New Testingstan

Losonti Tokash wrote:rabid's post is fine, you just look like you're not reading it closely enough and seem to be interpreting it as a criticism of abortion

apparently i was reading it backwards

that's what i get for posting when i just wake up

I had my right pinky finger ritualistically cut off and made a sacrificial offering to Gorto. People say it's bad and a violation of my rights and all, but I've gotten along fine without it. Quite frankly I found being made to attend little-league baseball when I hated the game to be more traumatic so I really don't see what the big deal-

Oh, shit, I'm late for the bandwagon, aren't I?

Zod wrote:

Losonti Tokash wrote:rabid's post is fine, you just look like you're not reading it closely enough and seem to be interpreting it as a criticism of abortion

apparently i was reading it backwards

that's what i get for posting when i just wake up

Hehe

Well, to be fair, in retrospect my sentences were quite poorly constructed and my point wasn't explicitly stated, so I forgive you for the confusion

Oxymoron wrote:

Zod wrote:

Losonti Tokash wrote:rabid's post is fine, you just look like you're not reading it closely enough and seem to be interpreting it as a criticism of abortion

apparently i was reading it backwards

that's what i get for posting when i just wake up

Hehe

Well, to be fair, in retrospect my sentences were quite poorly constructed and my point wasn't explicitly stated, so I forgive you for the confusion

There is a subtle difference between the two situations that may have resulted in some confusion. Mainly because they both involve babies, but with circumcisions the baby is the patient, while with abortions the mother is the patient. Also with abortions, pro-choice is supporting the right of the mother to have the procedure done, while pro-choice wrt circumcisions is supporting the right of the baby to not have the procedure done until they are old enough to consent.

Hongi wrote:

Questor wrote: EDIT: Further question, and just for general reference, exactly what religion were you brought up in? Different groups tend to approach these things in different ways. To the extent I had a spiritual upbringing, I was taught in the Educated Catholic mode, and discussions like "why is this right or wrong" were actually something I remember from sunday school and even the sermons. I'll grant that that priest was rather unusual from what I've run into since.

I was brought up in a Christian household.

Hey, Aussies! Does that answer my question better in Australia than it would in the US? I'd generally assume someone who answered that way in the US to be referring to evangelical christianity, and not, say, the Anglican church, Baptism, southern Baptism, Lutheranism, or some other form of widely recognized protestantism.

There are some pretty big differences, and it would be helpful if I knew if Hongi's even going to have the tools to talk about some of the stuff I want to bring up.

Hmm... Isn't Hongi a New-Zelander, though ?

Location: Sydney

not really dude

there remains a pretty large divide between evangelical and 'normal' (uniting/anglican) Christianity in aus

and it could also mean Catholic

Of course, the real problem is that almost all of "Christian thought" is derived from even older sources. Attempting to cut out "christian philosophy" from ones analysis the way most ex-christians do is that they manage to ignore 1800 years of philosophical thought and discussions, almost all of it building on the greek and roman tradition simply because the person doing the thinking believed in god. Do they really think that the minds that considered the question of "does anything outside of me exist" really didn't consider "does god exist" from a philosophical standpoint?

I know, I know, the group on TEO probably does, but I half expect some of them to dismiss Kepler's work because of what his day job was.

Questor wrote:Of course, the real problem is that almost all of "Christian thought" is derived from even older sources. Attempting to cut out "christian philosophy" from ones analysis the way most ex-christians do is that they manage to ignore 1800 years of philosophical thought and discussions, almost all of it building on the greek and roman tradition simply because the person doing the thinking believed in god. Do they really think that the minds that considered the question of "does anything outside of me exist" really didn't consider "does god exist" from a philosophical standpoint?

I know, I know, the group on TEO probably does, but I half expect some of them to dismiss Kepler's work because of what his day job was.

It doesn't help that they're not really taught about those 1800 years of discussions growing up.

thejester wrote:not really dude

there remains a pretty large divide between evangelical and 'normal' (uniting/anglican) Christianity in aus

and it could also mean Catholic

I know there's a huge divide between evangelical christianity and everything else, that's why I asked, In the US, when asked that question, I'd expect a denomination from those with even the basest religious education. A response of christian would mean: "Evangelical, but since that's not cool to admit even in the US, I'll just say "Christian"", or "I never paid much attention, and don't know, but somebody said "Jesus" once, and I'm pretty sure that means "Christian".

In the US, referring to a Catholic as a christian would be very rare, and the idea that he could be catholic had never occurred to me.

Zod wrote:It doesn't help that they're not really taught about those 1800 years of discussions growing up.

I'd ask how they missed them, but I'm afraid I know the answer.

It's weird, but thinking back over it...

Even if I may have read the Bible when I was young (my faithful grandma used it on me and my sisters as reading practice, making us read it out-loud), the fact I've been a non-believer as far as I can remember (I've never been able to believe in god)... Well, I have to confess my religious education is sorely lacking, and that I have only the most basic knowledge of Catholicism (our family's cultural background).

Hmmm... Someday I'll find a priest and tell him to educate me, I guess... They're supposed to have followed a formation on theology at the Seminar, right ?

Questor wrote:

thejester wrote:not really dude

there remains a pretty large divide between evangelical and 'normal' (uniting/anglican) Christianity in aus

and it could also mean Catholic

I know there's a huge divide between evangelical christianity and everything else, that's why I asked, In the US, when asked that question, I'd expect a denomination from those with even the basest religious education. A response of christian would mean: "Evangelical, but since that's not cool to admit even in the US, I'll just say "Christian"", or "I never paid much attention, and don't know, but somebody said "Jesus" once, and I'm pretty sure that means "Christian".

In the US, referring to a Catholic as a christian would be very rare, and the idea that he could be catholic had never occurred to me.

FWIW I was under the impression (not sure why) that hongi's background was korean which would probably make the religion pentecostal

Questor wrote:

thejester wrote:not really dude

there remains a pretty large divide between evangelical and 'normal' (uniting/anglican) Christianity in aus

and it could also mean Catholic

I know there's a huge divide between evangelical christianity and everything else, that's why I asked, In the US, when asked that question, I'd expect a denomination from those with even the basest religious education. A response of christian would mean: "Evangelical, but since that's not cool to admit even in the US, I'll just say "Christian"", or "I never paid much attention, and don't know, but somebody said "Jesus" once, and I'm pretty sure that means "Christian".

In the US, referring to a Catholic as a christian would be very rare, and the idea that he could be catholic had never occurred to me.

it's interchangeable to a point

catholics still believe in jesus the last i checked

Well, as far as I know the Protestant and the Catholics both believed in Jesus

It didn't prevent them from killing each other in the name of religion

Questor:

For American evangelist Protestants the explanation is easy:

Evangelical Protestantism is pig-ignorant when it comes to theology and philosophy (individual exceptions blah blah disclaimer yadda yadda, but seriously I'm talking averages here).

Catholicism has this big hierarchy dedicated to doctrine and working out some kind of rulebook. Protestants don't bother, they just schism whenever a big enough question pops up and keep splitting and subdividing until nobody within the sect has any disagreements with anyone else that really matter that much. So instead of spending a lot of time at least trying to train some competent logicians to take care of all the hair-splitting and obscurantism to preserve their authority, the evangelists rely on personal charisma and bible-thumping to keep things going. It's all about the pathos, not so much the ethos and logos.

The weirder and more far-out the sect, the more that's true, until you reach really batshit guys like the snake-handlers and the loonies with messiah complexes.

And since having this ancient philosophical thing isn't important to their self-image, the evangelical churches basically don't give a shit about it and don't put much effort into reading or understanding it. A lot of Christian philosophy and theology goes out the window when you decide all you really need in order to be a good Christian is to praise Jeebus loudly, donate regularly, and do what all the other self-identified Good Christians do.

And the ex-evangelists can easily reach adulthood and rebel against the hypocrisy and ignorance, without knowing anything about Christianity that wasn't covered in Sunday school: praise Jeebus, donate regularly, do what all the other self-identified Good Christians do, and generally live the Moral Orel life.

Questor wrote:Location: Sydney

Sydney has its very own bible belt, specifically in the Hills District. It's nuts.

http://hillsong.com/

Oxymoron wrote:It's weird, but thinking back over it...

Even if I may have read the Bible when I was young (my faithful grandma used it on me and my sisters as reading practice, making us read it out-loud), the fact I've been a non-believer as far as I can remember (I've never been able to believe in god)... Well, I have to confess my religious education is sorely lacking, and that I have only the most basic knowledge of Catholicism (our family's cultural background).

Hmmm... Someday I'll find a priest and tell him to educate me, I guess... They're supposed to have followed a formation on theology at the Seminar, right ?

the only reason i've learned as much as i have about christianity is i started questioning shit and went out looking for it after i started reading up on the occult

even then i'm sure there's plenty of gaps in my knowledge

Umm... Pieman?

A) What about anything I've posted would make you think I didn't know that?

B) The philosophers of those 1800 years? That same hierarchy of Catholics that you mentioned (BTW, Anglicans have very similar things, so do most orthodox churches)? Yeah, the reason I'm wondering how they were avoided is that they're rather prominent as scientists, physicians and mathematicians as well, EDIT: I'm not looking for some obscure priest here. We're talking about the likes of Rene Descartes, Kepler, and Galileo (not the best example for acceptance, I admit).

Zod : Hmm, sure. But I have to admit I'd be really interested to have a conversation with a professional theologian one of these days. Maybe I'll ask my local Bishop for a meeting ?

Oxymoron wrote:Maybe I'll ask my local Bishop for a meeting ?

... people can do that?

Gands wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:Maybe I'll ask my local Bishop for a meeting ?

... people can do that?

i just found the local bishop of denver's contact information on their website

i assume they actually make themselves available to the public if you want to meet them, but idk how hard it would be to actually get a meeting

Gands wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:Maybe I'll ask my local Bishop for a meeting ?

... people can do that?

I'd start with a deacon or priest, but I don't see why not, it is a big part of their job. I doubt you'll have a high success rate in a large diocese (with the bishop at least, he (or his minions) should be able to point you in the direction of a true theologian, which is what you want anyway.

Gands : I dunno. I get they are the representatives of the Church at the diocese scale, and it would stand to reason that in these day and age they be "used" for purpose of public relations mainly, the current affairs being handled by a few laocs.

Questor : thanks for the info. Maybe one day when I'm not lazy and can think of good questions I'll do that.


Ps : posting from my android phone is a pain in the ass