Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sean Mac Dubh-sìthe

Watered Down?

Which Point 8?  

7 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

What happened to "being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails ... conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege"? Is it just me, or does it seem like the new version is really watered down, and almost repetitious of some of the other points, particularly 4, 5 and 6? I like the new wording of the other points, but this one seems pointless now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless I am mistaken, or my computer is malfunctioning, your comment is the only one on the 8 Points for the entire year of 2013. You might just have a point here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think vagueness is an essential element of any successful religion.

 

NORM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it could be defined as any organization that can convince a room full of people that by following a set of principles, rituals, rites, traditions, ancient texts, new revelations, and etc. - to the exclusion of all other such things - is the TRUE pathway to God, G-d, god, gods, Godz, heaven, eternal life, Nirvana, and etc.

 

NORM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norm

 

That makes sense. If one is an atheist, an agnostic, or a secularist then there are other sets of "principles, rituals, rites, traditions, ancient texts, new revelations, and etc." which one abides by to obtain a goal or state of being. The so called scientific rationalist is as religious as that person who places their faith and hope in a spirituality. Belief in the religion of Science then is no different really. We all believe in something. The question is in what and how do we live our lives accordingly.

Edited by matteoam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree Matteoam,

 

One does not "believe" in Science. The whole point of the scientific process is that it is a process of discovery that is ongoing and never static. There are "rules" of physics that are only valid as long as experimentation cannot disprove them.

 

It is entirely unlike religious belief. Religious beliefs do not need validation - they are assumed to be correct.

 

NORM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norm

 

Your point is accurate. Faith in these "laws" are necessary. Faith in the types of scientific methods are necessary. I'm not trying to start an argument about religion v. Science as it is really boring and is explored ad nauseam in other posts. My views are noted elsewhere.

 

My point in this thread is the watering down of the beliefs of PC which bothers me. One need not be a PC to adhere to these points either. It seems too often than not that the usual suspects of these posts take an either/or stance on issues which to me is limiting in and of itself.

 

This is my last comment on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point in this thread is the watering down of the beliefs of PC which bothers me. One need not be a PC to adhere to these points either. It seems too often than not that the usual suspects of these posts take an either/or stance on issues which to me is limiting in and of itself.

 

This is my last comment on the matter.

If it bothers you perhaps it is something you will have to get over ..... or not .... and just live with it. PC as you are now aware is not a belief system on this site.and to me that is a strength.rather than a weakness.

that's my thoughts anyway,

Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norm

Your point is accurate. Faith in these "laws" are necessary. Faith in the types of scientific methods are necessary.

I think you actually missed my point. There is no "faith" involved in the scientific method. ANY rule can be changed with sufficient evidence to the contrary. This is not the case in most religions.

 

NORM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it bothers you perhaps it is something you will have to get over ..... or not .... and just live with it. PC as you are now aware is not a belief system on this site.and to me that is a strength.rather than a weakness.

that's my thoughts anyway,

Joseph

I agree with you, Joseph. One of the things I admire most about PC is its willingness to alter previously held ideas when new information is gleaned.

 

NORM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is accurate. Faith in these "laws" are necessary. Faith in the types of scientific methods are necessary. I'm not trying to start an argument about religion v. Science as it is really boring and is explored ad nauseam in other posts. My views are noted elsewhere.

 

matte ... Not only do you seem to miss Norm's point, you seem to misrepresent science.

Science nor it's methods requires faith. It requires that for a scientific hypothesis to be used or to be useful, it should fit with observation. How is that faith?

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science changes in the light of new feedback and the evidence that confirms our understanding.

However, I believe faith also changes. Take Christianity.

1/ It is a Jewish sect within Judaism.

2/ It is a Sect in a gentile world.

3/ It is about a church.

4/ It is about a bible.

5/ It is about spirituality.

Despite those who insist that things have been the same since the beginning the religion has undergone many changes. I believe many of these changes have been from the changing culture. PC have been the liberating group who have recognised this and grown with it instead of insisting on things that make little sense in a modern age. It like science has brave to embrace the journey to new understandings. Although science and religion are different. It is because of this that much of PC is rejected by others who seek to be the orthodox or authority and in that there is a cost that is born but also valued (imo).

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×