Jesus' Wife?

[grumbler]

Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#

To be fair, I don't think that Berkut is questioning the sincerity of Valmy's beliefs, just the terminology by which they should be classified.

Doesn't really soften the words he is using.

Yep.  Berkut should have used trigger warnings.

[Sheilbh]

Bullshit. It matters to you a great deal. Just like Viking you are insisting I MUST believe a certain way or fail to meet some sort of purity test. I NEVER get this shit, seriously anyway, from other Christians. Just you guys. Why? I just do not understand why you care. It is all bullshit to you, supposedly, but it seems REALLY important anyway.

*cough*

[Sheilbh]

Ok, you assert a definition, say you don't understand why anyone would disagree with it and then reassert your confidence that your proposed definition must be correct.  Except there are have been Christians who have disagreed with that definition throughout history.  You present a very good example of what Jacob was talking about earlier in the thread.

This is not even a good pretense of an argument.  You assert that "Christians throughout history" have denied the existence of the Christian God and the divinity of Christ as evidence that Berkut and I are incorrect, but provide no support for such an assertion.  You present a very good example of what we should try very hard to avoid when debating here.

Also it's a bit like ISIS in a way. Yes their theology is grounded very much in Islamic thought and texts, there are historical examples of it. However the overwhelming historical and lived experience of Islam/Christianity goes against it. These are strains of thought that arose very early and were rejected. Just because you reject the past 1500 years of Islamic history or 2000 years of Christian history does not mean that the faith you're presenting is more authentic or, in the case of ISIS, anything resembling Medieval.

And I think in both cases they are schools of thought that are in some important ways only created and adopted because of modernity. The modern experience is a condition that I think is necessary for both of these theologies even though they're obviously very divergent.

[PDH]

I have no idea what you are arguing here.  It seems like you are arguing that all ritual is religious, which can't seriously be your argument because we all know that such an assertion is absurd.  So, it seems like you define ritual in some fashion you are unable to easily share.

First, who is this "we all know" you are talking about?  In the study of ritual there are those who assert that secular ritual, devoid of symbols, exist alongside sacred ritual.  However, others have argued that habitual behavior is not ritual behavior, and that many of our acts do indeed have the symbolic element needed to be "religious" in nature.  All I know is that that not everyone who studies ritual believes in secular ritual as you assert.

The problem lies not so much in defining ritual, acts done in a proscribed order with symbolic and emotional attachment that are performed by individuals or groups, it is the fact that to make ritual have meaning for all human societies (and they all have to have it), then it must be broad and all encompassing.  That is the problem with ritual.

And yes, some have argued that to make it this broad removed much of the edge.  But it is a foundation idea that has to be set (at least for those studying culture) in order to build up from.  I find the study of ritual, both in general and specific to be fascinating, especially in its basic function of being an organic element within culture.

[Martinus]

I have no idea what you are arguing here.  It seems like you are arguing that all ritual is religious, which can't seriously be your argument because we all know that such an assertion is absurd.  So, it seems like you define ritual in some fashion you are unable to easily share.

First, who is this "we all know" you are talking about?  In the study of ritual there are those who assert that secular ritual, devoid of symbols, exist alongside sacred ritual.  However, others have argued that habitual behavior is not ritual behavior, and that many of our acts do indeed have the symbolic element needed to be "religious" in nature.  All I know is that that not everyone who studies ritual believes in secular ritual as you assert.

The problem lies not so much in defining ritual, acts done in a proscribed order with symbolic and emotional attachment that are performed by individuals or groups, it is the fact that to make ritual have meaning for all human societies (and they all have to have it), then it must be broad and all encompassing.  That is the problem with ritual.

And yes, some have argued that to make it this broad removed much of the edge.  But it is a foundation idea that has to be set (at least for those studying culture) in order to build up from.  I find the study of ritual, both in general and specific to be fascinating, especially in its basic function of being an organic element within culture.

I believe noone is arguing that Valmy's unitarianism is not a religion - it's just that it is not a Christian religion.

As I said before I think it is syncretic, universalistic and generalistic enough to be similar to freemasonry (which, incidentally, Valmy objected to even though I would believe it would fit your definition of religion as well). Now, as with freemasonry, you can be a Christian and Unitarian - but that does not mean that Unitarianism is by definition Christian.

[Berkut]

Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#

To be fair, I don't think that Berkut is questioning the sincerity of Valmy's beliefs, just the terminology by which they should be classified.

Doesn't really soften the words he is using.

Yep.  Berkut should have used trigger warnings.

That is exactly what I thought when I read that, but I thought apologizing for triggering Valmy would be kind of dickish...

[Berkut]

What is really funny about all the knights riding to Valmy's defense is that even Valmy isn't sure he is a Christian!

[LaCroix]

valmy, if you blow yourself up in the name of god, then berkut will call you christian

[garbon]

What is really funny about all the knights riding to Valmy's defense is that even Valmy isn't sure he is a Christian!

Why is that funny? I've a little secret for you. It is actually possible to disagree with someone without being a dick about it.

[garbon]

valmy, if you blow yourself up in the name of god, then berkut will call you christian

That's probably pretty spot on.

[Martinus]

What is really funny about all the knights riding to Valmy's defense is that even Valmy isn't sure he is a Christian!

Why is that funny? I've a little secret for you. It is actually possible to disagree with someone without being a dick about it.

True but your point seems to be that you take the side of a party that is wrong because the party that is right is a dick about it. It's like what's wrong with the SJW movement in a nutshell - ignoring truth because it's not "nice".

[Ed Anger]

Now call him a kind and sensitive person.

Edit: WTF. YOU MODS! You took away my best jokes. 

[PDH]

And I don't think it is reasonable to call his beliefs "religion" since I don't think a belief that does not include any actual belief in a supernatural being is religious. Again, I can't make him fit into my internal definition just because he insists on it. There is nothing inherently mocking about the term "quasi".

Here is where it was said Valmy was not following a religion.  That is what I took up.  What kind of religion is even more nebulous, and I don't have a horse in THAT race

[Admiral Yi]

Now call him a kind and sensitive person.

Edit: WTF. YOU MODS! You took away my best jokes. 

Boner has gone soft.

[garbon]

What is really funny about all the knights riding to Valmy's defense is that even Valmy isn't sure he is a Christian!

Why is that funny? I've a little secret for you. It is actually possible to disagree with someone without being a dick about it.

True but your point seems to be that you take the side of a party that is wrong because the party that is right is a dick about it. It's like what's wrong with the SJW movement in a nutshell - ignoring truth because it's not "nice".

I've already argued that I wouldn't be prepared to call Valmy a Christian based on what he said he believes. I didn't claim though that he pretends to be a Christian or that his beliefs are quasi-religious. Nor did I ask him why he is so bothered by such claims that shouldn't have any impact on him at all.