Is Socianism the same as Psilanthopism?
Is Socianism the same as Socinianism?
I can see how denying the divine nature of Christ could be viewed as heresy by some Christians.
But, leander, I don’t see how that equates with: “… God was here to influence us morally”. If you had said, ‘Jesus’, it would make sense. Am I missing something, or is that your point?
Thank you for your help.
Socianus seems to have been trapped in linear time to me.
I’m glad I found out that I’m an apostate, because I can not figure out if I would be a heretic or not.
I’d open a GD thread for those questions, j66, for the following reasons:
-
It’d be a massive hijack of this thread, which looks close to dead.
-
You’re far more likely to get the attention of some folks who don’t read the Pit but do read GD, and who know what they’re talking about moreso than most of the rest of us could ever fake.
FTR, I am not Christian anymore by my standards, but AFAIK the church I attended as a child has yet to take me off its roster. Mostly I don’t care enough to have them bother to remove me. My fiancee’s father thinks I’m still Catholic because once you go Catholic you can’t undo it (according to him). ::shrug:: I dunno about you, but polytheism isn’t an attribute I’d assign any Christian:D
I would. What is the “ineffable” Trinity if not a polytheistic belief. That’s one of the big reasons the early Christians weren’t considered Jewish by the Jews of the time and the source of the Arian debate and the Trinitarian Controversy.
Homebrew, I was under the impression that, according to Christian doctrine, the Trinity did not fall under the heading of polytheistic beliefs. If you’d like something even more dedicedly un-monotheistic, I’m agnostic right now:D
My apologies for my unclear post last night. It was late and I was tired.
In post #97 (page 2) I gave my refutation to gobear’s silly argument, “an innocent person was sent to be killed…how is that just?”
Then, in my last post, I gave a few theories of Atonement, as requested. I should clarify Socian…
Yes, it should read “Jesus”, not “God”. The Socian theory states that Jesus was just a man, not a God; the moral aspect is that the way he led his life should be emulated by all. That is why it is important in considering the Atonement.
I think this debate has wound down, which is probably not a bad thing. People have strong feelings about Christianity, and sometimes it’s best to agree to disagree. I have no problems with folks not believing or not bothering with religion at all. What I find deplorable is hypocrites like gobear who go about attacking and mocking others based on their beliefs.
Again, if this kind of language and tone were used in re: homosexuals, the person doing so would be torn a new one by the majority of posters here, and quite possibly banned.
This relates back to the OP (way back when…sorry about the massive hijack…). If you can respect your mother’s beliefs, even while you find them absurd, that’s probably the best way to handle it.
It still amazes me that little fuckwads like gobear think they can bash other people’s way of life, while whining like a beyotch about their own persecution.
That’s called a “rationalization”. 
I didn’t mock you because of your beliefs; I mock you because you’re a pathetic poseur engaged in the defense of the indefensible.
Bullshit. Have you even noticed any of the harsh anti-gay posts in the plethora of gay threads here? Ever read one of Jersey Diamond’s post? You are, unsurprisingly, again woefully uninformed.
Criticizing a barbaric doctrine is not bashing your way of life, you fucking moron! And even if it were, that would still be permissible. Every sort of ideology gets bahsed here–relgion, politics, economics, sexual orientation–it all is up for discussion. but you, typically, want to shut down debate and censor speech that contradicts your pet ideas. Sorry, sister, this isn’t the 15th century and you don’t get to burn books and your opponents at the stake.
Fuck you and the superstition you rode in on.
You’re an angry little fella, aren’t you?
Let me break down your argument:
“Me no understand. Me think too hard. Must be indefensible.”
“They mean to me, so me mean to them.”
“You no like me mocking you. You bad. You cry censorship.”
Fucking brilliant stuff there, gobear.
(I particularly like how you “cleverly” slip in stuff like “barbaric”, “burn books”, “superstition”. How very brave of you…)
Oh, and btw, I’m mocking you cause you’re just plain stoopid. But please, keep posting and I’ll keep laughing my ass off…
ty, leander; I’m getting it.
iampunha:
No, thank you for the suggestion. I actually don’t like to debate on religion.
As one of the few peaceful apostates I know, I just can not resist the urge to try to ease a little pain.
Wow, clever repartee there, Leander. Oscar Wilde must be biting his knuckles in envy. Well, since you’ve run out of anything substantive to post, my work here is done.
If you can get someone to help you read the words, look up irony in the dictionary, 'cost this is a splendid example.
Now this has all become rather sad I’m afraid…I really shouldn’t be picking on someone with such limited capabilities…
I’ll just leave you with this: a bigot and a hypocrite, whether draped in the rainbow flag or banging on a pulpit, is still simply a bigot and a hypocrite.
The fact that you’re an idiot as well just makes it all the more pathetic.
Good luck, buddy. I know you’re gonna need it. 
Pointing out the logical inconsistenicis of Christian doctrine is not hypocrisy–don’t throw around words you don’t understand. nor is atheism bigotry.
And,yes, I am an idiot because I have wasted too much time attempting to debate somone who thinks namecalling is a substitute for logic.
Last word whore.
Sorry I missed this the first time around, Ferrous. You’re right, I did do cursory search in Google for the combinations you listed above. And even combinations of your combinations, but I came up blank. It might still be out there, sure, but I can’t find it. As much as groups like handy little phrases with which to demonize one another, you’d think it’d be easier to find–so I do kinda wonder if it’s a failed attempt at an urban legend.
My goodness! The OP pitted his mother. I came close to pitting my friends on this same board 
for the same reasons: I could not put up with their active proselytising (they call it “evangelising”). Even when I told them that I couldn’t accept the entire belief system, and that I don’t feel the need/the desire for eternal life. When I die I prefer to remain dead.
Some of them have gotten very upset when I hit back with arguments. It’s a reflex action - when you confront me on my views on religion I usually respond rather strongly because I am very firm on my stand. However, the fact that they are friends mandate that I restrain myself. I can understand what the OP feels.
Come on, give him some slack. He’s pitting his mum, but if you are told to “try to believe” and “accept God” very often, for reasons like “so that you don’t die eternally” or “it’s the truth!”, or invited to go to church (when you don’t want to), and when your set of beliefs regarding your purpose in life and your existence is challenged frequently, and yet you cannot respond as aggressively, you’d be as angry and as upset as the OP is (and as I was).
I understand precisely, I think, what the OP means by ‘you get distressed when I show any kind of skepticism to your religion, and you fear for my soul.’
It’s not just his mum, or my friends, who are distressed. I’m sure Revtim is also stressed out by this. He wants to be on good terms with his mother but he cannot simply disown his set of beliefs.
To Revtim, I say: you’re not a coward. I almost did the same thing, pitting my friends regarding the same issue (but something went wrong when I clicked the Submit Reply button, and I gave up), because there simply is no other way to give vent.
Sometimes I muse and wonder whether atheists should band together and actively counter-proselytise. 
Also, I apologise for sounding anti-Christian (yes I know this is the Pit but then I still wish to apologise). I have nothing against Christians (and some of my friends are Christians), but I certainly have a lot against the practice of active evangelising. I know it’s part of the religion, but I wish it were less important.
For empathic reasons.
Humans treat ants like dirt. Ditto with their inanimate creations.
Hey no problem: after all, we’re talking about insects and machines, right?
The Lord, in all his superiority and glory, may have found it difficult to empathize with humanity before manifesting himself as the Son. For Him to optimally build His Kingdom, he must sort between the quick and the dead: to sort with appropriate compassion, he must have direct contact with the travails -and most importantly the suffering- of his biped creatures.
The preceding assumes a less-than-omnipotent creator.
Of course, this side-steps the emotional core of the story. To wit: Jesus suffered and felt abandonment, so maybe he’ll cut you, his worshiper and child, a little slack. I’m guessing that’s what Revtim’s Mom is responding to (WAG only).
Apropos nothing, I found leander’s characterization of gobear’s argument to be little more than name-calling. OTOH, gobear was not particularly polite or constructive, but at least he admits it. Heck, I personally don’t blame him for taking such a combative stance in the Pit, but that’s just my take.
Just had to say, this was priceless.
Measure for Measure, you ever read Memnoch the Devil, by Anne Rice. After skipping the vampire nonsense in the beginning, it’s a pretty darn interesting take on the issue you’re talking about.