Topic awaiting preservation: Churchless? Need a Church? (Page 1 of 3)

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/

Something a bit alterative.

Dan @ Code Town

Amen!

Attempting to trick people into thinking is not such a bad thing.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Great Gallumping Galapagos!

If this is a 'serious' movement, I find it every bit as worrisome as any of the others.

The very second one organizes to accept reality, in my view, one begins changing one's perception of it.

Therefore, it is no longer reality.

Tricking people into thinking?

Tricking people into thinking like them...no diffferent than than any other religion.

You will note, they are happy to have received their tax-free status. This may well tell one more about the movement than anything else.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

The "tricking them into thinking" line comes from their Our Hidden Agenda page.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Attempting to trick people into thinking is not such a bad thing.

---

That's the whole purpose of religion in the first place...

As for the site - from looking through, I wouldn't call it a "serious" movement. Just someone trying to make a point who has sunk to the "if ya can't beat 'em join 'em" level.

What an awful waste of time and effort...

quote:

---

What an awful waste of time and effort...

---

Amen!

One can't bottle up wisdom and "sell" it (or "purchase" it, for that matter). One has to earn (live) it.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

That's the whole purpose of religion in the first place...

---

I was thinking more along the lines of religions who specifically discourage the flock from thinking.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I was thinking more along the lines of religions who specifically discourage the flock from thinking.

---

And....are you suggesting there are exceptions to that scenario? =)

ever so slightly off topic...

i never realised how easy it is (at least in NZ) to start your own Christian denomination. an acquaintance of mine recently opened his own church. as far as i can tell it's based on the Bible. his version of confession is pretty original - his parishoners (or whatever you call them) tearfully confess their deepest darkest deeds in front of the entire congregation every Sunday. i know because some of my idiot cousins have joined that church. so far confession time has uncovered, amongst other lurid scandals, 5 or 6 adulterous affairs from within the congregation itself. i can just imagine it... 'good morning brothers and sisters in God, today i want to confess that i saw Brother James in the broom closet with his cousin's wife, Sister Stevens... may God forgive me for dawdling in the chapel after prayer service instead of going straight home like i should have. i would have never heard the banging buckets...'

--------------------------------------------
// i've got soul but i'm not a soldier //

(Edited by LaSun on 10-21-2005 03:07)

I disagree. Religion has more "function" than "tricking".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

ok.
such as?

Yeah...such as?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The noblest pleasure of being a Mod, is having members who are capable of making themselves understood."

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-21-2005 04:07)

Hey, is there an echo in here?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

are you suggesting there are exceptions to that scenario? =)

---

But of course!

There are Xians who are open to discussing the tough questions. I do my best as a leader in our congregation to encourage that kind of thinking about our faith and why we believe the things we do. There are other churches that do the same.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-21-2005 04:27)

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-21-2005 04:28)

*taps on mike*

Is this thing on?

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

There are Xians who are open to discussing the tough questions. I do my best as a leader in our congregation to encourage that kind of thinking about our faith and why we believe the things we do. There are other churches that do the same.

---

Sure.

However, you said "religions", not "people who are religious".

Big difference there

Well some individuals are not capable of thinking on their own regarding faith issues. Or they do not know where to start. They need help, tools, etc. (Scriptures, persons, etc). They need knowlegeable people to explain things to them, to guide them like Christ did when he preached the good news as he walked to planet for Christians. This is called "EVANGELIZATION" Thats why we have a bible, preachers, etc and because people are needy regarding the spirit. They gravitate to other spiritual persons. Then these persons are able to ponder life issues with the right info. Who is tricking who? Who is the grand master counterfit conspirator regarding love? It has to be pin pointed to a person, not many persons. And what are his reasons for leading people to think there is a God of love.

(Edited by jade on 10-25-2005 18:44)

jade:

quote:

---

Well some individuals are not capable of thinking on their own regarding faith issues.

---

I have this very impression when I hear/read believers. They all use the same bigoted language/phrases.

quote:

---

jade said:

Well some individuals are not capable of thinking on their own

---

That is obvious. You are a prime example.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything...

quote:

---

That is obvious. You are a prime example.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything...

---

Well me and the other billions and billions who embrace religions of many faiths, if thats how you want to think about it.

You are no different in your jumping on the scientific proof only bandwagon. The difference between you and me is like if we were both eye doctors. when you would look into someones eyes you see the operatiave eye in what makes it function or whats wrong with it. When I would look into eyes I see the emotional message and beauty that the eyes penetrate. We look at life differently.

quote:

---

jade said:

You are no different in your jumping on the scientific proof only bandwagon. The difference between you and me is like if we were both eye doctors. when you would look into someones eyes you see the operatiave eye in what makes it function or whats wrong with it. When I would look into eyes I see the emotional message and beauty that the eyes penetrate. We look at life differently.

---

I know it is convenient for you to sum me up in that way.
You make a great number of very false assumptions about me in doing so.

That's your perogative. But once again - just comes down to you igoring reality. I have shown myself many times to not be the person you would like to make me, despite you wanting so badly for me to fit your premade label.

As to your allegory about eye doctors -
Uh....is there an actual point there?
Yes, if I were an eye doctor, i would be much more interested in the physical workings of my patient's eyes than the emotional messages within them, since that would be my job!.

If you were an eye doctor, you would go out of business and have your license revoked =)

Oh, and:

quote:

---

Well me and the other billions and billions who embrace religions of many faiths, if thats how you want to think about it.

---

No, that's not how I want to think about it.
I am talking about *you* specifically here.



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-25-2005 21:33)

quote:

---

No, that's not how I want to think about it.
I am talking about *you* specifically here.

---

\

Why me? Why only single me out? There are dozens and more of mes out there. I am only posting what many others think and do in the name of the Lord and Savior, Christ.

quote:

---

'......if we were both eye doctors. When I would look into eyes I see the emotional message and beauty that the eyes penetrate

---

And just how much would you charge for such a service?

quote:

---

You are no different in your jumping on the scientific proof only bandwagon. The difference between you and me is like if we were both eye doctors. when you would look into someones eyes you see the operatiave eye in what makes it function or whats wrong with it. When I would look into eyes I see the emotional message and beauty that the eyes penetrate. We look at life differently.

---

Facing reality and science is not incompatible with being sensitive to beauty and poetry. On the other hand it seems difficult, for many, to embrace faith and reality.

quote:

---

jade said:

Why me? Why only single me out?

---

Um.....because I am having a conversation with.....you. I cannot speak for the millions of other catholics, and how well they can think for themselves. I have personal experience with your ability to do so, and so I feel free to comment on it.

Umm...the eyes are incapable of expression.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Umm...the eyes are incapable of expression.

---

That is not true. Pupils can dilate - which can express meaning.

I find this incredibly naive, and dangerous

quote:

---

Then these persons are able to ponder life issues with the right info. Who is tricking who?

---

Yes, exactly who (or what institiution) is tricking who here?
The "right" info?
A belief, contains the "right" info? No evidence, no facts, nothing other than belief?

Some of the biggest atrocites in human history have been built on such. Jade, are you truly aware of what you are saying here? It is one thing, to believe such for yourself. But you are suggesting that your way is the right way (and the only way, if I am understanding you correctly) - and therefore applies to everyone! Is this truly what you are suggesting? That your way is the one and only true way, and all must follow it or be "lost"?

To what lengths would you be willing to go, to "enforce" your will, assuming that power and authority are not a problem?

President Jade. My god... that would have even those anal dwelling penguins running for cover. =)

oooh a debate about god. i think...

so this thing with the Church of Reality:

quote:

---

Our motto is, "If it's real, we believe in it." Since no one knows all of reality, the Church of Reality is about the pursuit of reality the way it really is.

---

'no one knows all of reality' = 'no one knows all the mysteries of God'

yup. it looks like all they've done is re-labelled traditional religion trying to pass it off as a revolution.

by the way...

quote:

---

A belief, contains the "right" info? No evidence, no facts, nothing other than belief?

---

just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that belief in the religious sense is based on nothing?

oh, and i've noticed that a lot of people point out the 'atrocities of human history' as irrefutable evidence that faith in God is unfounded or dangerous. that sounds about as obstinate as the belief that all Muslims are terrorists.

hhmmm...

--------------------------------------------
// i've got soul but i'm not a soldier //

quote:

---

just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that belief in the religious sense is based on nothing?

---

Yes. "Believers" must have 'faith' and to date faith is based on 'nothing' other than a belief.

Hmm, pupils dialate or contract, in reaction to the amount of light.

Facial muscles, eyebrows, eye-lids may react in a manner we have come to interpret as a variety of expression. Eye-balls are incapable of expression, though some may claim different. It is the flesh around the eyes which reacts and which we interpret.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

in reaction to the amount of light.

---

And certain drugs, legal and not.

quote:

---

Hmm, pupils dialate or contract, in reaction to the amount of light.

---

And emotional state.

Studies in subconcious signals, that we send out and interpret in the first couple of seconds in any contact have proven this.

As for

quote:

---

are you suggesting that belief in the religious sense is based on nothing?

---

Yup. A belief is based on either faith or assumption - there is no proof, no evidence, no scientific facts to back it up.

quote:

---

i've noticed that a lot of people point out the 'atrocities of human history' as irrefutable evidence that faith in God is unfounded or dangerous. that sounds about as obstinate as the belief that all Muslims are terrorists.

---

Errr...no. The first is based on historical reference. The second on hysteria. They are totally unrelated.

some Muslims are terrorists. some religious people are murderous fanatics who instigate atrocities - both historical facts. neither of these facts, though, invalidate the benefits that faith in a God (and adherence to a lifestyle based on this faith) can offer to believers.

i am by no means a zealot. i don't even go to church. i'm just interested in the logic behind the arguments for and against God/religion.

for example... how have you explained away the historical implications of the Bible?

--------------------------------------------
// i've got soul but i'm not a soldier //

quote:

---

LaSun said:

how have you explained away the historical implications of the Bible?

---

You'll have to be a hell of a lot more specific than that...
What "historical implications" ?


(and you may find this FAQ entry worth looking through: http://www.ozoneasylum.com/24877 )

(Edited by DL-44 on 10-26-2005 15:30)

Ok WS, I'll grant you that, but the interpretation of that dialtion/contraction I argue, is dependant entirely on the facial muscles reaction.

If one were to be able to take the eyeball away from the face and watch the pupil go through it's act, one would be unable to determine if it due to light, drugs or emotion.

LaSun, if there is a benefit to self-delusion, then religion is just the opiate.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

some Muslims are terrorists. some religious people are murderous fanatics who instigate atrocities - both historical facts.

---

This has nothing to do with

quote:

---

i've noticed that a lot of people point out the 'atrocities of human history' as irrefutable evidence that faith in God is unfounded or dangerous. that sounds about as obstinate as the belief that all Muslims are terrorists.

---

Some terrorists are xians, some are Buddhists, some are [insert appropriate religion here] and some are not religious at all. Some religious fanatics are willing to do anything to force their beliefs on others. These are examples of individuals, not Religious institutions.

And that all is a far cry from religious institutions that have committed atrocities on a scale that is truly hideous. An institution needs most (i.e. the majority) of its members to support the activities (or at least not to hinder them) and go along with it all.

These Religious institutions are still alive and being allowed to thrive to this day. They have never been brought to trial, and sentenced for their crimes against humanity.

quote:

---

I disagree. Religion has more "function" than "tricking".

---

quote:

---

Ok. Such as?

---

Such as, that while I do see the bible & religion, is filled with "bunk", I do not see that this "bunk", was purposeful created to deceive.

(Edited by Zynx on 10-27-2005 04:04)

Of course it was. It was intended to delude and thus control people's thoughts and actions..all with the very highest of intentions of course...for their 'own good' y'know.

The HPP's of the day just "knew better" than the unwashed.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Zynx said:

quote:I disagree. Religion has more "function" than "tricking".
quote:Ok. Such as?

Such as, that while I do see the bible & religion, is filled with
"bunk", I do not see that this "bunk", was purposeful created to
deceive.

(Edited by Zynx on 10-27-2005 04:04)

---

That neither answers the question nor embellishes your original statement...