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.

Orlanth you are saying basically the same thing as me, your just more eloquent than I am. :-)

I think we agree that in some denominations to call someone "Religious" can be taken the wrong way, because as I said, they may view religious people as people that focus on the ritual/tradition of God over the relationship with God and therefore possibly not true believers (that's them, not me). I'm a pentacostal and this view is prevalent in my denomination, however I don't necesarily agree with that view, because I think it tends to overlycomplicate the issue, I.E. I would rather worry about souls, and my relationship, than worry about labels.

So even though I know that some in my denomination would recoil at being called religious, I'm not that way, for the same reasons you, and to some extent Dogma, have raised.

GG

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

Honestly, I didn't even notice until auto-correct pointed it out.

Orlanth wrote:
'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.

Yes, atheism is the denial of any concept which the atheist himself considers tantamount to God/god.

Orlanth wrote:
For the spiritual to exist there must be spirits, no matter how it is described, claims of psionics not excluded.

Spirits are not necessarily Gods/gods.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

Atheism does not prevent one from being religious. Buddhism, Hinduism, and even certain strains of Christianity/Judaism/Islam can all be considered atheistic.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

Or think carefully enough to realize that logic can create very precise conceptual barriers through the use of semantic argumentation. Which, despite modern accusations of "that's just semantic" can be quite compelling.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not belief. Therefore one can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. In practice the distinction is irrelevant, as any admission of ignorance will trump the profession of atheism or theism. In essence, weak atheism and weak theism are both agnostic positions.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

Piety is a claim of reverence, and is distinct from religiousness. All one needs to do in order to be religious is profess belief in the teachings of any given religion. To be pious one must also respect those teachings; presumably by not violating them. You're use of the word pious when discussing Torquemada is incorrect. He was a religious man, and a very devout one, but he was not pious. At least not according to the modern, colloquial interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill".

Orlanth wrote:
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.

Even in the case of a single source doctrine can only be established through the intervention of others; even if that intervention is nothing more than the use of a common language.

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

Those are both components of description.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

You misunderstand. When I claim that falsifiability is important I do not mean in the sense that a religion might be proven false, but that it cannot be. A belief system constructed around easily falsifiable claims is not a religion at all, but simple mass-delusion. Whereas one built on notions which cannot be falsified is a religion, as falsifiability is a critical component of metaphysical thought.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

Which is exactly why the semantic structure of any given claim is important in determining its nature as spiritual, or not spiritual.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

You're saying an awful lot about motive without actually explaining how one separates it from behavior, or profession. When someone claims that they are going to us an E-Meter in order to observe my Body Thetans I must examine their methodology in order to discern whether or not they are making scientific claims. It isn't simply the use of a machine which makes something scientific.

Orlanth wrote:
Therefore its the height of arrogance to publically proclaim and demand correctness under these circumstances.

I apologize if I offended at any point. When I make a claim to correctness I am usually attempting to mount a linguistic argument, not a religious one.

Orlanth wrote:
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'.

I think on this matter we will have to agree to disagree. When I read the OT I perceive a narrative predicated on the notion that Jews are still here, reading the OT, despite all the horrible sins committed in the past.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

Without suffering there can be no sacrifice. Now this doesn't necessarily imply that the suffering must be great, but it must be present if some action is to regarded as sacrificial. One doesn't make a sacrifice for Lent by giving up something frivolous, where frivolity is determined circumstantially.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

I read this as the association of healing with suffering. Regardless of whether the healing is the focus, the suffering is still the earthly vehicle utilized to communicate the fact to a worshiper.

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.

Orlanth wrote:
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."

Ask them if they would feel comfortable worshiping in a Mosque, or Synagogue. If they answer in the negative, then they are showing doctrinal preference which is indicative of a religious nature.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

Yeah, religion has become something akin to an albatross. I'm not religious, though I have been around the Church for the entirety of my life (my father is a Protestant minister). In practice I am a kind of secular agnostic in that I find religion interesting, but only due to the manner in which it seems to captivate others.

dogma wrote:

Spirits are not necessarily Gods/gods.

Tell that to the spiritist/Animist. To the Hindus a spirit IS a god. You have village gods in India.
Now if you want to say there is a difference I would like to see your definition, because whether you have a religon with one God or 350million and counting* is still a deistic religion.
Now I can see an ideal that a pantheon can be so diluted that there are no major spirits, but now one do dilute that it would drop off the threshold of being a deistic religion for the purposes of an honest atheist who wanted to beleive in them.


*according to the estimated size of the known Hindu pantheon and this excludes strains of Hinduism that consider most/all dead Hindus as gods, or strains of Christianity that think the same "and you shall be as gods".

dogma wrote:
Or think carefully enough to realize that logic can create very precise conceptual barriers through the use of semantic argumentation. Which, despite modern accusations of "that's just semantic" can be quite compelling.

However language can describe contradiction and mutually esxclusive prospects in iopen prose. Just look at science fiction. Semantics both written and verbal can transcent all logic. In essence words can be twisted to allow anything the imagination permits, particuklarly in more open structured high vocabulary languages like English.
Hubbard, going back to him, knew this and wrote SF himself.
Cult leaders in general know this and can describe beyond logic, and very frequently do.

Semantics can be important, I cannot deny that because it is important when looking at interpretation of the Bible, Koran and Bagaviad Gita, but you have to first look at scale and motive, and attempts of mass definitions to include all relgiosity will fail because of the numerous fly-by-night cult leaders who will say anything if it suits them. Whackjob 'SF based' BIG LIE theology is common to more cult leaders than Hubbard, however I cann ot despite this not include Scinetology as a religon because of the action and motive of its devotees.

dogma wrote:
In essence, weak atheism and weak theism are both agnostic positions.

I concur with that.

Orlanth wrote:
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:
Piety is a claim of reverence, and is distinct from religiousness.

Religiosity. That is the following of the trappings of religion. Piety is the fervid following of a religion. Faith is following the religions promises, but the definition of faith is blurred because the word has several seperate meanings. a suicide bomber who genuinely beleives what he is doing is righeous in the eyes of his religon might well be pious, no matter how twisted their actions. Piety does not necessarily mean freedom from deception, or evil. Also people blow hot and cold. Spanish Inquisitors might well have been able to lead a proper Mass, and do all the things a good priest should do within the ethics of Catholicism with the exception of their activities as part of the Inquisition, after all these monsters were priests first, monsters after. There might have been a time when they were just priests, or they might have remembered their role amid or after their crimes. We do not know.

What we do know is that 'we shall know them by their fruit' and thus get a good idea as to whether they were true beleivers or not. Incidentally Jesus warns us not to judge a mans salvation, which sounds contradictiory to the above statement but is not. In fact its a four way split taken to extremes: Openly good and holy, openly good but two-faced corrupt, outwardly hypocritical and evil, outwardly hypocritical and evil but seeing the error and repents - even if in the last seconds of life.

dogma wrote:
Those are both components of description.

However you have an external description brought by observation rather than replying on self description which is uncategorisablly infinitely open ended and possibly entirely spurious depending on the faith group concerned.

dogma wrote:
A belief system constructed around easily falsifiable claims is not a religion at all, but simple mass-delusion. Whereas one built on notions which cannot be falsified is a religion, as falsifiability is a critical component of metaphysical thought.

The false 'faith' of Hubbard can be justly written off this way, and likely the false faith of Miscavige, but what of the faith of Tom Cruise? Please remember cults hijack wisdom and repackage it, Hubbards 'tech' is often well known self help and group help exercises some with psychiatric roots (a reason they hate psychiatry - it shows them up, for free), some with religious and some social convention. All they add is a dogma to go with it and in the case of Scientology, a bill. Due to its sourcing much of the tech therefore works and the benefits are mistaken as the benefits of Scientology. This is possibly what makes Mr Cruise happy, possibly he is in on it, possibly he is not. Frankly I think the latter but that is an unsubstantiated person opinion or 'gut feeling' if you will. The question therefore is are Cruise et al, actually just deluded or devoted. It will be unfair to claim the former if some of the hijacked tech helps them in their lives amnd they derive relgious benefit from it.
This is why semantics of themselves are unhelpful, you have to look at the membership from source to followers.

Orlanth wrote:
....The physicist looking for Dark matter is doing so based on one of two ideologies, or even a mixture of them.....

dogma wrote:
Which is exactly why the semantic structure of any given claim is important in determining its nature as spiritual, or not spiritual.

Ahh but in the case of the Dark Matter searcher remember he could have one other or both motives. Not all relgious searches are cold cut defined, rmember semantics comes from the brain, relgion comes from the heart. The Dark Matter searcher might say with perfect terminology that they are performing science but may be practicing religion. Not all words are honest. Yet again - you observe the devotee, not listen to the semantics.
Also heart issues remain undefined. notice how earlier I claimed you could write up just about any dogma with words and they need not be consistent or even possible but could be understandable to read. However emantics canniot necessarily write to the heart. A good example, you try describing love sometime.
Some things are better observed than described, religion is one of them.

Orlanth wrote:
You're saying an awful lot about motive without actually explaining how one separates it from behavior, or profession. When someone claims that they are going to us an E-Meter in order to observe my Body Thetans I must examine their methodology in order to discern whether or not they are making scientific claims. It isn't simply the use of a machine which makes something scientific.

Yes perhaps I should have used the above descriptor earlier. In any case the E-meter/lie detector holder is determined by what he does and motive. You could set up a police polygraph outside a scientology HQ and apply it, it would be improper procedure but setting is not indicative per se.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Therefore its the height of arrogance to publically proclaim and demand correctness under these circumstances.

I apologize if I offended at any point. When I make a claim to correctness I am usually attempting to mount a linguistic argument, not a religious one.

That comment was directed at me, and an indicator as to why I behave as I do. You may have guessed that I have strong feelings on relgion, the trick is turning them off for discussions. I am hard to bait unless someone directly blasphemes - which I am actually supposed to rebuke. You have more manners than that; I can respect 'God is false', or 'maybe God doesnt exist' in all its forms and discuss with anyone. But 'God is a ----' requires me to demand that the person shows more respect. Its called a 'defence of the Name' and is as close to dogma as I get, even then I wont troll (and thus be dogmatic), just politely demand a more repectful attitude. Fortuneately I havent had to do this too often.

dogma wrote:
I think on this matter we will have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I havent been following all the discussion topics but dropping some as agree to disagree.

dogma wrote:
Without suffering there can be no sacrifice. Now this doesn't necessarily imply that the suffering must be great, but it must be present if some action is to regarded as sacrificial. One doesn't make a sacrifice for Lent by giving up something frivolous, where frivolity is determined circumstantially.

Lent is Catholoicism not Christianity. Catholicism is a subset of Christianity and one that has its errors - no disrepect to my brothers in Christ who happen to be Catholic. The Bible RAW does not ask us to dwell on suffering and there is no Christian ritual for Lent, the only rituals required of a beleiver in scripture are Baptism and Communion. Neither require suffering.
Catholcicism puts the same hedge around Biblican principles that the Old Testmant priests put around the Law. Christinaity in its purest and true form is very liberating, but in dry years people fear that they overstep. Give someone too much liberty and they fly off, give them too much rope and they hang themselves. So catachisms, doctrines and orders of living are included to attempt to anchor and refocus the faithful.
So someone who gives up for Lent is therefore expressing their faith and knows that they are honouring God. Wheras the same peron who just thanks God may doubt if their thanks is genuine.
The downside is that Lent can come and go with suffering and no thanks, its as much a danger as when someone forgets the sacrifice of the cross. Thats medievalistic dogma and it is still prevelant in Catholicism, Orthodox and Protestant traditions alike.
We are human, and the Church has been around for 2000 years, sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong, sometimes we get evil leaders who use the trappings faith for their own ends, or outside leaders who want the power of the church for themselves and sometimes we are wrongly accused. All in all over 2000 years there is a lot of junk that shouldnt be there, same as any other religion. However in all that time men and women of faith cut through the junk and live pious and holy lives. Its far easier now that it was in times gone by, noone is going to persecute me for my faith, so I deserve no real credit for trying to be true. were I living in the middle ages would I have my clear faith, I do not know.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

I read this as the association of healing with suffering. Regardless of whether the healing is the focus, the suffering is still the earthly vehicle utilized to communicate the fact to a worshiper.

dogma wrote:
Yeah, religion has become something akin to an albatross. I'm not religious, though I have been around the Church for the entirety of my life (my father is a Protestant minister). In practice I am a kind of secular agnostic in that I find religion interesting, but only due to the manner in which it seems to captivate others.

It appears you see negativity in that captivation? May I ask why?

rubiksnoob wrote:

Modquisition on:

Gentlemen, lets ease off the quick hitson the thread. Several posters and Mods are eating popcorn watching the Dogma/Orlanth debate which is excellent.

keep up the good work boyz!

Orlanth wrote:

dogma wrote:

Spirits are not necessarily Gods/gods.

Tell that to the spiritist/Animist. To the Hindus a spirit IS a god.

God doesn't mean remotely the same thing in Hindu as it does in the west so this isn't a very balanced comparison. A spirit isn't a god either in Hindu, 'spirit' and 'god' are two different things.

Orlanth wrote:
Tell that to the spiritist/Animist. To the Hindus a spirit IS a god. You have village gods in India.

I'd rather not, they would probably be upset.

You see, there are gods in certain Hindu sects. There are also spirits. And certain denominations only believe in one or the other. They refer to them with different words, and treat them in distinct manners. They are different things.

Orlanth wrote:
Now if you want to say there is a difference I would like to see your definition, because whether you have a religon with one God or 350million and counting* is still a deistic religion.

At this point you are simply attempting to equivocate by default. You must prove comparability in the presence of distinct semantic claims, not vice versa.

Orlanth wrote:
However language can describe contradiction and mutually esxclusive prospects in iopen prose.

Yes, it can. And such instances are both contradictory, mutually exclusive, and therefore invalid. I never said that the analysis of any given semantic claim would be easy, or that it wouldn't require intelligence.

Orlanth wrote:
Just look at science fiction. Semantics both written and verbal can transcent all logic.

And logic can discern that fact, or even parse it. That's why we have syntactic and para-syntactic modes of reasoning.

Orlanth wrote:
In essence words can be twisted to allow anything the imagination permits, particuklarly in more open structured high vocabulary languages like English.
Hubbard, going back to him, knew this and wrote SF himself.
Cult leaders in general know this and can describe beyond logic, and very frequently do.

Actions can be manipulated in similar ways. Hence the takes if Christians singing as they were fed to the lions. However, by understanding the actual meaning of the words/movements being utilized we can determine the truth of intent.

Orlanth wrote:
Semantics can be important, I cannot deny that because it is important when looking at interpretation of the Bible, Koran and Bagaviad Gita, but you have to first look at scale and motive, and attempts of mass definitions to include all relgiosity will fail because of the numerous fly-by-night cult leaders who will say anything if it suits them. Whackjob 'SF based' BIG LIE theology is common to more cult leaders than Hubbard, however I cann ot despite this not include Scinetology as a religon because of the action and motive of its devotees.

I agree, but not for the same reasons. Scientology is a religion because it clearly possesses a standardized doctrine. However, its status as a religion does not have anything to do with its moral worth, or respectability.

Orlanth wrote:
Religiosity. That is the following of the trappings of religion.

Ah, yes. Thank you for the correction. I was intoxicated when I made the last post.

Orlanth wrote:
Piety is the fervid following of a religion.

That's the colloquial definition. The real definition waffles between hypocritical concern for religious doctrine (which would be inclusive of our example), and dutiful reverence for religious doctrine (which would not be inclusive of Torquemada). Its an interesting word in that it appears to have a self-contradictory definition.

Orlanth wrote:
What we do know is that 'we shall know them by their fruit' and thus get a good idea as to whether they were true beleivers or not. Incidentally Jesus warns us not to judge a mans salvation, which sounds contradictiory to the above statement but is not. In fact its a four way split taken to extremes: Openly good and holy, openly good but two-faced corrupt, outwardly hypocritical and evil, outwardly hypocritical and evil but seeing the error and repents - even if in the last seconds of life.

Its split consequentialism. Basically judge actions by their reactions, but never allow the ends to justify the means. Contradictory on the surface, but not when considering the actual process of reasoning.

Orlanth wrote:
However you have an external description brought by observation rather than replying on self description which is uncategorisablly infinitely open ended and possibly entirely spurious depending on the faith group concerned.

That may be, but it is also intrinsically connected to the faith.

Orlanth wrote:
The false 'faith' of Hubbard can be justly written off this way, and likely the false faith of Miscavige, but what of the faith of Tom Cruise? Please remember cults hijack wisdom and repackage it, Hubbards 'tech' is often well known self help and group help exercises some with psychiatric roots (a reason they hate psychiatry - it shows them up, for free), some with religious and some social convention. All they add is a dogma to go with it and in the case of Scientology, a bill. Due to its sourcing much of the tech therefore works and the benefits are mistaken as the benefits of Scientology. This is possibly what makes Mr Cruise happy, possibly he is in on it, possibly he is not. Frankly I think the latter but that is an unsubstantiated person opinion or 'gut feeling' if you will. The question therefore is are Cruise et al, actually just deluded or devoted. It will be unfair to claim the former if some of the hijacked tech helps them in their lives amnd they derive relgious benefit from it.
This is why semantics of themselves are unhelpful, you have to look at the membership from source to followers.

What you're discussing, the difference between delusion and devotion, is a matter of semantics. They reach beyond simple discussion, and into the emotional reaction to physical stimuli. As a disclaimer, I am fairly devoted to the concept of linguistic truth as bound by physiological response.

Orlanth wrote:
Ahh but in the case of the Dark Matter searcher remember he could have one other or both motives. Not all relgious searches are cold cut defined, rmember semantics comes from the brain, relgion comes from the heart. The Dark Matter searcher might say with perfect terminology that they are performing science but may be practicing religion. Not all words are honest. Yet again - you observe the devotee, not listen to the semantics.

But honesty is not entirely determined by emotion. When I state that I do not want to hurt someone, I am being honest even if my emotional sense contradicts the statement. Language is a funny thing in that frequently the speaker is also the listener.

Orlanth wrote:
Also heart issues remain undefined. notice how earlier I claimed you could write up just about any dogma with words and they need not be consistent or even possible but could be understandable to read. However emantics canniot necessarily write to the heart. A good example, you try describing love sometime.
Some things are better observed than described, religion is one of them.

I think our opinions on this matter are very nearly identical. However, we seem to be stumbling with regard to the semantics.

Orlanth wrote:
That comment was directed at me, and an indicator as to why I behave as I do. You may have guessed that I have strong feelings on relgion, the trick is turning them off for discussions. I am hard to bait unless someone directly blasphemes - which I am actually supposed to rebuke. You have more manners than that; I can respect 'God is false', or 'maybe God doesnt exist' in all its forms and discuss with anyone. But 'God is a ----' requires me to demand that the person shows more respect. Its called a 'defence of the Name' and is as close to dogma as I get, even then I wont troll (and thus be dogmatic), just politely demand a more repectful attitude. Fortuneately I havent had to do this too often.

This board, at least now that Gwar! is gone, is actually one of the more respectful with regard to religion that I have seen (wow, awkward sentence). Props to the Mods; especially the anti-Christ (Fraz).

Orlanth wrote:
Lent is Catholoicism not Christianity. Catholicism is a subset of Christianity and one that has its errors - no disrepect to my brothers in Christ who happen to be Catholic. The Bible RAW does not ask us to dwell on suffering and there is no Christian ritual for Lent, the only rituals required of a beleiver in scripture are Baptism and Communion. Neither require suffering.

But I've always hated wine.

Orlanth wrote:
Catholcicism puts the same hedge around Biblican principles that the Old Testmant priests put around the Law. Christinaity in its purest and true form is very liberating, but in dry years people fear that they overstep. Give someone too much liberty and they fly off, give them too much rope and they hang themselves. So catachisms, doctrines and orders of living are included to attempt to anchor and refocus the faithful.
So someone who gives up for Lent is therefore expressing their faith and knows that they are honouring God. Wheras the same peron who just thanks God may doubt if their thanks is genuine.
The downside is that Lent can come and go with suffering and no thanks, its as much a danger as when someone forgets the sacrifice of the cross. Thats medievalistic dogma and it is still prevelant in Catholicism, Orthodox and Protestant traditions alike.
We are human, and the Church has been around for 2000 years, sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong, sometimes we get evil leaders who use the trappings faith for their own ends, or outside leaders who want the power of the church for themselves and sometimes we are wrongly accused. All in all over 2000 years there is a lot of junk that shouldnt be there, same as any other religion. However in all that time men and women of faith cut through the junk and live pious and holy lives. Its far easier now that it was in times gone by, noone is going to persecute me for my faith, so I deserve no real credit for trying to be true. were I living in the middle ages would I have my clear faith, I do not know.

Lent was just an example. Though a bad one, the Catholics are a bunch of mourners. I'll concede this point, though I still see suffering as key to the faith. I will admit that fact is largely unintentional (largely because of self-flagellating believers, some people do intend suffering to be holy).

Orlanth wrote:
It appears you see negativity in that captivation? May I ask why?

I'm from the United States, and socially liberal to a fault. As such, my consideration of religion tends to be tainted by the political projects of right-wing Christianity. I also object to the miss-appropriation of religious thought; something which happens frequently in this nation.