Are you religious?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Rev

Active Member
Location
Bradford
I am working late this week....unfortunately I finish late as well:hello:
 

swee'pea99

Squire
I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen

Christianity-lite. It's the way to go, folks.
 

Davidc

Guru
Location
Somerset UK
[QUOTE 2372698, member: 45"]...when we were talking about the ability of an 8-year-old to have it all sorted. The books offering an opinion are irrelevant except to illustrate by the fact that you'd not have understood them at 8.[/quote]
And you're very stupidly clutching at straws to try to justify an unjustifiable position, while I have already demonstrated the consistency of what I wrote.

I can't improve on MacB's accurate reading of my posts and analysis of your drivel.
 

Flying_Monkey

Recyclist
Location
Odawa
I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen

Christianity-lite. It's the way to go, folks.

You know at the beginning of this thread, someone was saying how much better a discussion on religion would be in the Café than in CA&D. But it's not better, it's just different. The good thing is that it was a while before people began to be rude to each other. But the bad thing is that some people just seem unwilling to challenge themselves. If you aren't even prepared to consider the fact the position from which you see something might not be the only one, then it doesn't matter how civil you are, how nice, it doesn't create an atmosphere where ideas can be respectfully discussed. And in many ways I think that politely expressed complete unwillingness to explore ideas is actually much worse than robustly expressed disagreement.

I don't know if you know this, but in the history of Christianity, there have been multiple versions of what it is and what one should believe to be a Christian. People have advocated purely experiential and revealed versions that reject the written word (the Gospels) entirely and called themselves Christians. People have rejected a belief in a divinity and called themselves Christians. People have asserted a belief in the literal truth of all or some parts of the New Testament or the Old Testament and called themselves Christians. People have created entirely new interpretations of particular passages in the Bible and called themselves Christians. And so on.

The Nicene Creed, a variation of which you quote above, was a political document, an agreement by committee created in 325AD (you will note that this about 300 years after Jesus is supposed to have lived). It was a statement of what an orthodox, institutional, hierarchical church and those who adhered to it should believe. It did not represent all Christians then and it does not now, despite claims to the small 'c' catholicism of such beliefs. However, the assertion of this orthodoxy and the intolerant and ignorant rejection of all those countless other versions of what it means to say that one is a Christian has nevertheless continued. At its worst, people have been systematically exterminated for asserting another version, but more often than not this intolerance and ignorance expresses itself simply in the kind of statements we have seen here, simply rejecting the claim of those who define their Christianity differently, and ironically enough, these days such a rejection is just as likely to come from members of sects whose origins lie in the rejection of a previously held orthodoxy.

And so it would seem to continue, ad infinitum. It certainly makes me rather disappointed in humanity's lack of progress. As Mark reports Jesus as having said: 'If anyone has ears to hear, let him listen..."
 

swee'pea99

Squire
Yeah, that's all true. Nevertheless, I think any but the most marginal of 'Christians' (however defined) would have very little truck with anyone claiming to be a Christian who didn't believe in the existence of a god. Let alone any neutrals.

This is not about scripture (about which I care hardly at all) it's about language (about which I care quite a lot). For my money - and, I'd suggest, for that of the vast majority of people - including the vast majority of Christians - the word 'Christian' may allow any number of different flavours, but one thing it demands is a belief in Jesus not just as a nice guy but as The Son Of God. Literally. If you want to reject that and still call yourself a Christian, be my guest. But it flies in the face not of scripture but of what the word means.

I can call myself Bugs Bunny. But it won't make me a cute buck-toothed cartoon rodent. And that's what Bugs Bunny means.
 
Your definition of 'Christian' or of 'religious' is so nonsensically lax as to be completely useless
 
User, as I've pointed out upthread, most believers claim to have it all sorted well before 8. It tends to be the atheists who have had to work through the inconsistencies and the nonsense they are being taught by well-trusted adults, and get to what actually makes sense.
 
religion [rɪˈlɪdʒən]
n
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief the Christian religion
3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4. (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) Chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns to enter religion
5. something of overwhelming importance to a person football is his religion
6. Archaic
a. the practice of sacred ritual observances
b. sacred rites and ceremonies
[via Old French from Latin religiō fear of the supernatural, piety, probably from religāre to tie up, from re- + ligāre to bind]
Collins English Dictionary
(Bolding mine)
re•li•gion (rɪˈlɪdʒ ən)

n.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something a person believes in and follows devotedly.
7. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion.
Webster
(Bolding mine again)
 
papal bull...
papal-bull0001.jpg
 
U

User169

Guest
You've boldened what amount to the rather fundamental modern notions of religiousity - certainly this is the ground with which Dawkins, Dennett et al. seek to take issue. I'd suggest that 6a and 7 give a better idea of the sense in which the term has been used for far greater periods of history.

Edit: directed at Clarion's post.
 
You've boldened what amount to the rather fundamental modern notions of religiousity - certainly this is the ground with which Dawkins, Dennett et al. seek to take issue. I'd suggest that 6a and 7 give a better idea of the sense in which the term has been used for far greater periods of history.

Edit: directed at Clarion's post.

Seriously? You're going with an archaic form which is subsidiary to the main definition anyway?
 
Top Bottom