Should critics spam?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Religion is something one does to earn God's approbation. I do not worship any god that would be satisfied with anything man could muster up.

So when you say "I'm a firm believer in the Bible's rendition of creation" you mean this strictly from a scientific point of view. As in "I have studied evolution and the Bible and after studying both I am a firm believer in the Bible's rendition of creation"? Doesn't the fact that you believe the creation story prove you to be a religious man. An atheist wouldn't believe that a god created anything and an agnostic would never state so clearly that they believe the creation story to be true without more proof. So which is it? Are you a religious man or not?

Originally posted by CliffLandin

Oh, by the way, most people that post their IQs usually add to them to make themselves look smarter.
Actually, I subtracted. You know, out of humility and all.

The post had more to do with the general lack of intelligence of calling another person stupid/illogical/ignorant, ad infinitum, via a 'safe' process.

The lack of manners by some herein is troublesome; precious few of the posters so inclined to insult using the method available to them here would field the same enthusiasm, were they face-to-face with another (unfamiliar) human being.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Religion is something one does to earn God's approbation. I do not worship any god that would be satisfied with anything man could muster up.

So why bother worshiping one then. If he would be satisfied, you wouldn't want to, if he wouldn't be, then you can't ever make an impact with worship so just say "screw you big egomaniac in the sky" and move on

Originally posted by CliffLandin
So when you say "I'm a firm believer in the Bible's rendition of creation" you mean this strictly from a scientific point of view. As in "I have studied evolution and the Bible and after studying both I am a firm believer in the Bible's rendition of creation"? Doesn't the fact that you believe the creation story prove you to be a religious man. So which is it? Are you a religious man or not?

An atheist wouldn't believe that a god created anything and an agnostic would never state so clearly that they believe the creation story to be true without more proof.
If your definition is used, I am out of choices! If the only definition of 'religious' is having a belief in, and a reverence for, God, then I am religious.
However, the usual and consistent connotation of 'religious' is one who adheres to a religion. Religion is something one does, therefore, I take exception to that definition. I don't 'do' anything with respect to gaining God's favor, as it is unattainable by man.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
So why bother worshiping one then.

The 'muster up' part may have thrown the intended meaning from getting through.

Those who worship God must worship Him in truth and Spirit. There is a way of worship which God is pleased with, but it is not via the strained efforts of man.

I believe the word you were looking to use was megalomaniac, not egomaniac.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b] An atheist wouldn't believe that a god created anything and an agnostic would never state so clearly that they believe the creation story to be true without more proof.
If your definition is used, I am out of choices! If the only definition of 'religious' is having a belief in, and a reverence for, God, then I am religious.
However, the u ...[text shortened]... don't 'do' anything with respect to gaining God's favor, as it is unattainable by man.[/b]

Well Webster defines religion as
1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their
recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having
power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and
honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love,
fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power,
whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites
and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of
faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical
religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion;
revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion
of idol worshipers.
1913 Webster
I does not confine religion to organized religions as you seem to.

By this definition you certainly are religious.

Originally posted by CliffLandin


By this definition you certainly are religious.[/b]

Notable exceptions:
outward act or form
observance of rites and ceremonies
conduct of life
I would say, again, yes.
But as most associate religion as necessarily containing some or all of the three exceptions noted, there is a distinction.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The 'muster up' part may have thrown the intended meaning from getting through.

Those who worship God must worship Him in truth and Spirit. There is a way of worship which God is pleased with, but it is not via the strained efforts of man.

I believe the word you were looking to use was megalomaniac, not egomaniac.

megalomania
1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance
2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

egomania
: the quality or state of being extremely egocentric

I said what I meant, egomaniac is just as much a word as megalomaniac, in fact, both were first recorded in the same year, 1890. (random useless trivia for the day)

If there were a god, he could not be a megalomaniac, but would be an egomaniac since he wants people to worship him.

Don't correct me if you don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow

Don't correct me if you don't know what you are talking about.

Not to be too picky, of course, but I believe megalomania fits better, as egomania is predominately used for a preoccupation with self.

Megalomania's delusions of grandeur and omnipotence seems to lend itself more readily to a demand of worship from others, than egomania's mere preoccupation with one's self.

Nonetheless, I defer to your better judgment. Not many people can use the word 'umbrage' and get away with it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not to be too picky, of course, but I believe megalomania fits better, as egomania is predominately used for a preoccupation with self.

Megalomania's delusions of grandeur and omnipotence seems to lend itself more readily to a demand of worship from others, than egomania's mere preoccupation with one's self.

Nonetheless, I defer to your better judgment. Not many people can use the word 'umbrage' and get away with it.

The reason I said he couldn't be a megalomaniac is that they would not be delusions of omnipotence if you actually are omnipotent. I used egomania because I felt it takes a certain preoccupation with yourself to demand that others ought to devote a large part of their lives to spending time worshiping you, if he weren't actually all-powerful, megalomania would certainly fit.

Sorry if I was a bit prickly, but I am tired and should be sleeping instead of posting on RHP. And thanks for noticing my name, although I have noticed many of the less intelligent TV personalities saying it recently. I think Adam Corola (sp?) has used it a few times recent. It kind of bugs me because it used to be one of my favorite words, and also because they only use the anger definition, not the shadow one, which I like best and find the word quite poetic.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
The reason I said he couldn't be a megalomaniac is that they would not be delusions of omnipotence if you actually are omnipotent. I used egomania because I felt it takes a certain preoccupation with yourself to demand that others ought to devote a large part of their lives to spending time worshiping you, if he weren't actually all-powerful, megaloma ...[text shortened]... se the anger definition, not the shadow one, which I like best and find the word quite poetic.

Here, here.
Here's to a (albeit small) good night's sleep.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

But as most associate religion as necessarily containing some or all of the three exceptions noted, there is a distinction.

No, you are grasping at straws. No where in that definition does it say Religion is all of the following. It does, however, contain the crazy, little word or. So there is no destinction. Just because you don't adhere to a organized religion does not mean that you are not religious. By your own admission you take the Creation myth to be truth and as far as I can tell, the Bible to be the word of God.

Quit splitting hairs. Marvin, you, with a brain the size of planet, should know better.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Hmm. You joined on 4 Dec '05

Not one to correct a stranger, but I joined on 5 Dec '05. Kind of creepy, huh? 05.12.05. I wonder if it means anything.

Your friend sounds interesting, however. Please, tell me more.[/b]

Read the "joined" date under your handle.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Hmm. You joined on 4 Dec '05

Not one to correct a stranger, but I joined on 5 Dec '05. Kind of creepy, huh? 05.12.05. I wonder if it means anything.

Your friend sounds interesting, however. Please, tell me more.[/b]

My 'friend' loved to make accounts with the letters "JVG" in them.

Come to think of it, "KBH" is just "JVG" shifted right by one position on the keyboard. What a clever bastard! They'll never see through that!

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
What a clever bastard! They'll never see through that!

HAL fooled 'em all in 2001.