Is your woman religious?

[steviej]

Yeah, yeah.  Since you seem to equate atheism and immorality, will you insist that I am immoral by definition, since I am an atheist?

BF - I would define an atheist as someone who is SURE there is nothing beyond what is physically knowable to us at this moment. Is that what you mean by it?

(P.S. Ronnie and BF, pls don't start arguing about abortion again !!!   :kissing: )

[OlgaH]

Russian Orthodoxy hasn't created much suffering or murder in history has it?  They didn't have crusades, or inquisitions.   The more I learn about it, the more I'm open to "converting" to it. :angel:

In general... no, has not

But here is some of the facts

Olga of Kiev was one of the first people of Rus to be proclaimed a saint, for her efforts to spread the Christian religion in the country in spite of the fact that she buried 20 Drevlyans alive, she burnt ambassadors of Drevlyans alive and she burnt a whole city of Drevlyans with women and children just taking revenge on Drevlyans for the death of her husband prince Igor who imposed duty on Drevlyans 

[2tallbill]

Hmmmmmmm................what's that I smell?

a dead horse to be beaten again.

the other picture is of a thread being hijacked.

[Ronnie]

Yeah, yeah.  Since you seem to equate atheism and immorality, will you insist that I am immoral by definition, since I am an atheist?

I think what I said was that atheism has done society no good.  Giving examples of prominent atheists who placed zero value on human life.   There is also evidence that organized religion has done likewise.  Better to be an atheist and kill (as Dostoevsky said, it would logically be permissible) than be a religious person and kill.

So, no Bluesie, you're not immoral because you're an atheist.  You're moral because your innate sense of morality was programmed into you by your creator.  You, of course, will find another explanation - as an good atheist, it's your duty to do so.

[Shadow]

Apart from 'needed' for marriage, not many people are going to change their belief system because of a forum discussion.
There for it would be best not to try and convince others their choice is wrong, but to respect that everyone has their own view.

You should choose the religion that is closest to your own views, no matter which one (or none). However do not point at others without having studied their ideas.

PS: One of the first atheists was Critias (460-403BC) who labeled religion as a human invention.

[2tallbill]

Apart from 'needed' for marriage, not many people are going to change their belief system because of a forum discussion.
There for it would be best not to try and convince others their choice is wrong, but to respect that everyone has their own view.

You should choose the religion that is closest to your own views, no matter which one (or none). However do not point at others without having studied their ideas.

PS: One of the first atheists was Critias (460-403BC) who labeled religion as a human invention.

Shadow is correct, you can't change a persons religion on a forum.

It's too damn personal.

I don't see the benefit on arguing with another's personal beliefs.

You can't change my mind on my belief's why try?

Just my two kopecks,

Bill

[Blues Fairy]

BF - I would define an atheist as someone who is SURE there is nothing beyond what is physically knowable to us at this moment. Is that what you mean by it?

We've been through this already here on RWD.  Yes I am reasonably sure - not belief-like sure, like you would believe in God, but sure as a researcher who has found that all existing evidence points to this conclusion.  Come new evidence - we'll see.

Ronnie - my moral compass is not innate, trust me.   If I am seriously put out, I may well kill somebody. :evil:

[OlgaH]

There for it would be best not to try and convince others their choice is wrong, but to respect that everyone has their own view.

You should choose the religion that is closest to your own views, no matter which one (or none). However do not point at others without having studied their ideas.

Agree.

As there was mentioned the name of Dostoyevsky, here are some of Dostoyevsky's thoughts 

Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Idiot.

"Roman Catholicism... It is not a Christian religion, in the first place," said the latter, in extreme agitation, quite out of proportion to the necessity of the moment. "And in the second place, Roman Catholicism is, in my opinion, worse than Atheism itself. Yes— that is my opinion. Atheism only preaches a negation, but Romanism goes further; it preaches a disfigured, distorted Christ—it preaches Anti-Christ—I assure you, I swear it! This is my own personal conviction, and it has long distressed me. The Roman Catholic believes that the Church on earth cannot stand without universal temporal Power. He cries 'non possumus!' In my opinion the Roman Catholic religion is not a faith at all, but simply a continuation of the Roman Empire, and everything is subordinated to this idea—beginning with faith. The Pope has seized territories and an earthly throne, and has held them with the sword. And so the thing has gone on, only that to the sword they have added lying, intrigue, deceit, fanaticism, superstition, swindling;—they have played fast and loose with the most sacred and sincere feelings of men;—they have exchanged everything—everything for money, for base earthly power! And is this not the teaching of Anti-Christ? How could the upshot of all this be other than Atheism? Atheism is the child of Roman Catholicism—it proceeded from these Romans themselves, though perhaps they would not believe it. It grew and fattened on hatred of its parents; it is the progeny of their lies and spiritual feebleness. Atheism! In our country it is only among the upper classes that you find unbelievers; men who have lost the root or spirit of their faith; but abroad whole masses of the people are beginning to profess unbelief—at first because of the darkness and lies by which they were surrounded; but now out of fanaticism, out of loathing for the Church and Christianity!"

Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Raw Youth (or The Adolescent)

“It’s a most excellent symptom, dear boy; a most hopeful one, for our atheists in Russia, if only they are really atheists and have some little trace of intelligence, are the best fellows in the whole world, and always disposed to be kind to God, for they’re invariably good-humoured, and they’re good-humoured because they’re immensely pleased at being atheists. Our atheists are respectable people and extremely conscientious, pillars of the fatherland, in fact. . . .”

[SANDRO43]

"Roman Catholicism... It is not a Christian religion, in the first place,"

Olga, a while ago you mentioned syncretism, which I believe applies to Early Christianism as well when St. Paul started preaching to the polytheistic Gentiles of the Roman Empire, too, what he understood of the tenets of a new Jewish sect: the Jews' single God became a trio (later a quartet with Mary), then saints were added, images and relics were worshipped, etc. etc.

Quite a departure from the original, but probably necessary to capture the attention of a non-Jewish audience. A shrewd marketing technique .

[OlgaH]

the Jews' single God became a trio (later a quartet with Mary), then saints were added, images and relics were worshipped, etc. etc.

etc. etc. ... Sandro, Are you gently hinting at the neo-polytheistic formation? 

[SANDRO43]

etc. etc. ... Sandro,  Are you gently hinting at the neo-polytheistic formation? 

Olga, I had to look that up, I don't keep abreast of all new religious tendencies.

Neopolytheism means a synthesis between Atheism and Theism as a utilitarian & pragmatic consideration applying dialectical principals and relative observation. According to this method you can prove nonexistence of a Common God not a Private one. God or other metaphysical beings are defined in mind because the brain is not limited in conceptualization...but when you want make a theory you need basic tools such as logics, mathematics, physics etc...you could define a God or any other entity in your mind for yourself and of course there is no problem but when you want to share it with others, you have to prove that entity's existence for them,i mean you must prove the existence of your God! in our limited universe as the first step. Now i want to say, that's IMPOSSIBLE to do! When you want to Describe your God you need an "epithet" as a first step. Immediately by using an epithet, you constrain your god to destruction! Because god must be Absolute, your god requires a description as in one of the major religions. if not, in fact, your god is not god! (maybe an Extra terrestrial alien or any other things like UFO's!) but you will know when u use just an epithet, your god must be changed to an entity of limited scope, not an absolute one, unconsciously it is changed to a Relative Existence and so it means "your God" not "God of all" about the word, "absolute," i must say, this word never can be defined in our 3 dimensional universe...

http://neopolytheism.blogspot.com/2007/11/neopolytheism.html

And no, I was not hinting at that, IMHO polytheism was subtly infused quite early into Christianism, given the pagan audience at which its proselitism was directed, although it appears it was best received initially by the adherents to another monotheistic religion, Zoroastrian Mithra's, which had quite a wide following in the Roman Empire.

[steviej]

I basically think the man should be flexible with regards to his woman's religious tastes. I really don't think it matters as much to a man as to a woman. Does anybody agree with me on that? (just curious)

For example, if you're married to Blues Fairy, and you are not an athiest, what are you doing to do, make an issue out of it in your marriage? No, you're not. You love her and whether she is a theist or not doesn't matter, does it? To a man? I would say for most men, no. And you can be sure you would never convince her to be a theist, and why bother with it anyway?

I could see complications if, after marriage of some years, your wife unexpectedly gets deeper and deeper into something (say, way more than when you were first married), so that more and more of her time, emotions, and world view get tied up in it. (an extreme would be more like a religious cult). In that case, it becomes something that is creating distance between you, and must be resolved.

When children arrive, if there are any lurking debates, that can sharpen them up. Still, in most cases, the woman is more theistic than the man (not always BF), and in that case, your wife is going to want to take the kids to church. I suppose as long as its not the "Revived Church of Goat's Milk" there's probably no harm, right?

[SANDRO43]

I suppose as long as its not the "Revived Church of Goat's Milk" there's probably no harm, right?

Pray why ? They produce some very fine cheese, often better than bovine or sheepish churches can boast .

[OlgaH]

And no, I was not hinting at that, IMHO polytheism was subtly infused quite early into Christianism, given the pagan audience at which its proselitism was directed, although it appears it was best received initially by the adherents to another monotheistic religion, Zoroastrian Mithra's, which had quite a wide following in the Roman Empire.

Yes, IMO also it was, but since that time the "pantheon" of Saints has increased in number. They have their own icons and prayers, the churches are named in honor of their names.And the number of Saints still continues to increase especially in Orthodoxy  I'm not sure but probably sooner or later there will be "the scale of ranks" . Russian Orthodoxy also has assimilated some of the pagan "holidays" that could not be taken from pagan people without "bloody war"

If you you want to be a strict Orthodoxy (or may be any Christian) believer  you should just believe (without thinking) and call nothing in question.

Just an example:

Acts of the Apostles:

Chapter 9 

3  And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4  And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6  And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Chapter 22

6  And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
7  And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8  And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9  And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

The such antagonisms in the text confuse me.
 

[steviej]

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4  And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6  And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Hey ! That's exactly what happened to me on the way back from Charlotte last week! Man, I thought I was goin' nuts for a minute ...   

[SANDRO43]

And the number of Saints still continues to increase especially in Orthodoxy

Pah, pathetic amateurs with only 445 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_di_santi_della_Chiesa_ortodossa), compared to the 738 that Rome can offer just for those whose name starts with an A.

If you want to tally up the grand total, see http://www.catholic.org/saints/, it was too daunting a task for me going through the whole alphabet . And I'm not even mentioning the half-saints ('beati').

[OlgaH]

Hey ! That's exactly what happened to me on the way back from Charlotte last week! Man, I thought I was goin' nuts for a minute ...   

This is the other question  Why it is normal when you talk to God, but when God talks to you it calls as schizophrenia 

[steviej]

This is the other question  Why it is normal when you talk to God, but when God talks to you it calls as schizophrenia 

It all depends on whether you are hearing voices that "aren't there", or you are in fact hearing voices that no one else can hear at that moment that "are there." I don't recall anyone ever saying to me, "Hey Stevie ... listen up ... I think I just heard God trying to say something to you!"

So, is it there and no one else can hear it, in which case it might be God, or is it not there, and it is schizophrenia ?? That might sum up the entire metaphysical conundrum of faith (as distinct from the philosophical and ethical frameworks associated with them, which in and of themselves do not require "divine intervention")

[OlgaH]

Pah, pathetic amateurs with only 445 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_di_santi_della_Chiesa_ortodossa), compared to the 738 that Rome can offer just for those whose name starts with an A.

If you want to tally up the grand total, see http://www.catholic.org/saints/, it was too daunting a task for me going through the whole alphabet . And I'm not even mentioning the half-saints ('beati').

The number of Saints in Orthodoxy is more than 445, but... I guess less than in Catholicism  Honestly, I have never been so interested in Catholic Saints, because I even don't know all Orthodox Saints. There are several categories and subcategories of the Saints in Orthodoxy. For example the Sobor (group canonization) of new martyrs and professors of Orthodoxy of 20th century includes 1701 canonized name (according to data on July 2006) ... 

In any case I think Catholicisms just bears the palm.

[Ronnie]

If you want to learn the names of the Catholic Saints, I recommend getting a Atlas of the USA and study the city names in California, Texas and New Mexico. 

You'll get most of your catechism credits (albeit en espanol) and you'll improve your geography trivia mastery at the same time.  Do it quick before the courts decide that the 1st amendment is being grossly ignored.  Oh, where o where is the ACLU when you really need them?

[OlgaH]

  Oh, where o where is the ACLU when you really need them?

Probably in Atlanta helping to change orange signs 
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/07/09/men_working_signs_atlanta.html

[mark2353]

The number of Saints in Orthodoxy is more than 445, but... I guess less than in Catholicism  Honestly, I have never been so interested in Catholic Saints, because I even don't know all Orthodox Saints. There are several categories and subcategories of the Saints in Orthodoxy. For example the Sobor (group canonization) of new martyrs and professors of Orthodoxy of 20th century includes 1701 canonized name (according to data on July 2006) ... 

In any case I think Catholicisms just bears the palm.

OlgaH,
If you are truly interested there is a two volume book listing all the saints(I want to say it is call the lives of the saints or encyclopedia of the saints). Some or many are forgotten. I sort of did the same thing years ago, it is somewhat interesting.
good luck
mark

[possum]

The such antagonisms in the text confuse me.
 

In all likelihood, it was Paul's voice they were hearing in Acts 9..

[ScottinCrimea]

According to some authorities, Chapter 9 should read the same as chapter 22 and was incorrectly translated.

[possum]

According to some authorities, Chapter 9 should read the same as chapter 22 and was incorrectly translated.

I really don't think either of these chapters was translated incorrectly.. The passage in chapter 9 doesn't specify whose voice (phone) the people were hearing, from which we can only conclude that it was the voice of Paul talking to "the light" with nobody in it..