What's your religion?

[fanty]

I think Blizzer had this definition in mind:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

(...) "a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions" and a tendency "to express this by sneers and sarcasms".

Especially the underlined part.

[Blizzer]

Yes, I thought it was clear I was dicussing the mocking of others particularly the virtuous.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Hurt others? I believe we're not talking about the same kind of cynicism.

For the record, the most "pure" representation of cynicism in mainstream media (so we can agree over something) lies in the character of Dr House--he's as cynic as he can get, but he saves lives. I don't see where the "evil" of cynicism lies there.

Cynicism has different meanings but it's common for it to have a negative connotation.

As for the character of Dr. House, yes he is cynical but from the little episodes I've seen even though he is cynical on the outside he does have some sincerity and empathy for others underneath.

...although he is only a character in a drama, if a doctor in real life said some of the things House says and behaves as House does he wouldn't be practicing medicine and would probably be a public outcast because of it. The reason why House is so entertaining is because most of the time he gets away with it.

[WanderingKnight]

Cynicism has different meanings but it's common for it to have a negative connotation.

Negative in what sense? I still don't understand why exactly being skeptical about the apparent intention of other human beings is inherently bad or negative. When you get to the bottom of it, religion or no religion, we are all driven by our own selfish impulses.

I just see it as a way of thinking outside the box. It's no coincidence that cynic people also tend to be quite intelligent.

By the way, and just to clear this up: Being cynical does not equal to being pessimist, though there are some degrees of correlation.

[Blizzer]

You can't see what's wrong with sneering and antogonising someone?
I'm skeptical about people's true intentions, but it doesn't mean I put people down for doing it.

Cynicism isn't equal to being a pessimist, it's due to a twisted perception of things.

[WanderingKnight]

You can't see what's wrong with sneering and antogonising someone?

Who says cynicism involves sneering and antagonizing someone?

I'm skeptical about people's true intentions, but it doesn't mean I put people down for doing it.

Look, thinking may lead to putting people down. It's just the way it is--someone does something wrong, and they deserve criticism for it. Cynicism is just a way experience gives you to predict and understand how people (and things in general) work. It doesn't mean you have to think everyone's against you, though. That's just paranoia taken to the extreme.

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by Blizzer

Yeah there are different ways to interpret things, but if you take everything described poetically as literal you won't understand the true meaning, try to read english literature at face value and it won't even make sense because of all the metaphors, expressions and images.

Oh, I didn't take what Jesus said as literal, never said that Jesus wants everyone to really "act like a child". i.e eat candy. wear childrens clothes, wear diapers.

Instead I dug out the hidden meaning on what Jesus said.

“If you do not change your hearts and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3)."

My interpretation: If people don't follow Jesus as obediently as a child, then the kingdom of heaven won't open for them.

[Vexx]

I can certainly see a problem with referring to Wikipedia over Merriam-Webster for the meaning of a word O.o

but whatever -- Thomas Jefferson and his buddies put together a system of government that was based on cynicism: "Trust but verify". Three arms of government, each of whom has the mandate to keep the others in check.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

Oh, I didn't take what Jesus said as literal, never said that Jesus wants everyone to really "act like a child". i.e eat candy. wear childrens clothes, wear diapers.

Instead I dug out the hidden meaning on what Jesus said.

“If you do not change your hearts and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3)."

My interpretation: If people don't follow Jesus as obediently as a child, then the kingdom of heaven won't open for them.

I'd suggest that you're wilfully misinterpreting the message. But of course, you're free to think what you like.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

Oh, I didn't take what Jesus said as literal, never said that Jesus wants everyone to really "act like a child". i.e eat candy. wear childrens clothes, wear diapers.

Instead I dug out the hidden meaning on what Jesus said.

“If you do not change your hearts and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3)."

My interpretation: If people don't follow Jesus as obediently as a child, then the kingdom of heaven won't open for them.

"Follow obediently"? Looks like someone never taught elementary school...

[shelter]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

Oh, I didn't take what Jesus said as literal, never said that Jesus wants everyone to really "act like a child". i.e eat candy. wear childrens clothes, wear diapers.

Instead I dug out the hidden meaning on what Jesus said.

“If you do not change your hearts and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3)."

My interpretation: If people don't follow Jesus as obediently as a child, then the kingdom of heaven won't open for them.

Everyone certainly interprets His words according to what they think. Misinterpretation? I'm not a theologist so I can assess that rightfully.

But I do believe there is one correct meaning to it. It's up to us to search that out.

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I'd suggest that you're wilfully misinterpreting the message. But of course, you're free to think what you like.

I'm interpreting it on an atheist's point of view, rather than "wilfully misinterpreting it".

Of course a Catholic would interpret it as something that would promote Jesus as a good man (i.e To enter the kingdom of heaven, you must have a pure heart like a child.).

Each to his own.

[PILMAN]

I grew up Jewish, but I guess i'd consider myself an Atheist now, I don't believe anything.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

I'm interpreting it on an atheist's point of view, rather than "wilfully misinterpreting it".

Of course a Catholic would interpret it as something that would promote Jesus as a good man (i.e To enter the kingdom of heaven, you must have a pure heart like a child.).

Each to his own.

I agree with "to each his own," but Liddo-kun this isn't something that is arbitrary, you know? I mean, when Jesus said it he very likely intended it in a certain way, and while we can interpret it however we like there was likely only one intended meaning.

Something with more freedom of interpretation would be some unexplainable event (say, rocks falling from the sky). Thiests would likely interpret it as an act of God, and you'd be able to interpret it as something that science just can't explain. That's something where you can interpret. A person's words and their intended meaning don't have quite as much freedom of interpretation.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I agree with "to each his own," but Liddo-kun this isn't something that is arbitrary, you know? I mean, when Jesus said it he very likely intended it in a certain way, and while we can interpret it however we like there was likely only one intended meaning.

Something with more freedom of interpretation would be some unexplainable event (say, rocks falling from the sky). Thiests would likely interpret it as an act of God, and you'd be able to interpret it as something that science just can't explain. That's something where you can interpret. A person's words and their intended meaning don't have quite as much freedom of interpretation.

Well if you want to go on a limb here, you could say that all of history is a fabricated by some international government that keeps everyone as puppets. Therefore, Jesus doesn't exist and there could have been another meaning to the statement different than what Christians think it is supposed to be. However... you know... this does not seem very likely.

Anyhow, I've always been skeptical of anything regarding Jesus. While I do believe he existed as a person, and that he of course had a very significant impact on the world around him, there are just so many things regarding him that are either taken out of context, seem to be fabricated, or seem to be misunderstood about him. What many people should realize is that Jesus did not actually create Christianity, but it was his followers that did. They supposedly were "ordered" by him after his resurrection to spread his teachings, but what about those teachings were exactly his?

If I remember correctly, one of his big teachings was to love and respect thy fellow man. When most people cannot even get this simple concept right, it just doesn't do too good for the religion in my opinion.

This reminds me of a certain part of the book Slaughterhouse-Five. This was the part where Kurt Vonnegut was commenting about the story of the crucification of Christ and how it actually incites people to kill others rather than keeping them from killing others. His reasoning was that in the story it only taught that you shouldn't kill people with connections. He thought that if Christ was actually just a bum that no one cared about and if God then came and punished everyone after killing him that it would get the message through correctly that you should never kill anyone connections or not.

Hmm, sorry Ledgem it seems my post lost relevancy to what you were saying half way through there and I'm just babbling here .

[Ledgem]

I don't have any disagreements with what you've said, but even so I take issue with the idea that such a statement meant that people should just be good followers and be naive. It just seems so obvious as to what the statement was intended to mean. This isn't to say that it couldn't have a double meaning, but double meanings for such statements are usually reserved for stories and such where we're looking for clues and clever tricks with words.

I somehow can't imagine that Jesus or Jesus' followers created that saying and then chuckled to themelves at how clever they were, for the phrase would fool the majority of the world but their evil plot would be known to a slight few who would likely be powerless to stop it. That's the stuff of fictional stories, it doesn't seem very realistic. What would be realistic would be to accuse the people who wrote such things as using very flowery language and imagery in an effort to persuade people to fall into line. That's a fair accusation and I don't believe that anyone can fully disprove it.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

I'm interpreting it on an atheist's point of view, rather than "wilfully misinterpreting it".

What's so atheistic about your point of view?

[Same_Shark]

Since I was molested, I've never been big on following, so I guess I'm going to Hell?

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

What's so atheistic about your point of view?

If I explain why my point of view is atheistic, it will be flamebait to catholics and a mod would probably delete my post.

Anyway, I have no intention of debating for a long time (or to make enemies) with the religious people on AS, so I'm stopping here.

[DonQuigleone]

I think Jesus had plenty of good things to say. However I think that the bible is inherently flawed, particularly the old testament, who's depiction of god is quite at odds with the new testaments depiction, they're almost different beings. I also think that much of Jesus's message ended up getting subverted over the years. It still makes little sense to me that most christians I know don't do any of the stuff (like forgiving others) that jesus said.

That said I've never been to church or anything, I'm an atheist with Buddhist leanings. I think one bad thing in christianity is that praises "weakness"(in personality). For instance, I don't see how meekness is a desirable character trait, surely courage is important. Surely charity isn't deserved if the person receiving it hasn't tried to elevate themselves from their state, and only beg, not even trying to work.

[Anh_Minh]

Then how come you don't think the New Testament is flawed, instead of the Old?