The Upper Room - 2014-01-20 (page 1 of 2)

« first day (880 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3747 days later) »

Does Elisha speak?

1:51 AM

0

Q: Why don't all the flagging options show up?

I don't know why some of the flagging options are missing when I want to flag a question. By missing, I mean they are not there. Sometimes, the SE allows me to flag twice with two distinct messages, and sometimes it only allows me to flag once. This appears inconsistent. I don't get it. How does ...

Does Elisha speak?

2:15 AM

0

Q: Are we required to quote Christian sources when citing scientific information?

It was suggested to me on another question that, "Yes" we can cite science in our answers to Christian question but one person suggested that all science matters should derive from Christian sources. Is this true? If science is brought up, should it only derive from a Christian source?

discussion science citations

1 hour later…

3:38 AM

@rpeg care for a chat?

it might not hurt for you to know that I have a science background, I was an engineering student in college, so I've spent quite a bit of time in Chemistry and Physics classrooms. I find no need for an inherent contradiction between science and religion.

But, what I believe isn't the discussion. How to answer questions on this site is.

Questions here (At least the good ones), are framed around a particular doctrinal position (say for instance, the questions is about predestination, a common doctrine to Calvinism, a question should start by making an a priori assumption that either the doctrine is true or not, and then asking a question about that.

If you wanted to introduce science, it would be in support of the a priori assumption, that is the starting point of the question, and any answer that doesn't start there is off topic. If existing science is counter to the a priori assumption, then it would have to place on the question.

The source of the science isn't really relevant, the conclusions of it are.

That's, naturally, a terrible way of figuring out what is true.

But we're not here to talk about what's true from a neutral point of view

The purpose of this site is to ask and answer questions that reflect what Christians believe, the reality is that many Christians believe things that are counter to what Science currently teaches. For those people, science isn't relevant to talking about their beliefs.

End: message to @rpeg

3:56 AM

I believe I understand that. I would also assume there's a fair amount of engineers and CS people here on a stackexchange site. I understand this is your opinion and your opinion is clear and it makes sense. I'm curious as to how or why you (or anyone else) would take the position that science isn't doctrinal. I'm an atheist.

I don't take the position science fits effectively in religion but I actually want to pose the challenge and thought experiment of citing science in defense of your Christian perspective. My original question is about how to cite science. I understand your argument that it shouldn't be relevant at all based on your argument BUT if one does cite science I'm curious how to approach it.

This position you take that your faith isn't necessarily true (which I consider an actually courageous and honest position) is that a type of theism? Is that existential Christianity?

@rpeg on the contrary. I take the position that my faith is very true. But there are plenty of varieties of Christian on this site, I would not want to personally vouch for all of them.

see: meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/193/…

oh yes. It's true but not from a neutral point of view. Got it.

@waxeagle why is it that you continually fail to understand how this site works? Challenging the assumption is a quite legitimate answer. You've got no business being a moderator if you can't grasp that.

I understand Christianity very thoroughly.

@SteelyDan sorry, did you just read what I said? challenging the a priori doctrinal assumptions of a question is not

if you'd like to argue that, please take it to meta.

4:01 AM

My question was in the meta - Are we required to quote Christian sources when citing scientific information?

@rpeg no.

if the science supports the doctrine, the location/source doesn't matter.

if the science doesn't fit the frame of the question, it's not relevant to the frame of the question

Unfortunately it doesn't seem that easy. I'm very open to hearing how others would approach it.

There's complicated doctrinal variation

if you were to answer a question about whether or not Jesus turned water into wine with a molecular biology reason why he couldn't possibly have done so, that'd be irrelevant as it's considered to be a miracle. Does that make sense?

@rpeg yes, yes there is.

Part of my, implicit question is to confront and bring out doctrinal perspectives.

@rpeg doctrinal perspectives are the core of what we do here.

every question starts with a set of them (even if they aren't mentioned up front, our job is to tease them out), and the challenge is to provide a correct answer based on those assumptions

4:04 AM

I simply can't assume there's a general, generic Christian answer. I would be very curious to see if a doctrinal opinion arises that heavily includes scientific opinions. However someone suggested I should cite Christian sources so I wanted to see how others felt about that.

@rpeg right, there are basically no general case answers for Christianity.

I needed to see what the community here would say about that issue.

Yes, with 30k Christian sects, how can there be.

@rpeg what i would do is seek to identify a group that strongly identifies with modern science and read their primary theologians

@waxeagle I hope the "many Christians" are really the minority!

that'd be how I would approach asking and answering questions about science

4:05 AM

Yes, I read what you said; that's how I know that it displays a complete failure to understand what this site is about and how we do things around here.

@Anonymous sadly, you'd be surprised

@SteelyDan good luck on meta.

I take the position that Christianity is more secular then some Christians would want to acknowledge

and I would argue that I could be Christian

and an atheist

and I would argue that secularism is relevant to Christianity.

but I feel I have to gauge other opinions on that

so that's why I posed that question to meta

@rpeg it depends on the group, but yes, to specific groups it woudl be

But, @waxeagle THANK YOU for taking the time to answer my questions. This forum has been the best

No need to go to Meta; you were the one who committed the misdeed, not I, so you're the one obligated to go out of hir way to fix it, not I

4:09 AM

I'm not sure who you're referring to?

@rpeg I deleted an off topic answer he made, he's airing his grievances

ok. Virtual handshake @waxeagle. Thanks again.

Festivus was last month

this isn't an airing

this is a demand for rectification

@rpeg np, we're happy to have folks of all stripes contributing

@waxeagle Got any evidence?

4:12 AM

@Anonymous anecdotal mostly. But remember there is a very well funded Christian group called Answers in Genesis that is devoted to finding evidence that the earth is young/was created in 7 days

I hold out hopes that one day Christianity (and all religions) can serve even the non-believers. One day not yet. Cheers.

@rpeg The Enlightenment did evolve out of Christian Europe.

@rpeg that's our call (As believers)

(call in this sense being synonymous with mission, not decision)

@waxeagle I do recall that the Seventh Day Adventists and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod may have young-earth creationist beliefs, but I got that info from Wikipedia.

Christianity serves everyone

4:14 AM

@waxeagle even if the call is impossible to accomplish.

through the work of Christians to make a better world, we save everyone by helping to keep humanity from destroying itself

@SteelyDan I'm not undeleting your answer without significant edit. That's my call to make. If don't like it you have 2 options, you can have a rational discussion on meta, or you can use the contact us link at the bottom of the page to reach Stack Exchange corporate to whom I'm ultimately responsible. (hi @JonEricson hope you're well). (you're third option would be to flag the post and have another mod look at it, but I'd imagine since I was responding to the flag of another mod, you won't get too far there)

@waxeagle sorry, that's the wrong response; it's a perfectly legitimate answer, and so as the one who wrongly deleted it you're obligated to rectify your transgression. Would you like to try again?

nope.

that's too bad

4:16 AM

good night.

you've clearly got no business being a mod, then

how do I go about getting you removed from your post?

contact us at the bottom of the page.

or you can start with meta.

@waxeagle I don't see a "contact us" button here.

actually, no, I take that back

linked for ease: christianity.stackexchange.com/contact

4:17 AM

Since you're the one who is responsible for you needing to be removed, it's your obligation to ensure that that happens. Do it.

no thanks.

That's an order.

@waxeagle @SteelyDan What are you talking about?

waxeagle is clearly unsuited to be a mod and needs to be removed

since s/he clearly fails to understand how this SE works and how we do things around here

@waxeagle Is moderator a paid position?

4:20 AM

not actually relevant

if you're not going to do a good job, then don't do it at all

when I used to volunteer with a trail-reconstruction crew, the fact that I wasn't paid didn't make it OK for me to do a poor job

@SteelyDan Yes, I got your point. You can go to the Contact Us page now. :)

@Anonymous nope, purely volunteer.

Hell, if waxeagle were paid I'd be less inclined to demand hir removal--because if s/he is depending on this for hir livelihood, that's more important than the proper and smooth functioning of this site.

@waxeagle How do you manage to squeeze work, family life, church, the Stacks Exchange, role-playing, doing chores around the house, bills, taxes, etc.?

please watch your language here.

4:23 AM

so now you're xenophobic?

we're not allowed to use other languages?

@SteelyDan Some jobs do not make much to support a living.

@SteelyDan english is the mandated language simply so everyone can understand and moderation can be effective. I was more referring to foul language of which I've edited yours.

@SteelyDan "Watch your language" is an idiom for harsh criticism.

what "foul language"?

good night folks. I'm going to bed.

4:25 AM

good night folks. I'm going to bed.

El'endia Starman

@Anonymous Mmm...I usually don't see it used that way. It's usually a warning against obscenity.

9 hours later…

2:00 PM

> I’m worried for my evangelical brothers and sisters in Indiana. It seems that the pastors there are in the habit of regularly assaulting members of their congregation, vandalizing property and making terroristic threats to the community.

1 hour later…

3:19 PM

@El'endiaStarman That too.

I think I meant to say offensive language.

Harsh criticism can be very offensive; obscenity can be very offensive.

Steely Dan is always very clear that absolutely no one else understands "the way we do things around here". Apparently, he's the sole source of all our community norms. On the other hand, when you ask him to put forth his own opinions of how things should work, instead of criticising other opinions, he's surprisingly reticent.

Any comments, @Steely?

I'm worried mainly about universalism, that there are other religions and that LDS holds unbiblical doctrine

3 hours later…

6:05 PM

@TRiG How do you do that? Steely Dan is the full name, and you only write part of the name.

@laovultai I think waxeagle would agree with you.

@Anonymous you actually only need 3 letters

the catch is it will ping anyone whose recently been in the room that shares those 3 letters

@laovultai Why does universalism worry you? It's the only soteriology consistent with the teachings of the Christ.

@SteelyDan except for the part where it contradicts large parts of his teachings...

2

the problem there is that it doesn't

if you think it does, you clearly fail to grasp them

What non-Christians like yourself fail to understand is that it is the Christ's work itself that saves us all.

6:24 PM

@SteelyDan - out of sheer morbid curiosity, who do you think Christ was referring to whenever he mentions the Father or the spirit if you don't believe there is any god?

The Christ did no such thing.

so you also claim the Bible is corrupt?

No, I claim it's mostly irrelevant.

well you are claiming that what the Bible says Christ said wasn't actually said by Christ

thus, you must be claiming the Bible is corrupt

I'm claiming that it doesn't say what you say it says.

6:31 PM

wow, ok, I think I'm going to give up any hope of having a rational conversation right there

4

Seriously, tell me where you think it attributes such words to the Christ

I'm genuinely curious

@TRiG "our community". Hmm. Are we relenting a little?

I'm going to have to think about that.

I'm worried because it is contrary to this: http://billygraham.org/answer -> search: "universalism" -> Recently, I read about a new book that claims God won't send anyone to hell.
Actually I would like to ask that can you tell me what is your source for universalism?

-> @Steely Dan

And by the way: I have not so much time as someone else might be the same problem.

@laovultai universalism certainly has been a doctrinal fad of late. (It's always been around, it's been on the rise with populare books like "love wins" among others)

@waxeagle: I read your comment. It made me positive.

6:40 PM

which question are we looking at?

positive impact.

He won't send anyone to hell, because there is no god and no hell to be "sent to"--those who are claiming that God won't send anyone to hell are correct about that. Hell is just the state of being unloved, which isn't God's doing but society's.

Christians, then, know that we save everyone by loving everyone.

@laovultai link?

that's the Christian teaching on the matter

anything else is positively not Christian

@SteelyDan reference?

6:41 PM

including Billy Graham

you're not going to get by simply saying that you have to prove that

@laovultai it stems from things like God being unwilling that any should perish, but that doesn't square with other scriptures. The way I personally view it, God doesn't want anyone to perish, but won't override their will to save them

@AJHenderson I can't by that. If he wanted to, he could.

Reference to what? It follows logically from the nature of the Christ.

thus, if someone wants to say that they believe their way is better than God's, he'll allow them to those devices

6:42 PM

@SteelyDan You can't invoke logic unless you've actually drawn direct logical conclusions, of which I've seen none. Clearly state your postulates and proofs.

@AJ: I regard same kind of view as your last statement.

@laovultai that's a common way of looking at it, as a Calvinist I'll tell you that you're looking at it from the wrong angle, but it's sufficient for understanding the scriptures

the end result is the same

basically the only way to fully resolve scripture (atleast that I've seen) is that God doesn't want people to go to hell, but also won't force them to follow Him and hell is separation from God. I don't hold that view as the only possibility, but it is what I feel most likely

but I also hold that it is highly unlikely that nobody will go to hell. I wish it could be the case, but I expect some and quite possibly many would rather have their own way and truely feel they know best

@waxeagle. Do you mean this? billygraham.org/answer/…

@laovultai oh, i thought it was a question on this site

6:46 PM

@SteelyDan simply search for any mention of Father or Spirit in red letters, it's not hard to find and references are plentiful. I'm not going to waste my time on going through point by point with you though

@SteelyDan Assertion is not evidence. Furthermore, I know not this Christ of whom you speak.

2

@SteelyDan please do note that for purposes of this site, any group that identifies themselves as Christians will be allowed the reference, so calling out groups that identify as Christian as unchristian is counter to the rules

@WaxEagle though as a question of clarification, what is the definition of group for that rule

if someone is a one off with no group association, does the same protection still apply or is it only extended to actual groups

@AJ That's Jesus speaking, no? Jesus was not the Christ.

@Steely Dan: I was worried about these things that deal with universalism, that there are other religions and that LDS holds unbiblical doctrine. Now I'm not sure whether I should be worried or not

@waxeagle how do you square 2 peter 3:9?

6:50 PM

So the Christ said no such thing.

@SteelyDan who do you claim the Christ was then?

@laovultai the general guide I use is to try and separate out what is key to salvation and what isn't. Personally, I'd argue that the apostle's and Nicene creeds do a nice job of summarizing the most important key points

at the end of the day, I'd put good money on the idea that no person has it right for all the minor theological issues, but the Bible and Christ were both much more clear on core, critical theology

@laovultai are you LDS?

"Who" is the wrong question to ask.

@SteelyDan so you are defining Christ as an idea that isn't any person and doesn't match up with any one person's teaching (aside from perhaps your own)

but rather as some ideal form of balance?

I don't know if "balance" is the word I'd use, but basically, yes

though I could see how it might apply

6:56 PM

@Wax eagle: do you have reference in your bible to 2 pet.3:9?

Being clear on your definitions would be an aid to clarity, you know, @Steely.

ok, I think I understand where you are coming from, but that is really a form of eastern philosophy rather than anything related to Christianity

@laovultai yes, I'm reading it now, and investigating it in context.

in The Library, Jan 18 '13 at 19:09, by TRiG

@JackDouglas Terminology. It matters.

@wax eagle: Answer to your question is: no, I'm not.

6:58 PM

2 peter 3:9 is the basis on which a lot of universalists (take out of context) and make the claim that since a) God can do whatever he wants and b) God want's everyone to be saved, thus c) everyone will be saved

I disagree with that assesment

but have noticed its doctrine appealing although it claims that church is corrupt after Jesus' earthly ministry.

but that is the foundational basis in scripture which they use

one thing worth noting, the context is eschatological, it seems quite easily read that the "does not wish anyone to perish" is inclusive of the elect

@AJ No, it IS Christianity. It's the true teachings of the actual Christ, rather than a false Christ in the form of Jesus personally.

that the Paulinists and Jesusists wrongly believe in

define Christ?

6:59 PM

@SteelyDan I'm talking semantically here. Christianity refers to the religion that is derived from the teachings of Jesus Christ. You have repurposed the word to call something else entirely Christianity

@wax eagle: I have reference etc. to 1 tim.2:4.

which has no basis in what is generally referred to as Christianity. The word's just happen to overlap

related directly to 2 pet.3:9

under your definition of the word

@SteelyDan put another way, I can see no connection between the Christianity that you are referring to and the Christianity this site discusses

The Christ is an abstract, ideal manifestation of the best within all of us: universal brotherly love and compassion.

Paulinists and Jesusists don't follow the Christ; therefore they're not really Christians

because they follow a man, who was pretty chill but ultimately imperfect

7:01 PM

@SteelyDan what's the origin of this definition?

@SteelyDan And why have you named "The Christ" such? Why not name it something else, to prevent confusion with the better known Christ?

2

This is the fulfillment of the messiah-seeking of the Hebrews

just not in the form they expected to find it

@laovultai just to clarify, personally, I think that LDS runs afowl of core theology coming from a generic protestant background with a primarily Biblical basis

@SteelyDan how does this fulfill any of the messianic prophecies? For instance that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem?

It doesn't, probably. Like I said, "not in the form they expected to find it"

but it IS what they were looking for

7:06 PM

@waxeagle I have the feeling that in Steely Dan's mind, Christianity is not derivitive of Judaism

since he doesn't believe there is a god

can we create a doge meme for this? I'm having trouble keeping track

thus, the Jewish leading by God would be false and thus Judaism would be false

he's really following something in the vein of eastern philosophy that he has branded as Christian because he feels the ideal state is to be in the state of Christ (where Christ is the name of the ideal)

it's not a new concept at all

I just don't see why Steely Dan ties his philosophy to Christianity at all. It has neither the same source nor the same beliefs as "standard" Christianity, and the coincidence of name seems to have only the effect of confusing everyone.

it's actually a very old Eastern concept

the name is simply coincidental, as Trig said

Reminds me of that chap who was determined to say that Jews are Muslims (as long as you use unusual forms of the words).

7:09 PM

@TRiG who knows, but it does make a mockery of this site's loose definition of Christianity. Thank God for citation requirements

If you were reading the Mi Yodeya and Islam chat rooms a few months ago, you'll know the one I mean.

@AJ: afowl; what does it mean?

and in fairness to Steely Dan, I understand why the word choice matters to him, because I feel the same way about the term Marriage, but it does ultimately lead to confusion since the things being discussed are the same word for completely different concepts

@laovultai contrary to

goes against

is not compatible with

@laovultai afoul is the correct spelling

afowl loosely means "Related to birds"

If you consider the origins of the word "Christ" in the context of what I'm saying, you'll know why it matters.

7:11 PM

@SteelyDan by the way, apologies for giving up on a rational discussion too prematurely earlier, I understand where you are coming from now. I completely disagree with you and think you are talking about something completely different, but we are also in agreement on that.

just as a tip for helping you explain it in the future to others, you should probably be clear up-front that you see Christ as an ideal state of being which if everyone emulated, then we would be in harmony

Apr 26 '12 at 23:31, by TRiG

@JasperLoy I would say the word Christian is context-dependent. In the context of a census report, or interreligious dialogue, or this site, a Christian is defined as anyone who considers zirself to be a Christian. That's a sensible definition in this context. In other contexts, different definitions make more sense.

and that it draws nothing from the ministry of Jesus or Biblical scripture

^^ I'm certain I said much the same in an answer here once, but I can't find it now.

@TRiG I assume it's on meta somewhere

@waxeagle I'm pretty sure it was on main. A question about what it means to be Christian. Possibly since closed as too opiniony.

7:14 PM

@AJ It'd be a lot easier, but not nearly as much fun.

@Trig - christianity.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic

that's where the site's exact definition of Christian is

@AJ: can you give some reference for your claim on generic protestant doctrine of LDS+

which is afoul version of it?

@laovultai well I'm saying (as a generic Biblically based protestant) that I don't think LDS fulfills a Biblical definition of Christianity

@trig - strictly speaking, it only says the name will be accepted for groups that self-identify as Christians, that's why I was asking for clarification

I'm not sure that we want to have every individual's different view be considered on-topic since that could lead to things that don't match up with what is generally useful to people in regards to Christianity as one random person's bizarre view isn't going to be generally useful

2

as much as that one person may disagree :)

Ok. I think the LDS doctrine is appealing excluded it's exclusiveness and claims that classical church is corrupt and their prophet is Messenger of God.

I mean corrupt from the beginning after ministry of Jesus( This is to @AJ)

@laovultai what of there doctrine do you find intersting if you exclude the claims you mentioned?

7:20 PM

@AJ: Claims of pre-mortal life, "Council".

They seem appealing and positive to me.

@laovultai could you expand a bit, I'm not particularly familiar with the deeper parts of their theology because their exclusiveness claims and the claims as a prophet made me discount them entirely

@AJ: I'm not sure. Are you christian?

I identify as a protestant Bible based Christian

I testify that I'm a charismatic/pentecostal christian.

what is "pre-mortal life" and "Council"

7:24 PM

As I know it is in www.lds.org -> Plan of salvation -> Pre-mortal life

It is not easy to tell, because I'm still scrutinizing it.

So I cannot tell it but only what father seeth doing... I mean that Maybe this site tells it better( this is to @AJ)

@TRiG You can ping yourself too?

Thomas Jennings

When Catholics say only an 'infinite good' will surfice man, do they mean that literally or as hyperbole? I'm taking it literally but juuuuusst checking...

@Anonymous yeah, it's easier if you have the chat userscripts installed so you can see/copy the id

@Anonymous yeah, you just have to get the id

you do @idnumber

@AJHenderson colon then id number.

7:39 PM

@SteelyDan - your views are mostly a derivative of the Taoist or Daoist concept

:13297846 hi would respond to my previous message

@waxeagle ah, is it colon? it's been a while since I did it

@AJHenderson yeah, message ids are colons, else you run the risk of pinging someone whose username happens to be your message id

hmm, good point

@waxeagle Is that an idiomatic "Thank God" or a expression of gratitude towards God?

7:42 PM

@Anonymous more likely idiomatic.

there is a genuine thankfullness there, but it's the selfish, I'm glad other folks agree with me on this.

@AJHenderson You've studied Daoism?

To be a derivative they would have to be, you know, informed by them

Thomas Jennings

I can see you guys are busy, haha- I'll try again later! To the Batcave!

Which would require an understanding of them on my part

which,r egrettably, I lack

so no

they're not

if I did have a decent understanding of them, you could argue that there was at least an unconscious influence there

but that's not the case

@waxeagle Thanking God for citations may not be so selfish.

7:48 PM

@AJAndersson: I must admit that I didn't read carefully when you said: ...LDS runs afowl of core theology coming from a generic protestant background with a primarily Biblical basis. I forgot to read carefully word "I think". I'm in need of getting truth about LDS.

haa.

@laovultai I'm having trouble following what you're asking. What exactly are you looking for?

How familiar are you with their history?

@wax eagle: not so much have I investigated, but I know that it is been regarded as a cult if you read one document on cults( 7 characteristics of a cult - Mike Bickle). And they are regarded as a theological cult By one evangelical leader in CNN news in presidential elections of United stated of America.

@waxeagle: how familiar are you on this?

@laovultai It depends on which Mormon denomination you are talking about. There are several different subcategories under Mormonism.

@laovultai not overly so, I know enough of the story to know I don't share their beliefs. And enough to know I'd be hard pressed to acknowledge their place alongside orthodox Christianity

@Wax eagle: Have you read this: www.lds.org -> Plan of salvation -> Pre-mortal life

?

7:56 PM

@laovultai looking now

haha. I see.

Nov 5 '12 at 21:55, by TRiG

@El'endiaStarman Cult is a word with many different meanings, one of which is "a religion I dislike".

@Anonymous I has da power!

@TRIG: ?

@laovultai click the little arrow to see what it's referring to.

@laovultai you should use the reply system when you can, on the far right side of each message is a little arrow, click it to reply

@wax eagle: where is little arrow?

on the upper left of a message?

8:07 PM

@laovultai if you mouse over it, far right side

should be 3 symbols, a flag, a star and a reversed enter symbol

@wax eagle: but it is not an arrow?

@TRiG Do you know what is a cult?

user image

the third one

@waxeagle If you're on a touch device, you don't have "mouseover", so you can use the drop-down menu to the left instead.

@TRiG true

@Anonymous I'm now trying to find the place where @El'endiaStarman demonstrated pinging forward in time.

8:13 PM

@TRiG Do you know what a cult is?

El'endia Starman

@TRiG Oh yes, that was fun. ^_^ Also basically a mod-only ability because it requires being able to edit older messages.

@laovultai I know that the word cult has several different meanings. Which do you intend?

@TRiG Do you know any reference for your definition of a cult?

@laovultai What, I'm defining cults now?!

@laovultai which exact page on lds.org were you referring to? I see a page with a brief description of the concept of pre-mortal life, but no theological defense, I don't find the concept particularly plausible and there is nothing in scripture to indicate that souls have pre-mortal lives

8:16 PM

What I said boils down to, basically, "Some people use the word cult fairly indiscriminately to describe any religion they dislike."

(at least that I can think of right off hand)

I'm pretty sure that's true, but no, I don't have a reference off hand.

(And yes, I did express myself in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner.)

@TRiG ok. Well it is a group that adheres to syncretism

eg.

@El'endiaStarman Found a nice little comment-reply loop.

@laovultai Er, no. A group which adheres to syncretism may or may not be a cult, but syncretism is in no way a defining feature of cults. Not by any definition of which I'm aware, anyway.

Syncretism is the combining of different, often seemingly contradictory beliefs, while melding practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merger and analogizing of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. Syncretism also occurs commonly in expressions of arts and culture (known as eclecticism) as well as politics (syncretic politics). Nomenclature, orthography, and etymology The Oxford English Dictionary first attests the...

@waxeagle do you know the doctrine of LDS?

8:19 PM

@laovultai I'm familiar with some but not all of them

@Anonymous I was educated in New York State in a good school district

I have a solid education in world religions

and I'm not familiar with whether or not they are willing to defend them directly from scripture or whether they regularly rely on the D&C/pearl of great price to defend their doctrine

@waxeagle I know a site which includes "theological defence"

not in-depth, but enough to recognize similarities in people's philosophies to major world religions and philosophies

on LDS doctrine

8:21 PM

@laovultai i'm sure they exist. I don't intend to spend a great deal of time learning their theology, I might read the D&C at some point if I have some free time, but I've not found it yet

@SteelyDan - derivitive may be the wrong term, but the basic concept of it has still been covered by the existing concept of Taoism/Daoism

at least the general concept seems to be

@TRiG OUCH!!!

@laovultai ?

@TRiG Well. It is hard to explain.

@laovultai Sorry. I'm not sure what you're saying. But you seem to be responding to something I said with an expression of pain, which made me worry that I had in some way upset you.

8:28 PM

Well. What I said is this: "
ok. Well it is a group that adheres to syncretism eg. ". And I do not know if this is true or not. Likely not, but sometimes you are too cocky and sometimes it hurts.

I don't know. But I know one reference where you are been explained the "7 characteristics of a cult"

@laovultai what Trig is saying (if i understand correctly), is that cult is commonly used to describe a religious sect you don't agree with as a way to write them off and brand them as outsiders.

whether or not there is a common dictionary definition, or someone has written a way to identify cults is irrelevant to that particular discussion of the usage of the term

@waxeagle Can I ask that do you mean that what others have wrote about cults is irrelevant in this discussion if this chat?

I meant. "in this chat"
'

@laovultai I mean that what others have written largely proves the point Trig is making

@waxeagle ...and the point is?

By the way it seems that when you speak in truth then there is unity among partisipants of discussion

@laovultai huh?

8:40 PM

@waxeagle I understood your point that all documents largely prove that cults are religious sects you don't agree with.

gotcha

@AJ: You said, you have studied world religions in the uni, isn't it?

@laovultai high school

and middle school

@AJHenderson Middle school? Is it a uni?

middle school is grades 6 through 8, before high school

though actually, I did have one college level world religion course as well

though I took that after getting out of college as a stand alone class

I actually ran sound for it so I got to go to it for free

8:50 PM

@AJHenderson well. ok.

@TRiG I meant that what is a cult in your opinion?

I meant that maybe you have a document that you have read and what is a decisive Foundation of your conception on cult

@laovultai I'm quite happy to accept that words have different meanings in different contexts. And I think that the word cult has sufficiently many definitions that clarifying which one you're using is an essential precursor to any conversation on the subject.

@TRiG ok.

well I realise that I would like to know why LDS is "theological cult" as this evangelical leader said in this video which I played in YouTube that was filmed - I think - during previous presidential elections of the United states of America.

@laovultai they are considered a cult because they are heterodox, relatively small (though growing), and can trace their lineage back to a single, relatively recent, figure

that's not necessarily a great delineation for a cult, but it's not an uncommonly used one

@waxeagle Furthermore, none of that in itself has anything to do with their beliefs being untrue.

@waxeagle in my homecountry we have a saying: Asiasta kolmanteen. How do you say that in english. Ok.

9:05 PM

@TRiG right

google translate says "the third"?

@waxeagle Yes. I know that it might be near to "By the way"

I don't know whether you have a saying that is equated with this one I wrote.

@laovultai it was sort of an addendum. and Trig's point was actually closer to what I was trying to say. None of the qualifiers that might lead to LDS being described as a cult necessarily make them wrong.

@TRiG What you said, was positive to me. I mean that I'm interested in their claims, but sad that it is not found in the Bible.

@laovultai To be honest, it it my contention that much of Christianity is not found in the Bible, but that's a little more complicated than I want to get into right now. I'm tired and hungry.

@waxeagle my previous statement was also directed to @TRIG

I mean to you @waxeagle.

@TRiG By the way. I get life, I receive food, I get knowledge. Everything is a gift, which I then nurture in life.

Thomas Jennings

9:32 PM

In this sentence 'man can only be satisfied by an infinite good' (spoken by the Pope- or a pope: can't remember) is that hyperbole or a literal take on 'infinite'? Because, if the latter, I've got a good qustion to ask the site...

..."When these hopes are fulfilled, however, it becomes clear that they were not, in reality, the whole. It becomes evident that man has need of a hope that goes further. It becomes clear that only something infinite will suffice for him, something that will always be more than he can ever attain"

@ThomasJennings I'm pretty sure that's intended to be literal

Thomas Jennings

Cheers! (Sometimes difficult to tell- theism has got to be one of those very few subjects where mistakes of that kind occur!)

10:07 PM

no (I can see deleted messages)

10:49 PM

> When the truth is- the Bible is simaltaneously in favor of radical economic justice and the complete oppression of women- of kindness and generousity and love for the neighbor- and dashing the brains of the next tribes children against the wall

caryjamesbond, comments on Slactkivist.

^^ That's a good article, actually. It's Fred taking a couple of atheist bloggers to task.

« first day (880 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3747 days later) »

Transcript for

Jan '1420

The Upper Room

General discussion for Christianity.SE, pseudo-meta support, a...

christianity discussion

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile