Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by ShahJahanII, Dec 20, 2011.
I figure that if god exists, he must be a total dick, I'm sorry to say this.
Is that based on man's existence or God's?
You're clearly not a Calvinist then.
EDIT: The Christmas smiley makes this all the better!
My religious views are fairly well established. Christian, more particularly Catholic.
And rather conservative Catholic at that.
The term your looking for is orthodox Catholic, rather than conservative.
If we hold God to be both all-loving and Triune, the each person of the Godhead must love the others. Since God alone is worthy of glory, bringing glory would be a proper expression of love toward Divine persons. Damnation and salvation both bring glory to God, and if each person is perfectly loving toward the others, He must ensure that they receive perfect glory, which means saving and damning the right number of people. If They are to achieve this number, then giving people any measure of free will regarding salvation would constitute imperfect love, and God is perfect.
Yeah, Calvinism sucks.
Be careful dropping the 'o' word around Catholics, they still might be sore about that schism.
'Conservative' is a perfectly accurate word to describe people with traditional attitudes and values, who are cautious about change or innovation, particularly in politics or religion.
I am pretty sure that most catholics here know how Jehoshua stands on most catholic issues.
Well, both groups view themselves as both orthodox and catholic, but the real Orthodox Catholic Church got the better word.
I'd describe myself a secular syncretic Buddhist.
correction, a schismatic deviation from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church got a word that in your opinion is better, Ergo that point is heavily debatable. But I digress.
As to using the word orthodox, Catholics who actually believe in the Church's teaching in its entirety (rather than say picking and choosing what to believe) tend to prefer the term orthodox rather than conservative. Conservative implies that cafateria catholicism or heresy is legitimate and just another way of being Catholic, when the reality is that there is only one way to be fully Catholic, to follow what the Church dogmatically and infallibly teaches as true. Any deviation or departure from what the Church definitively teaches cannot rightfully be said to be Catholic, for dogma cannot be changed to reflect the fancies of the age and the truth does not change simply because people want it to be different to justify their own actions or personal opinions.
You can't innovate a religion, you can't change the word of God.
Islam I won't blow you up for not believing the way I do, don't believe that stuff. Al-Qaida and Taliban is not Islam.
Because what you wrote in your former post is wrong, and nothing you are bringing up here is addressing it.
This is what you claimed:
1. Marxism is hardly "commonly" considered a faith.
2. Strong principles are not the sole property of religion.
3. The last part of the last sentence is unintelligible. Marx recognised the class struggle as the essential factor for progress in any class divided society, he did not regard the bourgeoisie as purely evil, and he was not a fatalist.
Clearly then, unless all political opinions and ideological directions are to be classified as religions, your case don't appear to be a strong one.
In fact, it seems to me that what you Americans call Libertarianism and I call Propertarianism, have a stronger metaphysical oreintation...
Why would you go out of your way to try to label non-religious concepts as religious? Disregarding whether you could, what is the point?
Explain the existence of Christianity and Islam.
I agree that you cannot change the word itself. But you can change how you listen.
Separate names with a comma.