Thoughts on Organized Religion

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Tangerine

I was unaware that there are Anglican fundamentalists. Calvinists are a type of Anglican?

I didn't say they were fundamentalists. A lot depends on what you mean by 'fundamentalists'. Do you mean Biblical literalists?
plenty of them).

Yes, I mean Biblical literalists. Thanks for the information about Anglicans. Very interesting.

originally posted by: addygrace

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: addygrace

Already referenced and dealt with in my post.

You are taking that passage to mean what you want it to mean. The bulk of Christians read it differently.

Let me ask you a question: which of these groups would you consider genuinely Christian?

1. Roman Catholics

2. Members of the Eastern Orthodox Communion

3. Members of the Anglican Communion

4. Lutherans

5. Methodists

6. Armenian Christians

I eagerly await your reply.

I really don't know which one of those groups would be genuinely Christian. If they are not born again, I really don't see how they could be considered Christian. Maybe I should take a class on Christian religious studies.

My main problem with what tangerine was saying was, born again Christians lack critical thinking skills.

Ah, so now you admit that not all Christians are "born again". I stick by my claim that Christian fundamentalists are unable to think critically.

a reply to: Astyanax

Only one thing can provide all of the attributes you mentioned that religion contributes...and that is KNOWLEDGE. All of what we fear in life is because we do not have the correct information on it especially as it regards to DEATH.
if all humanity y comes to accept that death is as natural as birth and life is just for living then all the superstitious belief and anxiety that we experience will be a thing of the past.

Religion introduces EGO and soul, fairy-tale and beliefs and creates conflict with reality, nature and the universe.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Absolutely!!!

Look, Organized religion does have many very great accomplishments attached to them. Art work, modern legal systems, mathematics etc. The artwork alone is amazing.

Those accomplishments should be recognised and honored. Deleting the memory of said time, would be a loss for history and humanity. Respect should be forefront in such education.

To answer your question: take the truth, and treat the rest with skepticism.

Thanks for your participation Crazy. :-)

a reply to: 74joff

You should educate yourself about Tyre, Egypt, and other such failed prophesies from the "bible".

Not sure how much more decryption is required.

a reply to: Astyanax

Much better.

I give you kudos. Your last reply above this one was much more calm and respectable. I even found some of your ideas in the post relevant to the original topic.

If you wish to discuss and dialog reasonably and rationally, please address points in my op you found your issue with. If respect is shown, respect will be reciprocated.

I found this study enlightening on how to handle online discourse with strangers. As such, I find it beneficial to look for warning signs when discussing touchy subjects. Do not assume you have the benefit of the doubt. It is earned.

I look forward to a more respectable dialog.

Respectfully,

Self moderating. Double post. Please delete.

a reply to: Tangerine

Are you assuming that closeness or unification with the Abrahamic God is the goal of esoteric belief systems? Are you aware that the Abrahamic God is the god of only three monotheistic religions? I assume that the esoteric belief systems to which you refer are not of those three Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Am I correct?

That would be the western esoteric tradition! Seems you don't know as much you think you do.
A real know it all, with no basis!. Clue its the kind of esoterica that most western secret societies base their mission plan on.

a reply to: Tangerine

Masons are neo-pagans? LOL. How about explaining that charge in some detail starting with a definition of pagan.

Your a rabble rouser i don't need to explain anything to you have the net, you have books honestly not worth another post. I don't argue with those that want to defend FMs its wasted time. There's a good reason I don't post in the secret societies section on ATS.
I think you just want to oppose for the sake of it very stupid I am ignoring you from now on so don't bother responding with your petty know it all posts champ!

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: addygrace

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: addygrace

Already referenced and dealt with in my post.

You are taking that passage to mean what you want it to mean. The bulk of Christians read it differently.

Let me ask you a question: which of these groups would you consider genuinely Christian?

1. Roman Catholics

2. Members of the Eastern Orthodox Communion

3. Members of the Anglican Communion

4. Lutherans

5. Methodists

6. Armenian Christians

I eagerly await your reply.

I really don't know which one of those groups would be genuinely Christian. If they are not born again, I really don't see how they could be considered Christian. Maybe I should take a class on Christian religious studies.

My main problem with what tangerine was saying was, born again Christians lack critical thinking skills.

Ah, so now you admit that not all Christians are "born again". I stick by my claim that Christian fundamentalists are unable to think critically.

C'mon , this isn't hard. I said I don't see how someone who is not born again can then claim to be Christian. You are unable to think critically.

a reply to: addygrace

I really don't know which one of those groups (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc) would be genuinely Christian. If they are not born again, I really don't see how they could be considered Christian.

Right.

So you're the one with the minority view.

So you're the one denying hundreds of millions of followers of Christ, all around the world, the right to call themselves Christian.

That's fine by me, just so long as we're clear that your definition of a Christian is far from universally accepted. You were trying to pretend that the only Christians are your variety of Christian.

I've had to ask you this before, in the Origins & Creationism forum, but — if you're a follower of Christ, it is to be presumed that you value truth highly. Why, then, do you find it impossible to conduct an argument without distorting or misrepresenting the facts?

This never fails to puzzle me.

a reply to: Not Authorized

You should educate yourself about Tyre, Egypt, and other such failed prophesies from the "bible".

Not sure how much more decryption is required.

For a someone that claims to hate religion you do seem to like to use Allegories from gospels so are you hinting that you are ex man of the cloth yourself or at least an ex devout believer.
I don't care to read the bible much any more especially not the old testament it proves nothing since when i read the bible its explanations means something completely different to others.
Its entirely subjective, bible interpretation in theology even has a name Exegesis to describe the subjectivity very little can be agreed up on reading it!. Thus why so many churches and Christian cults are out there!

So you like riddles good luck no one here will understand them! Btw the way that doesnt prove IQ just that you like well.. riddles!

a reply to: 74joff

Dear 74,

Thanks for the strawman. I ignored it. Your post had nothing to do with my answer in regards to being cryptic.

I assume you have evidence that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre, and Egypt now speaks the Cannanite dialect? I have more like problems, but, those are glaring errors.

Please provide evidences for both.

Failed prophesies that are specific, by name, are not subjective. Telling the end from the beginning is how YHWH claimed he proves himself. Isaiah 46:10.

Would you like the verses in question to verify?

The rest is apologetics at work. Depending on the knowledge of the person, such apologetics might even be fraud.

Respectfully,

originally posted by: 74joff
a reply to: Tangerine

Are you assuming that closeness or unification with the Abrahamic God is the goal of esoteric belief systems? Are you aware that the Abrahamic God is the god of only three monotheistic religions? I assume that the esoteric belief systems to which you refer are not of those three Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Am I correct?

That would be the western esoteric tradition! Seems you don't know as much you think you do.
A real know it all, with no basis!. Clue its the kind of esoterica that most western secret societies base their mission plan on.

WHICH Western esoteric system? Apparently, you think there's only one.

originally posted by: 74joff
a reply to: Tangerine

Masons are neo-pagans? LOL. How about explaining that charge in some detail starting with a definition of pagan.

Your a rabble rouser i don't need to explain anything to you have the net, you have books honestly not worth another post. I don't argue with those that want to defend FMs its wasted time. There's a good reason I don't post in the secret societies section on ATS.
I think you just want to oppose for the sake of it very stupid I am ignoring you from now on so don't bother responding with your petty know it all posts champ!

As I suspected, you can't answer. Thank you for at least confirming it.

a reply to: Not Authorized

Actually i have no idea what the hell your talking about? Your posts are getting more erratic every time you respond!
Like i said i dont care for reading the OT. Oh and thought you were so anti religion yet, you are any thing BUT.
I think you & you,re thread is phoney and tangerine is one of your sock puppets!.I thus will not be wasting any further time on it.

bye

My thoughts on organized religion is that it is disorganized as much as mankind's other institutions.
No surprise there.

a reply to: Not Authorized

Much better.

Oh, thank you, kind sir — or madam.

When I need further instruction on debating etiquette, I shall know to whom I should apply.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: addygrace

I really don't know which one of those groups (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc) would be genuinely Christian. If they are not born again, I really don't see how they could be considered Christian.

Right.

So you're the one with the minority view.

So you're the one denying hundreds of millions of followers of Christ, all around the world, the right to call themselves Christian.

That's fine by me, just so long as we're clear that your definition of a Christian is far from universally accepted. You were trying to pretend that the only Christians are your variety of Christian.

I've had to ask you this before, in the Origins & Creationism forum, but — if you're a follower of Christ, it is to be presumed that you value truth highly. Why, then, do you find it impossible to conduct an argument without distorting or misrepresenting the facts?

This never fails to puzzle me.

Well first I want to say I've always enjoyed debating you on these forums.

Now to your questions and statements; Even if I am the minority view, which I'm not totally sure I am, that doesn't change the fact that tangerine makes a blanket statement about born again Christians.

I really don't see how I'm distorting facts. I believe you should be born again. That doesn't mean I want to shut every other religion down. I want the exact opposite. I like the system we have now. I believe what I believe, and I believe debating these topics should be allowed.

a reply to: addygrace

Cool. I don't enjoy barking at people, though it may seem otherwise on ATS.

I think — and this is totally off topic — that you might profit from a slightly more forgiving view of those whose beliefs are not the same as yours. I'm not sure how compatible that is with your Calvinism — assuming, and I don't believe I am wrong, that you are one of those who believes in the doctrine of election.

For the record: I think it is possible to be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Christ, or even in the existence of a divinity at all. You don't have to believe in the divinity of Plato to be a Platonist, or in the divinity of matter to be a materialist. All you need to be a Christian is belief in a set of principles, and acceptance of the very radical idea that your love need not be confined to those genetically or culturally related to you.

The people we've been talking about — Roman Catholics, Orthodox and the rest — have far more than that. They believe, as you do, in the divinity of Christ. They believe that it is through him that Man obtains salvation from God. To reject their description of themselves as Christians suggests a certain exclusivism, an I'm-better-than-you-are attitude towards those who don't sing the Hallelujah Chorus to the same arrangement as oneself. That does not strike me as Christian; then again, neither does the doctrine of election.