The reality. - Page 17

**CingularDuality** · 11-03-2007, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axis of Eeevil

One consequence, I would hope, would be a PM from an admin to the person who said it.

If anyone dealt with another religion, or, say, homosexuality, in such an insensitive and disrespectful manner, I would hope that I would speak up and say "hey--cut it out!"

So: hey--cut it out! If you can't make a point without being intentionally insulting or mean-spirited, how about you wait until you calm down before you say it?

Which part was offensive?

Was it 2000 years ago?
Was he dead?
Was he a Jew?
Was he turned into a ghost (or spirit)?
Did he save humanity?

Many christians believe that all of those things are true. So, are YOU the one trying to be offensive here?

I think we need to stop trying to find offense in things when none is meant.

**ednos** · 11-03-2007, 12:06 PM

Scientology is a business, not a religion.

Switch · 11-03-2007, 12:23 PM

There's no business behind say, christianity. Its not like they own a city that runs its own currency.

Kerostasis · 11-03-2007, 03:51 PM

Thats not a city. Thats an independant Country, that just happens to be about the size of a small City. And just happens to be entirely contained within the bounds of another, larger city. And just happens to be called "The Vatican City". But it's still a country.

BeSiege82 · 11-03-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Thats not a city. That's an independent Country, that just happens to be about the size of a small City. And just happens to be entirely contained within the bounds of another, larger city. And just happens to be called "The Vatican City". But it's still a country.

you could say all of the chapels and other type of Roman Catholic house of worship is an embassy- just think of the numbers...

**Axis of Eeevil** · 11-03-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

But then I would be getting warned equally for mocking Scientology.

(I'm just pointing this out.)

Point taken. I happen to think Scientology can be considered anything more than a scam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch

I didn't find it offensive. That is the literal interpretation isn't it?

No. Not within any traditional Christian understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Which part was offensive?

Was it 2000 years ago?
Was he dead?
Was he a Jew?
Was he turned into a ghost (or spirit)?
Did he save humanity?

Many christians believe that all of those things are true. So, are YOU the one trying to be offensive here?

I think we need to stop trying to find offense in things when none is meant.

A. Someone could describe your mother's physical appearance with very accurate but insensitive language. Assuming you love you mother, would you not take offense simply because the words used to describe her could be called accurate? Of course not. No one calls Jesus a dead Jew unless they're trying to get a rise from someone who loves Him.

B. You might be careful about saying what "many christians believe", Cingular, particularly if you have rejected it. Christians don't believe The Christ came back as a ghost or spirit. No one who knows even the most basic Christian dogma would think there was no Resurrection, just a ghost who appeared to people! This idea was introduced by Docetus in the first century, and rejected as heresy by the Apostle John himself in his first epistle, 4th chapter, lines 2-3, and later, various dualist beliefs were rejected in several of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Jesus Christ was born fully God and fully man, both of spirit and of flesh. In nature fully human and fully divine, not merely God in the form of a man, or a man filled with the spirit of God. A real man with all the aspects of fallen human nature, while remaining fully God! After the resurrection, he was, according to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, like Adam before his fall from paradise. Still within flesh, but not bounded by it, i.e. able to pass through closed doors, or vanish, but also to eat food or converse.

So now you know the Orthodox (meaning original, unchanged) Christian understanding. What all the various schisms, branches and varieties of churches out there believe, I couldn't tell you.

C. Far from "trying to find offense" I point out if a thing is said simply to create a polarization or argument instead of lively and friendly discussion. If he meant it tongue-in-cheek, then he should really use a smiley.

**Axis of Eeevil** · 11-03-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkudDestroyer

But then I would be getting warned equally for mocking Scientology.

(I'm just pointing this out.)

Point taken. I happen to think Scientology can't be considered anything more than a scam, but I'll concede. Thanks for pointing it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch

I didn't find it offensive. That is the literal interpretation isn't it?

No. Not within any traditional Christian understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Which part was offensive?

Was it 2000 years ago?
Was he dead?
Was he a Jew?
Was he turned into a ghost (or spirit)?
Did he save humanity?

Many christians believe that all of those things are true. So, are YOU the one trying to be offensive here?

I think we need to stop trying to find offense in things when none is meant.

A. Someone could describe your mother's physical appearance with very accurate but insensitive language. Assuming you love you mother, would you not take offense simply because the words used to describe her could be called accurate? Of course not. No one calls Jesus a dead Jew unless they're trying to get a rise from someone who loves Him.

B. You might be careful about saying what "many christians believe", Cingular, particularly if you have rejected it. Christians don't believe The Christ came back as a ghost or spirit. No one who knows even the most basic Christian dogma would think there was no Resurrection, just a ghost who appeared to people!

This idea was introduced by Docetus in the first century, and rejected as heresy by the Apostle John himself in his first epistle, 4th chapter, lines 2-3, and later, various dualist beliefs were rejected in several of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Jesus Christ was born fully God and fully man, both of spirit and of flesh. In nature fully human and fully divine, not merely God in the form of a man, or a man filled with the spirit of God. A real man with all the aspects of fallen human nature, while remaining fully God! (which stuns me, every time I try to grok it...

) After the resurrection, he was, according to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, like Adam before his fall from paradise. Still within flesh, but not bounded by it, i.e. able to pass through closed doors, or vanish, but also to eat food or converse.

So now you know the Orthodox (meaning original, unchanged) Christian understanding. What all the various schisms, branches and varieties of churches out there believe, I couldn't tell you.

C. Far from "trying to find offense" I point out if a thing is said simply to create a polarization or argument instead of lively and friendly discussion. If he meant it tongue-in-cheek, then he should really use a smiley.

Switch · 11-04-2007, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axis of Eeevil

B. You might be careful about saying what "many christians believe", Cingular, particularly if you have rejected it. Christians don't believe The Christ came back as a ghost or spirit. No one who knows even the most basic Christian dogma would think there was no Resurrection, just a ghost who appeared to people!

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding knows that first he was a zombie! Not straight to ghost! :P

**Requital** · 11-04-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch

Its a text book, so sometimes if school libraries have it, its not in general circulation. It prevents kids from taking the book out instead of buying it for a class.

Also, each prof choses the text they want to teach by, so maybe no one in your area chose that one. There are countless alternatives.

Looking back now, I misspelled Freeman as Freemon.

Heres the ISBN
13 digit ISBN: 9780131018594
10 digit ISBN: 0131018590

Evolutionary Analysis (3rd edition)

Authors: Scott Freeman, Jon C. Herron

Yeah, I looked it up and found out it was a textbook. I thought it might be in the library since the 4th Ed. was out and campuses typically are adopters of newer text books. Less errors and more up to date. Sometimes even more understandable.

BeSiege82 · 11-05-2007, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

Well, a law professor is probably not the best person to read on this subject. Why not instead look up some books or articles by Christian epistemologists (philosophers who study the nature of knowledge). Peter van Inwagen, Alvin Plantinga, and William Alston come to mind. Unlike this law professor, these are not apologists. That is, they aren't merely concerned with defending the consistency of their religions beliefs. They are concerned with finding out what it is for us to know that something is true--the legal conception of evidence is the best we can do for the court system, but a court judgement about X surely shouldn't be taken as indicative of when we know that X is true. Then they want to figure out where religious experience or God fits in that picture, if at all.

This one is particularly good, even though I disagree in the end: William Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience

I think you should look up Ravi Zacharias. He is an intelligent speaker that is very capable of being direct and yet being soft spoken at the same time.

http://www.rzim.org/ravi/

I suggest looking up the series of lectures he made at Georgia tech. One in particular is 'Christ's Answers to Man's Questions' and especially the lecture 'The Search for Absolutes in a Pluralistic Society.'

If you would, listen to the lecture and tell me what you think of his points.

You might also look up Joseph Stowell of Moody Bible Institute.

I think you should go and listen to Ravi Zacharias.

**ednos** · 11-05-2007, 12:55 AM

As this thread and every discussion about religion clearly demonstrates, neither side will ever give an inch. Since you guys are already at the point of only referring to outside sources (not even quoting anymore!), I think it's about time to call it a draw.

Switch · 11-05-2007, 02:22 AM

We were making excellent progress on evolution.

**CingularDuality** · 11-05-2007, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axis of Eeevil

A. Someone could describe your mother's physical appearance with very accurate but insensitive language. Assuming you love you mother, would you not take offense simply because the words used to describe her could be called accurate? Of course not.

I'd be an ass to take offense at an accurate description of anything.

Quote:

B. You might be careful about saying what "many christians believe", Cingular, particularly if you have rejected it.

Or, I might not.

See, I'm tired of stepping on eggshells in order to avoid offending people. I'm a reasonable person, and I don't intentionally try to offend people, but I'm not going to go to unreasonable lengths to ensure that hypersensitive people don't get their feathers ruffled.

**Axis of Eeevil** · 11-05-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I'm not going to go to unreasonable lengths to ensure that hypersensitive people don't get their feathers ruffled.

*shrieking* What! me?! Hypersensitive?! How DARE you!

I don't think anyone who knows me would call me that, but that's OK. I'm not here to defend myself.

I'm sorry, I have a hard time believing that you'd not take offense, so long as a description is accurate. So that's the end of that.

For the record, I was correcting an error, not telling you to step on eggshells around us touchy Jesus people.

As far as being careful, you can indeed throw caution to the wind when talking about Jesus, or almost any religious figure, if you want. There's little risk.

I needn't mention religions for which the same approach could mean a sentence of death, just that the whole discussion changes if we take the same conversation and replace Christianity with one of those other religions. Suddenly there would be warnings, bans and closed threads galore. Christians are easy to talk about, since they betray their own beliefs if they don't just sit and take it.

PS Sorry for that double-post back there, how embarrassing...

**CingularDuality** · 11-05-2007, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axis of Eeevil

I needn't mention religions for which the same approach could mean a sentence of death, just that the whole discussion changes if we take the same conversation and replace Christianity with one of those other religions. Suddenly there would be warnings, bans and closed threads galore.

Really?

11-03-2007, 12:06 PM	#242 (permalink)
ednos Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 3,857	Re: The reality. Scientology is a business, not a religion. __________________ The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~ Magna Centipede

11-03-2007, 12:23 PM	#243 (permalink)
Switch Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NJ Posts: 1,238	Re: The reality. There's no business behind say, christianity. Its not like they own a city that runs its own currency. __________________ \|TG\|Switch Better known as: That noob who crashed the chopper. That noob who ran over the mine. That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle. That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

11-05-2007, 12:55 AM	#251 (permalink)
ednos Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 3,857	Re: The reality. As this thread and every discussion about religion clearly demonstrates, neither side will ever give an inch. Since you guys are already at the point of only referring to outside sources (not even quoting anymore!), I think it's about time to call it a draw. __________________ The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~ Magna Centipede

11-05-2007, 02:22 AM	#252 (permalink)
Switch Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NJ Posts: 1,238	Re: The reality. We were making excellent progress on evolution. __________________ \|TG\|Switch Better known as: That noob who crashed the chopper. That noob who ran over the mine. That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle. That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links