Can one follow Christ and not be a "Christian"?

[blackbelt1961]

By that line of reasoning if some one has some idea about what a Big Mac is then by default they are an employee of McDonald's. Your argument is not compelling in the least.

I think your wrong here RevJohn, This guy has eaten 30 thousand big macs, and he is still alive , but he doesnt work for McDonalds

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Wow!
He should change his name to Big Mac. And get a new wig.

 

[Mendalla]

I can't even eat one anymore. Too much crap piled on a so-so burger.

 

[GeoFee]

Hi,

"If some one has some idea about who Jesus is. Be it the Messiah/The Christ/The son of god. Then by default they are a christian.

You can’t know Jesus and not be a Christian. Of course you can know about Jesus without actually knowing him.

Two points of view from opposite ends of the spectrum. They are in agreement on one point; those who disagree with their point of view are wrong. Neither seems willing or able to discuss difference of perspective in a reasonable manner.

George

 

[Luce NDs]

Hi,




Two points of view from opposite ends of the spectrum. They are in agreement on one point; those who disagree with their point of view are wrong. Neither seems willing or able to discuss difference of perspective in a reasonable manner.

George

You are expecting rational from people devoted to blind emotions? That's just not intelligent process ...

But it may go on somewhere else ... as an alternate ... beyond us?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaa

duck and weave, duck and weave

nice move

It's hardly ducking a weaving, I'm quite willing to have a reasonable conversation with the guy. but as soon as he steps in to woo. It will be like have a conversation with an old man who still believes in santa claus.

 

[Delightful Life]

It's hardly ducking a weaving, I'm quite willing to have a reasonable conversation with the guy. but as soon as he steps in to woo. It will be like have a conversation with an old man who still believes in santa claus.

then ignore the bits that bother you and just focus on what can actually b meaningfully talked aboot?

you can try to establish rules with him to help you? ideas/words/concepts perhaps to stay away from?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

By that line of reasoning if some one has some idea about what a Big Mac is then by default they are an employee of McDonald's. Your argument is not compelling in the least.

Agreed. it isn't compelling in the least. I only changed it to read that way because I was told by Mendalla that you said (Note the highlighted.) "1) An observer has to have some idea about who Christ is/was and what Christ did/does." and not the word I used "Know" post 48 and 49. So I used your wording. And changed it.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

then ignore the bits that bother you and just focus on what can actually b meaningfully talked aboot?

you can try to establish rules with him to help you? ideas/words/concepts perhaps to stay away from?

As said I think ridicule/mockery is thought provoking and It makes one consider the merits of what one were saying more deeply. Whereas he doesn't so how do we get past that. And when the subject itself is pure conjecture, with no basis in reality then it is hard to find common ground. Where is the middle ground when one party is coming purely from the imagination and the other from reality. It's either, or.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Wow!
He should change his name to Big Mac. And get a new wig.

I don't see how that would be worth pursuing, as soon as you trip over yourself. Ridicule will rise, and you don't think that is productive. Whereas I think it provoke thought. It makes one consider the merits of what one were saying more deeply.

 

[Delightful Life]

I don't see how that would be worth pursuing, as soon as you trip over yourself. Ridicule will rise, and you don't think that is productive. Whereas I think it provoke thought. It makes one consider the merits of what one were saying more deeply.

we are all co(s)mic shmucks :3

 

[GeoFee]

Hi,

Where is the middle ground when one party is coming purely from the imagination and the other from reality.

We breath the same air. Our bodies are made of the same water. This offers common ground for those able to step out of their inherited world view to see things as they are. I use the proper noun God and you disparage me for it. On what grounds? Have you any idea of what I mean and intend by this usage?

The imagination is not to be disparaged. It serves a key function in the discovery and implementation of rational means. Just now the mass imagination is taken captive by the advertising moguls in service to capitalist enterprise. To express an alternative imagination is to run the risk of conflict with the prevailing patterns of power.

As a courtesy, would you post something demonstrating your capacity as a rational thinker? What is your best rational argument refuting the presence of the proper noun God in human history?

George

 

[Pavlos Maros]

We breath the same air. Our bodies are made of the same water.

Yeh! We crap out of the same hole. So what!

This offers common ground for those able to step out of their inherited world view to see things as they are.

You've got that back to front. You are the one with an imaginary friend, how are you seeing things as they are. Lol.

I use the proper noun God and you disparage me for it. On what grounds?

No! You use a label, you choose to use to describe your imaginary friend.

Have you any idea of what I mean and intend by this usage?

Yes. You are glorifying your imaginary friend by using terms you've made up, to exalt it.

The imagination is not to be disparaged. It serves a key function in the discovery and implementation of rational means.

Yes to get from an idea to actuality, not from a imagining to an imagining.

Just now the mass imagination is taken captive by the advertising moguls in service to capitalist enterprise.

Now you are off on a tangent. Your political opinion is irrelevant here.

To express an alternative imagination is to run the risk of conflict with the prevailing patterns of power.

As said, irrelevant here.

As a courtesy, would you post something demonstrating your capacity as a rational thinker?

When I look at a thing, a subject, etc. It is checked and processed by using critical thinking, My thought process is governed by six key components Those being falsifiability, logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, replicability, and sufficiency. I can go into this more deeply. However I've already posted it up for you, I doubt you read it though. ( Same or different. )

What is your best rational argument refuting the presence of the proper noun God in human history?

I don't refute a god could possibly exists. I refute the theist claim that one does exist. The burden is theirs. I don't make any claims that a god does not exist. I can only ever be 99.9% sure one doesn't exist. Because I cant travel the universe to see if a god is hiding behind a rock somewhere. So I must hold to that 00.1% of probability.

 

[Luce NDs]

Geez Sous what hostility boiling up from nothing ... like God as Love when a pair looses it ... thoughts of reason and rational that the emotional rejects with pure opinion!

Thus all reasonable thoughts were no longer due to the inter reactionary status that goes on with nothing at the core ... and peace was no more ... only dissonance that was like a disinherited spirit Ephraim ded as a surrounding ecce ... as in the old language for there it is deceased --- Pontious Pilot as the bode an question was all that was left of the myth ... iconic non-the-less of how reality is violent ...

Is this the part we play at this stage of the game? I'm happy to be denied ... variously ignored as people are ignorant of what comes of nothing but hostility ... then one could create the myrrh of myth and thus essence of PEW ... a place to reflect on the weak! Yet we don;t we look at the other chi Qui ...

 

[GeoFee]

Hi,

Yes. You are glorifying your imaginary friend by using terms you've made up, to exalt it.

I am doing nothing of the kind. I am simply saying that the word God is ubiquitous in human history. The actual being of God cannot be validated empirically. Nor can the being of God be invalidated empirically. One chooses to embrace the being of God or not. Some will reject and dismiss others because of their choice; on both sides of the coin. My preference is for finding common ground in the hope of realizing the common good.

George

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I am simply saying that the word God is ubiquitous in human history.

Only in the English language, Others use a different word. They may have a word for it but it doesn't mean the English equivalent is the same. The word god isn't the same word that was used prior to the 6th century.

The actual being concept of God cannot be validated empirically.

Fixed it for you. You've got that right.

Nor can the being concept of God be invalidated empirically.

Fixed it for you. You have to establish it exists first. If it isn't un-falsifiable, then it is no different to believing in fairies or any other imaginary being/creature you can think of. Until you can demonstrate some truth to it, that will always be then case.

One chooses to embrace the being of God or not.

Not. Or not. it's isn't a choice. Without evidence it would be foolish to embrace such a concept. You are essentially saying "I choose to believe in fairies" there is no difference.

Some will reject and dismiss others because of their choice; on both sides of the coin.

Wrong! People who believe aren't rejected or dismissed, they are merely a fringe group that has yet demonstrate their veracity. They are no different to people who believe in chupacabra. Who have yet to demonstrate it's existence. The other side of the coin has nothing to demonstrate.

My preference is for finding common ground in the hope of realizing the common good.

Whilst you or people like you insist in believing what you believe without any evidence. There can never be any common ground. Fact and fantasy do not mix. When you claim your fantasy as fact. Then any headway is lost.

 

[GeoFee]

Hi Pavlos,

Thanks for pushing me to a reexamination of my insights specific to human being in the natural order. Will leave things where they are for now. Peace be with you and all of yours.

George

“For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein, 1941

 

[chansen]

I am simply saying that the word God is ubiquitous in human history.

Absolutely. We invent gods to explain things we don't understand and wish to have control over. We can observe this phenomenon through cargo cults.

And sometimes, religion is benign and happy to be here, and just generally beneficial to society. And sometimes, it's not.

When it's not, mockery remains the best policy. We can see that it's the best policy because when religion has political control, it tries to make this sort of blasphemy illegal. Religion is scared of people laughing at it, because that strips religion of its power over others. It is difficult to convince someone that your God is disappointed in them and will punish them for their disbelief when that person is cracking up at the concept of a God that spends an inordinate amount of His time watching what people are doing with their penises today.

The trick, and Pavlos really isn't very good at this, is to make it humorous. Not many people are all that interested in theological debates, or at least they have a limited appetite for them. But a line that gets a good laugh is quick and entertaining, and it erodes some of the solemnity from the topic. Religion is supposed to be something that is quietly respected, which only works to benefit religion. We don't "quietly respect" any other thing in the same way, but religion often tries to demand this for itself. Ridicule highlights the lack of reasoning that goes into religious belief. And it works because it exposes that lack of reasoning in a way that slightly shocks the reader, while a theological debate dulls the senses and observers lapse into comas.

 

[Luce NDs]

Hi Pavlos,

Thanks for pushing me to a reexamination of my insights specific to human being in the natural order. Will leave things where they are for now. Peace be with you and all of yours.

George

“For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein, 1941

This could lead to observational religion ... as contrary to blind faith!

 

[Luce NDs]

Absolutely. We invent gods to explain things we don't understand and wish to have control over. We can observe this phenomenon through cargo cults.

And sometimes, religion is benign and happy to be here, and just generally beneficial to society. And sometimes, it's not.

When it's not, mockery remains the best policy. We can see that it's the best policy because when religion has political control, it tries to make this sort of blasphemy illegal. Religion is scared of people laughing at it, because that strips religion of its power over others. It is difficult to convince someone that your God is disappointed in them and will punish them for their disbelief when that person is cracking up at the concept of a God that spends an inordinate amount of His time watching what people are doing with their penises today.

The trick, and Pavlos really isn't very good at this, is to make it humorous. Not many people are all that interested in theological debates, or at least they have a limited appetite for them. But a line that gets a good laugh is quick and entertaining, and it erodes some of the solemnity from the topic. Religion is supposed to be something that is quietly respected, which only works to benefit religion. We don't "quietly respect" any other thing in the same way, but religion often tries to demand this for itself. Ridicule highlights the lack of reasoning that goes into religious belief. And it works because it exposes that lack of reasoning in a way that slightly shocks the reader, while a theological debate dulls the senses and observers lapse into comas.

Tell me that gods are not constructed idealisms that tend to be subjective ... the objects being virtually denied presence as something to flay out ... like soul ... so exposed as to be distasteful!