|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 26, 2017 2:27:06 GMT
Sometimes people lie about their stance. They might say things that go against their philosophy/religion/atheism but they actually are not the person they claim to be. A close examination of their views over a long term will show something else. Let's say a person who was a Hare Krishna or Jehovah's Witness suddenly starts claiming that he or she is no longer HK/JW. He/She might go on saying things that may sound to be against JW/HK but a closer examination of the person's beliefs will reveal that the person is actually speaking against broader Christianity/Hinduism and is actually quite defensive of underlying philosophies of JW/HK schools. In fact the person was against broader Christianity/Hinduism to begin with! In the same way an atheist might lie about his/her beliefs or in fact person attached to any cause or opinion may lie about his/ her belief. But in the long term the person will eventually reveal his/her true feelings if the person has been lying all along. True attachment to a stand/religion/atheism/philosophy requires consistency of thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 2:28:17 GMT
Sometimes people lie about their stance. They might say things that go against their philosophy/religion/atheism or but they actually are not the person they claim to be. A close examination of their views over a long term will show something else. Let's say a person who was a Hare Krishna or Jehovah's Witness suddenly starts claiming that he is no longer HK/JW. He/She might go on saying things that may sound to be against JW/HK but a closer examination of the person's beliefs will reveal that the person is actually speaking against broader Christianity/Hinduism and is actually quite defensive of underlying philosophies of JW/HK schools. In fact the person was against broader Christianity/Hinduism to begin with! In the same way an atheist might lie about his/her beliefs or in fact person attached to any cause or opinion may lie about his belief. But in the long term the person will eventually reveal his true feeling if the person has been lying all along. True belief in a cause requires consistency of thoughts. Have you got someone in mind?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 26, 2017 2:30:16 GMT
Sometimes people lie about their stance. They might say things that go against their philosophy/religion/atheism or but they actually are not the person they claim to be. A close examination of their views over a long term will show something else. Let's say a person who was a Hare Krishna or Jehovah's Witness suddenly starts claiming that he is no longer HK/JW. He/She might go on saying things that may sound to be against JW/HK but a closer examination of the person's beliefs will reveal that the person is actually speaking against broader Christianity/Hinduism and is actually quite defensive of underlying philosophies of JW/HK schools. In fact the person was against broader Christianity/Hinduism to begin with! In the same way an atheist might lie about his/her beliefs or in fact person attached to any cause or opinion may lie about his belief. But in the long term the person will eventually reveal his true feeling if the person has been lying all along. True belief in a cause requires consistency of thoughts. Have you got someone in mind? It was an observation. I for sure know a few Hare Krishna who posted on HDF forum who displayed this kind of behaviour repeatedly. This behaviour is more common among people who follow not so mainline religion or philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 2:38:41 GMT
Have you got someone in mind? It was an observation. I for sure know a few Hare Krishna who posted on HDF forum who displayed this kind of behaviour repeatedly. This behaviour is more common among people who follow not so mainline religion or philosophy. Hmm interesting. I know for my part, although I am a Christian I am hardly mainline, it gets me some interesting takes on what people think of what I believe. EDIT: compounded of course by the fact that I try to test my belief against what I observe in the world and what I read on a daily basis, so I guess my belief is evolving.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 26, 2017 2:46:36 GMT
It was an observation. I for sure know a few Hare Krishna who posted on HDF forum who displayed this kind of behaviour repeatedly. This behaviour is more common among people who follow not so mainline religion or philosophy. Hmm interesting. I know for my part, although I am a Christian I am hardly mainline, it gets me some interesting takes on what people think of what I believe. EDIT: compounded of course by the fact that I try to test my belief against what I observe in the world and what I read on a daily basis, so I guess my belief is evolving. In my personal opinion following not so mainline religious or political stance is generally better than following organised religion or political stance as it gives you chance to repeatedly question your beliefs. This also ensures that you don't have to align your thoughts to those of sect/school you follow and compromise your values while doing that. Most of such people don't display the crypto behaviour I mentioned. But among people who display such crypto behaviour, I have observed that a slightly greater percentage come from those who are not the followers of mainline religion/ political beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 26, 2017 2:54:55 GMT
Hmm interesting. I know for my part, although I am a Christian I am hardly mainline, it gets me some interesting takes on what people think of what I believe. EDIT: compounded of course by the fact that I try to test my belief against what I observe in the world and what I read on a daily basis, so I guess my belief is evolving. In my personal opinion following not so mainline religious or political stance is generally better than following organised religion or political stance as it gives you chance to repeatedly question your beliefs. This also ensures that you don't have align your thoughts to those of sect/school you follow and compromise your values while doing that. Most of such people don't display the crypto behaviour I mentioned. But among people who display such crypto behaviour, I have observed that a slightly greater percentage come from those who are not followers of mainline religion/ political beliefs. Yeah I guess that is also to do with being on your cognisance, there is something to be said for being able to sound out your thoughts on some one else and get feedback. I guess the ideal is a religion of 10-20 people.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 26, 2017 3:07:20 GMT
Have you got someone in mind? It was an observation. I for sure know a few Hare Krishna who posted on HDF forum who displayed this kind of behaviour repeatedly. This behaviour is more common among people who follow not so mainline religion or philosophy. What does HDF stand for?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 5:23:43 GMT
I sometimes wonder where I stand with this because I call myself atheist but tend to defend certain Catholics beliefs even if they're not all of them. If someone were to say that it's wrong to pray to Mary or saints i would argue with them that it's beneficial to a lot of people.. There are so many saints and some of them I felt i could relate to so praying to them might feel more personal. I also still love the rosary even though I don't pray it anymore. It's definitely a good way of meditation. I also just saw a rosary on the ground after work today too and it made me smile lol 😂
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Jul 30, 2017 7:07:40 GMT
True attachment to a stand/religion/atheism/philosophy requires consistency of thoughts. Since when? The RCC used to teach that there was a place called Limbo (for unbaptized infants), the Geocentric version of cosmology and that usury (loaning money at interest) was wrong, among other things. The Mormons decided in the 1970s that Black men could be priests. Then there's Genesis, something that was considered to be literal, but which many religions now claim to be metaphorical. Religion doesn't require consistency. It needs people who can selectively accept or reject any teachings so as to feel better.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 30, 2017 9:27:09 GMT
True attachment to a stand/religion/atheism/philosophy requires consistency of thoughts. Since when? The RCC used to teach that there was a place called Limbo (for unbaptized infants), the Geocentric version of cosmology and that usury (loaning money at interest) was wrong, among other things. The Mormons decided in the 1970s that Black men could be priests. Then there's Genesis, something that was considered to be literal, but which many religions now claim to be metaphorical. Religion doesn't require consistency. It needs people who can selectively accept or reject any teachings so as to feel better. I didn't mean consistency as akin to honesty or integrity but more like consistency in defending the chosen religion/atheism/political stance. Such people are loyal to their religion/philosophy and may defend it anyway. That's what going crypto entails.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 30, 2017 12:06:23 GMT
I don't know if defending something is a sign of anything other than comprehension of the thing defended.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 30, 2017 13:23:01 GMT
I sometimes wonder where I stand with this because I call myself atheist but tend to defend certain Catholics beliefs even if they're not all of them. If someone were to say that it's wrong to pray to Mary or saints i would argue with them that it's beneficial to a lot of people.. There are so many saints and some of them I felt i could relate to so praying to them might feel more personal. I also still love the rosary even though I don't pray it anymore. It's definitely a good way of meditation. I also just saw a rosary on the ground after work today too and it made me smile lol 😂 Doesn't the bible say that worship is ONLY for the lord? So why would you pray to "saints" when they aren't the ones who actually grant the wishes so to speak? I never understood that about Catholicism.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 30, 2017 13:31:00 GMT
Since when? The RCC used to teach that there was a place called Limbo (for unbaptized infants), the Geocentric version of cosmology and that usury (loaning money at interest) was wrong, among other things. The Mormons decided in the 1970s that Black men could be priests. Then there's Genesis, something that was considered to be literal, but which many religions now claim to be metaphorical. Religion doesn't require consistency. It needs people who can selectively accept or reject any teachings so as to feel better. I didn't mean consistency as akin to honesty or integrity but more like consistency in defending the chosen religion/atheism/political stance. Such people are loyal to their religion/philosophy and may defend it anyway. That's what going crypto entails. Only so long as they recognize that their understanding of it is "correct". Beliefs can evolve, and with them so does ones willingness to defend or reject certain claims, or aspects of the belief. Many fundamentalist Christians believe that the bible teaches that the creation days are literal 24 hour days, that the earth is 6 thousand years old, and that there was a global flood that wiped out all life on the planet. However, many Christians now reject all of those claims as scientifically unsupportable and/or biblically inconsistent. It doesn't mean they are no longer "true Christians", it just means they have different interpretations of it, and defend it differently than they may have in the past. In other words, it means they are open minded and willing to question their own beliefs. What you are suggesting is that religion requires people to be close minded, stubborn, unable to engage in critical thinking, and never change their stance about anything.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 30, 2017 13:36:27 GMT
I didn't mean consistency as akin to honesty or integrity but more like consistency in defending the chosen religion/atheism/political stance. Such people are loyal to their religion/philosophy and may defend it anyway. That's what going crypto entails. In other words, it means they are open minded and willing to question their own beliefs. What you are suggesting is that religion requires people to be close minded, stubborn, unable to engage in critical thinking, and never change their stance about anything. Nopes, I am only talking about a particular kind of people who change. The crypto ones. There are many many religious followers who change their stance for legitimate reasons and they may be from any religious background. It's not only about what religion requires but in many cases about what followers think the religion requires of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 17:40:10 GMT
I sometimes wonder where I stand with this because I call myself atheist but tend to defend certain Catholics beliefs even if they're not all of them. If someone were to say that it's wrong to pray to Mary or saints i would argue with them that it's beneficial to a lot of people.. There are so many saints and some of them I felt i could relate to so praying to them might feel more personal. I also still love the rosary even though I don't pray it anymore. It's definitely a good way of meditation. I also just saw a rosary on the ground after work today too and it made me smile lol 😂 Doesn't the bible say that worship is ONLY for the lord? So why would you pray to "saints" when they aren't the ones who actually grant the wishes so to speak? I never understood that about Catholicism. I'm not sure if praying and worship are the same things. Alot of the prayer cards for the saints say stuff like "ask God for me" or along the lines of that phrase so its almost like asking someone on earth to pray for you or whatever you're asking for just to feel like you were heard. It like saying "please think of me" type of thing. and since they're in heaven with God it seems more meaningful if they somehow heard your prayers I guess. So it's not just God that hears your prayers but also the saints, and even though God can only grant prayers it's still nice to know others can hear you too. The really well known saints represent certain things that people pray for too, so if you're praying about making families stronger, st Jospeh might be a good saint to be addressed in the prayer but still acknowledging God as well. Also reading stories about their lives somehow show they had a strong connection with God, and so praying to them apparently can be believed that they hear it and repeat it to God, and the stronger spirtually someone is the more likely God will answer to them. So if a saint is a repeating your prayer to God directly then it's more likely God will grant the prayer. So the saints are just reappeating the prayer to God and not actually granting it. The more people pray the more likely God hears it. I know when it comes to Mary it's a lot different because it pretty much comes across Catholics worship her too even when they supposedly claim they don't. It's hard to explain that one. But the best way to find Jesus is through Mary's help. Now I don't believe any of this literally like I used to but I can see a lot of meaning and symbolism to it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 17:45:31 GMT
I don't know if defending something is a sign of anything other than comprehension of the thing defended. That's a good point. I tend to defend certain aspects of Catholicism when people attacking it don't fully come across as they actually understand it. When it comes to the Catholic Church actions and their history I won't defend though. I'm just talking about certain beliefs or ways of praying that people find crazy or don't get and call it wrong and against the Bible .
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 30, 2017 18:10:09 GMT
tpfkar When you first posted it, I just thought the op was a not-so-crypto post about Bryce. A little less sure now.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 30, 2017 20:37:18 GMT
Doesn't the bible say that worship is ONLY for the lord? So why would you pray to "saints" when they aren't the ones who actually grant the wishes so to speak? I never understood that about Catholicism. I'm not sure if praying and worship are the same things. They are; anything else is semantics! Worship (n): the act of showing respect and love for a god especially by praying with other people who believe in the same god : the act of worshipping God or a god Worship (v): to show respect and love for God or for a god especially by praying, having religious services, etc Biblestudytools (worship)A) I never understood the logic of having other people pray for you. Logically, an individual should pray for themselves since the act of confessing, repenting, forgiving, and asking is personal. Why not just go straight to the source? B) At the very least, asking someone who actually knows you (and is still alive) seems like it be more effective than asking a dead person who never knew you. Is there anywhere in the Bible that suggests that dead saints can hear prayers or answer them? Fair enough!
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 30, 2017 23:06:55 GMT
I'm not sure if praying and worship are the same things. They are; anything else is semantics! Worship (n): the act of showing respect and love for a god especially by praying with other people who believe in the same god : the act of worshipping God or a god Worship (v): to show respect and love for God or for a god especially by praying, having religious services, etc No Captainbryce, praying & worship are not the same thing. To pray means to "ask of something, from someone." To give worship means to give sacrifices or offerings. That is what worship is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 23:16:33 GMT
I'm not sure if praying and worship are the same things. They are; anything else is semantics! Worship (n): the act of showing respect and love for a god especially by praying with other people who believe in the same god : the act of worshipping God or a god Worship (v): to show respect and love for God or for a god especially by praying, having religious services, etc Biblestudytools (worship)A) I never understood the logic of having other people pray for you. Logically, an individual should pray for themselves since the act of confessing, repenting, forgiving, and asking is personal. Why not just go straight to the source? B) At the very least, asking someone who actually knows you (and is still alive) seems like it be more effective than asking a dead person who never knew you. Is there anywhere in the Bible that suggests that dead saints can hear prayers or answer them? Fair enough! I think praying can be a way to worship but they are not technically the same thing in definition . Just look up praying: verb - gerund or present participle: praying address a solemn request or expression of thanks to a deity or other object of worship. "the whole family is praying for Michael" synonyms: say one's prayers, make one's devotions, offer a prayer/prayers - wish or hope strongly for a particular outcome or situation. "after several days of rain, we were praying for sun" The second example doesn't seem to be a form of worship but just to hope for something. That is sort of how I see how praying to saints would be like. I agree with you in your points and I see praying is kind of pointless if there is no action made by yourself in trying to stop it. I don't think it's good to highly depend on something that most likely doesn't exist anyway. But I think praying can bring a sense of hope people look for and psychologically it helps them even if their prayers are never answered. Knowing something is possible can bring people's hopes high. And no where in the Bible even talks about saints period. Catholics might use one or two vague verses to support their belief in praying to saints or whatever but most would say the Bible isn't the only authority but also the church. The church is what teaches about saints and Mary.
|
|