Protestantism

» pink101 - Have It Your Way.

In response to Hey, Phil posted by _Boanerges_:
Life is much more complex for us than it was for our ancestors.
.
Have it your way.
.
When it comes to living in our post modern times, we need new words to help us understand the issues of our present day experiences.
.
Without getting into an argument, one of the main characteristics of post modernism is found in our search for understanding of what has been given as absolute truth in the past--to ameliorate and help us live with the complex nature of our times.
.
We live in times heavily influenced by the religious fervor of the three main monotheisms of belief: Christianity; Judaism; and Islam as they are brought together by the smallness of our postmodern world--it must be quite obvious to even the most casual of observers. As a national society, we are deeply involved in a "War On Terror" that is a focus on the differences involved in those three monotheist religions.
.
In any attempt to explain the issues involved, we run up against solid walls where we are at loggerheads regarding any understanding. I propose that the reason for our lack of understanding is that we do not have words enough to explain the situation in which we find ourselves.
.
It may not make a lot of sense to those readers who are not given to any study of history. It is no fault of theirs that they do not understand the meanings of words like Antinomianism and--specifically--how such words can be applied in the context of the day.
.
But, I would like to propose that the main ideas in need of understanding can be found in the word, Religionism. Perhaps there is a better word that someone can provide?
.
To me, I see Religionism in an historical context where it was used to identify radicalism within any religion--the kind of radicalism that attempts to impose itself on all society and culture. So, a Religionist would be a person that seeks to impose their beliefs on the greater society through the application of its law and laws on the greater society.
.
.http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term...
.
Another mark of post-modernism is the tendency for persons to customize the meanings of words to fit their personal purposes. And, so, a person who wants to promote a certain position regarding Atheism or Secularism might want to call either a religion.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - So, a Religionist would be

In response to Have It Your Way. posted by pink101:

So, a Religionist would be a person that seeks to impose their beliefs on the greater society through the application of its law and laws on the greater society.

and so.. I have explained what a religionist [ is ] according to your message above.. It is concluded that it cannot be Christianity...

next.....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - Hey, Phil

In response to Hey, Phil posted by _Boanerges_:

Christianity opposes abortion. Abortion is legal. Therefore, according to you, it would be the anti-Christians that support abortion. Abortion is legal, therefore, according to you, "a Religionist would be a person that seeks to impose their beliefs on the greater society through the application of its law and laws on the greater society". This cannot be Christianity. Therefore, what religion supports the legalization of abortion?....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - Have It Your Way.

In response to Have It Your Way. posted by pink101:

Another mark of post-modernism is the tendency for persons to customize the meanings of words to fit their personal purposes. And, so, a person who wants to promote a certain position regarding [ Christianity ] might want to call [ christianity ] - [post-modern (christianity) ].

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - So, a Religionist would be

In response to So, a Religionist would be posted by _Boanerges_:
.
"[Religionism] is concluded that it cannot be Christianity..."
.
If I thought you were dumb, I would have to let your statement stand in so far as you are concerned. But, you are not dumb. In fact, it is obvious that you have an exceptional mind.
.
Be THAT as it may, the problem with your statement is that it is straight out of the blue. My statement is clear that Religionism and Christianity, as well as Islam and Judaism, are entirely different concepts.
.
It looks like you do not like to get into any discussions in which you do not define the terms.
.
The fact of the matter is, that my respnse to you, http://protestantism.suite101.com/discus... is looking for words with which we can work.
.
One of the problems I think I have with you, is seen in your efforts to take an issue where it is in your mind so that you can go off on a tangent with it to prove something about an agenda with which you come here. So, that we cannot go anyplace other than down the rabbit hole that already exists in your mind. Most important issues are not poppers like that or that exist in the moment. Instead, they come to us with the baggage of their historical context. And, Religionism is no different. It exists in an historical context.
.
And, we are living with Religionism in the world today. It's ugly head knows no boundaries of one system or another. It dwells where ever people contend for power over the masses.
.
If we consider authoritarianism, for example, most of us readily see that religion gives us the easiest pathway for imposing a rule of law on any followers when it is compared to all other methods of control. When the judges do not speak for the consensus that has been agreed upon by a democratic form of government; but, instead, are given respect to speak on behalf of God, it is almost impossible for any subject to defend their self in a court against the laws of God, Allah, or Yahweh.
.
While Religionism, most certainly, does not define Christianity, it, most certainly, can define the characteristics of some Christians. I suspect, you are a Religionist, Wendell.
.
Strongly.
.
A Religionist would be a person who uses their religion--Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, etc.--to control the rule of law in any society.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - So, a Religionist would be

In response to So, a Religionist would be posted by pink101:

One of the problems I think I have with you, is seen in your efforts to take an issue where it is in your mind so that you can go off on a tangent with it to prove something about an agenda with which you come here

All I have done is asked you three questions based from your statements. Since you refuse to answer those 3 simple questions (even though you made the statements), I logically came to the conclusions all by myself - based on YOUR CRITERIA......

I think that this discussion is about rapped up as it has turned into meaningless babble... You might want to research topics such a Calculus and Rocket science to sooth your mind and soul questions.... ?....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - What Are You Afraid Of Here, Wendell?

In response to So, a Religionist would be posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Here is what you did:
.
Your first response was:
.
I have explained what a religionist [ is ] according to your message above.. It is concluded that it cannot be Christianity...next....
.
Dismissive.
.
Your next post responded with:
.
Christianity opposes abortion. Abortion is legal. Therefore, according to you, it would be the anti-Christians that support abortion. Abortion is legal, therefore, according to you, "a Religionist would be a person that seeks to impose their beliefs on the greater society through the application of its law and laws on the greater society". This cannot be Christianity. Therefore, what religion supports the legalization of abortion?....
.
A tangent with a spin based on an unrelated twist off the issue under consideration as well as the presentation of an argument. Why must you cast most discussions as arguments?
.
And, your last response was:
.
Another mark of post-modernism is the tendency for persons to customize the meanings of words to fit their personal purposes. And, so, a person who wants to promote a certain position regarding [ Christianity ] might want to call [ christianity ] - [post-modern (christianity) ].
.
What did you want as a response to that post?
.
Finally, after my next post, you came up with:
.
All I have done is asked you three questions based from your statements. Since you refuse to answer those 3 simple questions (even though you made the statements), I logically came to the conclusions all by myself - based on YOUR CRITERIA......
I think that this discussion is about rapped up as it has turned into meaningless babble... You might want to research topics such a Calculus and Rocket science to sooth your mind and soul questions.... ?....
.
Plain condescension. Plus you dismiss me out of hand as though nothing I have posted is of any value whatsoever. What could anyone say that wouldn't get them in the mud with you?
.
You can take being obnoxious to the extreme.
.
So, what are you afraid of here, Wendell?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Responding To Brian

In response to Atheism and Secularism posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Brian wrote, "Phil, if you go back and re-read my post, you'll note that I said atheism and secularism 'for all intents and purposes' qualify as religions. I stand by that comment."
.
The basic point of religion:
# noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
# noun: institution to express belief in a divine power (Example: "He was raised in the Baptist religion")
.
Another link gives us the etymology of the word.
.
.http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term...
.
Where the following text is given:
.
religion Look up religion at Dictionary.com
.
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.
"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1535. Religious is first recorded c.1225. Transfered sense of "scrupulous, exact" is recorded from 1599. (Pink's emphasis in bold)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
For whose intents and purposes do you stand by your previous comment that Atheism and Secularism are religions?
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - A Spin Is A Lie!

In response to A Spin Is A Lie! posted by _Boanerges_:

repeating the 3 questions that you REFUSE to answer.....

Phil: Notice America's foreign policy?
Wendell: 1: Which religion plays a role here?

Phil :Notice the arguments regarding such issues as stem cell reseach and abortion?
Wendell: 2: which religion opposes abortion?

Phil: Religionism pervades society.
Wendell: 3: which religion pervades society?

whenever you are ready, Phil...!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - Responding To Phil

In response to Responding To Brian posted by pink101:

Atheism means WITHOUT GOD...

hello....!!!

Maybe now you can see VISIBLY why atheism is an irrational position!

-- posted by _Boanerges_