Christanity is not a religion

Jekyll wrote:

on that note wrote: What is the difference between a beliefs, philosophy, cult and religion in your words? (as just providing someone else's definition will be a good indication you don't understand or don't think that deep)

Well, since you're being a total d.b. Beliefs can and most of the time inter-twine with cult and religion. Philosophy can span all beliefs. State of mind is what your actually trying to get me to say, but I understand if you don't understand or don't think that deep. It's all the same man, on all continents, with the exception of some real radical stuff. Btw, I'm not any of the "mainstream" beliefs/religions/philosophies/ or cults. Over the last decade or so, I'm more of an Earthy type. To quell the NEXT barage, I don't put much weight into the "manmade warming" of Earth.

I agree, it is kinda all the same. That was my point - what is a d.b. dirt bag? I think it is mostly a numbers game.

Crazy - less than 1 person agrees with you
Individual - exactly 1 agrees
Friends - 2-4 agree
cult - 5 to approx. 1000 people agree and they are likely considered radicals
religion - approx. 1000+ agree and people start to be forced to tolerate your beliefs even if you seem Crazy (see above)

The above can have what is below.

Belief - one thing that one or many people hold to be true
Philosophy - a group of beliefs

on that note wrote:

Jekyll wrote:

on that note wrote: What is the difference between a beliefs, philosophy, cult and religion in your words? (as just providing someone else's definition will be a good indication you don't understand or don't think that deep)

Well, since you're being a total d.b. Beliefs can and most of the time inter-twine with cult and religion. Philosophy can span all beliefs. State of mind is what your actually trying to get me to say, but I understand if you don't understand or don't think that deep. It's all the same man, on all continents, with the exception of some real radical stuff. Btw, I'm not any of the "mainstream" beliefs/religions/philosophies/ or cults. Over the last decade or so, I'm more of an Earthy type. To quell the NEXT barage, I don't put much weight into the "manmade warming" of Earth.

I agree, it is kinda all the same. That was my point - what is a d.b. dirt bag? I think it is mostly a numbers game.

Crazy - less than 1 person agrees with you
Individual - exactly 1 agrees
Friends - 2-4 agree
cult - 5 to approx. 1000 people agree and they are likely considered radicals
religion - approx. 1000+ agree and people start to be forced to tolerate your beliefs even if you seem Crazy (see above)

The above can have what is below.

Belief - one thing that one or many people hold to be true
Philosophy - a group of beliefs

Sorry for the attack, I'm sure we can both agree that the internet doesn't involve any kind of body language or anything. With what you've posted, it seems that religion is in fact quite destructive, no? When we look at the bigger picture, look at all the problems. NO ONE gets along, IMO.

Jekyll wrote:

on that note wrote:

Jekyll wrote:

on that note wrote: What is the difference between a beliefs, philosophy, cult and religion in your words? (as just providing someone else's definition will be a good indication you don't understand or don't think that deep)

Well, since you're being a total d.b. Beliefs can and most of the time inter-twine with cult and religion. Philosophy can span all beliefs. State of mind is what your actually trying to get me to say, but I understand if you don't understand or don't think that deep. It's all the same man, on all continents, with the exception of some real radical stuff. Btw, I'm not any of the "mainstream" beliefs/religions/philosophies/ or cults. Over the last decade or so, I'm more of an Earthy type. To quell the NEXT barage, I don't put much weight into the "manmade warming" of Earth.

I agree, it is kinda all the same. That was my point - what is a d.b. dirt bag? I think it is mostly a numbers game.

Crazy - less than 1 person agrees with you
Individual - exactly 1 agrees
Friends - 2-4 agree
cult - 5 to approx. 1000 people agree and they are likely considered radicals
religion - approx. 1000+ agree and people start to be forced to tolerate your beliefs even if you seem Crazy (see above)

The above can have what is below.

Belief - one thing that one or many people hold to be true
Philosophy - a group of beliefs

Sorry for the attack, I'm sure we can both agree that the internet doesn't involve any kind of body language or anything. With what you've posted, it seems that religion is in fact quite destructive, no? When we look at the bigger picture, look at all the problems. NO ONE gets along, IMO.

I guess religions that feel that others are wrong and need to change are destructive. Cults have that potential and Individuals not so much. Today the most destructive religions are political parties. Republicans and Democrats combined account for more imprisonment and killing than perhaps all others combined in these modern times. The Catholic Church used to be number one and now barely ever has direct blood on its hands, so we can change.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: In my understanding, Christanity is considered a religion, with schisms such as Protestant, Catholicism, etc. with sub schisms within each of those. To claim it is a philosphy, while Judaism is a religion is just not well founded.

What Fox and O'Reilly are trying to do is by claiming that Christianity is not a religion is to enable it to be endorsed by the government to get around the 1st Amendment.

And what would your understanding be of Buddhism, religion or philosophy?

Buddhism would certainly be a religion albeit not one within the strictures of western religion. But then again, that was Zen and this is Tao.

The master of punny, almost as old as the Buddha himself.

Do you think that the adherents to the "religion" of Buddhism would agree with your characterization, or do you think that they would view it as a way of living, a philosophy of living if you will? Wasn't the Buddha more of a philosopher? The goal in Buddhism is self perfection, isn't it? Isn't that the same goal that is sought by Christians? When all is said and done, isn't the belief that one holds on the way that they are to live their lives a pursuit of wisdom, whether it be one's own or that of the Divine?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: In my understanding, Christanity is considered a religion, with schisms such as Protestant, Catholicism, etc. with sub schisms within each of those. To claim it is a philosphy, while Judaism is a religion is just not well founded.

What Fox and O'Reilly are trying to do is by claiming that Christianity is not a religion is to enable it to be endorsed by the government to get around the 1st Amendment.

And what would your understanding be of Buddhism, religion or philosophy?

Buddhism would certainly be a religion albeit not one within the strictures of western religion. But then again, that was Zen and this is Tao.

The master of punny, almost as old as the Buddha himself.

Do you think that the adherents to the "religion" of Buddhism would agree with your characterization, or do you think that they would view it as a way of living, a philosophy of living if you will? Wasn't the Buddha more of a philosopher? The goal in Buddhism is self perfection, isn't it? Isn't that the same goal that is sought by Christians? When all is said and done, isn't the belief that one holds on the way that they are to live their lives a pursuit of wisdom, whether it be one's own or that of the Divine?

So you agree with O'Reilly, that Christianity is not a religion, merely a philosophy?

In my opinion, Buddhism is a religion, not just a philosophy. It encompasses philosophical components, but that does not rule out it being a religion. Just because it does not have the same strictures of western religion, i.e., blind faith, divine revelations of a divine being, etc., it does provide a path for deliverance, which imo is the truest test of a religion.

By that standard, the critical element being a path for deliverence, liberalism and conservatism would also then be religions, would they not? Certainly the current stagnation in the federal government could be said to be rooted a dogmatic adherence to principles by both sides in the belief that their way will bring deliverence.

No it would not. Unless you actually believe that the government provides you the path of spiritual deliverance. And of course by the 1st amendment it can not establish or be a religion. But you knew that.

So since you believe that Christianity and Buddhism are philosophies, not religions, how do square that philosophy with your worship of Ayn Rand? Do you equate her with Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mohammed and other "philosophers", or does she stand alone?

You accuse with no basis in fact Dog. I've yet to read anything that Rand has written, so I would have to refrain from commenting on her work or the woman herself. I can certainly say without any reservations that she is not someone that I worship given my unfamiliarity with the person or her work.

That's what happens when you assume things about others Dog, you make a posterior of yourself. There may be some common philosophies which she and I share, just as some of my philosophies align with the Buddha, but that doesn't mean that I worship either of them.

One might say that there is a common thread running through the philosophies of Rand, the Buddha and Christianity that promotes individual salvation while the philosophies of "progressivism", socialism and communism share a common thread which promotes collective salvation at the expense of the individual.

So you do not believe in the missives of Jesus Christ in caring for others, in looking out for the poor and the needy, etc. Christ of course was the ultimate "collectivist", but then Buddha was not far behind.

Christ was not a collectivist at all Dog. He never once advocated for having the government tax the people to take care of the less fortunate. If you can find such a reference, by all means, please share it with me.

No, what Jesus taught was that each of us has an individual obligation to those who are in need. What Jesus taught was individual, not group, responsibility to others. You, the individual, are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, counsel the imprisoned, shelter the homeless and bury the dead (the 7 corporal works of mercy). To give of your treasure but not of yourself is not at all what He preached.