Your definition, Skin, is the definition of the social engineers, but it ain't gonna work.
Intractable
- Thread starter fishtail
- Start date
What's next, the cult of gravity? The cult of Einstein's TOR?
I've always taken the word cult to mean a religion that hasn't gained sufficient converts to be considered legitimate (Mormons in the nineteenth century as one example). Just about any form of nonsense is considered legitimate when enough people profess to believe in it. But as Bertrand Russell said, "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
I've always taken the word cult to mean a religion that hasn't gained sufficient converts to be considered legitimate (Mormons in the nineteenth century as one example). Just about any form of nonsense is considered legitimate when enough people profess to believe in it. But as Bertrand Russell said, "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
My definition is the definition of academia. It works perfectly to those that actually have educations and employ them. You can go on thinking however you choose, but you asked how *I* defined the term "cult." I defined it for you and, together, we demonstrated how religion is intractable, to use the OP's term for the notion that religious adherents are so fixated that they refuse to be objective.
Thank you for your support in that demonstration.
Thank you for your support in that demonstration.
If a religion accepts any new input from any source other than God then that religion is false and a waste of time.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
How do you know when that religion is accepting input from a god? Moreover, how do you know the input is from the right god?
Yes but that is the catholic religion not the Christian religion.
I think it is good that it was scrapped not because it was wrong ( yes it was wrong) but because it shows the catholic religion is false.
The doctrine was given by the catholic church and the catholic church states that it's doctrines are infallible. So by now stating that limbo does not exist it has said that the catholic authorities that originally created the doctrine of limbo where false and limbo was a lie.
They have shot themselves in the foot. They have claimed that the infallibility of the catholic church has been passed down from Peter through all the popes until today. If they call one of their popes wrong then they destroy their claim to infallibility for all their popes.
I am ecstatic when i hear the catholic church chop and change doctrine. It makes their claim to be the true religion of God an even clearer lie.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Yes but that is the catholic religion not the Christian religion.
*************
M*W: Then why does the RCC teach that it is christian?
*************
M*W: All christianity is false, not just the RCC.
*************
M*W: No, the popes are allegedly infallible, and doctrine can be changed by the pope as he sees fit.
*************
M*W: Doctrine can be changed, like I said above. Maybe limbo has become outdated. Maybe it served a purpose in the Dark Ages but not today. All of christianity is a lie, so why pick on minutia?
They have shot themselves in the foot. They have claimed that the infallibility of the catholic church has been passed down from Peter through all the popes until today. If they call one of their popes wrong then they destroy their claim to infallibility for all their popes.
*************
M*W: Why don't you stick with your protestant doctrine. You certainly cannot speak for the RCC!
*************
M*W: What's wrong with becoming modern? The RCC has a very long way to go to reach that goal, but since you know nothing about catholicism, and very little about protestantism, you are showing your ignorance.
I guess you haven't heard about modern-day protestant scholars who are saying that the trinity cannot be proven, the virgin birth is a lie, and the resurrection of jesus never happened. Visit your local library or bookstore. You might learn something.
Because satan knows that the best way to lead people away from God is to look like God. satan is one smart dude he is a great deciever.
2 Corinthians 11
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
Hummm i guess that depends on what comes to your mind when one says the word Christianity. What many atheists call Christianity i might call it churchianity. I prefer the term " Body of Christ" its an organization of the Spirit not bricks and mortar and hierarchies and politics and power plays. It exists but it hidden in the hearts of a few not in the massive cathedrals of those who play the harlot with the beast.
Ohh really....
Please something as central as this one? common? what next pergatory??? Hell?? Heaven? What then of the recent apologies from the catholic church because of past persecution of the church?
Now the pope could change a policy, like. We will no longer burn protestants or witches at the stake. Ok fair enough the pope changes the policy, yep he is infallible. So the old policy was right and the will of God at the time the policy was in play. But now God has changed His mind and from this day on He does not want us to burn people at the stake.....
Can you see the problem? You see the current pope APOLOGISED for the former pope's sanctioned acts in times past. There is absolutely no need for an apology, if the pope of the past was doing the will of God at the time they where burning people at the stake. an apology is only needed when a past act was against the will of God.
Because it is important when an authority is claiming to be "infallible" when its very justification for being the authorities voice of God is its infallibility.
Infallibility never needs apology.
Who said i was a member of a protestant church? lol You continue to get me wrong Medicine woman.
What??
Of course i have heard about them MW get real woman. I just come from a forum where i am having discussions with such people. Like i only spend 5% of my time here in sciforums when i am on the net. Most of the time i am debating Protestants about things like justifiable war ( yeah a catholic doctrine the daughters of the harlot accept) and like you say the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. You have been on this forum for years MW and you should know that i know about these things, you really only hurt your own credibility when you throw such stuff at me. makes you look like a silly kid. Instead of a serious anti-christ.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
so with the call for evidence comes the call for applying the necessary prerequisites - like for instance the position of directly perceiving god (the greatest thing attainable in this world) asks for the giving up of sin, namely lust, wrath, envy, etc (the greatest price in this world) .... hence there are numerous cases of people looking for something a little bit cheaper than god in the name of religion, and why there are such scriptural indications as
BG 7.3: Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Religions CAN NOT be intractable. Religious people can be. But a fair and open look at the range of people who are religious we find the full scale of humanity from completely rigid to very flexible.
Or to put it another way:
Bush was voted in by more non-religious than religious people.
Seems like most people are stuck in ideas and not mobile in reality.
*************
M*W: First, you're gonna have to prove that a literal satan exists anywhere else beside the pages of the man-made bible.
*************
M*W: I am in no way defending the RCC or its actions, reactions, apologies or infallibilities. There was a time I was her great defender, but not anymore.
Ohh really....
*************
M*W: There have been many changes in doctrine since the beginning of the RCC. There was a time before the 1300s (I really don't remember) when priests could also be married, in fact, it was a requirement. That changed (but not for the better). In the latter days of the Second Vatican Council (1960s), the whole issue of contraception was brought up, and it still stands today. Then there was the belief stated that the virgin Mary ascended to heaven body and soul. Didn't happen, but the pope 'enacted' that belief. So, who's to say she did or she didn't (or even if she existed at all?). I think it's archaic and not a positive thing in today's world. So, there have been some things that have changed over the ages. The apologies given by JPII were probably the first in papal history. I think they were timely and pertinent. When is it ever wrong to apologize? Never. Asking forgiveness is the greatest gift of all. It has a cleansing affect on the one who apologizes and on the one who accepts the apology. Asking for forgiveness not only for oneself but for the forgiveness others should have between themselves, I believe is important. Before a healing can begin, an apology and forgiveness must take place, even if it is only in one's mind. I spend a lot of my meditation time asking for forgiveness from others. They don't even know I'm doing this, but it sure gives me a better outlook on my relationships. Now, mind you, I don't ask any god for forgiveness, I ask the other person I'm thinking about to forgive me for things I might have done or not done. I don't want to breed any bad vibes with anyone. How could that be wrong? I've never said that I believed the pope to be infallible. That's what the RCC says. As you should know by now, I am no longer a RC nor a christian. When I left Roman Catholicism, I left christianity. So, don't tell me they are different animals. They're not. You can't give up Roman Catholicism and keep christianity. It just won't work like that. Protestants can't understand this, but most christians do.
*************
M*W: I for one had a lot of respect for JPII. As you know, I met him in his very first audience. I always admired him. He wasn't like any other pope. I'm not so sure about Benedict XVI, but JPII loved and trusted him as a personal friend. JPII wanted him to be the next pope, so the decision was a shoe-in. I don't get the same feeling about him as I did JPII, but whatever he does doesn't affect me anyhow. There is goodness in people, and their is evil. I think of it mostly as positivity and negativity and not as goodness or evil. Those are churchy words.
*************
M*W: Even I would admit that the RCC has grown positively from the Burning Times! Don't you think that had a little to do with my decision to renounce the RCC?
I think you are confused about the pope's responsibility and his infallibility. Let me give you an example. The pope travels to another country. He's being interviewed by the local media when he makes a comment about birth control. In that case, he's no different than any Tom, Dick or Harry, but when he's back at work at The Vatican, and he must deal with a question or make a statement about some doctrine, in his official capacity, he can only speak from his official papal chair. Then and only then does whatever he states become doctrine. When doctrine changes or is outdated, it's not as if it were a mistake and showed the previous pope's fallibility. Different pope's, different ideas and interests, and are addressed for the present times. Some things may simply become outdated. I think the issue of contraception should be readdressed. Contraception and birth control are two different beasts. Contraception is preventing pregnancy. Birth control is abortion.
In reality, what is the pope's authority? How many RCs follow his word to a T? I would guess very few. I would even venture to say that nuns and other clerical figures use their own judgment in following the pope's orders. The RCC is not like it used to be, and papal orders are few and far between.
*************
M*W: I disagree. Regardless of religious preference, asking for forgiveness is probably the most important thing one can do to lift the burden off of their consciousness. No gods need apply.
*************
M*W: There are still a lot of things that the RCC could modernize. People aren't as dumb as they were in the Dark Ages. Society has grown-up. The popes are still living in ancient times. Personally, I don't see the truth in papal succession, nor do I believe Peter and Paul ever existed. It's all pomp and circumstance. If there were a god, why would we need a pope?
*************
M*W: I understand your point, but if all points of doctrine remained the same since the beginning, look where we would be today! First, there would only be the RCC. Luther and friends would have been eliminated. There is a remote possibility that we wouldn't even have a copy of the bible (if we didn't have the printing press). As time passed, people, places and things, became modernized to reach a more mature public. So, the pope's infallibility also progresses. No, we don't burn witches at the stake anymore. We know better than that, but at one time, it was done on order from the pope. The times they are a-changin'. The church is losing more parishoners than it's gaining. The pope may come up with new doctrine offering homosexuals the sacraments in order to populate the pews. I think it is related more to modernization of the RCC and its believers than anything to do with the fallibility of the pope.
*************
M*W: I remember you saying you didn't belong to a particular church. Then, how do you know what to believe? Oh, yes, you follow the bible. I remember. But, everyday a new bible scholar is publishing a book on the fallibility of the bible! And everyday that goes by, christians are learning that what they believed about there bible is no longer valid, and they're dropping like flies worldwide. The way its going, the bible is becoming non-truth. What will you do when the bible is no more?
*************
M*W: Don't you think by now, in this day and age, that it's a bit passe to call the RCC "daughters of the harlot?" All metaphors aside, isn't there a more appropriate connotation? You know I do a lot of research on astro-theology. In fact, the RCC practices sun worship. All the 'holy days' the RCC requires its parishoners to acknowledge follow the astrological (they call it 'liturgical') calendar year to include All Souls Day, All Saints Day, Christmas, New Year (Epiphany), Immaculate Conception, Annunciation, Lent, Passover, Easter, Resurrection, etc., etc., etc. They all fall on important astrological dates.
*************
M*W: Well, I wouldn't want that to happen. I am a very serious anti-christ, and I certainly wouldn't want my credibility as such to be negatively affected. You, on the other hand, seem to be concerned about your own credibility. I thought you had Jesus on your side? Wouldn't that make you infallible?
the highschool drop out also doesn't believe in the physics teacher- hence the obvious conclusion is that faith is the primary step in all knowledge (even empiricism)
rather than going on a rant about cowardice your counter would be more productive if you could establish how knowledge can exist separate from qualification (qualification in the sense of attaining certain qualities, as opposed to merely getting a rubber stamp from some institution)
Yes, but as that example has been debunked several times by merely pointing out that the "high school dropout" has the potential to learn, and his "qualifications" aren't his desire or capacity to complete school. Your comparison of a "high school dropout" to those that criticize the religiously deluded is a straw man and a non sequitur. Evidence of more intellectual cowardice, actually.
Rather than deal with the issue at hand, you choose to create a separate argument to deflect from it. Rather than deal with the criticisms of religion, the intellectual coward will create the straw man and argue that the critic isn't 'qualified' since he/she doesn't believe.
Rather than deal with the issue at hand, you choose to create a separate argument to deflect from it. Rather than deal with the criticisms of religion, the intellectual coward will create the straw man and argue that the critic isn't 'qualified' since he/she doesn't believe.
This is inaccurate. Your physics teacher tells you that balls roll down hills. With no such knowledge you are not inducing 'faith' by lacking a belief in his claims until such time when he shows you that what he states is true, (he rolls a ball down a hill). He also needs no qualifications.
Faith comes into play when one believes without evidence the claims being made, (i.e your claim that there are gods). Lacking belief in such things does not bring faith into the equation.
Work it out.
its not clear how that debunks it, particularly since I would agree with that - obviously it was an analogy to illustrate the problem of attitude interfering with understanding, and it is precisely that display of attitude that holds many an atheist in their position
since those criticisms come from persons who have not properly applied religious principles (or even as clearly illustrated on this site numerous times, by persons not even familiar with what religious principles are), the analogy holds
the issue is this - one group of people take the affirmative stance, having properly applied the necessary prerequisites and another group of persons take the negative stance, not having applied the necessary prerequisites - hence the topic of theists vs atheists or physics teachers vs high school drop outs bears merit
I have never said its because they haven't got belief - i have said it is because they have not properly applied the prerequisites (although on a technical point, anyone desiring to properly apply the prerequisites in ANY field of knowledge initially requires some faith to come to the point of direct perception - the real issue is why you don't clearly establish how knowledge and faith can exist separately - preferably with an example of knowledge available in tertiary education - since if you can't accept this, you have to reject over 98% of what is commonly held as 'knowable' in this world)
Snakelord
the problem is that you don't require a physics teacher to show you how a ball rolls down a hill (after all, even in societies bereft of erudite physics teachers, the phenomena of balls rolling in what way down a hill has remained reasonably uniform) - you do require a physics teacher to show you why a ball rolls down hill (at least if you want to get into the technical nitty gritty of it)
one requires the same leap of faith for venturing in to topics about electrons and any other aspect of knowledge which is beyond the direct perception of the average joe - after all, what evidence does a high school student have to work with when they learn about such things? (of course they can ride with such faith until they come to the point of direct perception by hanging in with their scientific studies for a year or two)
I have never claimed infallibility. The catholic church has and does.
I never called the catholic church the daughters of the harlot. Read what i said again and you will see that i was calling the protestant churches the daughters of the harlot. The catholic church is The Harlot and the mother of harlots.
And i do find you strange MW. If you read your comments above you can almost see the seeming instinctive subconscious defender of the catholic religion coming back out of you.
weird.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
*************
M*W: Okay, I'll accept your statement.
*************
M*W: Okay, so I misunderstood the difference between "the harlot" and the "daughters of the harlot." I fail to see the difference. But the way I understand it, the RCC and all of its protestant offshoots are "harlots" because they take away the original worship of the sun god. I agree with your "harlot" metaphor. All man-made churches are "harlots."
*************
M*W: It may "seem" that I am an unconscious defender of the RCC, but trust me, I'm not. I guess it is the man-made religion that I am most familiar with. It was the RCC who prostituted herself against the original sun worship of Constantine, I guess, although I believe it goes farther back than Constantine. It really goes back as far as when the NT was written and why it was written.
Don't you think I was affected by the RCC's prostitution, when I found out she wasn't the real thing.
Yes indeed you where affected. Deeply. As i was affected deeply when i discovered the RCC was a diabolical lie. But while you went from false religion into anti-religion I went from false religion into true faith.
I was emotionally hurt and called out to God to lead me to His way.
You where emotionally hurt but went the way of blind revenge against God to seek to destroy all religion false or true. Do you blame God for allowing you to be so totally deceived?
Whatever your deep motivations it is clear you are a driven person. For my part i am glad that God saved me from deception. In a way i am driven also, driven to affirm a positive, driven to stand up for my beliefs. Sadly you are driven to be a negative. Your driven to stand against belief in God.
It is always much better to stand for something then against something. Life is far more positive.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days