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.

dogma wrote:They also gained a great deal of communal renown as a result of their actions. You can't simply ignore that fact when examining their lives.

You mean like being fed to lions, torn apart by hungry dogs, burned alive, crucified. That kind of renown?


GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:I once bellowed abuse at an old church lady until she peed herself.

And your proud of that? Shame on you. I'm amazed that you would you would actually admit to doing something like that.

warpcrafter wrote:
I can't wait until one of these Scientologist wack-jobs dares bringing that crap to my door. It would be almost as fun as the time I encountered this crusty old homeless street-preacher who tried to perform an impromptu exorcism on me. I played along and nearly had him convinced he was possessed!

I don't think scientologists are the door to door types. Your thinking Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons.


GG

generalgrog wrote:
You mean like being fed to lions, torn apart by hungry dogs, burned alive, crucified. That kind of renown?

No, I mean the kind of renown which eventually forced the Emperor Constantine to establish Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Or, if you want to confine this discussion to the Apostolic Age, the kind of renown which allowed men like Peter to challenge Rabbinic authority.

Coincidentally, I just saw a Scientology commercial on Discovery Channel during the Mythbusters Shark Week Special (old one).

First advertisement I have ever seen since the old Dianetics commercials.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Speaking as someone with a theological background

Going to need a bit more info before I can put any weight behind that. It is such a broad area that it could mean almost anything. You have a dgree in Religious Studies? You went to a Seminary? Just read a lot in Sunday School?

I am not accountable to you, besides I will stand on the fact that I speak sense inn religion threads, and by sense this also means an understanding of other points of view. Hence by example my efending of Scientologists, something which I am not very happy to defend.

Ahtman wrote:

GoFenris wrote:Besides, Scientology is not (supposed to be) exclusive.

That is true. They tell people they can be a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu and a Scientologist.

You miss the logical chain completely.

1, Most religions are mutually exclusive (I didnt say all).
2. Most religions call their faith True.
3. They cannot all be right.
4. Thus some groups will be exercising a right to proport doctrines which are wrong.
5. Is this acceptable?
6. If not which groups will you silence and on whose criteria.
7. If yes then Scientologists should exercise the same freedoms and be entitled to the same self respect as any other faith group.

Basically while I disagree with Scientologists and have no respect for Hubbard, and will be happy to criticise their creed, but I dont beleive they should be treated any worse for what they believe in.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:the religion of atheism

Oh that old chestnut?

dogma wrote:
... of strong atheism.
Fixed.

Atheism is a religion because it is based on a faith choice. Reason and religion are not related, you can have both, neither, or one without the other.
We need to keep the 'reason vs religion' falacy kept at bay, thus when determining wether respect for religion is due we must make inclusion of all faiths, not excepting the faith in No-God. Else some atheists have a tendency to think they are outside the selection box and discriminate against them all.

As far as 'strength' of conviction, that goes for every faith group, it is not a matter of behaviour but belief. Though anyone with a weak faith in anything is likely not be be a real beleiver in that creed, God or lack of God and not therefore religious. This doesnt make them any more reasonable by default.

dogma wrote:
The problem is that Scientology doesn't make any overt, metaphysical claims....

Scientiology is very much a religon in this sense. The whole idea of Body Thetans, OT and Auditing is proposed to be a spiriatual process. In fact Scientology expects its worshippers to develop spiritual powers once they get further on the 'bridge'. |How they redefine spiritual concepts is not really relevant.
But yes on one level Scientology does not include a godhead.

dogma wrote:
Alternatively, you could define religion as a set of information which people engage with in a certain way. Essentially expanding the definition to include any ideological construct which inspires a faith reaction. This shifts the onus of delineation away from any articulated belief, and onto self-professing worshipers.

Which is why the point of view of the worshippers is important. Take yoga for example, its a health process to some a religious 'gateway' to others.
But let us ignore the metaphorical religious 'analogies' such as "football is my religion", even when professed by large numbers as that is semantics.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
This leaves aside very obvious claims that indicate that the source behind Scientology did not have the welfare of its worshippers in mind, under any paradigm.

Essentially Scientologists per se are not responsible for the deceptions of Hubbard.

Similar claims can made about the leaders of the early Christian Church, so I'm with you on this one.

Big differences. There is very little evidence against the early Christian Church leaders, but it is well documented facts that they were persecuted and in many cases put to death by their enemies. Often on trivial grounds, it is very likely that what claims you have heard were part of the persecution moves against them, if not fresh lies dreamed up centuries later as a vieled excuse to hate Christianity.
Even the most ardent honest non-Christian finds it hard to see why Peter, Paul etc deserved to be harassed, imprisoned and executed.

Evidence against Hubbard however is very strong, and a lot of it assembled by people with no particular axe to grind againt the man, such as police evidence. Most critics of Scientology, including myself, are more than happy for Scientologists to practice in the Free Zone (Scientology without the money trap) but are repeatedly critical of Scientology leadership and their fraudulent schemes.

Here is the principle difference. The critics of the early church were against Christianity existing at all, and in many cases would do anything, say anything to get rid of them. No I am not with you on this one.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
At a risk of derailing the thread....can you site a source? I'm just curious which era you are refering to, and which, if any, subset. We all know about the certain heresies that arose, and were debated, in the early Church. The problem with your sentence is, it makes it look you are saying "all" the leaders of the early Church were corrupt.

GG

Corrupt? No, but I think its difficult to eliminate the inherent motivation of profit from the equation. Like it or not, when you advocate a singular opinion on any subject your own profit becomes intrinsically tied to that opinion. This applies to pretty much anyone who ever threw themselves behind any kind of theological perspective, from Paul to Luther. I simply referenced the early Church in order to clarify the reference between believers, and originators of the belief.

Well at least you distinguish between corruption and profit. Though the two can get very close.
The idea that the preacher shartes from the tithe is an old biblical principle that is not veiled. However because it is open the idea is quite simply if you dont like it dont give to it. It is later when the church became part of the medieval heirarchy, and especiall from about 300Ad onwards that the corruption became a real problem. But by then the early idealists were long dead. With any religous or social group you might start with idealists, but when it reaches a certain size it attracts the ambitious. Most such organisations corrupt natually over three generations. There were some rare exceptions both religious and secular. The Cluniac monastery movement remained uncorrupt for two hundred years.

I am pretty sure the early church organisers were essentially honest, embracing Christianity at that time was not a good move for the politically unsure. Though the Book of Acts does not hide examples of errors and selfishness amongst them, they are human after all.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:They also gained a great deal of communal renown as a result of their actions. You can't simply ignore that fact when examining their lives.

You mean like being fed to lions, torn apart by hungry dogs, burned alive, crucified. That kind of renown?

2 Corinthians 11:24-26
11:24 Five times I received from the Jews forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with a rod. Once I received a stoning. Three times I suffered shipwreck. A night and a day I spent adrift in the open sea. I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers from false brothers,

Kind of puts it in perspective. The above refers to the sufferings of the Apostle Paul, great business plan eh dogma! Peter did enjoy much reknown, but he went to a martyrs death also, and was bitterly opposed by the Sanhedrin most of his life - which was itself dangerous.
Oh and before you fall back on the old claim of 'Bible lies', the Romans did not claim these statements to be untrue as they bore witness to them.

LuciusAR wrote:Today I had an interesting experience when I found out one of my new work colleagues is a practicing scientologist. Unfortunately I found this out the hard way when I made a joke about it (due to a story I the paper about Tom Cruise) in the canteen and he took offence. Luckily it’s all cleared up now between the 2 of us but I’m slightly taken aback about how to deal with. I’ve never met one before in all honestly I didn’t think there where any members outside of Hollywood. I always took it to be an eccentric film industry version of freemasonry.

I think the best approach is simply never to broach the subject again whilst he is around. Especially as we have to maintain a professional relationship but I was wondering if any had any experience with dealing with scientologists on a day to day basis? Any topics worth avoiding during conversation?

First point is that Scientology is a faith that is harmful only to itself. Its a shame to see these people ripped off, but they are not violent per se and do not follow evil doctrines to blow you up. Most mosques dont either while on that. So there is no reason to think less of this person for his choices.

However if you want to try and enlighten him there is an old anti brainwashing technique you might try. But first some basics you will need to know whether you want to help him or not.


The Proliferation of Self Delusion.
Most people will not see through their own illusions, and we all do have them. Do not underestimnate the human heart to overide the human mind. a misplaced love is a very good example. we all heard of know of someone who fell in love with the wrong person and cannot see through their blinding faults no matter what they do. You might relate to that yourself.
If you do you will notice that people can be sucked in by their hearts and it might not have any correlation to their intellectual capacity.
People who fall for cults are no less 'morons' than those who make the wrong partner choices.

Do not allow your respect for this Scientologist to take a hit, because you knock yourself down the same way. this could happen to anyone. maybe not Scientology, but the heart override might come in somewhere. Maybe you spend way too much time with toy soldiers that you should have given up years ago and got on with your life.

The Cementing of Self Delusion.
Most people with an addiction, or a bad partner, or in a cult know it. but they will not admit it to themselves. Pride being one part of the problem, but often more poiniently a sence of loss that all they put in will be with nothing so that it is better to go forwards than backwards. even if its getting worse. It is that bit of human psychology the 'Nigerian Oil Minister' counts on.
In some cases there is a genuine blindness, but in the vast majority of cases they know. Scientolgists are no exception, if you listen to the interviews of ex-Scientolgists its clear most understood that the whole system was not what it was made out to be months if not ywears before they left. It is often written up as 'picking up courage' to leave, that is an oversimplification, in fact it is a self realisation, because there is usually no actually little or no danger barrier to leaving.
Now admittedly through disconnection and other abuses a danger barrier is put in place, but such defences would not stop someone unless they had a subliminal reason not to test the bars of the cage.

Negative Reinforcement
Anonymous does nothing to get people out of Scientology, yes it is very good at trashing Scientolgogies rep so that people dont fall in. Very few people are now joining because they are forwarned - when intellectual arguements can be of use. Others are leaving as new members who took a second look due to Operation Clambake, XenuTV etc, but they are different too because they are not so far in that they cannot reason themselves out again. Howeever beyond that the person is hooked, and once hooked they can be articulate intelligent and still yet utterly blind to what is going on.
Now when such people see Anonymous they are not helped out, in fact the opposite occurs, the Scinetologist close ranks easily because they have a common enemy. Anonymous is a bonding agent for Scientolgists! and I doubt they know it.
Any critique, especially the very heavy handed approaches of some Scientology critics is not going to free anyone.

A path that works.
What you cannot see in yourself you can see in others, as stated before intellect is not eliminated only supressed in the heart dominated issue.
...So Sally has an abusive boyfriend, but cannot see it and always forgives him. Her brother Andy has a vile partner who is no less abusive. Sally cannot see the issues with her partner but thinks that Andy's partner is a bitch. Two split up's happen. If Sally had no brother or her brother was in a loving stable relationship she would not see.

There are broad similarities with cults than with other forms of self deception and abuse cycles. So you need a common reference. when placed in context: A Scientolgist will not accept Scientology as being a manipulative cult, but may well consider the Jehovahs Witnesses and Moonies as manipulative cults. So if you talk about cults without mentioning their faith, with examples, the Scientologist might well agree that the anecdotes used are disturbing. Say no more. Let them draw the connection in their own space and time.
The nice thing about this technique is that it is non confrontational and if the person honestly sees no wrong in what they are involved in the discussion will dissolve harmlessly. On that point, yes it is supposedly possible that beneficial Scientology exists, some cults have lay membership. others however have control mechanisms such as the JW's ministry quotas and Sceintology fees. As the member has to pay increasing amounts for involvement or make a very strong contract with the Sea Org I doubt that is really the case. Most cult members, of any cult, are very much aware on or below the surface that something is very wrong.

Wow, that is proper stuff Orlanth, I tip my hat good sir.

Orlanth wrote:...Scinetologist close ranks easily because they have a common enemy. Anonymous is a bonding agent for Scientolgists! and I doubt they know it.

I think they do, working like a parody of sorts (this is the part they may not realize on the whole, and as a group) that directly counters the ludicrous over-presentation of the more PR related Scientologists. Fire with fire is the more common term, but is has become more of a nuclear napalm vs. flame-thrower situation due to Scientologies lack of a metaphorical spine, and their constant manipulation of the rules that they present to the public.

Anonymous kicks ass and takes names, they don't try to heroically save people. More along the lines of standing with mega-phones screaming about the fact that the Scientologies happy little birds nest is actually burning up, and not to go anywhere near it. They serve a good role in prevention, like a condom so to speak .

Orlanth wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Speaking as someone with a theological background

Going to need a bit more info before I can put any weight behind that. It is such a broad area that it could mean almost anything. You have a dgree in Religious Studies? You went to a Seminary? Just read a lot in Sunday School?

I am not accountable to you

In other words you just went to Church on Sundays, same as most people. If you had any kind of specialized training there is no reason to be ashamed of it. My question isn't that hard or invasive. It is not rude or out of line to ask someone who claims expertise what that expertise is. The real oddity here is someone who claims expertise but wants to hide what it is and gets snippy when you ask them what they mean. As it is right now all you are doing is committing an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.

Oops

Cairnius wrote:This has to go back here, though:

http://www.xenu.net/

Don't take it as gospel truth, but seriously: if you want to learn about Scientology, go to the people who have left the cult and read about their experiences. Most of the really good stuff about Scientology is kept very secret and the rest of us don't hear about it until someone gets out and brings the materials with them. Scientology has often attempted legal action to prevent this information from being disseminated.

In the end, Scientology doesn't do anything which other religions don't. All that changes is the window-dressing...and little plastic boxes with some LED's in them called "e-meters" which are actually children's toys disguised as some sort of stress tester which generates meaningful results.

I would argue that that is exactly what Scientology does which other religions don't. To my knowledge there are no religions which claim to be able to scientifically demonstrate that you are getting 'better' thanks to membership and following their prescribed teachings.

The craziest thing that I have heard is Scientologist offices have been banned from wikipedia for censoring certain things on a regular basis as well as promoting Scientology through their Wiki-page.

I cannot imagine a more telling sign if you ask me, and this has nothing to do with your average Scientologist, it is a matter of their leadership, and bold-faced lies.

Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a religion because it is based on a faith choice.

A religion is literally a set of metaphysical beliefs. If you simply lack a belief in God, then you do not necessarily possess a metaphysical belief. For example, you could be ignorant of the entire concept of God, and thereby be incapable of believing in it. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in God, and is therefore not intrinsically connected to religion. You're completely incorrect.

Orlanth wrote:
Reason and religion are not related, you can have both, neither, or one without the other.
We need to keep the 'reason vs religion' falacy kept at bay, thus when determining wether respect for religion is due we must make inclusion of all faiths, not excepting the faith in No-God. Else some atheists have a tendency to think they are outside the selection box and discriminate against them all.

Again, Atheism is not necessarily the faith in No-God. That is a form of Atheism, but not the whole of it.

Orlanth wrote:
As far as 'strength' of conviction, that goes for every faith group, it is not a matter of behaviour but belief.

Behavior is inherently connected to belief. Unless you're so orthodox as to suppose that the serial-killing Catholic who goes to confession every day, and mass every week can be considered pious.

Orlanth wrote:
Though anyone with a weak faith in anything is likely not be be a real beleiver in that creed, God or lack of God and not therefore religious.

Which was, of course, the point.

Orlanth wrote:
This doesnt make them any more reasonable by default.

Where did I imply that it did?

Orlanth wrote:
Scientiology is very much a religon in this sense. The whole idea of Body Thetans, OT and Auditing is proposed to be a spiriatual process. In fact Scientology expects its worshippers to develop spiritual powers once they get further on the 'bridge'. |How they redefine spiritual concepts is not really relevant.
But yes on one level Scientology does not include a godhead.

1: God is not a necessary component of religion, so the lack of a godhead is irrelevant in terms of classification.

2: Spirituality is not the same thing as religion. It is a component of it, but not the defining one.

3: The redefinition of spirituality is absolutely relevant. Spirituality can be derived from any conceivable source; including the scientific method. This is especially noticeable in the case of Scientology where spiritual results are derived from processes, and cosmological models, which are claimed to be scientific.

Orlanth wrote:
Which is why the point of view of the worshippers is important. Take yoga for example, its a health process to some a religious 'gateway' to others.
But let us ignore the metaphorical religious 'analogies' such as "football is my religion", even when professed by large numbers as that is semantics.

Why should you? If the perspective of worshipers is important, then there is no particular reason to disregard any claim to religion made by anyone other than personal bias.

Orlanth wrote:
Big differences. There is very little evidence against the early Christian Church leaders, but it is well documented facts that they were persecuted and in many cases put to death by their enemies. Often on trivial grounds, it is very likely that what claims you have heard were part of the persecution moves against them, if not fresh lies dreamed up centuries later as a vieled excuse to hate Christianity.

Its also just as likely that they weren't lies at all. The only reasons to come down on one side or the other is a personal attachment to their integrity, or a desire to dispel the possibility as a result of sensitivity towards the former.

Orlanth wrote:
Even the most ardent honest non-Christian finds it hard to see why Peter, Paul etc deserved to be harassed, imprisoned and executed.

Why are they even attempting to impart an emotional judgment on to something that happened almost 2000 years ago? That doesn't seem very honest to me.

Orlanth wrote:
Here is the principle difference. The critics of the early church were against Christianity existing at all, and in many cases would do anything, say anything to get rid of them. No I am not with you on this one.

Why are you assuming villainy on the part of the opponents of the early Church, and innocence on the part of its leaders?

Either way, my point in that the intent of those who establish a faith is irrelevant when considering the merit of those who adhere to it.

Orlanth wrote:
Kind of puts it in perspective. The above refers to the sufferings of the Apostle Paul, great business plan eh dogma!

Pain does not remove the potential for benefit (probably a better word than profit). It seems standard practice to discount the power of things like community, and brotherhood in compelling people to action. Though this is hardly surprising in a religion built upon the lionization of suffering.

Orlanth wrote:
Peter did enjoy much reknown, but he went to a martyrs death also, and was bitterly opposed by the Sanhedrin most of his life - which was itself dangerous.
Oh and before you fall back on the old claim of 'Bible lies', the Romans did not claim these statements to be untrue as they bore witness to them.

I wouldn't say that the Bible lies, but I would say that it selectively constructs the truth. All humans do when dealing with matters that are central to their lives, and the Bible was inevitably penned by man.

Just out of interest, is there a recognised international "line in the sand" when it comes to new religions? It's one thing to say that we all should have religious freedom, but what next? Worshipping a stone?

It would appear that all current religions are based on a "history" and are either mainstream or an off shoot. Even Wacko was based on a guy who believed in God, but spread the word in his own way. I think there is a strong possibility that Scientology falls out side of these accepted borders.

generalgrog wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:
I can't wait until one of these Scientologist wack-jobs dares bringing that crap to my door. It would be almost as fun as the time I encountered this crusty old homeless street-preacher who tried to perform an impromptu exorcism on me. I played along and nearly had him convinced he was possessed!

I don't think scientologists are the door to door types. Your thinking Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons.


GG

I can still dream of the day...

Scientology isn't a cult. We promise. Just give us your money and never go to a doctor. That about sums it up.

(This taken from Stephen Colbert.)

Well Dogma my friend, you were donig so well until you got to this point.

dogma wrote:Though this is hardly surprising in a religion built upon the lionization of suffering.

Christianity is not "built" on the lionization of suffering. Although suffering is a part of the walk of a believer, it's certainly not the center. Christianity is "built" on the worship of God through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. On that point Christianity is less of a religion, in the classic sense, and more of a relationship with God.

dogma wrote:
I wouldn't say that the Bible lies, but I would say that it selectively constructs the truth. All humans do when dealing with matters that are central to their lives, and the Bible was inevitably penned by man.

That viewpoint assumes that the Bible wasn't God inspired.

GG

Thomas Jefferson said it best

"The way to silence religious disputes is to take no notice of them"

Nurglitch wrote:Tell him that it's okay, and that you're a practicing Fictionologist.

This gets my nomination for best response!

generalgrog wrote:On that point Christianity is less of a religion, in the classic sense, and more of a relationship with God.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:
I wouldn't say that the Bible lies, but I would say that it selectively constructs the truth. All humans do when dealing with matters that are central to their lives, and the Bible was inevitably penned by man.

That viewpoint assumes that the Bible wasn't God inspired.

GG

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Speaking as someone with a theological background

Going to need a bit more info before I can put any weight behind that. It is such a broad area that it could mean almost anything. You have a dgree in Religious Studies? You went to a Seminary? Just read a lot in Sunday School?

I am not accountable to you

In other words you just went to Church on Sundays, same as most people. If you had any kind of specialized training there is no reason to be ashamed of it. My question isn't that hard or invasive. It is not rude or out of line to ask someone who claims expertise what that expertise is. The real oddity here is someone who claims expertise but wants to hide what it is and gets snippy when you ask them what they mean. As it is right now all you are doing is committing an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.

Actually Ahtman, the real issue is that we tend not to ask each others ID before we accept their posts at face value. Its rather rude to be singled out. After all noone has challenged if you are fit to contribute to the discussion, and they have no reaon to do so.

If you must know I have a Diploma in Christian Ministries, however I do not stand to highly by religious credentials because religon is a life path and if you are active enough in it and have good general teaching you will pick up more from Sunday and weekday meetings than from a single course. Or putting it another way if you go to a church that also holds what could be be described as seminars as well as services (charismatic movements often do this) then the standard religous life becomes almost akin to a continuous open college.

Orlanth wrote:

Ahtman wrote:In other words you just went to Church on Sundays, same as most people. If you had any kind of specialized training there is no reason to be ashamed of it. My question isn't that hard or invasive. It is not rude or out of line to ask someone who claims expertise what that expertise is. The real oddity here is someone who claims expertise but wants to hide what it is and gets snippy when you ask them what they mean. As it is right now all you are doing is committing an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.

Actually Ahtman, the real issue is that we tend not to ask each others ID before we accept their posts at face value. Its rather rude to be singled out. After all noone has challenged if you are fit to contribute to the discussion, and they have no reaon to do so.

If someone makes an appeal to authority, which you did, you need to also have the good sense to state where that authority comes from. No one else has tried to pass themselves as an authority so they haven't needed to do it. You are being 'singled out (there is that persecution complex)' because of who you are but because you are the only one who made any such claim. The rest are just talking. There was nothing sinister in asking you to clarify a vague statement. I didn't say you were full of balogna or challenge you, I just asked if you could clarify the statement because it was fairly ambiguous and you got all defensive.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a religion because it is based on a faith choice.

A religion is literally a set of metaphysical beliefs. If you simply lack a belief in God, then you do not necessarily possess a metaphysical belief. For example, you could be ignorant of the entire concept of God, and thereby be incapable of believing in it. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in God, and is therefore not intrinsically connected to religion. You're completely incorrect.

You are mistaking atheism for apathy. The decision to claim that God does not exist is a conscoious one. Those who ignore religion in its entirity are not atheists as such.

Orlanth wrote:
As far as 'strength' of conviction, that goes for every faith group, it is not a matter of behaviour but belief.

Behavior is inherently connected to belief. Unless you're so orthodox as to suppose that the serial-killing Catholic who goes to confession every day, and mass every week can be considered pious.

generalgrog wrote:
Christianity is not "built" on the lionization of suffering. Although suffering is a part of the walk of a believer, it's certainly not the center. Christianity is "built" on the worship of God through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Who underwent extreme suffering in order to cleanse humanity of its sins. Hell, the most common (in the West anyway) symbol of the faith is derived from an implement of torture.

generalgrog wrote:
On that point Christianity is less of a religion, in the classic sense, and more of a relationship with God.

No, that would be spirituality, which is a component of Christianity but not Christianity itself.

generalgrog wrote:
That viewpoint assumes that the Bible wasn't God inspired.

GG

The inspiration of God doesn't necessarily remove fallibility.

That aside, I've assumed nothing. I've taken the text as a production of the human hand because we have no evidence that any other being can produce written language. Thus, as the very least, it must be compared to other texts on equal footing. If you wish to treat the Bible as somehow unique, you must either possess faith (which is not objective) or some kind of evidence to support your treatment.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Ahtman wrote:In other words you just went to Church on Sundays, same as most people. If you had any kind of specialized training there is no reason to be ashamed of it. My question isn't that hard or invasive. It is not rude or out of line to ask someone who claims expertise what that expertise is. The real oddity here is someone who claims expertise but wants to hide what it is and gets snippy when you ask them what they mean. As it is right now all you are doing is committing an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.

Actually Ahtman, the real issue is that we tend not to ask each others ID before we accept their posts at face value. Its rather rude to be singled out. After all noone has challenged if you are fit to contribute to the discussion, and they have no reaon to do so.

If someone makes an appeal to authority, which you did, you need to also have the good sense to state where that authority comes from. No one else has tried to pass themselves as an authority so they haven't needed to do it. You are being 'singled out (there is that persecution complex)' because of who you are but because you are the only one who made any such claim. The rest are just talking. There was nothing sinister in asking you to clarify a vague statement. I didn't say you were full of balogna or challenge you, I just asked if you could clarify the statement because it was fairly ambiguous and you got all defensive.

I merely casually mentioned that I had some experience on these matters. It helps, but I let the posts themselves speak for me.

You didnt ask for clarification of a vague statement so much as made dismissive statements of your own. "In other words you just went to Church on Sundays" can only be read to mean you disbelieved I had any training. It would haver been arrogant to list credentials before posting, but people do often casually comment if they have some experience on a matter ala 'I made one of those last year' on threads all over these boards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Who underwent extreme suffering in order to cleanse humanity of its sins.

That is a world of difference from lionisation of suffering.

dogma wrote:
Hell, the most common (in the West anyway) symbol of the faith is derived from an implement of torture.

Interesting then that the Christian symbol of the early church was the fish. The cross only became of iconic significance after crucifixion was abolished in the empire. when I ans other modern persons look at a cross we dont see a torture device, if we did we would still be using fish icons instead.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
On that point Christianity is less of a religion, in the classic sense, and more of a relationship with God.

No, that would be spirituality, which is a component of Christianity but not Christianity itself.

Actually that IS Christianity as defined from within. If you dont see the definition it is only because you dont see the relationship, the relationship with God is empowered through the Holy Spirit, its an invisible process to those outside the church, and even for those who are in churches thst do not have a Holy Spirit relationship. technically that means they are not Christians st some level, but God is less dogmatic than most people think and is very tolerant of denominations that are not spiritually active.

dogma wrote:
The inspiration of God doesn't necessarily remove fallibility.

No its doesnt, that is why we use the term devinely ispired not devinely written. The only divinely written parts of the Bible are the Ten Commandments.
There are cases of textual corruption in the Bible, I can think of one in the NIV at the top of my head.

Ahtman wrote:If someone makes an appeal to authority, which you did, you need to also have the good sense to state where that authority comes from. No one else has tried to pass themselves as an authority so they haven't needed to do it. You are being 'singled out (there is that persecution complex)' because of who you are but because you are the only one who made any such claim. The rest are just talking. There was nothing sinister in asking you to clarify a vague statement. I didn't say you were full of balogna or challenge you, I just asked if you could clarify the statement because it was fairly ambiguous and you got all defensive.

The problem though Ahtman is that you did challenge him and you were rude about it. And you know it, because you meant to do that. I'm used to it from you, but Orlanth probably isn't. :-)

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

generalgrog wrote:On that point Christianity is less of a religion, in the classic sense, and more of a relationship with God.

For some Christians it is god inspired, others it is not. For some it is the literal word of god and for some other Christians it is not. From this statement and the ones above it I get the sense you have no clue about the diverse beliefs of Christians. You are telling us what you think it is but expressing it as a general statement.

Not sure what the picture meant.... but a lot of Christians would be offended if you called them religious(I'm not one of them BTW), as they make a distinction between people that they view as religious(I.E. dogmatic/rigid/without true faith... as they would put it) and people that claim a true relationship with God. It's a line that a nonChristian may not understand, but to some Christians, their Christian walk goes way beyond religious ordinances/routines and rituals. Which is what I meant by religion in the "classic sense".

I don't see how someone can claim to be a Christian and not believe the Bible to be God inspired. (And yes I notice that you make a concerted effort to use the little "g" when you type God)


GG


edit...I see another locked thread on the horizon.....LOL

And of course when dealing with any religion:


And one of the best quotes for people dealing with others beliefs:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Orlanth wrote:
You are mistaking atheism for apathy. The decision to claim that God does not exist is a conscoious one. Those who ignore religion in its entirity are not atheists as such.

You're assuming that religion is the only means of engaging with belief (this is partially my fault, I struggle to keep certain terminology clear without revision). One can ignore religion while remaining spiritual. As such, it is fully possible for someone to lack a belief in God while maintaining curiosity about the metaphysical such that they cannot be considered apathetic.

Orlanth wrote:
You have taken the point out of context. You mentioneed strong atheism as being ananolgous to a religon only, when you tried to 'fix' my comment. I am claiming that the weak non-commital versions of any faith is an absense of faith.

In the sense that one cannot be a Weak Christian, you are correct. However, atheism is not comparable to any specific faith as it is a broad category, as opposed to any kind of doctrinal tradition. It is the distinction between having faith, and having a faith.

Orlanth wrote:
To answer your question the serial killing Catholic could well be pious, but piety can exist without goodness. Jesus menions this point directly 'you will know them by their fruit'.

But how can one be pious while exhibiting a clear disrespect for the basic commandments of the faith towards which the piety is meant to be directed?

Orlanth wrote:
Well the big question would be how to describe religion then. My answer to that would be not to determine by a single criteria, but a broad set of criteria, with motive of the supplicants/worshippers/membership near the top.

I'm more inclined to attach to the word "set" in the minimal definition of "a set of metaphysical beliefs". If we take a page from Wittgenstein we can see that a concise set cannot be defined by a single observer as it hinges on rules, which can only be viable in the context of a group. In essence, spirituality becomes religion when there is a discernible set of rules against which one can be considered orthodox/orthoprax/et al.

Orlanth wrote:
You cloud the issues this way. Ignore the redfinitions of spirituality because its an open field. Put plainly many alternate religons redefine spirituality. Scientology does as does Christina Science, however changing the language to make a spirutal process appear a sceintiofic process doesnt make it a sceintific process. Case in point Hubbard refers to his relgious principles as technolgies, but it is purely as semanitc definition. Scientilogy 'Tech' is not technology, its relgious doctrine.

How do you determine that any given doctrine is spiritual without first examining its definition?

Orlanth wrote:
Let me lake up an on the fly example for you. relevant as this is more or less how cult leaders think things up If I was to invent a cult and refer to our regilious teaching as say "extra-dimensional physics", because the hook in my teachings is that the 'soul' is really a parallel for the 8th-12th dimsnions, and by utilising my teachings and meditation techniques you can tap into this power. Now what I have done is invent a plausible sounduing relgious coentpt that deaols witgh the psiritual and namdrops something rational, in this case miensional physics.
Should my doctrines be considered physics by definition, hell no, its religion thought and through.

That's all well and good, but there is no means of properly regarding any given doctrine as a spiritual one without first ascertaining the falsifiability of it. Something that can only be done by examining the doctrine itself. After all, there is little in the way of immediate separation between the physicist ritualistically standing by his dark matter detector and the worshiper sitting in the pews at Notre Dame.

Orlanth wrote:
Again you misunderstand. Take the example given of football, its a joke comment effectively to show that football is more important than religion in many lives. It is not a faith per se. Now to help clarify this we can compare the football fan with a nut who forms a cult thinking a particular player or manager is a messiah. That could be a religion of sorts, though more likely a psychosis. In any even its several steps away from the "footbasll is my relgion" concepts as that is merekly poetic terminology, not a statement of faith.
To put it another way, you could equally say "football is the battleground", this poetic turn of phrase does not enable you to logicaly redefine football teams as armies or paramititary forces.

Well, you could redefine it logically, but there is a distinction between what is logical and what is appropriate.

Orlanth wrote:
By using fair logic and reason.

Look what happened: Peter & Co formed a relgion, the religion paid its taxes and urges its members to do same. the relgion doesnt preach insurrection and asked its members to love people and respect those in authority over them. thus the normal reasons why a state might have problems with a religous group are not present, Christianity as preached was no threat to the stability of the Empire. So you could expect them to be left alone, however instead they get imprisoned, tortured and executed.
What part of the villainy are you having difficulty seeing?

You're mistaking violence against early Christians for violence against the Jews as inclusive of early Christians. Beginning with the ascension of Caligula, and culminating in the reign of Claudius, the Jewish people became scapegoats for many of the problems faced by the Roman Empire. In the land of Judea this had the practical effect of the Pharisees utilizing their internal schism as a means of escaping punishment from pressured, and often incompetent, Roman authorities. Essentially claiming that the anti-Roman sentiment espoused by their people was the result of an internal dispute which limited their authority. And, while the specific teachings of Christianity certainly did not encourage insurrection, it is difficult to ignore the extent to which they were able to foster dissent. Especially given the lack of clear doctrinal variance between early Christian-Jews and mainline Jews; characterizing the whole matter as a power play on both sides.

It wasn't until the rise of Nero that Christians were singled out for persecution, and then only because the sect was still commonly associated with Judaism in the Roman mind; a faith which would openly rebel against the Empire in the year 66 A.D. Successive incidences of persecution had as much to do with internecine theological disputes written into politics as they did with overt, Roman oppression.

Orlanth wrote:
This explains why your comments are frequnelty so off target, you have a thoroughly mistaken definition of Christianity. Why dont you try to understand a religion before critiquing it? Comments like that prove you dont know what you are talking about, and if you dont understand you cannot challenge from a sound intellectual point of view.

I'm rather curious as to what you believe my definition of Christianity might be such that you can sweepingly reject my views on the matter.

Orlanth wrote:
Again you lack an understanding of the scriptures. The Bible is quite different to what you presume in that it has often not a lot nice to say about those it is supporting. A biased source or one that is selective might be inclined to ignore such things as Peter and Pauls disagreement, Ananias and Sapphira, and other topical issues from the early church. It might not want to let out how immoral the churches in Corinth and Asia could be.

Why wouldn't it? Any given anecdotal text will be forced to discuss not only how one can best learn from it, but also what will happen in the event that its teachings are ignored. This is especially true given that the modern canonical NT was established by Athanasius at a time when the whole of the faith was being bound to the teachings which originated in Alexandria, be they Nicene or Arian.

Orlanth wrote:
Going back to the Old Testament is gets even 'worse'. The Bible consistently puts its own chosen people - the Jews in a very very bad light. For example, a propoganda writer might want to gloss over Davids murders and adulteries and might decide not to pen the choice words God had to describe the nation as a whole.
I dont know of any propoganda work which is so out and out negative about whole people groups it is supposedly puting a spin on.

If that propaganda writer were attempting to depict his people as chosen by God it seems rather obvious that he would wish to include their transgressions against the faith. In fact, he might even wish to highlight them (as the OT often does) in order to emphasize the notion that the survival/fate of the Jewish people was somehow preordained.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
That is a world of difference from lionisation of suffering.

Lionize - to treat as an object of great importance.

I fail to see how placing Jesus' sacrifice through suffering at the center of an entire theological paradigm can be considered anything other than lionization.

Orlanth wrote:
Interesting then that the Christian symbol of the early church was the fish. The cross only became of iconic significance after crucifixion was abolished in the empire. when I ans other modern persons look at a cross we dont see a torture device, if we did we would still be using fish icons instead.

Crucifixion was abolished by Constantine in 313. The earliest recorded use of the cross as a Christian symbol is in the Octavius, which may have been written as early as 150 A.D.

Orlanth wrote:
Actually that IS Christianity as defined from within. If you dont see the definition it is only because you dont see the relationship, the relationship with God is empowered through the Holy Spirit, its an invisible process to those outside the church, and even for those who are in churches thst do not have a Holy Spirit relationship. Technically that means they are not Christians st some level, but God is less dogmatic than most people think and is very tolerant of denominations that are not spiritually active.

All of which are doctrinal assumption that are explicitly distinct from spirituality. Spirituality is what permits any given individual to associate themselves to a metaphysical principle such that it can be practically applied to daily life. Stating that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship with God should imply that there can be no concept of approved belief or practice. For example, I could claim to be Christian while adhering to Islamic doctrine as it would be a simple matter to posit that God instructed me to do so via our relationship. Now, you might believe that to be the point of the whole endeavor, but then it hardly seems reasonable to use the moniker of Christian at all; particularly given its emphasis on a relatively discreet set of beliefs and teachings.

I would treat him like I treat all religious people, with the respect all human beings reserve, until THEY broach the subject. They will never talk about it again while I'm around, nobody ever has.

I gotta say, as a proud Catholic I'm pleased that wargamers aren't all the ungodly faithless wretches they are portrayed as sometimes. Orlanth, Dogma and Ahtman all deserve a big round of applause for their efforts to promote free speech and debate on religion. There I officially give you all a Ceremonial 6 of intelligence.

In response to OP, my personal opinion on scientology aside (see my avatar ) you should still respect this guy. If he comes off all weird about Scientology on you feel free to let him have it. It's all well and good for him to practice but missionary behaviour in the workplace makes me kind of edgy.

(P.S. Sorry for the rather predjudicial avatar I only realised I had it halfway through this post).

dogma wrote: Stating that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship with God should imply that there can be no concept of approved belief or practice. For example, I could claim to be Christian while adhering to Islamic doctrine as it would be a simple matter to posit that God instructed me to do so via our relationship. Now, you might believe that to be the point of the whole endeavor, but then it hardly seems reasonable to use the moniker of Christian at all; particularly given its emphasis on a relatively discreet set of beliefs and teachings.

Out of all the things I have seen you post Dogma, I think the above is one of the most profound. I agree whole heartedly with the above statement. I have always believed that Christianity is a relationship first, but you need the religion part to have order, and to hold believers together as a sort of faith statement of beliefs and principles. Otherwise anyone could start a "Church" and invite anyone to attend, but if there was no common statement of belief you have a hodgepodge of different uncoordinated belief systems which would fracture. (Which happens by the way, that's what leads to denominationalism)


GG

Well Dogma. Sorry about the horrid speed typing from yesterday, but I can see you are fluent in typo.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
You are mistaking atheism for apathy. The decision to claim that God does not exist is a conscoious one. Those who ignore religion in its entirity are not atheists as such.

You're assuming that religion is the only means of engaging with belief (this is partially my fault, I struggle to keep certain terminology clear without revision). One can ignore religion while remaining spiritual. As such, it is fully possible for someone to lack a belief in God while maintaining curiosity about the metaphysical such that they cannot be considered apathetic.

'Spiritual atheists', while this is not an absolute contradiction its a very dodgy logical ground. Honest atheism is more than a denial of a Monotheistic God, but includes Pantheist relgions also and beyond. For the spiritual to exist there must be spirits, no matter how it is described, claims of psionics not excluded.
Someone who thinks they are atheist but believes in the spiritual is very likely to be an Animist if they think about what they beleive at all. Animism is essentially the very earliest religion, one practiced in myriad forms still by primitive tribes, eventually this branches off into pantheonism, of which the largest and oldest surviving tradition is Hindu.
The only way to really be a spirutal person and an atheist without becoming an animist is not to think about ones atheism too carefully, and thus ignore or be ignorant of the logical gaps in ones faith structure. Aka our weak atheist, and not a real one.

dogma wrote:
It is the distinction between having faith, and having a faith.

Again this can lead away from atheism, primarily it means Agnosticism, the acceptance of faith but denial of religion for one reason or another. Agnosticism is nevertheless a faith choice, again vagueness might bypass the need to make a faith decision one way or another, but again in all cases a decision deferred is lack of any faith. Once the decision is made a faith is attained to some degree or other.
Also most who have a faith do not have much faith either, faith is hard to come by.

dogma wrote:
But how can one be pious while exhibiting a clear disrespect for the basic commandments of the faith towards which the piety is meant to be directed?

The way Torquemada knelt in prayer between ordering his victim's tortures. Piety has nothing to do with goodness. Let us take this to a modern age, Osama Bin Laden is reportedly a pious man, and I buy that on face value, I dont beleive he is a 'fake' in terms of his religious standing.

dogma wrote:
If we take a page from Wittgenstein we can see that a concise set cannot be defined by a single observer as it hinges on rules, which can only be viable in the context of a group. In essence, spirituality becomes religion when there is a discernible set of rules against which one can be considered orthodox/orthoprax/et al.

Religion is inseperable from society, but each religion does not have a societal source but an individual one. For example the rules might be instigated from an external source to a group, a good example here being the relationship between colonialism and evangelism. Thus the doctrines can be implemented from a single observer, if the observer has enough power, yes rules appear, but only indirectly and abstarctly rather than formatively as per a 'home grown' faith.

dogma wrote:
How do you determine that any given doctrine is spiritual without first examining its definition?

You define it by what it does, and the context of what it relates to rather than the description.

dogma wrote:
That's all well and good, but there is no means of properly regarding any given doctrine as a spiritual one without first ascertaining the falsifiability of it. Something that can only be done by examining the doctrine itself. After all, there is little in the way of immediate separation between the physicist ritualistically standing by his dark matter detector and the worshiper sitting in the pews at Notre Dame.

The falstiability is not relevant, I am not judging if the relgions are false, except from the point of view of my own mind*, though admitedly I think it fair to draw a line at doctrinally ad-libbing transparently dodgy cult leaders, especially the Hubbards, Koreshes and Jim Joneses. I am concerning here only with the patterns of relgious thought.

Nevertheless I will use your example, again its about the motive of the worshipper or equivalent. The worshipper in Notre Dame is persumably there to seek God, tourists etc aside and is thus religious. The physicist looking for Dark matter is doing so based on one of two ideologies, or even a mixture of them. If looking for Dark Matter because scientific theories support its existance, its science, even if the object sought is not widely beleived in its still science if the experiment is approached logically and under scientific method. Now if the same person is looking for Dark Matter because he beleives it is a representation of the matter soulsare made of, or equivalent, then he is seeking religious answers.
This brings us back to Scientology. Hubbard decided to use lie detectors, renamed E-Meters as a tool for his search for Body Thetans. Thus taking a scientific instrument, the polygraph machine, and giving it mystic qualities. Same action as when the police use it, but a wholey different motive.
Motive of the worshipper is key, the definition is often a mask. To see the true face look behind the mask and see either the science, culture or religion behind it.


*Just to clarify this, on the quiet I personally think you are WRONG, and thus also think this of every other non-Christian, and beleive that Jesus alone is the way to TRUTH; I would be lying if I did not admit this. However from the point of view of discussion I must accept that faith groups abound and others might have an identical point of view from their own paradigm. It would be illogical to thus assume for the point of arguement that I am right and you are wrong. I must accept that you might think the diametric opposite and to yourself or a third party there is no judging who if anyone is actually right. Put it simply I have a strong faith, but I am not infallible, so I could be wrong, bo matter how earnest my beliefs or well thought out they might be. Put alongside any other person with a strong opposing rationally based faith; either one of us is wrong, or we both are. Therefore its the height of arrogance to publically proclaim and demand correctness under these circumstances.

Orlanth wrote:
By using fair logic and reason.

Look what happened: Peter & Co formed a relgion, the religion paid its taxes and urges its members to do same. the relgion doesnt preach insurrection and asked its members to love people and respect those in authority over them. thus the normal reasons why a state might have problems with a religous group are not present, Christianity as preached was no threat to the stability of the Empire. So you could expect them to be left alone, however instead they get imprisoned, tortured and executed.
What part of the villainy are you having difficulty seeing?

dogma wrote:
You're mistaking violence against early Christians for violence against the Jews as inclusive of early Christians.

Indeed, sometimes they were all lumped together, but there were differences. There were times when Jews helped instigate perecutions of the Church, particularly in the early years, and likewise times when retaliatory persecutions of jews were encouraged by the later and then medieval church.

dogma wrote:
It wasn't until the rise of Nero that Christians were singled out for persecution, and then only because the sect was still commonly associated with Judaism in the Roman mind; a faith which would openly rebel against the Empire in the year 66 A.D. Successive incidences of persecution had as much to do with internecine theological disputes written into politics as they did with overt, Roman oppression.

Christian persecutions were off and on. They occured early on due to pressures from the synagogues as Christianity was first preached to Jews and Gentiles and Jews felt threatened. Later as evengelism in jewish communities was ignored these tensions settled. Also the early church were mostly Jews so there was a pressure of having 'traitors in the local community. As generations passed this lessened. While jews instigated the early persecutions they required Roman or mod power to back them up, normally through slander, false witness or lawsuits.
Nero blamed the Christians because of their relative unpopularity, partly because of Jewish enmity, partly because the sect rose so quickly it frightened some, partly because of their odd behaviour when executed. Most of Neros persecutions were in the Circus maximus, and reports of the crucified Christians singing is not limited to quo vadis, Roman authors penned about the phenomena about the extraordinary way Christians went to their deaths. Thus Nero entertained the mob - a wise thing to do as Emperor, plus as Christians evangelised to anyone, and some even amongst the rich were converts anyone could be a Christian. Thus you get the double whammy of tabloid like gossip suprise at the latest outings, but scaremongering because of which high ranking persons were suspected. Finally Christians unlike most persecuted groups were often willing to admit their guilt, so they became rediculously easy to catch. give a 'fisherman' his trial and you dont need a prosecution, they will admit their guilt plain view.

Vespasian mostly went for Jews, and murdered 80,000 around the time of the building of the Colosseum, this was an internal security matter after the diaspora. Keep the numbers low, keep them seperate and in fear. After that jews were more or less left alone until the rise of the church when the Book of Acts was remembered by policy makers. Between this time the other major persecution of Christians occured under Valerian, who ordered a purge of all priests as an attempt to propogate the pagan tradition in Rome which was quickly being sidelined by Christianity.

dogma wrote:
I'm rather curious as to what you believe my definition of Christianity might be such that you can sweepingly reject my views on the matter.

I can only go by what you wrote.

dogma wrote:
If that propaganda writer were attempting to depict his people as chosen by God it seems rather obvious that he would wish to include their transgressions against the faith. In fact, he might even wish to highlight them (as the OT often does) in order to emphasize the notion that the survival/fate of the Jewish people was somehow preordained.

Up to a point, but the OT repeatedly reports the Jews as being worse than other peoples, and filled with stupid mistakes, stubborness, selfishness and unheroic failures. To paraphrase: 'you are so wicked you make your neighbours appear righteous'.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
That is a world of difference from lionisation of suffering.

Lionize - to treat as an object of great importance.

I fail to see how placing Jesus' sacrifice through suffering at the center of an entire theological paradigm can be considered anything other than lionization.

The importance is the sacrifice, not the suffering. Besides its in the past, literally. The Bible warns us that we cannot crucify Christ a second time. The crucifixion was a pivotal and ghastly event, with suffering of both Father and Son, but its a one off done and dusted. the sacrifice made the effects of the sacrifice are long lasting, wheras the suffering is ended. Jesus is not on his cross, and God does not want his people to suffer - or anyone else for that matter. In fact he promises no suffering greater than can be borne, though release from suffering may well come from death. This is of course rare, most christians do not suffer or ever expect to suffer any more than anyone else. most of us live pain free lives, yet faith persists.

dogma wrote:
Crucifixion was abolished by Constantine in 313. The earliest recorded use of the cross as a Christian symbol is in the Octavius, which may have been written as early as 150 A.D.

Formal abolition, however its use had disappeared before then, with laws progressing who it can be used on. First citizens could not be crucified, then limited only to some of the most brutal crimes. there were lapses usually surrounding battlefields and the odd bloodthirsty massacre. however by the later Empire most people had not seen a crucifixion and had lost living memory of the symbol. crosses were used early. there are cave painting depicting crucifixions, but the fish persisted as the main symbol until the rise of the official church.
Case in point if you look at church windows the crucifixion scene stylised does not resemble an actual crucifixion. The crucified are bunched in an s shape turned partly to one side and totally naked. Interesting enough this is foreshadowed by the icon of the serpent on the staff from the book of Exodus which was an icon of healing. interesting as the serpent is a symbol of evil (becoming sin for us) asnd healing (by his stripes we are healed). The latter is of scourse about suffering at first glance, until you notice it is not about suffering but healing, the opposite of suffering. the suffering was a one off lasting nine hours, the healing is a lasting promise and is thus the focus.

dogma wrote:
Stating that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship with God should imply that there can be no concept of approved belief or practice.

While generalgrog is theologically sound in his statement I do not follow it. Because it is best to use the language of the people. For example religious is a bad term in many churches. To accuse a beleiver of being 'religious' is often taken to mean someone who puts dogmas over the relationship with God, it can even be meant as an insult. This is dangeous as the dogmatics are the cause of many of the churches ills. There is also a dichotomy with some churches lumping relgion as being all other relgions except our own. I find this counter-productive as it doesnt enthuse so much seperation from other faiths as aloofness.
While I respect this and am not religious by the internal definition I will never deny being a religious person as the term is understood differently by the populace at large. I explain this concept within churches by taking the opposite approach. Sample conversation:

"Are you happy?"
"Yes" - I can take this at face value, most genuine Christians have an inner peace.
"Do you know the Joy of the Lord?"
"Yes I do." - Again I can take this at face value.
"Did you know the currect definition of someone who is genuinly joyful is - gay."
"....So I ask you are you gay?"
"No" - I may get a puzzled look, but I press on with the point before I offend.
"You deny being gay because the word gay has changed its meaning. For the exact same reason I will not deny being religious."

dogma wrote:
For example, I could claim to be Christian while adhering to Islamic doctrine as it would be a simple matter to posit that God instructed me to do so via our relationship. Now, you might believe that to be the point of the whole endeavor, but then it hardly seems reasonable to use the moniker of Christian at all; particularly given its emphasis on a relatively discreet set of beliefs and teachings.

The other reason i do not deny being religious is that those few who look at religion rationally but from an outside point of view also miss the point. I am religious and so I think is generalgrog - if he doesnt mind me speaking for him.