Actuarial Outpost

Actuarial Outpost (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/index.php)
-   Surveys (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Do you consider magic demonic? (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=341218)

Whiskey 06-22-2019 03:10 PM

Using this definition, all sects or mainline religions were once cults.

So,
Cult + time = sect
Sect + time = mainline religion

Gotcha

Jasper07734 06-22-2019 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiskey (Post 9650558)
Using this definition, all sects or mainline religions were once cults.

So,
Cult + time = sect
Sect + time = mainline religion

Gotcha

Not so fast.

Let's evaluate Christianity through this lens, as an example (at the time of its founding and today, to incorporate your desire for historical perspective).

At its founding:
  1. I'll give you that this one is at least debatable. Although others perceived him as speaking as if he had authority, Christ did not see Himself this way. He was not an authoritarian leader whom you must obey or else.
  2. Christ ordered no one to follow Him, and He didn't micromanage every minute of their lives if they did follow Him.
  3. If there was emotional dependence on Christ, people created that for themselves. Jesus did not emotionally manipulate people by design.
  4. No.
  5. Also no.

Today (I'll use the Catholic Church for this example, since that Christian church seems to grind the most gears on here):
  1. We do not worship the Pope (or Mary, or the saints). Furthermore, papal infallibility (which non-Catholics frequently misunderstand as impeccability) doesn't mean that everything the Pope says is law and we must accept his words without question. It's more the converse: The pope says something because it's unalterably true, and has been since Christ.
  2. The doctrine of free will prevents this one from being applicable.
  3. imo, Catholic faith is the least emotional of all Christian faiths. We keep our focus on God and not on human emotion, and the Mass is a reflection of this.
  4. We do not believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. That's one example of why this one is a No.
  5. I can see why this one looks debatable on the surface. But if you notice that no one is ever required to make a weekly offering, and certainly no one is ever required to hand over their savings or wages, this one is a clear No.

Dr T Non-Fan 06-24-2019 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glassy (Post 9649817)
Oh, Oh, Oh, it's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so

Please move post to the double-negative thread.
Thank you.

Dr T Non-Fan 06-24-2019 12:30 PM

Also, no Arthur Clarke references??

ARTS 06-24-2019 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan (Post 9651105)
Also, no Arthur Clarke references??

To that one quote, or to Childhood's End?

Dr T Non-Fan 06-24-2019 12:35 PM

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Learned that from "Archer."

I mean, all this defensive posturing about religion is kind of derailing the thread.
Or, it's going exactly where the OP wanted it (on the rail and over the cliff).

glassy 06-24-2019 12:43 PM

I never did believe in the ways of magic. But I'm beginning to wonder why

Dr T Non-Fan 06-24-2019 01:50 PM

I gotta strange maaaaaagic.

Vorian Atreides 06-24-2019 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan (Post 9651115)
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Learned that from "Archer."

I mean, all this defensive posturing about religion is kind of derailing the thread.
Or, it's going exactly where the OP wanted it (on the rail and over the cliff).

ALL ABOARD!!

Dr T Non-Fan 06-24-2019 02:08 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Boom-Boom
Boom-Boom
Boom-Boom
Boom-Boom
Aye, aye aye


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Page generated in 0.22980 seconds with 9 queries