Letter from school..

[Enterprise-D]

LOL no Jan, I see what you're saying you know. You have a definition of religion that some of these people probably don't live up to. Perhaps I didn't make it clear.

But what I'm telling you, is that YOUR definition of "religious" does not matter. I have no reason to poo-poo these 159M people simply because Jan has a rigorous definition of christianity. They are christian as far as they are concerned, and therefore as far as I'm concerned. Each of these 159M people obviously have some sort of definition of religious that they feel they live up to.

The behaviour of humans leads me to be able to reasonably accept that if an individual claims to be christian, they indeed believe that they are...simply because at this point of human development, it is generally perceived that being allied to any type of major religion is something to be proud of.

YOU Jan are not in any position to deny any of these people their beliefs, whether they drink, bedhop, overeat or whatever.

Religious (at answers.com) also includes a definition: "having or showing belief in and reverence for god or a deity". That's enough of a definition, and this definition has no bearing on an individual's daily comportment, or even the morality of the deity itself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

LOL no Jan, I see what you're saying you know. You have a definition of religion that some of these people probably don't live up to. Perhaps I didn't make it clear.

Enterprise, my (personal) definition is of no importance, but the definition I present is the correct one, and is validated by by most, if not all, major sources. Later on in your post you say;

Religious (at answers.com) also includes a definition: "having or showing belief in and reverence for god or a deity". That's enough of a definition, and this definition has no bearing on an individual's daily comportment, or even the morality of the deity itself.

I gather from this that you think that the definition I purport is somehow more rigid and difficult than what you have presented. Maybe you missed the part where it says "showing belief in and reverence for god, or maybe you're not clear of what the highlighted segment entails.

But what I'm telling you, is that YOUR definition of "religious" does not matter.

Beat you to it.

I have no reason to poo-poo these 159M people simply because Jan has a rigorous definition of christianity.

Christianity can be only be one of two things; either it is an organisation devoted to teaching of Christ Jesus, or it is not. As we can see, christianity is very much a divided institute, so the probabality status of many (at least) of the sects being misguided as to Jesus' teaching, or, deciding to incorporate their own version of Jesus' teaching, must be pretty high.

They are christian as far as they are concerned, and therefore as far as I'm concerned.

That's because you have no respect for christianity
You obviously believe it is all bullshit, so it doesn't matter.
And as such there is no actual standard.

Each of these 159M people obviously have some sort of definition of religious that they feel they live up to.

Their personal definitionS are as valuable as my own.
The reality lies in their actions, not words.

YOU Jan are not in any position to deny any of these people their beliefs, whether they drink, bedhop, overeat or whatever.

Why do you keep saying these things?
I do not deny them their beliefs.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D,
Christianity can be only be one of two things; either it is an organisation devoted to teaching of Christ Jesus, or it is not. As we can see, christianity is very much a divided institute, so the probabality status of many (at least) of the sects being misguided as to Jesus' teaching, or, deciding to incorporate their own version of Jesus' teaching, must be pretty high.

I'd have granted you this point if the teachings weren't so subjective. When you guys agree on one thing...one single thing...then maybe I'd consider being skeptical about that survey.

That's because you have no respect for christianity
You obviously believe it is all bullshit, so it doesn't matter.
And as such there is no actual standard.

Granted.

My own moral standards are actually not affected much by any religion. I can actually trace my learning path of morality, and catholicism (my parents' religion) or any religion really had very little to do with it.

Their personal definitionS are as valuable as my own.
The reality lies in their actions, not words.

This is where we depart. As far as the christian philosophy goes, the christian god is not supposed to reject his children based on actions. As detrimental as they may be, they can still be forgiven. Therefore, their belief is tantamount, not their actions. Thus, if someone says he believes he's christian, who is anyone to say otherwise?

Why do you keep saying these things?
I do not deny them their beliefs.
Jan.

Then they are christian.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

This is where we depart. As far as the christian philosophy goes, the christian god is not supposed to reject his children based on actions. As detrimental as they may be, they can still be forgiven. Therefore, their belief is tantamount, not their actions. Thus, if someone says he believes he's christian, who is anyone to say otherwise?

a) please show this philosophy which states that "the christian god is not supposed to reject his children based on actions."

b) "As detrimental as they may be, they can still be forgiven."
Not if they're detriment is done with full intent, otherwise there would be no point in the dicipline in the first place.

c) Believing that one is a christian, does not add up to them being a christian. Plus, if someone "believes" that they are "a christian", there would be no need argue with them on this point. If I believe I am spaceman, and I state, " I believe I am a spaceman", then that statement in and of itself, can be factual if I was indeed telling the truth.
Let me know if that analogy is clear.. :bugeye:

Why do you keep saying these things?
I do not deny them their beliefs.

Then they are christian.

They may well be christian, but I have no way of knowing for sure.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D,
Believing that one is a christian, does not add up to them being a christian. Plus, if someone "believes" that they are "a christian", there would be no need argue with them on this point. If I believe I am spaceman, and I state, " I believe I am a spaceman", then that statement in and of itself, can be factual if I was indeed telling the truth.
Let me know if that analogy is clear.. :bugeye:

Ah but here's the rub. There's clearly demarcated qualities that defines a person as an astronaut.

Christianity however has MANY definitions of a christian...RC, anglican, pentecostal, whatever-who cares-blah blah blah. They are ALL christian simply because the subjectivity of the matter cannot define the qualities and therefore this wide-berth description cannot disclude any significant sect.

The survey actually broke down this 159M christian people to the various sects, but that's beside the point.

(Could you imagine the riots if the pope decided to announce no religion is christianity but roman catholicism?)

I do see what you're trying to say Jan, but you're arguing what is possible as opposed to what is likely. It is possible that ALL 159M people lied. It is possible that the whole study is a fraud. You know what? It's "possible" that the UK government struck you down and replaced you with a test Jan-clone that knows everything that Jan-original knew up to the second prior to your death. But how likely is it?

I'm willing to gamble that the survey accurate for the time, simply from my own experience and observation of the US folks patterns and (or maybe of) behaviours.

They may well be christian, but I have no way of knowing for sure.
Jan.

You're being difficult lol. The US is clearly heavily christian. My humble opinion is that you believe that the US is morally crippled and you don't want them affiliated with your religion. Same with the drinkers and the bar hoppers.

Tough cookies, they are.



I think I'm done now tho, this thread has gotten a little too long and a little too far

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ah but here's the rub. There's clearly demarcated qualities that defines a person as an astronaut.

Christianity however has MANY definitions of a christian...RC, anglican, pentecostal, whatever-who cares-blah blah blah. They are ALL christian simply because the subjectivity of the matter cannot define the qualities and therefore this wide-berth description cannot disclude any significant sect.

The survey actually broke down this 159M christian people to the various sects, but that's beside the point.

(Could you imagine the riots if the pope decided to announce no religion is christianity but roman catholicism?)

I do see what you're trying to say Jan, but you're arguing what is possible as opposed to what is likely. It is possible that ALL 159M people lied. It is possible that the whole study is a fraud. You know what? It's "possible" that the UK government struck you down and replaced you with a test Jan-clone that knows everything that Jan-original knew up to the second prior to your death. But how likely is it?

I'm willing to gamble that the survey accurate for the time, simply from my own experience and observation of the US folks patterns and (or maybe of) behaviours.



You're being difficult lol. The US is clearly heavily christian. My humble opinion is that you believe that the US is morally crippled and you don't want them affiliated with your religion. Same with the drinkers and the bar hoppers.

Tough cookies, they are.



I think I'm done now tho, this thread has gotten a little too long and a little too far

Fair dos.

Jan.