Theological Opinions , PART II

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, I understand now.

I think the people would do well to be careful whom they vote for, and the candidate would do well to let his beliefs be known. I think you and I are well agreed on this point, Last Child, and I don't know what it has to do with the religious discussion. I'm in favor of openness on both sides.

For example, if I went and got the democratic candidacy for president and became president, and then sprung on everyone that I was actually Republican, that would be very wrong and deceptive of me.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

ok, i will try:
the people elect their representative to vote on issues in the way they would like it to be voted, the representative is not elected to vote however they feel
scenario:
candidate gets majority vote, the majority of the people in his constituency believe that hunting should be banned, the MP then votes not to ban hunting because he believes it is OK, that representative is not representing his electorate, which is the job he was chosen to do

There are a number of issues in the UK parliament that have been decided upon by personal conscience rather than party political lines. It's called a "free vote". Fox hunting was the most recent example I can think of. Other high profile free votes included capital punishment.

It's interesting that while in the UK there is no separation between Church and State, people are rather sceptical of politicians who harp on about their religious beliefs. Whereas in the US, which is a secular State, politicians wear their religion as a badge of honour and bother God on a regular basis in order to get elected.

Back in the 80s, there was a lot of debate around whether the Church should stay out of politics, particularly when church leaders go a bit shirty about Thatcher systematically destroying entire communities.

I think the CofE is reluctant to get involved in party political debates, mindful of its role as the State religion. Other churches, such as the Church of Scotland, have been more outspoken, particularly on issues such as poverty and equality.

That debate has gone a bit quiet in recent years, though it has recently reappeared in the form of Michael Howard (Tory leader) attempting to drum up votes by appearing to be the Christian choice (anti-abortion etc).

Just heard on the news this am that the proposed law against "incitement to religious hatred" is likely to be dropped because of the general election. Phew!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Millane

because he's "above" organised religion i would assume, and i would generalise that people who dont take part in organised religion are intellectually ahead of those who do ...

That's what I thought he meant, but I wanted to see if this was just a slip on his part, or if he would stand by it, or if he would deny he meant that, or what.

I've found that that often seems to be the attitude of those who say they favor "diversity" and "tolerance"! Go figure!

I must say I disagree with your assessment, tho, at least as far as Christians are concerned. In my experience, I've found that non-Christians are just as capable of being brainless gits as Christians! I imagine that one reason you might think otherwise is that the intelligent Christians aren't so loud.

And on a related side issue - it continues to amaze me how some people have accused me of being intolerant, yet going from what I write in my posts here over and over, I appear to be one of the most tolerant people here! (at least IMHO ) I say give everyone a vote, whether or not they agree with me, and regardless of what they base their beliefs and morals on. I encourage people to do what they think is right, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. And I don't make the (IMO) insulting and erroneous assumption that if anyone disagrees with me, they must be stupid or beneath me. If I disagree with someone on a logical basis (IOW, I think a deduction they have made is unfounded), I point it out, but I don't think they're necessarily stupid. I can see how different people have sincerely come to hold different beliefs, and that their moral choices are based on these beliefs, just like mine are. I think everyone should think for themselves, and do what they think is right. [/side issue rant]

... (this is a generalisation not applied to you or Inked who both seem very intelligent).

Why thankee! Same back to ya!
I always enjoy your posts and find them very thoughtful, as well as lots of fun! (I love good humor! I despise humor that masquerades as humor but whose intent is to tear people down.)

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I've found that that often seems to be the attitude of those who say they favor "diversity" and "tolerance"! Go figure!

Hey... *suspicious glare*

Good thing you were... um... joking?

[Rían]

Well, it was kind of a joke, because of the winky smilie, but it was based on something serious and on my own personal observations.

In my experience, especially during the last 2 presidential elections, I've heard plenty of junk from people on BOTH sides (liberal/conservative, religious/non-religious, etc.) But IMO the vast majority of comments that said that the other side was basically just plain stupid for holding their opinions came from the liberals and the non-religious people, and those are the groups that tend to like to characterize themselves as promoting tolerance and diversity.

Now to try to head off potential problems, please note that I did NOT say that ALL liberals and/or non-religious people say that the other side is stupid. I don't even feel the MAJORITY of them say that, or that the other side DOESN'T say that. But I definitely do notice this: of all the comments saying the other side is basically stupid (and these comments come from only a FEW people on either side), IMO the majority of them come from liberals and non-religious people.

IRex, could you please explain what you meant when you used that word "down"? Was Millane right?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, it was kind of a joke, because of the winky smilie, but it was based on something serious and on my own personal observations.

Oooookaaaay... *subtle suspicious glaring*

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

In my experience, especially during the last 2 presidential elections, I've heard plenty of junk from people on BOTH sides (liberal/conservative, religious/non-religious, etc.) But IMO the vast majority of comments that said that the other side was basically just plain stupid for holding their opinions came from the liberals and the non-religious people, and those are the groups that tend to like to characterize themselves as promoting tolerance and diversity.

Of course there were a lot of stupid things said - it was leading up to an election!
I don't think it's fair to characterize liberals this way just because of some loud morons. The few and the loud don't speak for the whole group.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Now to try to head off potential problems, please note that I did NOT say that ALL liberals and/or non-religious people say that the other side is stupid. I don't even feel the MAJORITY of them say that, or that the other side DOESN'T say that. But I definitely do notice this: of all the comments saying the other side is basically stupid (and these comments come from only a FEW people on either side), IMO the majority of them come from liberals and non-religious people.

I know you're not saying everyone. I think we can say that there are people making silly comments in every group of people, and move along. Though it's often relevant, it isn't really necessary to discuss what groups of people think. We're all individuals here, in the end it only matters what the people in the discussion are saying.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Was Millane right?

when am i ever right?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IRex, could you please explain what you meant when you used that word "down"?

Because I dont think agnosticism is a religion?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Because I dont think agnosticism is a religion?

It isn't a religion, but I suppose we could start calling Christianity a cult though if Rian wishes to think of agnosticism in the same terms as a religion.

[Nurvingiel]

A cult, IIRC, is a very small scale religion. (Or something along those lines.) I don't think Christianity would fall into that category.

Sometimes cults are small scale for good reason, hence the stigmatism of the word.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

A cult, IIRC, is a very small scale religion. (Or something along those lines.) I don't think Christianity would fall into that category.

Sometimes cults are small scale for good reason, hence the stigmatism of the word.

Cult -

1.
a) A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b) The followers of such a religion or sect.

2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a). Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b) The object of such devotion

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

as Imperator Nero Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus Caesar put it
...this foreign cult, whilst yet small in number, poses a potential threat to the stability of the Imperial Cult of the holy Empire... the first use of cult represents christianity, the second denotes the Official State Relgion of Rome

[Nurvingiel]

If Imperator Nero Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus Caesar had a hand in feeding Christians to the lions, I don't think I'll use his definition of Christianity.
EDIT: Also, the Roman Empire had at least one other cult, older than Christianit - the cult of Mithras. (Not that I think Christianity is/was a cult, but if that's how they defined it...)

Originally I was going to write that I think there are enough members in the world's religions to say that they are not false, but really, who are we to say that any belief system is false? This implies a source of knowledge about the true state of the universe, or something that ordinary humans are not aware of. I'm not going to run off and join a cult now though, but that's why I put a definition of a cult as just a small scale religion - at least we can see if something is widely practiced or not. Sure, it's arbitrary, but saying someone's beliefs are false is both arbitrary and subjective.

The only things we can say for sure are human rights - something that people more or less agree on (whether they protect them or flout them).

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

point i was trying to make (not very well as usual) was that 'Cult' was the term for what we would call 'religion', and it was for thousands of years

there were thousands of cults, most prominent being Cybele & Atys, Mithras, Isis, Nodens, and later on - Christianity, but 'cult' is the oldest definition for the modern (& incorrect) term 'religion'

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The only things we can say for sure are human rights - something that people more or less agree on (whether they protect them or flout them).

Human rights differ from country to country. China is weak on religious freedom. Russia is becoming less and less democratic. Slavery is still accepted in large parts of the globe. Women have few rights in Muslim countries, still. Throughout time the meaning of human rights has changed multiple times.

Who can say whether these people are flouting or protecting human rights? Many would say that I am rejecting a human right by objecting to homosexual marriage. I would say differently.

[Nurvingiel]

Good point Lief. Okay, we don't know anything for sure then.

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

point i was trying to make (not very well as usual) was that 'Cult' was the term for what we would call 'religion', and it was for thousands of years

there were thousands of cults, most prominent being Cybele & Atys, Mithras, Isis, Nodens, and later on - Christianity, but 'cult' is the oldest definition for the modern (& incorrect) term 'religion'

Why is the term "religion" incorrect? It is at least as correct as "cult" or "country" or "trousers" or any other words that we make up to describe things in our society.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

what i tried to say was that the term religion, which has only existed as a term for a few hundred years, is far too young a term to describe something which has been a fundament within many societies for hundreds of thousands of years, cult shopuld be the correct term to describe the organised process, whilst belief is the correct term for the act of practising, or adhering to said cults

i really need to take up communication lessons, i am not good at explaining things

[Nurvingiel]

But the word 'cult' has taken up a meaning over the centuries, different to the meaning of the word to followers of Mithras. The word religion (is it really that new in all languages?) can fill the void.

[Count Comfect]

On the single point of the use of the words "cult" and "religion," the Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edition) traces "religion" back to c. 1200, and "cult" to 1617. They are both used with the same basic meaning (essentially, a set of observances of some divine power). Religion derives from old French, c. 1000, while cult derives from Latin, although it was not apparently used in English until the aforementioned 1617 reference.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Because I dont think agnosticism is a religion?

So do you mean that agnostics are "above" religious people? If so, in what way? Could you please explain in more detail? I'd really like to hear your opinion on this. Seriously!