Page 3 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


What should Orwell do about his religious beliefs?
Stay a liberal Christian 8%  8%  [ 3 ]
Join an Eastern Religion 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Become Jewish 8%  8%  [ 3 ]
Become a Muslim 5%  5%  [ 2 ]
Convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy 5%  5%  [ 2 ]
Become an Evangelical Protestant 5%  5%  [ 2 ]
Join a Christian off-shoot 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Join a cult 16%  16%  [ 6 ]
Become non-religious 5%  5%  [ 2 ]
Join the STRIDENT atheists. 14%  14%  [ 5 ]
I don't care, I just want to see the results. 30%  30%  [ 11 ]
Total votes : 37

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Jan 2011, 9:20 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
:lol:

Pfft. I don't need theological advice from a nihilist. :P


I always thought he was more of a dadaist.

No, no, no, atheists have daddy issues. Therefore, I can't be a dadaist any more than I am a mamaist.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

14 Jan 2011, 1:40 am

i propose orwell caucus with the STRIDENT atheists while retaining his liberal christian faith. if you can molest children and still be a catholic, you can bash religion and still be a christian.

you guys crack me up.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

14 Jan 2011, 1:14 pm

I had to choose the first option because it was the closest to, "Orwell should do whatever the hell his conscience dictates, without reference to the opinion of others."

That being said, membership in the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgance does have its appeal...


_________________
--James


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Jan 2011, 2:46 pm

waltur wrote:
i propose orwell caucus with the STRIDENT atheists while retaining his liberal christian faith. if you can molest children and still be a catholic, you can bash religion and still be a christian.

you guys crack me up.

So I'd be like the Joe Lieberman of PPR? Not sure how I feel about that.

visagrunt wrote:
That being said, membership in the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgance does have its appeal...

Wait, is that a thing? It sounds awesome.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

14 Jan 2011, 4:14 pm

Orwell wrote:
waltur wrote:
i propose orwell caucus with the STRIDENT atheists while retaining his liberal christian faith. if you can molest children and still be a catholic, you can bash religion and still be a christian.

you guys crack me up.

So I'd be like the Joe Lieberman of PPR? Not sure how I feel about that.

visagrunt wrote:
That being said, membership in the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgance does have its appeal...

Wait, is that a thing? It sounds awesome.

real and really awesome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Jan 2011, 8:01 pm

Technically, Orwell *could* just do both: be a liberal Christian AND be a STRIDENT atheist.

What he'd have to do is become a Christian atheist, that is an atheist who views Christian theology, scripture and practice as inspiring in some sense, but who also believes that God does not exist.

In order to fulfill the atheist part, he'd just need to uphold the problem of evil, and hold to naturalistic beliefs more strongly. And to be STRIDENT, he'd just have to be outspoken in his rejection of these points, also perhaps criticizing conservative Christian culture, which he probably is willing to do already.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

14 Jan 2011, 9:07 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
No, not at all. The Orthodox and Catholic churches split around the millenium, while the Nicene creed was in the 4th century. The real issue between the two groups is a more abstract bit of the trinity, the relation between the Father and the Son.

There were other issues about the power of Rome vs the other traditional leaders of the church, and so on.

In my opinion, the theological disputes between the Papacy and the Patriarchate of Constantinople were surface manifestations of a simple dispute of power and authority between the two sees. The See in Rome wanted primacy over the whole Church, and the Byzantine emperor and his man the Patriarch of Constantinople wanted authority (along with the other patriarchates, such as Alexandria and Jerusalem, that also wanted to maintain their traditional prerogatives). Iconoclasm and other such disputes were thus political (the Pope was not just a lord spiritual but also a lord temporal—the Papal Estates, now reduced to Vatican City within Rome—with ambitions to extend authority over all the kings and emperors of Western Europe).



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Jan 2011, 9:15 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
No, not at all. The Orthodox and Catholic churches split around the millenium, while the Nicene creed was in the 4th century. The real issue between the two groups is a more abstract bit of the trinity, the relation between the Father and the Son.

There were other issues about the power of Rome vs the other traditional leaders of the church, and so on.

In my opinion, the theological disputes between the Papacy and the Patriarchate of Constantinople were surface manifestations of a simple dispute of power and authority between the two sees. The See in Rome wanted primacy over the whole Church, and the Byzantine emperor and his man the Patriarch of Constantinople wanted authority (along with the other patriarchates, such as Alexandria and Jerusalem, that also wanted to maintain their traditional prerogatives). Iconoclasm and other such disputes were thus political (the Pope was not just a lord spiritual but also a lord temporal—the Papal Estates, now reduced to Vatican City within Rome—with ambitions to extend authority over all the kings and emperors of Western Europe).

Honestly, that is quite plausible. I mean, nobody would think to breach over the Filoque today. It is probably still sort of true that a cultural clash was growing between both groups though.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Jan 2011, 1:21 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Technically, Orwell *could* just do both: be a liberal Christian AND be a STRIDENT atheist.

What he'd have to do is become a Christian atheist, that is an atheist who views Christian theology, scripture and practice as inspiring in some sense, but who also believes that God does not exist.

In order to fulfill the atheist part, he'd just need to uphold the problem of evil, and hold to naturalistic beliefs more strongly. And to be STRIDENT, he'd just have to be outspoken in his rejection of these points, also perhaps criticizing conservative Christian culture, which he probably is willing to do already.

A similar option would be to adopt Christian post-theism. I think there is actually at least one person at my church with an interest in such ideas, if not actually considering himself a post-theist.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Jan 2011, 1:33 am

Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Technically, Orwell *could* just do both: be a liberal Christian AND be a STRIDENT atheist.

What he'd have to do is become a Christian atheist, that is an atheist who views Christian theology, scripture and practice as inspiring in some sense, but who also believes that God does not exist.

In order to fulfill the atheist part, he'd just need to uphold the problem of evil, and hold to naturalistic beliefs more strongly. And to be STRIDENT, he'd just have to be outspoken in his rejection of these points, also perhaps criticizing conservative Christian culture, which he probably is willing to do already.

A similar option would be to adopt Christian post-theism. I think there is actually at least one person at my church with an interest in such ideas, if not actually considering himself a post-theist.

Right, it is a pretty similar option, if not the same in some sense.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

15 Jan 2011, 5:09 am

Where the hell is the "join the Gnostic Christians" option? Or, for that matter, "join the First Church of Masturbation" option?


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

15 Jan 2011, 5:12 am

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
I am a damned hippie! I'm a bleeding-heart, animal-huggin', oppressed-peoples'-liberation-supportin', mohawk-wearin', San Franciscan left-wing hippie, and y'all better respect that. :P

You probably shop at Whole Foods, don't you? :P


I'm moderately interested in socio-cultural-political stereotypes. Tell me, where does Ralph Nader fall under? He's obviously not a hippie yet he's equally obviously not a yuppie.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Jan 2011, 5:16 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Quote:
I am a damned hippie! I'm a bleeding-heart, animal-huggin', oppressed-peoples'-liberation-supportin', mohawk-wearin', San Franciscan left-wing hippie, and y'all better respect that. :P

You probably shop at Whole Foods, don't you? :P


I'm moderately interested in socio-cultural-political stereotypes. Tell me, where does Ralph Nader fall under? He's obviously not a hippie yet he's equally obviously not a yuppie.


He is an old fart sour puss and he has a sh*tty attitude.

He is a puritan. As H. L. Menkin defines the term and puritan is someone who lives in abject fear that somewhere, somehow someone is actually having fun.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Jan 2011, 10:10 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Where the hell is the "join the Gnostic Christians" option? Or, for that matter, "join the First Church of Masturbation" option?

Those are probably cults.



DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

15 Jan 2011, 11:16 am

Does the Church of Satan count as a cult?
HAIL SATAN!! !


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Jan 2011, 11:35 am

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Does the Church of Satan count as a cult?
HAIL SATAN!! !

Yes, yes indeed.