Creating Cults and Sects

In response to Ryan - full post here

I think that we can probably say that Jesus started a new religion. He didn't create it, per se, at least not intentionally, but he was the cause of this new religion. So, presumably, you could amass a large number of followers and create stories about your divinity; assuming people believe it, and they very well may, you could be the center of some religion. You could certainly start a cult of your own, like Marshall Applewhite, or not, he was a bit crazy. You could also do fairly well in creating a sect of a religion of your choice. Good luck to you, Dios.

Umbrellas and Sub-Groups

Christianity is like an umbrella, it covers many denominations. Christianity is to Catholicism as animal is to bird. Christianity is the larger group which contains the smaller group. Therefore we should not attribute any of the characteristics of the smaller group to all of the larger group; we would not, for instance, say that on the basis that birds fly, all other animals can; similarly, it is not appropriate to talk about birds as if they were the only animals, saying "animals like to fly." Additionally, it is inappropriate to assume that characteristics of one group cannot apply to another or all of the subgroups; this is akin to saying "because I am a human, I require oxygen." We should note that all living things need oxygen to survive.

As of recently, I have been encountering a large number of people who say things akin to "Christians listen to the Pope," or "as a Catholic, I believe in the Abrahamic god." I think that people should make an honest effort to clear this matter up for themselves, because otherwise they risk make sweeping generalizations or being too specific which leads to confusing and offending many other people.

I'll Pray For You Nanomites

Amongst some religious folk, there is an inclination to end a disagreement with a curt "I'll pray for you." This is not the proper way to argue. An argument should stand on its own merit; an argument can even be largely emotion, but it still stands on its own merit. When we break this ending statement down, we see a petition to a deity, hoping that the deity will proceed to intervene and make the opposition find the argument more agreeable. Most people, I think, can see that this is certainly a problem if we are attempting to argue rationally. I think that even those whom are initially convinced that this sort of argument holds would find themselves offended if it were used against them. Imagine discussing slavery with someone, where you are pro-abolition and they are pro-slavery. If the opposition throws, in your face, a mist of nanomites which rewire your brain to find their stance more agreeable, that does not actually lend merit to their argument. The point is that slavery is still wrong even if, by some miracle, you thought otherwise due to nanomites having had rewired your brain.

In response to Lauren on Dania's post - found here

Hmm... I am not sure that Jesus would view anyone as a true Catholic, because I don't think he would make that distinction between Christians. He seems not to make judgement claims, he simply openly accepts everybody; so there is no sense in calling someone a "good (enter specific denomination of specific religion here)." I think Jesus would probably recognize her as a 'good and highly motivated person.' Additionally, Jesus didn't know anything about the Catholics as he was a good practicing Jew, and didn't seek to start Catholicism. Even if he did know about the Catholics, I do not think that Jesus would find most of the Catechism, or the actions of the church (given the power structure of the ROMAN Catholic church) agreeable, though he would probably still accept them. I don't know, it seems a bit unjustified to suggest that Jesus would qualify someone's good actions like that.

Jesus Obeys the Old Testament

In response to Julia's post - found here

Actually, my last Q & A was related to how Jesus viewed the Old Testament.

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says, or at least is made out to have said, that he has not come to destroy the law (of the Old Testament) and advises that we not break the commandments. However, I can see Jesus disagreeing with one of the laws in Exodus; Exodus 20:12 features the fifth commandment which states that you should honor your mother and father; Jesus seemed to be very vehemently against this commandment given his saying something akin to hate your mother and father.

Debt and Contracts

I think that parents bring obligation of taking care of children unto themselves. They would surely be awful people and parents if they forced an obligation upon themselves and then chose not to take care of that obligation. Parents have children most often of their own volition. The child has their own life thrust upon them, and by the time they are aware of the fact that they had no choice in their creation, they can't do anything about it. Well, they could, but it would likely involve a large amount of pain and cause severe amounts of emotional trauma to those who know them, including their parents whom forced the child to begin living.

Even if a child does enjoy their life because their parent fulfilled the obligations that they gave themselves, children do not owe any debt to the parents for abiding by the parent's self constructed contract. This is not to say that individuals cannot choose to pay them back, but simply that doing so would be going well beyond what is necessary; which is to say, doing nothing at all. Debt is only incurred when both people initiated an agreement at the onset of a contract.

Debt to Parents

Children do not owe their parents a single thing. Parents have children completely of their own volition, they usually enjoy the acts that creates the child. The child has their own life thrust upon them, and by the time they are aware of the fact that they had no choice in their creation, they can't do anything about it. Well, they can, but it would likely involve a large amount of pain and cause severe amounts of emotional trauma to those who know them. They are pressured into thinking that they have a gift, even if they don't want it, and that ending that would be a terrible thing to do - some even invoke religion, suggesting that God will send them to eternal punishment if they try to get rid of their 'gift.' I don't think anyone should be expected to repay someone for a gift that was forced upon them since before they were remotely conscious.

Imagine it this way - imagine that Person A are the Parents, and that person B is the child

A, because he wanted to, put a book in your house, unbeknownst to you. When you finally discover the book, you start to read it. The book is, in general, uneventful (kind of monotonous), though some parts in it made you laugh, other parts make you cry out of sadness, and some parts, yet, fill you with rage or disappointment. Person A, then, demands, not only that you keep the book which he wanted to give to you, but also that you pay him back for having given you the book in the first place. Though you enjoyed a few passages from it, or even if you enjoyed all of it, why should you have to pay him for slipping a book, that you didn't ask for, into your house?