addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrosseditemptyheartexportfacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Re: [humanism-174]FINAL response: My reply to an email my sister forwarded to me.....

From: Mark R. O.
Sent on: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:17 AM
Chris:

First, I agree it is time to end this.  This will be
my last post as well. 

You misused metaphor when you insisted on
using the literal theological definition of religion. 
Your comparison was no longer implied, you
made it literal. 

unquestionable, is not attached to the
definition of dogma. 

And lastly I didn't realize that you and
one other constitutes everyone.  You
really do need a better dictionary. 


M. Orel

On[masked]:09, Chris K wrote:
My last attempt.  Point by point.  

On Nov 25, 2012, at 2:24 PM, "Mark R. Orel" <[address removed]> wrote:

Chris:  

Just to be clear, I did defined religion:

So you are using religion as, 
any system of belief's, practices, 
ethical values, etc., resembling, 
suggestive of, or likened to such a 
system.  In that humanism, science, 
politics and anything else can be a 
religion.  


Your response was: 

No, the state was the religion. 

Yes, metaphorically it was. 


I then defined dogma and again religion:   

Dogma, is a doctrine; tenet; belief.  
Ritual, a set form or system of rites, 
religious or otherwise.  
Science, politics, humanism, all have 
dogma and ritual, and spots even more 
so.  

Correct but you left out the most universally accepted aspect of dogma. It is unquestionable. 


Religion does not require a supreme 
being.  You are contradicting your own
assertion that the state can be a religion.  

Really?? Reread the preceeding two sentences and find your own mistake. 
Honestly, I'm too tired to point out something so glaringly obvious.  
 

"What always gets me is that people seem 
to think that the Stalinist Russia and Maoist 
China had no religion.  That couldn't be further 
from the truth.  The state WAS the religion, 
complete with unquestionable dogma, ritual, 
and all the other accoutrements." 



Please notice the word unquestionable.



And your response was: 

Actually, no. 
There has to be dogma, a supreme being and ritual. 

Correct.  You asked me how I was defining religion. This is how I was defining religion in this case.  

In order for the State to supplant the dominant religion it required its own "supreme being". It had one.

I think everyone is right about you being a troll though. I won't respond further to this thread. I think I made my points perfectly clear.  After this you'll have to go back to your cave or under your bridge.

Chris


Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy