade caused me to finally see it for what it was. i no longer participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members preservation Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 you're calling churches assholes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sonaboy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by preservation you're calling churches assholes? no, i'm calling fundamentalist mouthpieces "assholes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members preservation Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 does that make you much better than them? what are you DOING to better the situation ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sonaboy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by preservation does that make you much better than them? what are you DOING to better the situation ? Yes - because i don't intentionally lie to people to suit my own purposes.what i'm doing is siding with the practictioners of reason, logic, good will and progress. it's a more suitable place for me, outside of dogma.i no longer work within the church or for the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members preservation Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 i can see why you'd be upset w/ the church as a whole b/c of SOME actions committed by SOME members of A church... but its pretty nonsensical to give up all hope in Christ's believers b/c of some wrongful actions. besides, if you're expecting to *not* be let down by people (christians ARE people) then you're just setting yourself to be let down over and over again. i can only get so upset by some church's actions b/c i know they are people- and that i know God is in control, not the churches. i think God is saddened by the state of many churches, but then again there's the whole can of worms called 'free will'. (if you tell your kid to do his homework and by the end of the day he hasn't touched it, you won't necessarily clean it all up for him- you need for him to learn on his own that homework is important.) besides, since you're siding with reason, logic, good will and progress (just what is progress anyway, by your definition?) then you must acknowledge the existence of Right and Wrong - that begs the question of where Right and Wrong came from... why that moral law exists in our minds- to me thats just more evidence of a greater mind behind this whole universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sonaboy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by preservation i can see why you'd be upset w/ the church as a whole b/c of SOME actions committed by SOME members of A church...but its pretty nonsensical to give up all hope in Christ's believers b/c of some wrongful actions. besides, if you're expecting to *not* be let down by people (christians ARE people) then you're just setting yourself to be let down over and over again. i can only get so upset by some church's actions b/c i know they are people- and that i know God is in control, not the churches.i think God is saddened by the state of many churches, but then again there's the whole can of worms called 'free will'.(if you tell your kid to do his homework and by the end of the day he hasn't touched it, you won't necessarily clean it all up for him- you need for him to learn on his own that homework is important.)besides, since you're siding with reason, logic, good will and progress (just what is progress anyway, by your definition?) then you must acknowledge the existence of Right and Wrong - that begs the question of where Right and Wrong came from... why that moral law exists in our minds- to me thats just more evidence of a greater mind behind this whole universe. i'm not going to start debating the notion of "right" or "wrong" or the origin of it. that could take days. our versions are probably pretty similar, however.i just believe it is a construction of man, not a deity. i don't have proof of this, but neither do you, for that matter. all we have are our theories on the origin, and never the 'twain shall meet. as for leaving the church - i was socialized within the church at a very young age. i think my parents began going when i was a toddler of 1 or 2. it was this place i went to every sunday, and i considered it no different from school. the other kids and i listened to stories and sang songs and drew pictures and ate lunch. as i got older, and developed a more critical mind, i started seeing the effects of the church on the outside world, how our lessons on morality were carried out, and even twisted for strange purposes. I even saw a fundamentalist schism happen in my own church. i examined my faith and realized that i actually didn't have a true faith - i merely had a social network of people whose beliefs had begun diverging from my own, even though i enjoyed their company sometime. I was 22 when i went to church for the last time, and i don't feel sorry that i left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members preservation Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 i don't blame you for leaving the church, as i did the same at the age of 17. right now i meet up 1 -2x a week w/ a bunch of other christians to discuss things... it functions mostly as a church, but we don't really view it as one, as most of us had left for the same reasons you & i did. some of us still attend other churches, some don't. but it IS constructive and helps us discuss a lot of things that might otherwise go un-discussed. we plan on doing some missions-type work in the near future, and we are always happy to have christians/non-christians attend & hang out. right now we're all mostly from 20yrs of age to 30. we figured if we're kind of disenchanted w/ a lot of modern churches then we can at least still meet up together and discuss things- having a christian community among us. i think lots of people would be shocked to know our stances on 'hot' current events, etc. i think many would be shocked that we don't sit around judging others and making bets on who goes to hell when they die. the only reason i really take the time to post replies is b/c i hate to see people have a false idea of what being a christian is/should be. more importantly i hate to see God's words twisted around by people who assume they have all the answers (i'm not directing that at you, btw). i don't know if a discussion of Right & Wrong would take forever, b/c there really is no way of escaping its existence. i'm OK w/ the fact you don't want to discuss it, but i stand on the fact that you can't fully understand a bit of Christianity unless you can acknowledge that R & W exist, and that we're (humans) flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sonaboy Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by preservation i don't blame you for leaving the church, as i did the same at the age of 17. i don't know if a discussion of Right & Wrong would take forever, b/c there really is no way of escaping its existence. i'm OK w/ the fact you don't want to discuss it, but i stand on the fact that you can't fully understand a bit of Christianity unless you can acknowledge that R & W exist, and that we're (humans) flawed. i understand christianity and what the official pursuit is, but i also know what right and wrong is, even though i'm not a part of the church.i just don't feel that right & wrong is an exclusive understanding of those within the church.your spiritual pursuits sound like my bass player. he's part of the faithful, but it was hard to tell until i got to know him. he's more of the "strong river flowing underground" type than the "noisy creek" type, if you know what i mean. he reserves a lot of his evangelical efforts in favor of sessions with like-minded friends. he's more of an action, than words type guy, i guess. he booked us to play at a benefit soon that's supposed to fund an irrigation system for a small town in Central America that his church does missionary work for....so maybe i still DO work for the church, in some ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.