Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I find it hard to believe that true believer in an omnipotent and caring God could be a rapist or serial killer. Obviously they are insane. Just my 2c.

G

Peter Sutcliffe, a British Serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper was convinced that Jesus told him to kill women.

Now I don't honestly believe that Jesus told him these things however he arguably was as sincere in his belief as any nice Christian.

I think that could be argued. These types are clever and have been known to use religion as a means of lessening the penalties after being captured. I wouldn't put any stock in anything they say. That's just me though.

G

Believing that Christ died for our sins and actually following Christ are two very different things. Some people are (sadly) just bitter and spiteful, and do things because they're sins. One other thing I've noticed a great deal of is people not denying the tenets of Christianity, but denying their willingness to follow them. Most people I talk to, even those who aren't religious, believe that Jesus was real and was the son of God.

Obviously this will be skewed in other countries, but I'm speaking for the USA (I'm in Florida, which is chock FULL of the Crazy, but seems to be representative of most of the rest of the country too).

Religion is an intensely personal thing. I'm very tolerant of other religions and usually enjoy talking with others about their religious beliefs (I make a few exceptions; I detest cults that operate under the guise of religion, so I guess that's not really religion at all).

I was going to post a few more viewpoints, but I think that'd just stir the pot up more. I'll leave it here.

LuciusAR wrote:Peter Sutcliffe, a British Serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper was convinced that Jesus told him to kill women.

Now I don't honestly believe that Jesus told him these things however he arguably was as sincere in his belief as any nice Christian.

This reminds me of the trial of Joan of Arc. She, of course, claimed to be doing the work of god. The English called her a witch. Their position was, that voice you heard wasn't god telling you to smite us, it was the devil talking:

In all this the accused with daring rashness and at the instigation of the Devil offended God and His Holy Church, against which she has scandalously committed excesses and crimes, is notoriously defamed thereof and has appeared before you to be corrected and reformed.

She replied, well no, it wasn't the devil it was god. Poor girl, the English said, the devil can take a form that may look like an angel to deceive you:

there have been deceptions and phantasms on the part of devils who usurp the form of angels and sometimes counterfeit the appearance and likeness of different persons

Oh, and she dressed like a man so that proved she was a witch.

Iorek wrote:Believing that Christ died for our sins and actually following Christ are two very different things. Some people are (sadly) just bitter and spiteful, and do things because they're sins. One other thing I've noticed a great deal of is people not denying the tenets of Christianity, but denying their willingness to follow them. Most people I talk to, even those who aren't religious, believe that Jesus was real and was the son of God.

Obviously this will be skewed in other countries, but I'm speaking for the USA (I'm in Florida, which is chock FULL of the Crazy, but seems to be representative of most of the rest of the country too).

Religion is an intensely personal thing. I'm very tolerant of other religions and usually enjoy talking with others about their religious beliefs (I make a few exceptions; I detest cults that operate under the guise of religion, so I guess that's not really religion at all).

I was going to post a few more viewpoints, but I think that'd just stir the pot up more. I'll leave it here.

I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone willing 'sinning' for its own sake, though I suppose It depends on how you defining 'sinning'. Eating meat on Friday and mixing different cloths are Sins if one takes a literalist view of the scriptures, as some churches do. It sounds to me like your implying that people are committing acts specifically to spite god as opposed out of any pleasure gained from the 'sinful' act.

In Brittan things are rather different and there is much less an emphasis on religion in day to day life. I honestly know nobody who regularly attends church services for example.

I believe there is plenty of evidence that a man called Jesus did exist (though I'm no expert) though as far as I'm aware there is little to no historical evidence (aside from scripture) that he either claimed to be the son of God or committed any acts that could be described as magical.

LuciusAR wrote:
I don't think I've ever heard of anyone willing 'sinning' for its own sake, though I suppose It depends on how you defining 'sinning'. Eating meat on Friday and mixing different cloths are Sins if one takes a literalist view of the scriptures, as some churches do. It sounds to me like your implying that people are committing acts specifically to spite god as opposed out of any pleasure gained from the 'sinful' act.

Orthodox Satanism is built on the notion that sin is equivalent to freedom. In essence, every act of sin is an affront to God, and so every act of sin is an act of rebellion. You prove that God is not omnipotent, and therefore not necessarily divine, by acting against his teachings and living a full life.

Iorek wrote: ... Most people I talk to, even those who aren't religious, believe that Jesus was real and was the son of God...

... Religion is an intensely personal thing. I'm very tolerant of other religions and usually enjoy talking with others about their religious beliefs (I make a few exceptions; I detest cults that operate under the guise of religion, so I guess that's not really religion at all).

I was going to post a few more viewpoints, but I think that'd just stir the pot up more. I'll leave it here.

You're certainly given it a good stir with that one. On the former remark, you can only possibly be referring to people who are religious. I believe that Jesus was real. I was raised a Christian too, but I'm not religious and do not claim to be a part of any special club. I certainly can't bring myself to believe that he was the son of someone I don't believe exists - hence I'm not religious.

The second remark is incredibly intolerant. Can someone explain the difference between a religion, a cult, and a cultural interest? I like to think of a religion as a cult with a dead leader or figurehead, but really it's up to the spectator. You think some some religions are invalid, and hence you call them cults. I don't think any differently about Christianity where its practices are questionable - like fundamentalist Christianity. Cult and self-interest is written all over it.

Polonius wrote:

I'm also not sure you can't believe god created man in his image 6000 years ago and still learn science. If you believe in an omnipotent god, god could have created the world 5 minutes ago, with memories and history intact.

Descartes argued that god is not a deceiver and most christians, I think accept this.

And the whole force of the argument of which I have here availed
myself to establish the existence of God, consists in this, that I perceive
I could not possibly be of such a nature as I am, and yet have in my mind
the idea of a God, if God did not in reality exist--this same God, I say,
whose idea is in my mind --that is, a being who possesses all those lofty
perfections, of which the mind may have some slight conception, without,
however, being able fully to comprehend them, and who is wholly superior to
all defect [ and has nothing that marks imperfection]: whence it is
sufficiently manifest that he cannot be a deceiver, since it is a dictate of
the natural light that all fraud and deception spring from some
defect.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
The second remark is incredibly intolerant. Can someone explain the difference between a religion, a cult, and a cultural interest?

A religion is a set of beliefs.

A cult is a group structured by a common belief in something physical, typically a person.

A cult can be religious, but it doesn't have to be.

A cultural interest is an interest guided by membership in a cult.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I find it hard to believe that true believer in an omnipotent and caring God could be a rapist or serial killer. Obviously they are insane. Just my 2c.

G

What you’ve got there is the classic case of ‘No True Scotsman’. That is, you start with assumption, ‘No Christian is a serial killer’ and then when evidence comes up to the contrary, you shift the definition to a more restrictive form, ‘no true Christian is a serial killer’.

Problem is, by changing it to the more restrictive form you’ve ended up with a completely circular argument. Now the definition of Christian is someone who accepts Jesus and Lord and Saviour and who doesn’t go around murdering loads of people. At which point you’re basically saying that no-one who accepts Jesus as Lord and Saviour and hasn’t go around killing people has ever gone around killing people. Something of a truism, really.

Truth is no philosophical teaching should lead to a trunk full of dead hookers, but it happens anyway, because some folk are crazy. There's really no point scoring to be made with serial killers one way or another, they're so extreme they're quite useless for assessing the majority.

dogma wrote:A religion is a set of beliefs.

A cult is a group structured by a common belief in something physical, typically a person.

A cult can be religious, but it doesn't have to be.

Historians that study the first followers of Jesus refer to the "Jesus Movement." The term Christianity is reserved for subsequent developments.

Iorek wrote:Believing that Christ died for our sins and actually following Christ are two very different things. Some people are (sadly) just bitter and spiteful, and do things because they're sins. One other thing I've noticed a great deal of is people not denying the tenets of Christianity, but denying their willingness to follow them. Most people I talk to, even those who aren't religious, believe that Jesus was real and was the son of God.

Really, that’s pretty weird. Folk I know are split fairly evenly between moderate Christians, moderate atheists and agnostics, with the odd hardline Christian or atheist thrown in for good measure*. But I’ve never met anyone that believed Jesus was the Son of God but didn’t follow him out of spite. I really want to meet one of these people, that’s mindset I’d love to get to know, completely alien to me.

olympia wrote:

Historians that study the first followers of Jesus refer to the "Jesus Movement." The term Christianity is reserved for subsequent developments.

Yeah, like most religions Christianity began as a cult.

LuciusAR wrote:I believe there is plenty of evidence that a man called Jesus did exist (though I'm no expert) though as far as I'm aware there is little to no historical evidence (aside from scripture) that he either claimed to be the son of God or committed any acts that could be described as magical.

Well, the short answer is that there is no evidence of Jesus. No written records from the time support any specific incident in his life, beyond the broad historical events of the time.

The slightly longer answer is that it’s hardly unexpected that we don’t have evidence of one guy. There are great empires with kings we don’t know the names of, the historical record is pretty spotty. Jesus was not a powerful figure in his own time, and it’s no surprise that nothing was written down about him, or that whatever administrative records were kept have been lost to time.

The slightly even longer answer is that a character like Jesus, a subversive rabbi with claims of miracles, certainly fits with the region at the time. It’s possible the story of Jesus could be a collection of stories from a number of rabbis.

So it’s a story that makes a bit of sense given what we know of the region, but nothing we have any concrete evidence for, but then we wouldn’t be expected to have much evidence for a guy who led a handful of people around for a few years.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:You're certainly given it a good stir with that one. On the former remark, you can only possibly be referring to people who are religious. I believe that Jesus was real. I was raised a Christian too, but I'm not religious and do not claim to be a part of any special club. I certainly can't bring myself to believe that he was the son of someone I don't believe exists - hence I'm not religious.

The second remark is incredibly intolerant. Can someone explain the difference between a religion, a cult, and a cultural interest? I like to think of a religion as a cult with a dead leader or figurehead, but really it's up to the spectator. You think some some religions are invalid, and hence you call them cults. I don't think any differently about Christianity where its practices are questionable - like fundamentalist Christianity. Cult and self-interest is written all over it.

On the former remark, you're right, I was unclear on this. What I meant were people who don't follow any belief system, or choose not to for whatever reason. They have the attitude of, "So what? I don't follow that guy."

To me, a cult is a money/power-oriented group disguised as religion. And yes, that makes me intolerant. And yes, many Christian organizations have fallen under that definition over the years.

No true Christian would practice serial killings and that's a fact.

G

No moral atheist would practise serial killings. No sane person would practise serial killings. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

Green Blow Fly wrote:No true Christian would practice serial killings and that's a fact.

G

Do you mean serial murders, or serial killings? Because plenty of Christians throughout history have been serial killers, but very few would have considered themselves serial murderers.

dogma wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
The second remark is incredibly intolerant. Can someone explain the difference between a religion, a cult, and a cultural interest?

A religion is a set of beliefs.

A cult is a group structured by a common belief in something physical, typically a person.

A cult can be religious, but it doesn't have to be.

A cultural interest is an interest guided by membership in a cult.

That's not an explanation of difference. By your first definition, you've said that everything is religious, annulling your third point, as well as the first of Iorek's statements I referred to. You didn't even come close to addressing the broad term 'cult' on your second point, and by 'cultural interest' I meant the interests of a group, not necessarily tied by a structured belief system. For example, the population of a state. If you're going to generalise, every proud citizen of Nebraska worships the same physical piece of dirt, but that doesn't come close to making them a 'cult' as a whole. If you are saying so, then you must at least admit that most cults are integral parts of societal structure, and not even close to being 'bad things'. If you're going to generalise that hard, you must admit that there is no difference between any of them. If that's still the point you're leaning toward... thanks for making mine.

I know that not all people who believes in the Republican party would be Christians, but the majority would be at least akin to methods of athiest Zionists. If we want to think of being 'Republican' as a religious thing, then everyone who hides racism and bigotry behind Americanized [sic] Christian 'family values' subscribes to its tenets.

Green Blow Fly wrote:No true Christian would practice serial killings and that's a fact.

G

Of course it’s a fact, it’s completely impossible that it could be wrong. The definition excludes anyone that might otherwise break the rule.

Did you read my post, do you see what you’re doing? You’re saying that ‘true Christians’, who are defined as Christians who haven’t done anything really bad, have never done anything completely bad. It’s a completely circular argument you’re making.

The classic example of this is a Scots fellow reading the paper, and he notices a grizzly murder had taken place in Scotland. He says ‘no Scotsman could do such a thing’. Next day he opens the paper to find out the murder was committed by a Glaswegian, and now he says ‘no True Scotsman could ever have done such a thing’. It’s funny because he’s modified his rule to exclude anyone that would otherwise break his rule. He ends up satisfied that he’s right, although to do that he’s left with a completely silly rule.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
That's not an explanation of difference. By your first definition, you've said that everything is religious, annulling your third point, as well as the first of Iorek's statements I referred to.

No, not everything is religious by that definition. A single belief is not necessarily religious unless it is addressed only as a component of a larger set of beliefs. Even in that circumstance religion may not be an appropriate descriptor, but it would be a valid descriptor.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
You didn't even come close to addressing the broad term 'cult' on your second point,

The broad term 'cult' is defined as formal veneration. When differentiating between a cult, and a religion, the line is drawn in physicality.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
and by 'cultural interest' I meant the interests of a group, not necessarily tied by a structured belief system.

All groups are tied to a structured set of beliefs. There may be more structure, or less structure, but if there is no structure there is no group.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
For example, the population of a state. If you're going to generalise, every proud citizen of Nebraska worships the same physical piece of dirt, but that doesn't come close to making them a 'cult' as a whole.

But their citizenship isn't defined by the dirt, its defined by the state. Every citizen of Nebraska believes in the state of Nebraska, and the state of Nebraska is not just a physical piece of dirt. It is an organized, written, set of laws and regulations that could be validly described as a cult. It would not be an appropriate description, but it would be a valid description.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
If you are saying so, then you must at least admit that most cults are integral parts of societal structure, and not even close to being 'bad things'. If you're going to generalise that hard, you must admit that there is no difference between any of them. If that's still the point you're leaning toward... thanks for making mine.

I never made a point to begin with, so I don't really understand what you're trying to get at. But had I done so my point would have been that cults are harmful to the degree that they prevent an accurate understanding of the physical world. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a member of a cult. There is something intrinsically wrong with being a member of a cult that believes an alien mother-ship is coming to collect the souls of the chosen after they depart the material world by consuming cyanide laced Kool-Aid.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
I know that not all people who believes in the Republican party would be Christians, but the majority would be at least akin to methods of athiest Zionists. If we want to think of being 'Republican' as a religious thing, then everyone who hides racism and bigotry behind Americanized [sic] Christian 'family values' subscribes to its tenets.

Where did I indicate that I wanted to think of the term Republican as a religious one? And what are the methods of Atheist Zionists?

^ Could you re-phrase that? I don't follow?
(Huh?)

My apologies. Although I still hold to my view thatthe original intent of the original article is a hit piece, and that threads attacking people's beliefs should be done, if at all, very delicately, I reacted harshly against posters here.

Quick ! Whilst he's showing weakness ! get him !

You're cool daddio, don't sweat it.

Weakness...me? Just had a moment after looking at my Jr. High yearbook photo

You were a looker even then. Mrs. Frazzled-- and her guide dog-- are clearly both very lucky.

I jest of course. We all know the camera was yet to be invented....

reds8n wrote: You were a looker even then. Mrs. Frazzled-- and her guide dog-- are clearly both very lucky.

I jest of course. We all know the camera was yet to be invented....

I have no problem with believing that God guided evolution (is that the theistic evolution viewpoint) I do feel that the recreation described in Genesis 1:2 after the original creation (Genesis 1:1) was destroyed by the war in heaven and the fall of Lucifer torpedoes the Young Earth viewpoint of your more hard line creationists.

dogma wrote:

olympia wrote:

Historians that study the first followers of Jesus refer to the "Jesus Movement." The term Christianity is reserved for subsequent developments.

Yeah, like most religions Christianity began as a cult.

Christianity and Judaism started as ways of memorizing stars, seasons and such. (Much like the zorastrian Cthulu type religion it was developed from). Cult or not though I don't know.