Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

What's the difference between 'Churchianity' 'n a real relationship with Father-God?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 90 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 Feb 2013 15:15:17 GMT
Littleriver says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 16:37:14 GMT
Depends on what churchianity is.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 16:56:12 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Is the difference you believe in one and not the other and that also, just so happens to be why one is wrong and the other 'bestest of all things in the world... ever'?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 22:48:53 GMT
Littleriver says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 23:04:26 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"If someone tried to tell you you could win the Isle of Man race on a paper cutout of a motorbike - you'd see the flaw immediately."
Yes, just like if someone tried to prove something by analogy. It's just as inept at the task.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 23:24:47 GMT
Littleriver says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Feb 2013 23:35:02 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"The analogy was not intended to 'prove' anything."
Well I understood it perfectly then when I pointed out that you can't prove things by analogy. You can only establish what you want to be true with analogies or communicate a complex idea, your idea is not complex so it is just a statement of what you wish worked like your analogy.

Posted on 10 Feb 2013 23:54:59 GMT
Littleriver says:
Drew Jones: The point clearly went straight over your head and you're hiding behind bluff and semantics. Waste of time and energy.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 00:09:31 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Feb 2013 00:11:31 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Seems like I'd worked it out from the get go. Your point was and still is: you're a better at being a Christian than those who go to church.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 10:53:06 GMT
G. Heron says:
C.L. Brook

I am curious, assuming that a supreme, all powerful, all knowing , eternal, non physical mentality, perfect god did exist what type of relationship do you think you could possibly have with such a being?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 11:39:06 GMT
to submit to it first instead of to be primarily guided by lesser things erroneously, such as rugby teams, drugs, musicians, fashions; which things are logically manifest misguidance in and of themselves in abstract

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 11:52:17 GMT
G. Heron says:
glorify the LORD

Wouldn't you prefer a relationship with another human where you can both treat each other as equals rather than a relationship with a god where you spend all your time on your knees?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 13:09:03 GMT
who says that worship of God does not inform and color your human relationships? that's a fallacy on your behalf. I'd go further and say that it's not possible to have true relationships with other humans without being in this way informed first; and that it is the highest form of this.

Posted on 11 Feb 2013 13:10:27 GMT
Unless you prefer to just make it up as you go along? in which case you'd have to demonstrate to me just in what way this is a superior form of conduct. thanks peace

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 13:25:42 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Feb 2013 13:27:12 GMT
AJ Murray says:
gtL,

-"who says that worship of God does not inform and color your human relationships?"

I don't think anyone has said this, it is certainly true that there are Christians who in following the imagined edicts of their religion have cast out their sons and daughters for not living up to those same edicts. So thie beliefs can color human relationships and it is not always a good thing.

-"that's a fallacy on your behalf."

He didn't say it, so it isn't. Concentrate gtL.

-"I'd go further and say that it's not possible to have true relationships with other humans without being in this way informed first; and that it is the highest form of this."

And on what basis could you possibly make that claim? Firstly, there is no evidence that this being you imagine having a relationship with exists. Secondly, a personal relationship requires a person. And lastly, we have documemted cases of people imagining personal relationships with people that they have never met and never likely to, where they think that person is in love with them. It is called erotomania and is generally considered unhealthy.

-"Unless you prefer to just make it up as you go along?"

That would be the religious method.

-"in which case you'd have to demonstrate to me just in what way this is a superior form of conduct. thanks peace"

It is superior in that dealing with actual persons with actual consequences is superior to virtual persons and virtual consequences.

Posted on 11 Feb 2013 13:28:20 GMT
his fallacy was the premise that worship of God is an either/or scenario with human relationships. I submit that worship of God does not negate the possibility of human relationships but rather supports such relationships. The fallacy is the strawman of a kind of monasticism that rubbishes human relationships. This is misrepresentation. thanks peace

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 13:32:39 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"his fallacy was the premise that worship of God is an either/or scenario with human relationships."

I don't see him making that premise.

-"I submit that worship of God does not negate the possibility of human relationships but rather supports such relationships."

Support it. There are plenty of examples where this imagined relationship is in fact detrimental to human relationships.

-"The fallacy is the strawman of a kind of monasticism that rubbishes human relationships."

And yet Monastaries exist, as do Nunneries, that type of isolation and withdrawal from society is surprisingly common in religious circles.

-"This is misrepresentation. thanks peace "

Are you denying the existence of monastic lifestyles?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 13:32:56 GMT
-"And on what basis could you possibly make that claim? "

guidance. it's not rocket science, AJ.

-"Firstly, there is no evidence that this being you imagine having a relationship with exists."

Straw man. The religion itself does not posit the requirement of proof of God to be guided - whatever that proof may be? which I suspect is a second straw man, rapidly approaching towards this debate. as ever.

-"Secondly, a personal relationship requires a person."

Are humans not a person? You must demonstrate as to how religious guidance cannot be said to color human relationships as precursor and guidance.

-"And lastly, we have documemted cases of people imagining personal relationships with people that they have never met and never likely to, where they think that person is in love with them. It is called erotomania and is generally considered unhealthy."

Thats fine. You have to demonstrate the guidance that they have proposed, and let us analyze the religion, or the guidance, or the revelation. Let us reason together.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 13:39:25 GMT
-"I don't see him making that premise."

Well. he insinuated that relationships with humans is an alternative to worship of God. Each being exclusive. you're entitled to your opinion, however. thanks.

-"Support it. There are plenty of examples where this imagined relationship is in fact detrimental to human relationships."

I support it by positing that guidance is superior to non-guidance and making it up as one goes along. I give you as an example that certain societies see it as uncool to be guided by parents. Without religion there would be no way for someone to necessarily rationalize submission to parents, seeing as they are surrounded by opposition to it.

-"And yet Monastaries exist, as do Nunneries, that type of isolation and withdrawal from society is surprisingly common in religious circles."

That's fine. But that's a straw man because the religion I posit does not call us to monasticism. We'd need a monk to come and represent his angle.

-"Are you denying the existence of monastic lifestyles?"

No. But I don't see the relevance to the debate that human relationships and worship of God are exclusive. That monks exist means nothing. That is another straw man since you are putting all religious people under the same bracket, even in the absence of tenets calling to monasticism. I'd make it clear that this is not what I represent.

Posted on 11 Feb 2013 13:44:00 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Feb 2013 13:45:46 GMT
that's without even considering the point that inter-monk human interaction is itself allegedly informed and colored by alleged submission to God. So even that does not negate my point, that it's not an either/or scenario. That's all I wanted to interject with. thanks peace

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 13:45:34 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"guidance. it's not rocket science, AJ."

Apparently not, but is this guidance from others humans or a deity? We have evidence for the former and none for the latter.

-"Straw man."

No it's not.

-"The religion itself does not posit the requirement of proof of God to be guided..."

That only demonstrates how low the bar for evidence is in your particular religion.

-"...whatever that proof may be? which I suspect is a second straw man, rapidly approaching towards this debate. as ever."

Oh dear, it's always interesting to watch you flail but it becomes old. Fast.

-"Are humans not a person?"

They are. You deity however... how exactly does one have a 'personal relationship' in the absence of an actual person?

-"You must demonstrate as to how religious guidance cannot be said to color human relationships as precursor and guidance."

I never said it couldn't, in fact i can give examples of detrimental effects as well as positive, but neither give any support to the idea of a deity being real.

-"Thats fine. You have to demonstrate the guidance that they have proposed, and let us analyze the religion, or the guidance, or the revelation. Let us reason together. "

You make the claim, you back it up. Honestly gtL you think i was born yesterday?

Juts an aside, do you believe in a deity? Do you have a personal relationship with this deity?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 13:54:32 GMT
-"They are. You deity however... how exactly does one have a 'personal relationship' in the absence of an actual person?"

With people. Informed by religious guidance. With all due respect, do remember that the thing in question here is relationships with humans. Let's stay on topic please.

-"I never said it couldn't"

The person I was originally debating with did. That you can think of examples where it is detrimental to human relationships is entirely beside the point and is not what I was debating at all. Again, my interjection is that worship of God and human relationships are not exclusive.

-"You make the claim, you back it up. Honestly gtL you think i was born yesterday?"

I no longer know what your contention is. You have posited the claim that some people suffer from a love of someone they have not met, and are therefore guided by this. You have to show me the tenets so that we can analyze them rationally. As they are not the tenets I share nor put forward concerning religion. They are guided by something. show me it.

-"Juts an aside, do you believe in a deity? Do you have a personal relationship with this deity?"

what do you understand by "deity" is what I think we'd have to establish before proceeding any further as I fear we are just going to talk past each other if we cannot agree on what we are even arguing about.

I refer to God as that revealed by guidance in scripture. I do not refer to "deity" in the sense of a king or a tribe leader. No more than I refer to post-death experience as something demonstrable.

Posted on 11 Feb 2013 13:58:03 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Feb 2013 14:01:46 GMT
AJ Murray says:
gtL,

-"Well. he insinuated that relationships with humans is an alternative to worship of God."

Not insinuated, it is a valid alternative. One partaken by anyone who doesn't worship a deity.

-"Each being exclusive."

Now, now, that wasn't what he said, that's all you gtL, interpolating what you would like him to have said and not dealing with what he actually said. Do you do this in all your personal relationships with others?

-"you're entitled to your opinion, however. thanks."

Thanks.

-"I support it by positing that guidance is superior to non-guidance and making it up as one goes along. I give you as an example that certain societies see it as uncool to be guided by parents. Without religion there would be no way for someone to necessarily rationalize submission to parents, seeing as they are surrounded by opposition to it."

So you imagine that in the absence of worshipping a deity we are left to our own devices? You are forgetting society and history and the fact that we interact and make ethical decisions daily. That seems to be more than enough to counter your claim. i would also add that if your deity turns out to be merely imagined then you are in exactly teh same position as myself.

-"That's fine. But that's a straw man because the religion I posit does not call us to monasticism. We'd need a monk to come and represent his angle."

Again that only speaks to your personal conception of what your religion says and doesn't detract from the wider point.

-"No. But I don't see the relevance to the debate that human relationships and worship of God are exclusive. That monks exist means nothing. That is another straw man since you are putting all religious people under the same bracket, even in the absence of tenets calling to monasticism. I'd make it clear that this is not what I represent."

But the example counters your assertion that worshipping God automatically enhances human relationships - it is hard to do that when you've retreated from those interactions completely. Whilst you personally may not be one advocating a monastic lifestyle i would hope that you are at least peripherally aware that others do.

Posted on 11 Feb 2013 14:03:03 GMT
Ok, fine. Just remember that monasticism is not integral to religion as a whole and is in fact condemned by the religion I posit.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  90
Initial post:  10 Feb 2013
Latest post:  13 Feb 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions