User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 79

  1. #31
    Senior Member Hirsch63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    IS??
    Socionics
    InFj
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I find myself strongly against the OP and see it from the opposite side of this concern.

    The absolute last thing the green movement needs is religion. Hell, the green movement is already close enough to religion to negate the realistic concerns (both economic and scientific). I don't particularly care about the impact on religion, but I really don't like seeing it merging with movements that should clearly be in the realm of empirical science.
    You're a fan of tangible reality and I can get behind that too. Part of that reality, wether we like it or not is that there already exsist strong constituencies for every position, beyond our endorsement of their motivations.

    I was (my bad) only considering the faith perspective in my post. If I had to state a position I do believe that this planet is finite and in need of responsible husbandry of every sort and degree. Scienticfic method is vital to that end in the most expedient and productive sense. Like religious text, scientific evidence can be used,perceived and presented to butress a variety of positions, we have seen this in congessional hearings. When it comes down to it, despite the evidence neuterally gathered by science, the implementation of any solutions will most likely (ultimately) be a matter of public opinion based on sentiment. Groups are already being swayed by their beliefs to endorse positions on global matters irrespective of scientific eveidence. The cat is out of the bag on this one. To the extent that more minds are brought into a sympathetic notion of the planet as a responsibility of the most profound sort, I am for it. And i am sure there is someone else out there equally invested in the opposite opinion.
    Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings...Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you a king

  2. #32
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Actually, scratch that -- the persistence of the Creationism model is another needle in the pincushion of socially-fashionable/politically-marketable ignorance. This is a powerful reminder on the dire necessity for distinction between belief and empiricism.
    I should be clear - I don't like this because I want religion to adapt, not become popular. What I don't want is religion to make "pretend" changes, attach itself to science/progress, to attach itself to social movements, etc.

    However, the reality is that it will happen... The big picture strategy is that I want the ardent believers, like Peduy, to fight these associations tooth and claw. This means that their religion becomes subject to adaption - change, or perish. This eliminates the crowding out effect that monolithic (in terms of belief ) religions have. Religion, from my perspective, is a social device. It doesn't guide society, it emerges from society. The problem is that when it pretends to be more - as in, it becomes political, when it starts integrating into movements - it crowds out the natural emergent belief systems. This means that religion becomes society, the society becomes rigid and the society becomes inferior - the rate of adaptation changes. You can see it somewhat in the US and the lashback with science.

    So, what I want to see is a religion for the times. I want religion to adapt it's moral principles, not survive on the coat tails of popular movements. If religion does not, then it should fade away, replaced with new religions that are more adaptable. But adaptable does not mean embracing science or some such, of course, but... a better, stronger framework than basing our knowledge - our guide to moral behavior, from what we knew thousands of years ago.

    Hell, I would love to see a green "religion" that put forth that we are stewards of the world and the universe, because we are a part of it and the outcome of not assuming that role is to be replaced, through extinction, by others that will.

    But handing over the keys to a green movement with "god tells us to"? I just hope that it never turns into "too many humans, and God tells us to...". Sends me to the hills, I tell you.

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    This is an interesting point. I've long questioned the whole green movement and the political push towards it is so strong, it leaves me extremely suspicious. It truly is becoming a religious movement. It has its heretics, its leaders, its followers, its misinformation and tendency to combat any skepticism or criticism with vicious attacks that don't combat the criticism but the one offering the different point of view.
    Yup, I hate that too, heh.

    Now, granted, with the evidence I have seen, I believe in climate change. However, the exact same evidence shows horrendously long trends. The impact will be severe, in terms of entropy... but again, over very long periods, as in centuries.

    This tells me that yes, we should do something, as a species. And individually we don't have much incentive to. But what should be done should be looked at from a 50-year+ perspective. The fanaticism gets in the way of solving the problem.

    So, given my perspective, the absolute last thing I want is actual religious fervor attached to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hirsch63 View Post
    You're a fan of tangible reality and I can get behind that too. Part of that reality, wether we like it or not is that there already exsist strong constituencies for every position, beyond our endorsement of their motivations.
    You are, of course, correct. I probably should of quoted someone else I don't disagree with anything you say, exactly, but I think we differ in the way we view the overall situation (which I didn't point out in my previous post).

    Perhaps I should say that I don't like seeing an entire segment of the population motivated for reasons that would disrupt the cost/benefit and risk measurements of a tangible problem, in this particular case.

  3. #33
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    They can print whatever they want. It's really their choice. But honestly, I find that it's a useless load of crap because it appeals to a market that changes so often. Flighty teenagers, eh? Oh, and come on, goth? Since when would a goth want to read the Bible? Unless they were really interested in the middle ages. I think what they're doing is appealing to a stereotype and a cliche and will probably fall flat on its face.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    As we stand before our Maker in the end, Night, we shall know the truth. I, for one, believe it will be that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them according to His Word, literally. We shall see.
    "My Journey is my Destination."

    "Today Counts Forever." R.C. Sproul

  5. #35
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Journey View Post
    As we stand before our Maker in the end, Night, we shall know the truth. I, for one, believe it will be that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them according to His Word, literally. We shall see.
    You illustrate well the arrogance I find with my religion, Journey. Your haste in condemnation makes me grateful that our philosophies are so vastly different, despite the appearance of a theistic link.


    I commend your honesty.

    I regret your approach.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    You illustrate well the arrogance I find with my religion, Journey. Your haste in condemnation makes me grateful that our philosophies are so vastly different, despite the appearance of a theistic link.


    I commend your honesty.

    I regret your approach.
    I don't believe it is arrogant to say we will know the truth in the end and I condemned nothing, Night.

    However if you believe that it is arrogant of me to believe in the theory of a literal Creation to the exclusion of the theory of Evolution, I find that it is arrogant to put forward the theory of evolution as though it were fully proven and irrefutable.
    "My Journey is my Destination."

    "Today Counts Forever." R.C. Sproul

  7. #37
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Journey View Post
    However I do believe that it is arrogant to assume that the theory of evolution is absolutely proven and irrefutable.
    Again, your assumptions criticize what you incorrectly infer about my system of belief. As such, they do not address anything I've yet offered.

    Here is my earlier (now somewhat ironic) post on the topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    If nothing else, the [Creationism] movement showcases a basic lack of understanding on the material differences between a falsifiable platform and faith-based personal reckoning.
    ...

    Not once did I claim that evolution was absolute. Nothing in science is absolute.

    Science affords us the opportunity to apply critical thinking skills in a perpetual effort to revise our understanding of the world.

    Faith is belief without falsifiable (independently verifiable) "proof". What one believes is up to their personal understanding of the world and does not require independent verification for it to be valid.

    As concepts, there is no friction between them. They exist in independent spheres of thought, regulated by fundamentally different guidelines.


    As I said earler, your approach lacks humility.


    Edit: I see you modified your language. I think you'll agree that the themes are still valid.

  8. #38
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    You make a good point that to compare the essential spiritual character/social virtues of contemporary celebrities against important socio-spiritual cornerstones would make for a cheapening of the advancements of each figurehead.

    Yet, I don't think this a fair encapsulation of the author's intent. To perpetuate Christian philosophy to an audience unfamiliar with the essential guideposts offered therein likely is best accomplished with the assistance of a contemporary "hook" -- a well-known face as a bartering instrument to clarify the value of having an interest in Christianity. The value of this strategy is (presumably) self-evident towards servicing the bottom line of the Christian movement.
    Evangelization is not the same as marketing. To try to approach it as such is to comprimise the nature of authentic evangelization.

    The concern of how to attract the attention of young people is legitimate. However, adopting the marketing model of pandering to their tastes is not the right way to go.

    Even as far as the "bottom line" is concerned this is poor strategy since much of the evidence shows that younger people are actually attracted towards more traditional forms of Christianity, which doesn't pander to their whims.

    This is a strange approach to take, when discussing the teachings of Christ. Not everyone shares the corpus of your positive conclusions on Catholicism. As such, divergent systems of personal belief undoubtedly corkscrew otherwise-valuable insight away from the essential teachings of Christ.
    This isn't about Catholicism, this is about maintaining the integrity of Christ's message. And this applies to all Christian traditions.

    Here's even a take of the issue from Father Michael Azkoul of the Orthodox tradition:

    "The Faith we preserve has not developed or changed. The Church has not been seduced by Plato or Aristotle or Freud or Darwin or Marx. She has never found it necessary to follow current trends and fashions to make Her Message appealing. Indeed, She is no beggar of souls. Moreover, She belongs to no century. She is not, therefore, a Twentieth century Church, but the Church in the twentieth century. She exists to change, not to be changed. The Orthodox Church has a Message for the modern world, the same one Christ preached almost two thousand years ago---"Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand!" Here is the essence of the Gospel, here is the answer to poverty, crime, racism, war, leadership, mores and manners, sex and feminism, egalitarianism, fraternalism and supposed liberty---to all the human problems, national and international. The Church's answers are sacred not secular, because Her voice is the voice of eternity."


    Elitism is wanton insecurity against change.
    I resent your inaccurate charge against me.


    I don't see how this relates, other than working to (inappropriately) add an alarmist approach to a well-meaning translation of Biblical code.
    There's a true way to preaching the message of Christ and a false way. These "bibles" represent a false way, especially since the publisher admitted that the intention was provoking people.

    I presented Bishop Gojdich as an example of a more proper way of expressing Christ's message.

    BTW, there is no "Bible code".

    We aren't dealing with Communism. Nor are we discussing the Basilian order.
    Where exactly did I say we were? I merely mentioned that Gojdich was killed by the Communists and provided a link to his life story for those interested.

  9. #39
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    I'm not sure we're arguing the same points anymore, Peguy.

    It's clear that we both maintain a strong opinion on the topic.

  10. #40
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    I don't understand these religious folks and the outrage they experience when someone finds differently to them.

    Peguy is no exception: they're irked to the point of concrete lashing out at their opposition.
    I wonder why they don't just let them be wrong.
    It would seem to make sense -- most of these religious nuts develop and foster ill will for their 'adversaries' and opposition. You'd think they'd be comfortable (since they're so sure that it WILL go this way) letting them burn in hell for the wrong beliefs.
    But instead, they play god and judge people for their sacrelige.
    And peguy, before you go flying off the handle at me like you have these magazines, hear this: I'm not just talking about you, and I'm not just talking about Christians.
    we fukin won boys

Similar Threads

  1. Paris Hilton's New Best Friend
    By Mole in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 06:58 AM
  2. Old friends, New friends, Lifestyles
    By FDG in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-30-2007, 08:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO