larsxe wrote:

steve wrote:When somoene says he's a christian, he's a christian.

This is a completely worthless definition. For example, a crazy person with no respect for logic could regard himself as a "Christian" but at the same time not believe that Jesus even existed. Still, this would be a "Christian" according to that definition.

the reason why this works, logically speaking, is because God is unprovable by quantifiable evidence. you cannot scientifically prove the existence of God. thus, a person's belief in God is "between him and God," assuming he believes in God. to quote a religious studies professor i once had, "who the hell are you to say whether or not he is or is not a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew?"

and that's the point i want to get at. you're not God (believe it or not). you're not the "crazy guy" who "claims" to be a Christian. you can't get inside the heads of either of those beings, and so you cannot fully understand them, and consequently cannot properly judge them. thus, you have to take their word for it, because you don't know what they're thinking (i realize steve said most of that, but i have an additonal point).

furthermore, one of the basic tenets of Christianity (that has been almost completely eroded in recent years) is that of openness, of saying "yes, you can sit here in the pew next to us and sing our songs and such." call me blasphemous, but i almost think that something like allowing anyone who wants to to enter a church and participate in that church community is a more important idea than - gasp - abortion. in fact, i hold all sorts of ideas about what's more important and what's less important, both politically and religiously. but am i going to deny someone their religion because i disagree with them? fuck no.

the purpose language serves is to approximate and express thought. i have been in many situations where i'm thinking in such a way that language can't quite keep up. often times those situations are religious. thus, religious language is very much an approximation of the ideas being expressed. all we have is what people say about it; we have to take that for what it's worth.

i would also like to point out that many Christians have no respect for logic. thanks.

steve wrote:

ytrehalf wrote:Interesting.

Would you care to offer an equally critical analysis of the Judaic mentality?

Sure. They know suffering and they can always find Chinese food.

Damn - you just described me - well, the Chinese food part.

Great - now I'm hungry again.

Okay, how do we know if he believes that? He tells us. So, anybody who says he's a Christian is one.

Yes, specifically, anyone who says he believes that Jesus is the only path to salvation is a Christian.

I'm not splitting hairs here. I've met many people who said they were "Christians", but did not believe specifically that Jesus is the path to salvation or that he was the Son of God. They called themselves Christians because they were raised in a Christian country, but did not have any deeper theological understanding of Christianity other than that it involved some guy named Jesus who was born 2000 years ago and that's why we celebrate christmas.

If we want to define this word in any meaningful way, these people cannot be "Christians". Let's call those other people "casual Christians by nationality" or something like that. And let's tell them they are wrong calling themselves Christian. It's like I would call myself a "plumber" just because I clear my clogged sink every once in a while. I know nothing about plumbing and I do not do it for a living, so I am not a plumber. Defining anyone who fixes their clogged sink as a "plumber" would make the definition of the word "plumber" too wide.

you can't get inside the heads of either of those beings, and so you cannot fully understand them, and consequently cannot properly judge them.

Of course. But you can ask them specifically what they believe. "So you say you're a Christian, huh? Well, do you believe that Jesus is the only path to salvation?" If they do not believe this, they are using a definition of "Christian" that is too wide to be useful in discussions such as these. How the hell are we going to know what we're talking about if anyone calling themselves a Christian suddenly is a Christian?

Let me take an example (similar to another one I gave in another reply). I had a friend who was interested in photography. After a while, I noticed that he in conversations started describing himself as a "photographer". This was using an improper definition of the word. For his statement "I am a photographer" to be true, we would have to define "photographer" as anyone who enjoys photography, but may not do it for a living or have any real knowledge of it. This definition of the word encompasses too many things for it to have any real meaning.

but am i going to deny someone their religion because i disagree with them? fuck no.

This is not about what people actually believe. This is about semantics, the meaning of words. If two people with radically different believes calls themselves the same thing, well, then we obviously we have a word-definition problem. These two people are not going to have a fruitful discussion.

steve wrote:
Christians? Some of them are just as good as regular people. Get a bunch of them together on any one topic though, and it'll probably be retrograde right-wing bullshit.

It would be refreshing to see an equally critical analysis of Judaic organizations.

ytrehalf wrote:

steve wrote:Christians? Some of them are just as good as regular people. Get a bunch of them together on any one topic though, and it'll probably be retrograde right-wing bullshit.

It would be refreshing to see an equally critical analysis of Judaic organizations.

It would be even more refreshing to see religions wither away, seen by all as the embarrassing, outdated, pernicious monkey-squat that they are.

Refreshing. Yes, it would be.

endofanera wrote:It would be even more refreshing to see religions wither away, seen by all as the embarrassing, outdated, pernicious monkey-squat that they are.

Refreshing. Yes, it would be.

The past century, which just happens to be the most secular century in human history, in my humble opinion, was the most embarrassing, and indeed, the bloodiest and most tyrannical century in human history.

But I know that human reason worshipping utopian types are going to get it right. It may just take a few more centuries and few hundred million more murders to get it right.

The past century, which just happens to be the most secular century in human history, in my humble opinion, was the most embarrassing, and indeed, the bloodiest and most tyrannical century in human history.

i hate to state the obvious but there were some pretty fuggin bad centuries out there... like the 1600s? wow, bad times

ytrehalf wrote:The past century, which just happens to be the most secular century in human history, in my humble opinion, was the most embarrassing, and indeed, the bloodiest and most tyrannical century in human history.

But I know that human reason worshipping utopian types are going to get it right. It may just take a few more centuries and few hundred million more murders to get it right.

This supposed correlation between society becoming more "secularized" and violence and/or tyranny is laughable, disingenuous horseshit. This is the reply it took you 2 1/2 months to concoct?

I think this one goes to endofanera, whose opinion on this matter is a reasonable one.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand Chevelle are CRAP.

placeholder wrote:
This supposed correlation between society becoming more "secularized" and violence and/or tyranny is laughable, disingenuous horseshit.

Which of the facts that I've stated do you object to, the fact that the world has been more secularized over the past century or the fact that the past century has been the most murderous and tyrannical in human history?

And appeals to ridicule may count as a rebuttal in your world, but in the real world my point still stands.

placeholder wrote:This is the reply it took you 2 1/2 months to concoct?

I'll remind you that my discussion was with Mr. Albini on a completely different topic. I have been consistently ignoring the extraneous noise form other posters. Given that Mr. Albini has not responded to my posts in 2 1/2 months, I figured that I will now address some of the noise.

placeholder wrote:I think this one goes to endofanera, whose opinion on this matter is a reasonable one.

Thanks for sharing your opinion of endofanera's opinion.