What's Your Religion and Why?

Pot meet kettle. Homie, you know damn well calling someone “dumb” is insulting, will be taken that way, and is meant that way.

You can try to rationalize it as “just an observation” but I’ll have to assume you’re being intentionally insulting and dishonest. Have some tact - keep it civil at the very least.

5 Likes

What is the square root of (-1)?

  1. ‘Dumb’ is an adjective used to describe people who are "lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted. " (dictionary.com). I explained why I felt the description was appropriate.
  2. Things can be two things. One thing that they were intended to be, and one that they weren’t.
1 Like

Yeah, the anger seems misplaced. Though I admit, I may have missed something earlier. Perhaps in an entirely different thread. Can I offer my services as a mediator between the parties?!

2 Likes

Seems a bit much to broadly apply to a person because you believe his argumentation on a particular subject is poor. I’m sure someone, if not a good many, have perceived me as dumb because I flubbed up an argument. Or, didn’t think out analogies, metaphors, examples and so on…Or, maybe I simply didn’t grasp that specific subject well. Ok? Maybe I didn’t! Or, OR, the listener/reader actually didn’t understand to no fault of my own. Not saying any of those apply here. Or who is right or wrong. But gosh, let’s just try to be a little bit more charitable with each other? I’m sure we’ve all been less than stellar. I’ll start. Practice what we preach, and all, right? Hello, corndiggity, I’m sloth. it’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance Howdy pat, hope you’re doing well!

2 Likes

Umm… it hasn’t been proven… never said it was. It is a theory, and I have no idea how that theory would align with your proven logic.

Based on your response to the negative statement logic displayed by the simple teapot analogy, you clearly don’t have a very good grasp on this topic. I’m bowing out of this convo again, if anybody wants to see where this conversation leads they can read this thread:

or this one:

2 Likes

I’ll concede that ‘dumb’ may have been a bit strong, but I stand by my statements. You don’t have to agree.

I rarely if ever post, but do I spend a lot of time reading the forums and I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a post by Pat, usually on the Middle East, to be shortly after followed by a post from Loppar or someone else explaining, in detail, how not only was what Pat wrote completely incorrect, the opposite is usually true.

So when he stated that “0-1=-1” was somehow ‘proving a negative’, I decided to post. Now I’ll likely go back to lurking. So have a nice day everyone.

1 Like

Nope. Stalin reestablished the supremacy of the Moscow patriarchate after a spat lasting several hundred years and pretty much behaved like your typical deranged Russian tsar, not interested in the World Revolution like Lenin but the expansion of Mother Russia under whom it reached it’s maximal territorial expansion under the temporary name USSR.

The way things stand now, proclaiming Stalin officially a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church is only a few decades away, maybe much sooner as icons depicting Stalin are already being revered throughout Russia, especially in the armed forces…

image
image

4 Likes

Those icons are deeply disturbing, and obscene in the truest sense of the word.

2 Likes

No, only the practical religion they ALLOWED in place.

Stalin and his regime were atheist.

1 Like

Like blaming Chinese Catholicism, or something.

Nope, they were Russian first and foremost. I know it’s difficult to wrap your head around, but you cannot shoehorn Russians into the usually accepted definition of “Christianity” accepted in the US. And Stalin was basically a Tsar.

For example, Ivan the Terrible burned people alive and flayed their skin killing thousands and thousands in the medieval version of Stalin’s purges believing he was God’s instrument on Earth for punishing sinners and heretics.

In Russia, the Orthodox Church has always been the extension of the Russian state(s) and is consequently more concerned about worldly matters and customs and practices that help project Russian’s might and defeat it’s enemies - for example while the Pope may weigh in on deep theological issues and discuss abstract concepts, the Patriarch of Moscow will usually speak about reconquering Constantinople and whatnot.

image

So Russian Orthodoxy has a strong component of national and political violence - if Islam is stuck in the 7th century, they’re stuck in the 10th…

2 Likes

And I’m American…Being Russian, in whatever order, doesn’t discount his Atheism. 5 year plan?

Stalin. He thought no such thing of himself.

Loppar, you’re a well read guy. Moreso than me, I freely admit. But Stalin…Stalin was an atheist. If, and when, he tolerated religion it was purely practical and does nothing to discount the suffering of the religious. That’s like me being a theocratic ruler, and tolerating the atheists who will at least honor the regime. Stalin was an atheist. Russian or not.

1 Like

I’m not saying that Stalin wasn’t an atheist, whatever definition one uses. The current head of the Russian Orthodox Church is also very likely an atheist, for example.

I’m just stating out that in Russia religion is not a theological manifestation of one’s deep religious beliefs but a political statement and thus cannot be conflated with the Western concept of religion. Religion is there to expand the borders of Mother Russia, not to lead a virtuous life according to Scripture.

Theologically speaking, Russian orthodoxy is somewhere between Islam and Western Christianity (closer to the latter naturally) in terms of perception of the public/private sphere.

1 Like

Your insight is always welcome. Thank you.

Secular religion.

It was a similar situation in the Eastern Roman Empire. When there is no separation of church, religion and state, all wars become holy wars.

And communism was a secular religion in Russia.