NationStates Jolt Archive

I began to wonder about the different opinions of faith in here, not just the believers but also the people who call themselves agnostic or atheist.
Why is there so much strife between christian faiths for example?
Why is sufi, shia and sunni so different within the muslim community.

Does it really matter that much for people exactly how one believes and what church or other religious community the other belong to?
Why this insistent claiming of ones religion as the one truth?

I know that humans like to bicker but with this it makes no sense, one does not save another by forcing or threatening him to believe like oneself, it takes careful convincing, reasoning and an understanding from the other to even make him come close to believing the same as oneself.

So, I would like to hear from you.
What are your tenets of faith and how do they prove to you that they are correct?
Is it just gut feeling or is it something else?

My own path is the gnostic christianity, it corresponds with my view on humans as the reasoning, caring and loving creature that she is when she is born.
It does not force itself on anyone, it is compatible with separation of law and faith. And my personal relation with god is direct, not through a priest or anyone else.
I follow love and forgiveness and accept that others may have contrary beliefs without them being wrong. I believe that I may percieve wrongly and work to increase my knowledge to avoid it.
And it is based on development and re-evaluation of the world.

Thank you for your time and I hope nobody is offended by this, I am just curious by nature. Excuse me for any faults that may be made and please correct me if you feel like it.

I consider myself an atheist. I can't bring myself to beleive in a god without evidence.

On the Sunni/Shiite/Sufi division, from what I understand the Sunni and Shiite people split originally over a dispute over who should lead the muslim people a couple of generations after Muhammad died. Now some of the sunni, especially the Wahabbi branch, consider the Shiite people to be almost polytheists because they have "saints" refered to in their religion as Imams. Like in the Imam Hussein Mosque in Karbala, Iraq. It's like saying the Saint Hussain mosque. Sunni Islam sees the recognition of any other person as divine or a prophet as polytheism.

Not exactly. Sunni Islam did have the Caliph which can also be considered a "saint" figure. Shia Islam's version is the Imam. Shias believe Imams should be descended from Muhammad whereas Sunnis regard the Caliph as a successor not needing to be a descendant of Muhammad.

Not exactly. Sunni Islam did have the Caliph which can also be considered a "saint" figure. Shia Islam's version is the Imam. Shias believe Imams should be descended from Muhammad whereas Sunnis regard the Caliph as a successor not needing to be a descendant of Muhammad.
Ok, thanks.

Why do the Wahabbi and other "salafiya" forms of Sunni Islam see Shiite people as not true muslims and bordering on polytheism?

Ok, thanks.

Why do the Wahabbi and other "salafiya" forms of Sunni Islam see Shiite people as not true muslims and bordering on polytheism?
Well for one thing. They changed the Shahadah (declaration of faith) by adding an extra phrase. That's a big no-no.

I guess it's possible that some Sunnis believe they teeter on the brink of polytheism because of their devotion to Ali ibn Abu Talib (peace be upon him). They added his name to the Shahadah almost levelling him up there with Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Well for one thing. They changed the Shahadah (declaration of faith) by adding an extra phrase. That's a big no-no.

I guess it's possible that some Sunnis believe they teeter on the brink of polytheism because of their devotion to Ali ibn Abu Talib (peace be upon him). They added his name to the Shahadah almost levelling him up there with Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Ok, thanks.

I think there is so much conflict between even similar religions because people are crazy. And dumb.

Ok, thanks.
No problem.

I think there is so much conflict between even similar religions because people are crazy. And dumb.

I would love to hear about your view on your faith if you have one though.

Drunk: What kind of evidence are we talking about?

I would love to hear about your view on your faith if you have one though.

Drunk: What kind of evidence are we talking about?
Evidence like real prophecy would be nice. It would have to be specific, that is it should only be fulfilled by one particular event involving named people at a specific period of time, not something vague like "Babylon will fall". A prediction like "babylon will fall" could have been fulfilled in biblical times, or it could have been a reference to the current Iraq war, or it could be a reference to some future conflict. It's not specific. Oh, and the prophecy must be known before the event takes place, not like that "bible code" crap.

I'd also accept evidence like conclusive proof that the universe had to be created by an intelligent being. Creationists haven't come up with anything that can't be explained away.

I require a high level of evidence, but then god is a rather extraordinary claim IMHO.

Ive always been teetering between theism and agnosticisim. Im pretty theist at the moment.

One thing thats always puzzled me is that religions always seem to stop a few hundred years after the are founded.

I mean, who else has become a buddha apart from Siddharta Guttama? (I'll be thrilled if I spelt that right!)

Apart from a couple of bodisattva stories from hundreds of years ago.

I believe there is nothing in the Universe except God, that God has individuated into billions of souls, sort of a clumping of the one giant soul into many many tiny foci that are individual people, all here to experience the material plane. I believe that there are a few little grains of actual inspired communication in our holy texts and that the other 99% is just misinterpretation and mistranslation by humans who didn't know what the hell they were talking about, but wanted everyone to think they were authoritative.

I do not believe in Hell or God's wrath, since we are all parts of God, why would God send anyone to Hell? Sounds like we are trying to force God into distinctly human vengeful behaviour mode. God is serenity and love, and has no hate. Fear and Hate are the result of an error in the way we view the world. God knows better. We just keep plugging away at it until we evolve higher and higher and eventually rejoin the Maker and relinquish our indentity into the Whole, until we decide to individuate again and start the Game over again, for the sheer joy of doing so.

No right or wrong, no requirements, no "proper way of doing things". Scary for some, but not for me.

One thing thats always puzzled me is that religions always seem to stop a few hundred years after the are founded.


Exactly. That's why Christianity is 2000 years old, Buddhism and Judaism, 2500 years, and Hinduism ... forever.

I have a personal problem with the concept of "faith". Basically, it relies on unquestioning, unwavering, totally illogical following of a religious belief, writing, leader, etc. I personally prefer the idea of everyone finding their own spirtual and/or nonspiritual answers to life's larger questions.

I mean, who else has become a buddha apart from Siddharta Guttama? (I'll be thrilled if I spelt that right!)


Siddhartha Gautama.

No idea who else has become the Buddha. :D

I have a personal problem with the concept of "faith". Basically, it relies on unquestioning, unwavering, totally illogical following of a religious belief, writing, leader, etc. I personally prefer the idea of everyone finding their own spirtual and/or nonspiritual answers to life's larger questions.

That's why I call myself a gnostic christian, one is not required to hold specific ideas as truth but are expected to think for oneself and reason about the different points in the faith.

Siddhartha Gautama.

No idea who else has become the Buddha. :D

* has become A Buddha

Greek Orthodox Christain.

For me, faith is a personal thing. I don't see it as illogical obedience to something that may or may not exist, but as a personal search for truth.

"Test everything, that which remains is true" - The Bible

Faith should always be abot questioning, the search for truth.


What alot of people don't get is that religion is just a set of symbology to get you to comtemplate the uncontemplatable, to understand the incomprehensible. Spin around 'till your brain loses all connection to the physical world, spend 25 years not saying or hearing a single spoken word, train your brain to the point where you can stimulate massive brain activity at will, or controls your body's automatic hormone systems, then tell me if you percieve the world the same way, or if you could put your experience into pure straight words.

That is why you can have 2 seemingly contrdictory creation stories right next to each other, and it not be contradictory at all. It's to provoke thought, to get you to raise yourself to that next level.

Atheist. Pure and simple.

I believe there is nothing in the Universe except God, that God has individuated into billions of souls, sort of a clumping of the one giant soul into many many tiny foci that are individual people, all here to experience the material plane. I believe that there are a few little grains of actual inspired communication in our holy texts and that the other 99% is just misinterpretation and mistranslation by humans who didn't know what the hell they were talking about, but wanted everyone to think they were authoritative.

I do not believe in Hell or God's wrath, since we are all parts of God, why would God send anyone to Hell? Sounds like we are trying to force God into distinctly human vengeful behaviour mode. God is serenity and love, and has no hate. Fear and Hate are the result of an error in the way we view the world. God knows better. We just keep plugging away at it until we evolve higher and higher and eventually rejoin the Maker and relinquish our indentity into the Whole, until we decide to individuate again and start the Game over again, for the sheer joy of doing so.

No right or wrong, no requirements, no "proper way of doing things". Scary for some, but not for me.

It is a beautiful view, I heard it before, frased like this: God split in a myriad pieces so there would be friends.

Evidence like real prophecy would be nice. It would have to be specific, that is it should only be fulfilled by one particular event involving named people at a specific period of time, not something vague like "Babylon will fall". A prediction like "babylon will fall" could have been fulfilled in biblical times, or it could have been a reference to the current Iraq war, or it could be a reference to some future conflict. It's not specific. Oh, and the prophecy must be known before the event takes place, not like that "bible code" crap.

I'd also accept evidence like conclusive proof that the universe had to be created by an intelligent being. Creationists haven't come up with anything that can't be explained away.

I require a high level of evidence, but then god is a rather extraordinary claim IMHO.
In other words, you want magic as your evidence that god is real. :)

I believe there is nothing in the Universe except God, that God has individuated into billions of souls, sort of a clumping of the one giant soul into many many tiny foci that are individual people, all here to experience the material plane. I believe that there are a few little grains of actual inspired communication in our holy texts and that the other 99% is just misinterpretation and mistranslation by humans who didn't know what the hell they were talking about, but wanted everyone to think they were authoritative.

I do not believe in Hell or God's wrath, since we are all parts of God, why would God send anyone to Hell? Sounds like we are trying to force God into distinctly human vengeful behaviour mode. God is serenity and love, and has no hate. Fear and Hate are the result of an error in the way we view the world. God knows better. We just keep plugging away at it until we evolve higher and higher and eventually rejoin the Maker and relinquish our indentity into the Whole, until we decide to individuate again and start the Game over again, for the sheer joy of doing so.

No right or wrong, no requirements, no "proper way of doing things". Scary for some, but not for me.
That is a lovely image of god.

Evidence like real prophecy would be nice. It would have to be specific, that is it should only be fulfilled by one particular event involving named people at a specific period of time, not something vague like "Babylon will fall". A prediction like "babylon will fall" could have been fulfilled in biblical times, or it could have been a reference to the current Iraq war, or it could be a reference to some future conflict. It's not specific. Oh, and the prophecy must be known before the event takes place, not like that "bible code" crap.

I'd also accept evidence like conclusive proof that the universe had to be created by an intelligent being. Creationists haven't come up with anything that can't be explained away.

I require a high level of evidence, but then god is a rather extraordinary claim IMHO.

A real prophecy:

"And unto you a child shall be born and he shall be called immanuel."

and

"The virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son."

and some evidence:
1. The complexity of cells and atoms them selves. Scientists them selfs have said that the cell and atom is extreamly complex.

2. The fact that evolution can't happen. It can't happen because it defies the law of enthropy which states that things break down over time which we see these days.

3. The fact that the earth is exactly where it needs to be placed. A few degrees and it would freeze or burn up.

i shall post more later. I'm also Luthern Church Missouri Synod(LCMS).

I would love to hear about your view on your faith if you have one though.

I have none. But it's not the holding or not of a faith that makes people crazy or dumb. It's the ramming it down other people's throats like it's the one and only absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt and infallible truth.

So, why is there conflict? Because people have faith? No. Because people have different faiths? No. Because people are too crazy or dumb to recognize that others have the right to believe and live according to something different? Yup.

The Baha'i Faith which is a relatively new world religion started in Iran in 1844 and proclaimed the essential unity of all revealed religions, the oness on humanity and the elimination of prejudice.




"The fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh ... is that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same, that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are complementary, that they differ only in the nonessential aspects of their doctrines, and that their missions represent successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society....

...His mission is to proclaim that the ages of the infancy and of the childhood of the human race are past, that the convulsions associated with the present stage of its adolescence are slowly and painfully preparing it to attain the stage of manhood, and are heralding the approach of that Age of Ages when swords will be beaten into plowshares, when the Kingdom promised by Jesus Christ will have been established, and the peace of the planet definitely and permanently ensured. Nor does Bahá'u'lláh claim finality for His own Revelation, but rather stipulates that a fuller measure of the truth He has been commissioned by the Almighty to vouchsafe to humanity, at so critical a juncture in its fortunes, must needs be disclosed at future stages in the constant and limitless evolution of mankind.

The Bahá'í Faith upholds the unity of God, recognizes the unity of His Prophets, and inculcates the principle of the oneness and wholeness of the entire human race. It proclaims the necessity and the inevitability of the unification of mankind, asserts that it is gradually approaching, and claims that nothing short of the transmuting spirit of God, working through His chosen Mouthpiece in this day, can ultimately succeed in bringing it about. It, moreover, enjoins upon its followers the primary duty of an unfettered search after truth, condemns all manner of prejudice and superstition, declares the purpose of religion to be the promotion of amity and concord, proclaims its essential harmony with science, and recognizes it as the foremost agency for the pacification and the orderly progress of human society...."

(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come)

I began to wonder about the different opinions of faith in here, not just the believers but also the people who call themselves agnostic or atheist.
Why is there so much strife between christian faiths for example?
Why is sufi, shia and sunni so different within the muslim community.

Does it really matter that much for people exactly how one believes and what church or other religious community the other belong to?
Why this insistent claiming of ones religion as the one truth?

I know that humans like to bicker but with this it makes no sense, one does not save another by forcing or threatening him to believe like oneself, it takes careful convincing, reasoning and an understanding from the other to even make him come close to believing the same as oneself.

So, I would like to hear from you.
What are your tenets of faith and how do they prove to you that they are correct?
Is it just gut feeling or is it something else?

My own path is the gnostic christianity, it corresponds with my view on humans as the reasoning, caring and loving creature that she is when she is born.
It does not force itself on anyone, it is compatible with separation of law and faith. And my personal relation with god is direct, not through a priest or anyone else.
I follow love and forgiveness and accept that others may have contrary beliefs without them being wrong. I believe that I may percieve wrongly and work to increase my knowledge to avoid it.
And it is based on development and re-evaluation of the world.

Thank you for your time and I hope nobody is offended by this, I am just curious by nature. Excuse me for any faults that may be made and please correct me if you feel like it.

I don't think we can know whether any one religion is 'correct' or not, so I don't worry about it. I just try to lead what I think is a good life as best I can. I suppose that's not really much in the way of 'tenets of faith' but it's all I've got.

I believe there is nothing in the Universe except God, that God has individuated into billions of souls, sort of a clumping of the one giant soul into many many tiny foci that are individual people, all here to experience the material plane. I believe that there are a few little grains of actual inspired communication in our holy texts and that the other 99% is just misinterpretation and mistranslation by humans who didn't know what the hell they were talking about, but wanted everyone to think they were authoritative.

I do not believe in Hell or God's wrath, since we are all parts of God, why would God send anyone to Hell? Sounds like we are trying to force God into distinctly human vengeful behaviour mode. God is serenity and love, and has no hate. Fear and Hate are the result of an error in the way we view the world. God knows better. We just keep plugging away at it until we evolve higher and higher and eventually rejoin the Maker and relinquish our indentity into the Whole, until we decide to individuate again and start the Game over again, for the sheer joy of doing so.

No right or wrong, no requirements, no "proper way of doing things". Scary for some, but not for me.

You are close to non-dualism (Advaita).

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html

What are the basic tenets of advaita?

The essential identity of the Atman and brahman is the most important tenet of advaita. brahman is the substratum on which all phenomena are experienced, and also the antaryAmin, the One Lord who dwells in all beings. The innermost Atman, the real Self, is the same as this antaryAmin, and identical to brahman. Liberation (moksha) consists in realizing this identity, not just as a matter of literal or intellectual understanding, but as something that is to be grasped by the individual in his/her own personal experience. Yogic practices help in the road towards such realization, because they help the seeker in practising control of the senses, and in directing the antahkaraNa (the 'internal organ' - consisting of the mind, intellect, awareness and I-ness) inwards. The practice of ashTAnga-yoga is recommended to seekers by teachers of advaita. The seeker has to be equipped with requisite qualifications - qualities such as patience, forbearance, ability to focus one's concentration in an intense manner, an ability to discriminate between the Real and the non-Real, dispassion, and a desire for liberation. However, it is important to remember that moksha is not a result of mere ritualistic practice. Being identical to brahman, moksha always exists. Ritualistic practices help only to the extent of achieving citta-Suddhi, and in developing the above-mentioned qualities.

advaita is a non-dual teaching. When asked why duality is perceived in this world, advaita has a multi-pronged answer to the question. The world of multiplicity can be explained as due to mAyA, the power of creation wielded by the Creator, who is therefore also called the mAyin. From the point of view of the individual, the perception of duality/multiplicity is attributed to avidyA (ignorance) due to which the unity of brahman is not known, and multiplicity is seen instead. This is akin to the false perception of a snake in a rope. When the rope is known, the snake vanishes. Similarly, on brahman-realization, the world of multiplicity vanishes. This does not mean that the individual's ignorance creates the external world. However, the perception of multiplicity in the world, instead of the One brahman, is due to avidyA, i.e. ignorance. When avidyA is removed, the individual knows his own Self (Atman) to be brahman, so that there is no more world and paradoxically, no more individual. Here, the Self alone IS. Removal of avidyA is synonymous with brahman-realization, i.e. moksha.

Read http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html for a more detailed description.

3. The fact that the earth is exactly where it needs to be placed. A few degrees and it would freeze or burn up.
Or perhaps life sprang up here on earth because the earth happens to be where it is. By chance.

Well I would probably happily call myself an agnostic, to say that I'm an atheist and I absolutely know without a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist would be totally arrogant, noone can know that for sure. But I would think that the majority of atheists around are the so called 'floaters' who don't really care about spiritual stuff but just say they don't believe to avoid it. But studying various religions in college has enlightened me somewhat, if I had to choose a religious conviction I would choose Buddhism, it seems to have a very real approach for man to find the divine, and doesn't whinge on about god being one and all powerful, like islam and judaism do.

I am aetheist, but if i had to chose a religeon i would be a "practical darwinist", it most closely follows my character and sentiments. basicly, a practical darwinist doesn't help anyone, because that person will eventually fail anyway and the stronger people will succeed, infact must succeed. it applies to ineternational relations, where stronger nations are supposed to conquer smaller nations. and it applies to people with disabiliteies, and i dont support foreign aid. yes i'm bitter and twisted and yes this has destroyed my morals. but i dont believe in a god because any proof you can give for one existing i can disproove just as easily.

A real prophecy:

"And unto you a child shall be born and he shall be called immanuel."

Ah yes... and who would that have been? I mean, among the thousands of Immanuels that were born between then and now?



"The virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son."

Proof? The fact that only Matthew mentions a "virgin birth" and none of the three others, even though those were written earlier, plus the fact that none of the writers ever laid eyes on neither Mary nor Jesus makes the bibles account more than doubtful.


1. The complexity of cells and atoms them selves. Scientists them selfs have said that the cell and atom is extreamly complex.

They are complex, but they are simply obeying laws of physics, in their case the simple and basic fact that opposite charges (negative and positive) attract each other. Simple laws can lead to astonishing and complex results in nature, but they neither prove nor disprove god on any level.


2. The fact that evolution can't happen. It can't happen because it defies the law of enthropy which states that things break down over time which we see these days.

So, no new stars could be born in the univers because everything is falling apart all the time? How come we can witness the births of stars, then?
If everything is drifting apart and breaks down and no new orders can be created, how do plants grow? How do cells reproduce? How do drops of water form?
The law of enthropy is not the only law in the univers, it is in balance with a vast number of other laws, and this balance made the existence and evolution of life possible.


3. The fact that the earth is exactly where it needs to be placed. A few degrees and it would freeze or burn up.

You are mistaking the effect for the cause here. You might just as well ask why Venus is that hot or Pluto so cold that life couldn't emerge there?
The earth is not in its position so we can be here, we are here because this planet happened to be in the right position.

I'm a Catholic Christian of the Latin rite.

- I believe in God.

-God is fundamentally good.

-God is purely masculine in essence.

- I believe in one God comprised of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

-God has always been and always will be.

-God the Father created the world. \

-God the Son redeemed the world. --- All extremely simplified

-God the Holy Spirit sanctifies the world. /

-The God described above is the same God worshipped by the Jews.

- Jesus invested His authority in Simon Peter, who became the Pope.

- The Pope in Rome is the supreme authority of all Christianity and has been given authority by God Himself.

- Simon dies but Peter lives on. The authority invested to Peter passes onto his successor.

-The teaching authority of the Church is equal to that of the Bible.

- A person is not saved by faith alone, but by grace alone.

- No one knows if they are saved our not, only God can know that.

- I believe in unspoiled free will, and that God has not predestined who will be saved and damned, even though he knows who will because he is all knowing.

- I believe in seven sacraments.

- I believe in infant baptism, and accept the baptism of most Christian denominations as legitimate.

- I believe in the real presence of our Lord in the most holy Eucharist. I believe that Jesus intended us to carry out the tradition of the Last Supper literally.

- I beleive that our sins must be confessed.

- I believe in the priesthood.

- A woman cannot be ordained to the priesthood. As women give phsyical life, so do men give spiritual life.

- Matrimony is forever-binding.

- True Matrimony can never be broken, even if it appears so.

- I believe in hell.

- I believe in purgatory.

- I believe in the veneration, not worship, of saints especially the Blessed Virgin Mary.

- I pray for the re-union of all Christians.

- Abortion is murder.

Exactly. That's why Christianity is 2000 years old, Buddhism and Judaism, 2500 years, and Hinduism ... forever.

i think he ment that their religous 'stories' stopped. Like there are no big documented prophets, no big miracles or new holy items past the first hundreds of years. Everything they teach is ancient, nothing that happened recently, or even within the past millenium.

i think he ment that their religous 'stories' stopped. Like there are no big documented prophets, no big miracles or new holy items past the first hundreds of years. Everything they teach is ancient, nothing that happened recently, or even within the past millenium.

Actually, that IS a very good question. I know the Catholic church keeps installing saints to give the impression of still being active and vital, but even they haven't seen a prophet this millenium or last.

Ah, well, no, I have to correct myself. There was the founder of the Mormon church would claimed to be a prophet, as far as I know. So, ok, there's one example there...

I don't know and NEITHER DO YOU. ;)

Actually, that IS a very good question. I know the Catholic church keeps installing saints to give the impression of still being active and vital, but even they haven't seen a prophet this millenium or last.

Ah, well, no, I have to correct myself. There was the founder of the Mormon church would claimed to be a prophet, as far as I know. So, ok, there's one example there...

The Catholic Church does no such thing, and before you assume the reasons behind something, how about actually researching the matter?

The Catholic Church along with the rest of the generally accepted Christians all believe that public revelation has ended and there is no more need for prophets since Jesus fulfilled the need for any prophet.

The Catholic Church does no such thing, and before you assume the reasons behind something, how about actually researching the matter?

The Catholic Church along with the rest of the generally accepted Christians all believe that public revelation has ended and there is no more need for prophets since Jesus fulfilled the need for any prophet.

The Catholic church has stopped sanctifying people?
Sure is news to me....

i think he ment that their religous 'stories' stopped. Like there are no big documented prophets, no big miracles or new holy items past the first hundreds of years. Everything they teach is ancient, nothing that happened recently, or even within the past millenium.

There will be no more prophets. There have been miracles innumerable, some of which were very big, and by holy items I assume you mean things like the Lance of Longinus. In that case, there are holy items, but they are dwarfed in stature to those which have something to do with the life or passion of Christ.

A saint does not make a prophet.

Forgive me, by the way, by prophet I meant divine prophet. There have been prophecies at Fatima revealed by Mary to children.

A saint does not make a prophet.

Forgive me, by the way, by prophet I meant divine prophet. There have been prophecies at Fatima revealed by Mary to children.

Oh, are those the ones that nobody is to know about until the events actually take place? :rolleyes:

Somewhere stuck between Reform and Conservative Judaism. Still working on it, though I'm more culturally Jewish than spiritually. I believe in God mainly in the term presented to us by scientists, though I do believe in a number of things from the Torah (do not mistake Torah with Old Testament). I do not believe in eternal damnation, but I do believe abortion is murder. I do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, as there has been no Messianic Age, though I acknowledge that others have a right to believe he was the Messiah under a different set of rules. I believe that all people should currently look at what Pope Jean Paul II and the current Pope have done in trying to improve relations with other religions and try to emulate them. The way things work is how you view them, just no one preach a darned thing to me about creationism, cause I'll simply show you the fossil of a half-ape, half-man and ask you to explain it.

Oh, are those the ones that nobody is to know about until the events actually take place? :rolleyes:

Only the third one was a secret.

The first prophecy:

The Secret imparted to the three shepherd children at Fatima on July 13, 1917 had three parts. The first part was fully revealed in Sr. Lucy’s Third and Fourth Memoirs, written at the command of her bishop, in 1941. This first part of the Secret of Fatima describes what Lucy, Jacinta and Francisco saw on that day. We quote from Sister Lucy’s memoirs:

She [Our Lady of Fatima] opened Her hands once more, as She had done during the two previous months. The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls [of the damned] in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. (It must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons could be distinguished [from the souls of the damned] by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals.1 This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, Who had already prepared us by promising, in the first apparition, to take us to Heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror.2

Our Lady then explained to the children, "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go."

The second prophecy:

Having just shown the fate of the damned (in the first part of the Secret of Fatima) to the three shepherd children of Fatima, on July 13, 1917, Our Lady then confided to them the second part of the Secret. This second part primarily concerns Heaven’s requests for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the Communions of Reparation on the First Saturdays and the consequences of failing to heed these requests. As recorded in Sister Lucy’s memoirs, the second part of the Secret is as follows:

To save them [poor sinners who are on the road to hell], God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse war will break out during the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions against the Church and against the Holy Father.

To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.1

In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

Speculation on the content of the third secret (http://www.devilsfinalbattle.com/ch13.htm)

Somewhere stuck between Reform and Conservative Judaism. Still working on it, though I'm more culturally Jewish than spiritually. I believe in God mainly in the term presented to us by scientists, though I do believe in a number of things from the Torah (do not mistake Torah with Old Testament). I do not believe in eternal damnation, but I do believe abortion is murder. I do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, as there has been no Messianic Age, though I acknowledge that others have a right to believe he was the Messiah under a different set of rules. I believe that all people should currently look at what Pope Jean Paul II and the current Pope have done in trying to improve relations with other religions and try to emulate them. The way things work is how you view them, just no one preach a darned thing to me about creationism, cause I'll simply show you the fossil of a half-ape, half-man and ask you to explain it.


I think the distinction between abortion and murder is not a question of faith.
It's a scientific question regarding the age of the embryo and the moment it becomes a human being. Most people (as religious as they may be) will not regard a fertilised egg as a human being with a human soul, but the question WHEN this perception changes is a tricky one indeed.
Some people claim the foetus becomes a human being at birth, others that it becomes a person the moment its own heart starts beating (personally, I believe the second)
As you can only "murder" a human being, your definition of "a human being" is the relevant part here.


But as this is nothing that can be scientifically proven at all, it will remain a matter of choosing which idea to follow...

Only the third one was a secret.

Why?

And what were the first two?

A real prophecy:

"And unto you a child shall be born and he shall be called immanuel."

and

"The virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son."

and some evidence:
1. The complexity of cells and atoms them selves. Scientists them selfs have said that the cell and atom is extreamly complex.

2. The fact that evolution can't happen. It can't happen because it defies the law of enthropy which states that things break down over time which we see these days.

3. The fact that the earth is exactly where it needs to be placed. A few degrees and it would freeze or burn up.

i shall post more later. I'm also Luthern Church Missouri Synod(LCMS).

I think Cabra West covered all this fairly well. Especially the latter points of 'evidence'. For the Prophecies though, isnt all the proof for fulfillment of those listed prophecies found in the Bible? Hence you're basically saying "the bible is true because it says its true".. Maybe i'm wrong, let me know.

My personal beliefs:
Atheist: I do not believe that God exists
Agnostic: I think the very nature of what a God would be is undefinable and beyond the comprehension of the human mind. And since it would exist within the realm of the supernatural God can never be proven or disproven anyway.
Misc: I think there is a lot of value to be found in the social and ethical parts of many religions. However the only value of the mythical and narrative parts of religion is to emphasise the social and ethical parts, and for entertainment (if you're into that kind of thing)

Refer to my previous post for the prophecies.

The first is simply a revelation of hell.

The second is a prediction that Soviet Russia will be overcome eventually.

The third is well, more substansial, and such it is a secret.

A real prophecy:

"And unto you a child shall be born and he shall be called immanuel."

and

"The virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son."

and some evidence:
1. The complexity of cells and atoms them selves. Scientists them selfs have said that the cell and atom is extreamly complex.

2. The fact that evolution can't happen. It can't happen because it defies the law of enthropy which states that things break down over time which we see these days.

3. The fact that the earth is exactly where it needs to be placed. A few degrees and it would freeze or burn up.

i shall post more later. I'm also Luthern Church Missouri Synod(LCMS).

First of all, there's no way to ascertain the truth of the profecies you mention. There's also no way to interpret the cause/effect of them. For instance, it subtratcs from the ceribility that the name wasn't something like Sbkjshedfjzhgsjehrgzljshdgjflaw but just a common, everyday name.
I could claim that someone named Emma will be born in the very small country of Denmark tomorrow. Most likely I'd be right, because tomorrow some 70-100 girls will be born, and Emma is BY FAR the most popular name right now in that country.
Biblical claims have, as far as I'm concerned, no credibility at all.

1. And? If you look at the theories governing how these things came about, they're the logical development of the circumstances. You claim cause/effect to be divine. Unless you can prove it, I think that's a pretty outragous claim. No offence.

2. You mistake Earth for a closed system. Give it about 5 billion years, give or take, and you'll see the enthropy. As it is now, the sun provides the energy.

3. Yea what are the odds? Right now noone can say anything meaningful about the odds of a planet like earth ending up like it did. We don't know enough about the universe yet to make any claims regarding it. All we do know is that there is a mindboggling amount of galaxies with incomprehensibly many planets.
Personally I suspect the chances of there being at least one earth-like planet is staggering, but I can't prove it any more than you can disprove it.

Anyway, I'm an atheist. And I hope religion will eventually be educated away. I think it's sad people need to place their trust, hopes and dreams in something they imagine is there. And history proves it's very dangerous when people seek justification from invisible friends....
But we have nuclear weapons and we're still alive. I'm confident we'll get over our superstitions eventually, without blasting ourselves to bits because some imaginary entity told us to.

By the way, I don't hate people for being religious. I think it's pathetic, but I really don't care unless they try to involve me in it in some way. Mostly religious people don't behave like that, but there are a few rabid christians & muslims out there. And they piss me off to no end. No offence intended to anyone else.

First of all, there's no way to ascertain the truth of the profecies you mention. There's also no way to interpret the cause/effect of them. For instance, it subtratcs from the ceribility that the name wasn't something like Sbkjshedfjzhgsjehrgzljshdgjflaw but just a common, everyday name.
I could claim that someone named Emma will be born in the very small country of Denmark tomorrow. Most likely I'd be right, because tomorrow some 70-100 girls will be born, and Emma is BY FAR the most popular name right now in that country.
Biblical claims have, as far as I'm concerned, no credibility at all.

1. And? If you look at the theories governing how these things came about, they're the logical development of the circumstances. You claim cause/effect to be divine. Unless you can prove it, I think that's a pretty outragous claim. No offence.

2. You mistake Earth for a closed system. Give it about 5 billion years, give or take, and you'll see the enthropy. As it is now, the sun provides the energy.

3. Yea what are the odds? Right now noone can say anything meaningful about the odds of a planet like earth ending up like it did. We don't know enough about the universe yet to make any claims regarding it. All we do know is that there is a mindboggling amount of galaxies with incomprehensibly many planets.
Personally I suspect the chances of there being at least one earth-like planet is staggering, but I can't prove it any more than you can disprove it.

Anyway, I'm an atheist. And I hope religion will eventually be educated away. I think it's sad people need to place their trust, hopes and dreams in something they imagine is there. And history proves it's very dangerous when people seek justification from invisible friends....
But we have nuclear weapons and we're still alive. I'm confident we'll get over our superstitions eventually, without blasting ourselves to bits because some imaginary entity told us to.

By the way, I don't hate people for being religious. I think it's pathetic, but I really don't care unless they try to involve me in it in some way. Mostly religious people don't behave like that, but there are a few rabid christians & muslims out there. And they piss me off to no end. No offence intended to anyone else.

If I said something like I wish atheism would be educated away I'd never hear the end of it. I respect the fact that you reject the existence of God, but please do try to change your hostile attitude. :rolleyes:

There's strife between different factions of religions because of power. To have power you need to guide people to act on your behalf, what better way to do that than through religion. This is why organised religions are evil, believe what you want to but keep it to yourself.

First of all, there's no way to ascertain the truth of the profecies you mention. There's also no way to interpret the cause/effect of them. For instance, it subtratcs from the ceribility that the name wasn't something like Sbkjshedfjzhgsjehrgzljshdgjflaw but just a common, everyday name.
I could claim that someone named Emma will be born in the very small country of Denmark tomorrow. Most likely I'd be right, because tomorrow some 70-100 girls will be born, and Emma is BY FAR the most popular name right now in that country.
Biblical claims have, as far as I'm concerned, no credibility at all.

1. And? If you look at the theories governing how these things came about, they're the logical development of the circumstances. You claim cause/effect to be divine. Unless you can prove it, I think that's a pretty outragous claim. No offence.

2. You mistake Earth for a closed system. Give it about 5 billion years, give or take, and you'll see the enthropy. As it is now, the sun provides the energy.

3. Yea what are the odds? Right now noone can say anything meaningful about the odds of a planet like earth ending up like it did. We don't know enough about the universe yet to make any claims regarding it. All we do know is that there is a mindboggling amount of galaxies with incomprehensibly many planets.
Personally I suspect the chances of there being at least one earth-like planet is staggering, but I can't prove it any more than you can disprove it.

Anyway, I'm an atheist. And I hope religion will eventually be educated away. I think it's sad people need to place their trust, hopes and dreams in something they imagine is there. And history proves it's very dangerous when people seek justification from invisible friends....
But we have nuclear weapons and we're still alive. I'm confident we'll get over our superstitions eventually, without blasting ourselves to bits because some imaginary entity told us to.

By the way, I don't hate people for being religious. I think it's pathetic, but I really don't care unless they try to involve me in it in some way. Mostly religious people don't behave like that, but there are a few rabid christians & muslims out there. And they piss me off to no end. No offence intended to anyone else.


I do hope you realize that you contracted yourself in these two paragraphs. You hope that religion will dissapear, and yet you don't hate people for people for being religious. If you hope religion will dissapear, that immediately makes you someone who doesn't like religious people. You are a person who is not only confused, but has no understanding about what faith really is.

Refer to my previous post for the prophecies.

The first is simply a revelation of hell.

The second is a prediction that Soviet Russia will be overcome eventually.

The third is well, more substansial, and such it is a secret.

So the first is a "revelation" and not a prophecy of anything that will actually happen we can see.

The second prediction is incredibly obvious. If i could word it well enough i could make up a prophecy about the downfall of the United States.... And, as history has shown us, some day it will fall... In relative terms the Roman Empire was far greater than the influence the US has now but eventually it collapsed. One day the collapse of the United States will happen... If i made a well worded and crazy enough prophecy about it it would be like a fine wine. The longer it took to fulfill the more mystical and convincing it would appear to those that choose to beleive it once it does happen. A good 500 years or so would probably be perfect.

I think the distinction between abortion and murder is not a question of faith.
It's a scientific question regarding the age of the embryo and the moment it becomes a human being. Most people (as religious as they may be) will not regard a fertilised egg as a human being with a human soul, but the question WHEN this perception changes is a tricky one indeed.
Some people claim the foetus becomes a human being at birth, others that it becomes a person the moment its own heart starts beating (personally, I believe the second)
As you can only "murder" a human being, your definition of "a human being" is the relevant part here.


But as this is nothing that can be scientifically proven at all, it will remain a matter of choosing which idea to follow...


I think I can agree with you on that one.

There's strife between different factions of religions because of power. To have power you need to guide people to act on your behalf, what better way to do that than through religion. This is why organised religions are evil, believe what you want to but keep it to yourself.

People who believe in unorganized religion waste time, energy, and money, by broadcasting ridonculous bullshit on crappy television and radio networks at 3AM. They flood my Google searches with their silly bullshit such as "Crystal Skulls that hold the key to our future" and "2012 is the end of the world because the Maya stopped counting on that winter solstace! Oh and by the way, we're all mutating horribbly, you just aren't aware, and all of our children will be psychic because our DNA will arbitrarily changed from the center of the galaxy."

This is why unorganized religion is evil.

So the first is a "revelation" and not a prophecy of anything that will actually happen we can see.

The second prediction is incredibly obvious. If i could word it well enough i could make up a prophecy about the downfall of the United States.... And, as history has shown us, some day it will fall... In relative terms the Roman Empire was far greater than the influence the US has now but eventually it collapsed. One day the collapse of the United States will happen... If i made a well worded and crazy enough prophecy about it it would be like a fine wine. The longer it took to fulfill the more mystical and convincing it would appear to those that choose to beleive it once it does happen. A good 500 years or so would probably be perfect.


Frankly, there is a great difference between Rome and the US. Saying the US will fall because Rome fell is like saying hockey and figure skating are the same thing.

If I said something like I wish atheism would be educated away I'd never hear the end of it. I respect the fact that you reject the existence of God, but please do try to change your hostile attitude. :rolleyes:
Sorry I didn't intend to offend people. Please accept my apology.

Other than that, the original poster asked for my opinion, and I provided it. I'm not actively trying to stop people from being religious or spiritual. If it doesn't affect me, I don't give a damn.
Likewise, I have no problem with people wishing Atheism would be educated away. To me that statement could only mean someone wished they could prove the existence of the divine. Should such a thing happen, I'll reevaluate my position on religion. Incidentially, I sort of wish Atheism could be educated away, as proof would settle all the damn disputes once and for all. But I honestly don't hope there is something divine. I'd feel reduced to a lemming.

I do hope you realize that you contracted yourself in these two paragraphs. You hope that religion will dissapear, and yet you don't hate people for people for being religious. If you hope religion will dissapear, that immediately makes you someone who doesn't like religious people. You are a person who is not only confused, but has no understanding about what faith really is.

Why would he hate religious people? He just hopes that in time, they, too, will see the light of reason.
Do you hate everybody who is not Christian, just because you believe that you know more than atheists do?

Sorry I didn't intend to offend people. Please accept my apology.

Other than that, the original poster asked for my opinion, and I provided it. I'm not actively trying to stop people from being religious or spiritual. If it doesn't affect me, I don't give a damn.
Likewise, I have no problem with people wishing Atheism would be educated away. To me that statement could only mean someone wished they could prove the existence of the divine. Should such a thing happen, I'll reevaluate my position on religion. Incidentially, I sort of wish Atheism could be educated away, as proof would settle all the damn disputes once and for all. But I honestly don't hope there is something divine. I'd feel reduced to a lemming.


Considering the fact the scientists today say that everything they have found out proves the existance of God, you kinda have to start reevaluating.

Sorry I didn't intend to offend people. Please accept my apology.

Other than that, the original poster asked for my opinion, and I provided it. I'm not actively trying to stop people from being religious or spiritual. If it doesn't affect me, I don't give a damn.
Likewise, I have no problem with people wishing Atheism would be educated away. To me that statement could only mean someone wished they could prove the existence of the divine. Should such a thing happen, I'll reevaluate my position on religion. Incidentially, I sort of wish Atheism could be educated away, as proof would settle all the damn disputes once and for all. But I honestly don't hope there is something divine. I'd feel reduced to a lemming.


Aren't you the same as a lemming anyway? If there is no God, then we just ended up in this position because it so happened our divergence from the original primordial soup just happens to be winning right now. We didn't start any better than any other form of life, and I don't think we'll end any better either. Eventually even the lemmings might surpass us.

Whereas, in Christianity man was created to be the first among every other type of creature on Earth. He alone has an intimate relationship with God, and he alone out of all the creatures of Earth will live on.

But I guess this doesn't really matter compared to other aspects of this issue.

People who believe in unorganized religion waste time, energy, and money, by broadcasting ridonculous bullshit on crappy television and radio networks at 3AM. They flood my Google searches with their silly bullshit such as "Crystal Skulls that hold the key to our future" and "2012 is the end of the world because the Maya stopped counting on that winter solstace! Oh and by the way, we're all mutating horribbly, you just aren't aware, and all of our children will be psychic because our DNA will arbitrarily changed from the center of the galaxy."

This is why unorganized religion is evil.


And whenever I try to find scientific fact on bible quotes I get spammed with "We found the light" and "How does a good Christian housewife clean the dishes? What does the bible say?"
That's why organised religion is evil.

Why would he hate religious people? He just hopes that in time, they, too, will see the light of reason.
Do you hate everybody who is not Christian, just because you believe that you know more than atheists do?


The light of reason is an opinion, nothing more. And yes, saying that you think religion should not exist is like saying you hate religious people, as far as I'm concerned, and a lot of people would agree with me. And I'm Jewish, not Christian, and I think Athiests can think whatever they want, just like Christians can think whatever they want, to a point where they aren't prejudiced, which is what all to many Athiests are, is prejudiced.

Aren't you the same as a lemming anyway? If there is no God, then we just ended up in this position because it so happened our divergence from the original primordial soup just happens to be winning right now. We didn't start any better than any other form of life, and I don't think we'll end any better either. Eventually even the lemmings might surpass us.

Whereas, in Christianity man was created to be the first among every other type of creature on Earth. He alone has an intimate relationship with God, and he alone out of all the creatures of Earth will live on.

But I guess this doesn't really matter compared to other aspects of this issue.

So...? Sorry, I just don't get the point

And whenever I try to find scientific fact on bible quotes I get spammed with "We found the light" and "How does a good Christian housewife clean the dishes? What does the bible say?"
That's why organised religion is evil.


So you are saying I'm evil because I'm Jewish?

Frankly, there is a great difference between Rome and the US. Saying the US will fall because Rome fell is like saying hockey and figure skating are the same thing.

Yes they are very different. I obviously cant prove the US will fall.. maybe i should have used someone elses country as the example to make it more palatable for you. But i think it would be a fairly safe bet that in time none of the 'empires' of our current world will be as they are now. If they arent just completely wiped out. I'll probably be more willing to accept your point of view once one of our current nations has lasted as long as, lets say, ancient egypt did. Would you say the difference between Rome and the British empire in the 19th century was vastly different too? The British Empire is certainly not what it used to be. But imagine trying to accept that it would decline to where it is now when it was at its height.

So if i had a few thousand years to spare i'd be more than happy to demonstrate my point to you. Unfortunately all i can use is the history of previous examples. So we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

The light of reason is an opinion, nothing more. And yes, saying that you think religion should not exist is like saying you hate religious people, as far as I'm concerned, and a lot of people would agree with me. And I'm Jewish, not Christian, and I think Athiests can think whatever they want, just like Christians can think whatever they want, to a point where they aren't prejudiced, which is what all to many Athiests are, is prejudiced.

I'm Catholic, just thought I'd point that out. I've encountered a vast number of Christians here and elsewhere that will go to any length shouting and shoving their Christian faith ideas into the face of everybody, especially so if the person doesn't want to hear it.
To me, that's a more than clear statement that they would wish atheism to go away (or anything they percieve as atheism). So why shouldn't an atheist say that he wishes that all others may return to reason?

If the atheist believes that reason is a good thing to believe in, he can wish for all others to share that believe. he can't force them to convert, but that's a very different matter.

Considering the fact the scientists today say that everything they have found out proves the existance of God, you kinda have to start reevaluating.

They do??!!! why didnt i get the memo?

Yes they are very different. I obviously cant prove the US will fall.. maybe i should have used someone elses country as the example to make it more palatable for you. But i think it would be a fairly safe bet that in time none of the 'empires' of our current world will be as they are now. If they arent just completely wiped out. I'll probably be more willing to accept your point of view once one of our current nations has lasted as long as, lets say, ancient egypt did. Would you say the difference between Rome and the British empire in the 19th century was vastly different too? The British Empire is certainly not what it used to be. But imagine trying to accept that it would decline to where it is now when it was at its height.

So if i had a few thousand years to spare i'd be more than happy to demonstrate my point to you. Unfortunately all i can use is the history of previous examples. So we'll probably have to agree to disagree.


Before we do that, let's look at the major differences between the former empires and today's empire.

The former empires had more wars on their hands than even Israel can chew.

The former empires were either overrun by a more powerful empire or dwindled into extinction because of improper governence.

The main reaons the British empire fell was because of the change from a monarcy to a democracy, allowing for areas to separate from the main nation.

So you are saying I'm evil because I'm Jewish?

I was being sarcastic

Should have pointed that out.... boy, you take offense VERY easily

I do hope you realize that you contracted yourself in these two paragraphs. You hope that religion will dissapear, and yet you don't hate people for people for being religious. If you hope religion will dissapear, that immediately makes you someone who doesn't like religious people. You are a person who is not only confused, but has no understanding about what faith really is.
There's no doubt a lot of people I don't like. Some I probably dislike solely because of their beliefs.

That does in no way mean I have something against religious people in general. It just means I dislike people who try to push their religious agenda on others.
A few of my closest friends are religious. That doesn't have any bearing on me, just as my hope that religion will die out doesn't have any bearing on them.
Like already stated, I think religion is a bad thing. Organised religion is dangerous. It's not my fault it's dangerous, it just tends to kill a lot of people every now and then.
Individually religion (mostly at least) isn't dangerous to anyone. But just like I disprove of people abusing drugs or alcohol, I disprove of people's personal religion. I think it's escapism, and a refusal to acknowledge the world they're part of.
If it doesn't harm me or others, I'll keep my opinions about it to myself - exactly like I expect religious people to keep their opinion of atheism or an opposed faith to themselves.

People never agrees 100% on everything. Few people agree there is nothing divine. Few muslims agree with the bible. Few polytheists agree there's only one god. It doesn't have to result in people not getting along.

If I were the world dictator, I wouldn't touch faiths with a ten foot pole, regardless of how wrong I think people are. It's up to them to grow a realistic veiw of the world. I'll only provide my opinion if explicitly asked to. Which we all are in this thread ;)

I'm Catholic, just thought I'd point that out. I've encountered a vast number of Christians here and elsewhere that will go to any length shouting and shoving their Christian faith ideas into the face of everybody, especially so if the person doesn't want to hear it.
To me, that's a more than clear statement that they would wish atheism to go away (or anything they percieve as atheism). So why shouldn't an atheist say that he wishes that all others may return to reason?

If the atheist believes that reason is a good thing to believe in, he can wish for all others to share that believe. he can't force them to convert, but that's a very different matter.


If you will notice in a previous post, I stated that these people aren't in the right, either.

They do??!!! why didnt i get the memo?


Start reading Scientific America and Discovery, or talk to someone who does, and you'll get the memo. Let's put it this way, I just gave you the memo.

I was being sarcastic

Should have pointed that out.... boy, you take offense VERY easily


No, you are simply taking it that I'm offended. I'm simply turning your words around on you, which seems to be really easy.

I'm Catholic, just thought I'd point that out. I've encountered a vast number of Christians here and elsewhere that will go to any length shouting and shoving their Christian faith ideas into the face of everybody, especially so if the person doesn't want to hear it.
To me, that's a more than clear statement that they would wish atheism to go away (or anything they percieve as atheism). So why shouldn't an atheist say that he wishes that all others may return to reason?

If the atheist believes that reason is a good thing to believe in, he can wish for all others to share that believe. he can't force them to convert, but that's a very different matter.

You're about as Catholic as John Kerry.

Considering Fatima is in the deposit of faith and to disbelieve in it would be heresy.

There's no doubt a lot of people I don't like. Some I probably dislike solely because of their beliefs.

That does in no way mean I have something against religious people in general. It just means I dislike people who try to push their religious agenda on others.
A few of my closest friends are religious. That doesn't have any bearing on me, just as my hope that religion will die out doesn't have any bearing on them.
Like already stated, I think religion is a bad thing. Organised religion is dangerous. It's not my fault it's dangerous, it just tends to kill a lot of people every now and then.
Individually religion (mostly at least) isn't dangerous to anyone. But just like I disprove of people abusing drugs or alcohol, I disprove of people's personal religion. I think it's escapism, and a refusal to acknowledge the world they're part of.
If it doesn't harm me or others, I'll keep my opinions about it to myself - exactly like I expect religious people to keep their opinion of atheism or an opposed faith to themselves.

People never agrees 100% on everything. Few people agree there is nothing divine. Few muslims agree with the bible. Few polytheists agree there's only one god. It doesn't have to result in people not getting along.

If I were the world dictator, I wouldn't touch faiths with a ten foot pole, regardless of how wrong I think people are. It's up to them to grow a realistic veiw of the world. I'll only provide my opinion if explicitly asked to. Which we all are in this thread ;)

Murderers BELIEVE that murdering is OK. BELIEF is the core of faith and religion. Therefore, you are saying that it is OK for a person to murder if they believe it is OK.

Before we do that, let's look at the major differences between the former empires and today's empire.

The former empires had more wars on their hands than even Israel can chew.

The former empires were either overrun by a more powerful empire or dwindled into extinction because of improper governence.

The main reaons the British empire fell was because of the change from a monarcy to a democracy, allowing for areas to separate from the main nation.

I think the "more wars than even Israel can chew" might be a bit of a hyperbole.

Are you saying that the US couldnt be overrun by a more powerful empire emerging? such as the emergence of a true European Union and the possibility of international tensions? And are you saying that no "improper governance" now exists within modern empires. I would have defined the Soviet union as a modern empire and we can agree that that collapsed cant we?

And since the United States is a democracy like the British empire became then you must also believe that somehow the US system somehow makes it impossible for areas to seperate from the main nation.

Sorry if i'm misunderstanding your points, but they seem to be bumping into themselves from where i am sitting.

I think the "more wars than even Israel can chew" might be a bit of a hyperbole.

Are you saying that the US couldnt be overrun by a more powerful empire emerging? such as the emergence of a true European Union and the possibility of international tensions? And are you saying that no "improper governance" now exists within modern empires. I would have defined the Soviet union as a modern empire and we can agree that that collapsed cant we?

And since the United States is a democracy like the British empire became then you must also believe that somehow the US system somehow makes it impossible for areas to seperate from the main nation.

Sorry if i'm misunderstanding your points, but they seem to be bumping into themselves from where i am sitting.


The bit about "more than Israel can chew" was a point stating that Israel has gone through a lot of wars, and yet it doesn't compare to the older empires.

The European Union is designed to take down the American economy, not bump up the European economy. The Euro has been destroying the European economy due to the fact that it has taken many exchange businesses off the market, making many people jobless.

The British empire fell because it was huge while becoming a democracy, with places breaking off. The United States, on the other hand, has been a democracy for well over 200 years, and yet it still hasn't lost a single state.

The Soviet Union fell because that is what happens to an overly large communism. Communism isn't powerfull enough to sustain itself, especially when no one does their jobs properly due to the fact that they get paid whether they build the tank right or not.

Start reading Scientific America and Discovery, or talk to someone who does, and you'll get the memo. Let's put it this way, I just gave you the memo.

Thanks for the memo then.... Obviously that year out of study has really put me out of the loop with science. Would you mind horribly giving me a reference to one of the articles in these publications so i can see the light?

Can't, the magazine is in my school library, and that is kinda closed ATM due to summer.

The light of reason is an opinion, nothing more. And yes, saying that you think religion should not exist is like saying you hate religious people, as far as I'm concerned, and a lot of people would agree with me. And I'm Jewish, not Christian, and I think Athiests can think whatever they want, just like Christians can think whatever they want, to a point where they aren't prejudiced, which is what all to many Athiests are, is prejudiced.
Ha, That's like saying you hate children because they believe in Father Christmas. Nonsense.

You're about as Catholic as John Kerry.

Considering Fatima is in the deposit of faith and to disbelieve in it would be heresy.

Taught by Jesuits. I was instructed to question everything before believing it. Btw, I never said that I didn't believe in those prophecies, why do you assume that?

edit : Who is John Kerry, anyway?

Ha, That's like saying you hate children because they believe in Father Christmas. Nonsense.


Yes, your post is nonsense, because it made absolutely not sense in corospondence with my post.

BTW: I've gotten bored of this, so I'm leaving now. Cya.

Oh, are those the ones that nobody is to know about until the events actually take place? :rolleyes:

You seem to me to be a self-loathing Catholic in that case.

I was educated by Dominicans. Formed to root out heresy and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Edit: John Kerry was the candidate of the Democratic Party in the 2005 elections. He supported abortion, and gay marriage. He illicitly received communion in a Protestant church I'd say about seven times in the period of four months, just for the purpose of campaigning. In general he tried to stifle his faith at every turn just to win his thirty pieces of silver.

The bit about "more than Israel can chew" was a point stating that Israel has gone through a lot of wars, and yet it doesn't compare to the older empires.

The European Union is designed to take down the American economy, not bump up the European economy. The Euro has been destroying the European economy due to the fact that it has taken many exchange businesses off the market, making many people jobless.

The British empire fell because it was huge while becoming a democracy, with places breaking off. The United States, on the other hand, has been a democracy for well over 200 years, and yet it still hasn't lost a single state.

The Soviet Union fell because that is what happens to an overly large communism. Communism isn't powerfull enough to sustain itself, especially when no one does their jobs properly due to the fact that they get paid whether they build the tank right or not.

Sorry i obviously didnt explain my EU thing very well. I wasnt talking about the current EU economic alliance. I was giving a hypothetical about IF the EU become a political governance, not merely an economic entity.

So you're saying it is impossible that a state of the US will every vote itself off if policies get too extreme one way or the other... Anyway obviously i have used a bad example for you. And we're now way off the original topic. I'll concede the point of US immortality for the sake of getting back to the original point.

Pick a country, something with a tendency towards instability anyway, make a prophecy about its downfall.. Wait a while... hooray you're a prophet!

You seem to me to be a self-loathing Catholic in that case.

I was educated by Dominicans. Formed to root out heresy and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

No, I don't loath myself on account of my faith.
I just refuse to believe in obvioulsy wrong, immoral, inhuman and criminal ideas, that's all.
And I don't believe in heresy.

edit : Should have smelled the witch-burner a mile off...

Considering the fact the scientists today say that everything they have found out proves the existance of God, you kinda have to start reevaluating.

Uhm...? Considering Scientists by and large make no claims either way there's yet to be published anything regarding the divine, you'll have to excuse me for not falling to my knees in worthship of anything.
You could of course prove your claim ;)


Aren't you the same as a lemming anyway? If there is no God, then we just ended up in this position because it so happened our divergence from the original primordial soup just happens to be winning right now. We didn't start any better than any other form of life, and I don't think we'll end any better either. Eventually even the lemmings might surpass us.

Whereas, in Christianity man was created to be the first among every other type of creature on Earth. He alone has an intimate relationship with God, and he alone out of all the creatures of Earth will live on.

But I guess this doesn't really matter compared to other aspects of this issue.

Well... What I meant with "lemming" was he whole free will thing. And no, I don't think mankind is "better" than lemmings as such. I meant we have a human brain and are capable of a great deal of things lemming's aren't. Many religions claim God expects us to follow various ways of living. Like lemmings marching...


The light of reason is an opinion, nothing more. And yes, saying that you think religion should not exist is like saying you hate religious people, as far as I'm concerned, and a lot of people would agree with me. And I'm Jewish, not Christian, and I think Athiests can think whatever they want, just like Christians can think whatever they want, to a point where they aren't prejudiced, which is what all to many Athiests are, is prejudiced.

The "light of reason" isn't an opinion. Reasoning is an ability.
I already stated I don't hate religious people. I don't even dislike the vast majority of them. Granted there are execptions, but that doesn't have anything to do with religion per se. It has to do with how people feel justified in acting like complete arseholes because of their religion. Thankfully, such people are few and far between.
By the way, why do you feel justified in putting words in my mouth and accusing me of various things I've never said a word about?


Murderers BELIEVE that murdering is OK. BELIEF is the core of faith and religion. Therefore, you are saying that it is OK for a person to murder if they believe it is OK.

Uhm.. Following your odd logic, wouldn't that mean that I think murder is a bad idea but won't stop you from doing it, whereas you think murder is a great idea, and advocate killing?

Anyway, why would you assume my sense of ethics is related to religion?

Any more questions and random accusations for Sim this morning?

No, I don't loath myself on account of my faith.
I just refuse to believe in obvioulsy wrong, immoral, inhuman and criminal ideas, that's all.
And I don't believe in heresy.

edit : Should have smelled the witch-burner a mile off...

"She's a witch, burn her!"

While on that track, I've been waiting to use this quote for a while as well.

"I know you; you're the firstborn of Satan!"

John Kerry was the candidate of the Democratic Party in the 2005 elections. He supported abortion, and gay marriage. He illicitly received communion in a Protestant church I'd say about seven times in the period of four months, just for the purpose of campaigning. In general he tried to stifle his faith at every turn just to win his thirty pieces of silver.

Ah yes, remember him now. Very long face, right?

Guess what? I support abortion and gay marriage as well, and I don't have an election to win. I recieved communion with protestants as well (half my family is protestant), as I believe in ecumenism.

The fact that I am Catholic, to me, means to support my church, and to help it grow. If I find it's going the wrong way, it's my duty to point that out and to try and change it's direction rather than to say "Oh, well" and blindly follow it.

"She's a witch, burn her!"

While on that track, I've been waiting to use this quote for a while as well.

"I know you; you're the firstborn of Satan!"


:D
How do you know my father?

Then what I said stands.

Protestant communion is negligible as long as you fulfill your obligation of going to Mass.

Abortion and gay marriage are irreconcialable with the Catholic faith and you are in serious heresy.

Then what I said stands.

Protestant communion is negligible as long as you fulfill your obligation of going to Mass.

Abortion and gay marriage are irreconcialable with the Catholic faith and you are in serious heresy.

Not really... whether or not abortion is permittable is determined by the moment the soul enters the body. A large number of people in the Catholic chruch are currently holding the perception that this happens in the moment of conception. But there are other perceptions, like for instance the first heartbeat as a sign that the soul has entered the body. The Catholic church has yet to declare its position on this issue, and until it does, I believe that the heartbeat is the true sign. This normally occurs at the end of the 3rd month of pregnancy, therefore every abortion before that is not sin.

As I find no evidence in the bible of Jesus ever having said a single word against any form of homosexuality, I believe that a civil union is permittable. However, marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church, and whether or not it can be administered to a homosexual couple is not for me to decide.

You're kidding me, right?

Go join the Anglicans (Catholic Lite), but don't try to deny the fact that the Church firmly holds the belief and teaches that both abortion and homosexual marriage are fundamentally wrong.

You're kidding me, right?

Go join the Anglicans (Catholic Lite), but don't try to deny the fact that the Church firmly holds the belief and teaches that both abortion and homosexual marriage are fundamentally wrong.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that once you have two people in any group, you have two opinions?

The Catholic church isn't half as united on these issues as you would obviously like to believe it to be...

It is good to discuss the issues but manners and calm reasoning is more effective than disputing someones beliefs.

This is a good formula:
I think you are wrong and these are my reasons for it (insert reasons and arguments, source if necessary).

It's so much nicer to be civil to one another.

It is good to discuss the issues but manners and calm reasoning is more effective than disputing someones beliefs.

This is a good formula:
I think you are wrong an these are my reasons for it (insert reasons and arguments, source if necessary).

It's so much nicer to be civil one another.

Thank you. That is a point that can't be made often enough :)

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:


You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.


SOURCE:THE ARCHIVES OF THE VATICAN (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm)


Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143


Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:


The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.


SOURCE: THE ARCHIVES OF THE VATICAN (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

The Church, by it's nature, is one and united. Those who do not accept these fundamental truths have already excommunicated themselves from the Church.

The Church, by it's nature, is one and united. Those who do not accept these fundamental truths have already excommunicated themselves from the Church.

Actually, you will find that there is a large number of people within the church that doesn't agree with half of its teachings. But as these people care for the future of god's church on earth, rather than abandoning the sinking ship, they try to do whatever they can to influence it for the better.

Actually, you will find that there is a large number of people within the church that doesn't agree with half of its teachings. But as these people care for the future of god's church on earth, rather than abandoning the sinking ship, they try to do whatever they can to influence it for the better.

They aren't in the Church, at least as far as the Church is concerned.

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.


Trust me, the Pope doesn't need to be saved from his blindness by Cabra West, the Godsend.

They aren't in the Church, at least as far as the Church is concerned.

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.


Trust me, the Pope doesn't need to be saved from his blindness by Cabra West, the Godsend.

Oh, that guy couldn't be saved by me anyway. I remember him from his time in Germany, I never heard anybody preaching that much hatred and despise for others before... no, if god wants him saved, he'll do that himself.

I'm not godsend, far from it. I just decided that, as god gave me a brain, he must have intended it to be used in some way or another, that's all.
But he did send Jesus, preaching love and forgiveness. I don't see that in any of your statements so far, and if I look at the history of the church, I see that it didn't live up to Jesus' message a good number of time. But I hope that will change in the future, and that's what I'm trying to achieve.

And the nuns who taught me that ARE still in the church...

Does it really matter that much for people exactly how one believes and what church or other religious community the other belong to?
Why this insistent claiming of ones religion as the one truth?

Chalk it all up to memes.

So, I would like to hear from you.
What are your tenets of faith and how do they prove to you that they are correct?
Is it just gut feeling or is it something else?

My own path is the gnostic christianity, it corresponds with my view on humans as the reasoning, caring and loving creature that she is when she is born.
It does not force itself on anyone, it is compatible with separation of law and faith. And my personal relation with god is direct, not through a priest or anyone else.
I follow love and forgiveness and accept that others may have contrary beliefs without them being wrong. I believe that I may percieve wrongly and work to increase my knowledge to avoid it.
And it is based on development and re-evaluation of the world.

My path is Paganism, and in many ways it is very similar to your own path. I find that it is mainly the followers of the patriarchal religions that feel they must foist their religious beliefs on others. Everyone else is usually pretty cool about it (at least, in my experience).

Oh, that guy couldn't be saved by me anyway. I remember him from his time in Germany, I never heard anybody preaching that much hatred and despise for others before... no, if god wants him saved, he'll do that himself.

I'm not godsend, far from it. I just decided that, as god gave me a brain, he must have intended it to be used in some way or another, that's all.
But he did send Jesus, preaching love and forgiveness. I don't see that in any of your statements so far, and if I look at the history of the church, I see that it didn't live up to Jesus' message a good number of time. But I hope that will change in the future, and that's what I'm trying to achieve.

And the nuns who taught me that ARE still in the church...
Not to try and butt in on your little debate or anything, but thank you for being autonomous.
Regardless of me agreeing with you or not, autonomy is the thing I value the most in any human.

But just like I disprove of people abusing drugs or alcohol, I disprove of people's personal religion. I think it's escapism, and a refusal to acknowledge the world they're part of. True in some cases, but certainly not in all. You can't explain away converts who suddenly turn from rabid atheism to deep faith (like me) so simply.

Oh, that guy couldn't be saved by me anyway. I remember him from his time in Germany, I never heard anybody preaching that much hatred and despise for others before... no, if god wants him saved, he'll do that himself. Hang on, how is he preaching hatred? I've noticed the opposite, from what I've seen… keeping the Church strong does not equal hatred.

True in some cases, but certainly not in all. You can't explain away converts who suddenly turn from rabid atheism to deep faith (like me) so simply.

Just out of curiosity.. What caused you to make the change so suddenly? Whats the story of you finding faith?

Just out of curiosity.. What caused you to make the change so suddenly? Whats the story of you finding faith? I actually have no idea. I still went to church, keeping up the pretence of being Catholic, and then… well… I can't really remember to be honest. I'm not going to waste the opportunity that I was given though, and I'm going to do things to further the gift I was given… in essence, this makes me a dangerous person. Watch out.

I was being sarcastic

Should have pointed that out.... boy, you take offense VERY easily
It wasn't offense, it was rhetoric. ;)

I actually have no idea. I still went to church, keeping up the pretence of being Catholic, and then… well… I can't really remember to be honest. I'm not going to waste the opportunity that I was given though, and I'm going to do things to further the gift I was given… in essence, this makes me a dangerous person. Watch out.

Very inspiring.

I had a similar experience, I wasn't an atheist though, just indifferent.

Not to try and butt in on your little debate or anything, but thank you for being autonomous.
Regardless of me agreeing with you or not, autonomy is the thing I value the most in any human.

Thanks. I can't in good conscience hide behind the words of others. If I'm to be judged by my faith, it has to be MINE, not what somebody told me to believe.

And I value and appreciate thst trait in others immensely.

Thanks. I can't in good conscience hide behind the words of others. If I'm to be judged by my faith, it has to be MINE, not what somebody told me to believe.

And I value and appreciate thst trait in others immensely.

Isn't that the point with free will?

Thanks. I can't in good conscience hide behind the words of others. If I'm to be judged by my faith, it has to be MINE, not what somebody told me to believe.

And I value and appreciate thst trait in others immensely.

So I guess you don't believe that the Catholic Church has true power to bind on Earth and in Heaven? I mean, by your obvious lack of respect and acknolwedgement for its authority, yet claiming to be a Catholic is starting to really frustrate me, as you constantly contradict yourself.

Hang on, how is he preaching hatred? I've noticed the opposite, from what I've seen… keeping the Church strong does not equal hatred.

Oh, he's been very moderate ever since he became pope. But while being a cardinal, he was one of the fire and brimstone people, condemning others, pushing excommunications, trying to silence criticism, overall a very oppressive, hateful person.
My idea of a church is a place that welcomes everybody and doesn't shut the door on anybody.

Very inspiring.

I had a similar experience, I wasn't an atheist though, just indifferent.

Ok since i didnt really get an answer from the first request about Liskeinland's transfer from atheist to believer other than it just happening....

Can YOU (or anyone else) tell your story of atheist/indifferent to believer?

And how about Ex-christians who have become atheist/agnostic?

So I guess you don't believe that the Catholic Church has true power to bind on Earth and in Heaven? I mean, by your obvious lack of respect and acknolwedgement for its authority, yet claiming to be a Catholic is starting to really frustrate me, as you constantly contradict yourself.

I'm not contradicting myself, though I am contradicting your idea of the Catholic church. The church has been established to continue the work of Jesus, that is to help others, to conserve the idea that all sin can be forgiven and that god is a loving creator, to spread the word to those who wish to hear it, to fight poverty, to value every human being as equal before god.

The church is formed by men, and men are fallible in their decisions. I will not follow somebody else's decision unless I find it to be true myself.

Isn't that the point with free will?

Yes.

Ok since i didnt really get an answer from the first request about Liskeinland's transfer from atheist to believer other than it just happening....

Can YOU (or anyone else) tell your story of atheist/indifferent to believer?

And how about Ex-christians who have become atheist/agnostic?

Well, I sure am fighting hard to keep my faith here :)
I was raised Catholic, but critical, so I guess I don't count as conversion.
But in these discussions here I sometimes start to feel more agnostic than Christian... especially if another Christian is trying to shut me out, getting angry at me for not sharing the exact same opinion and telling me I've nor right to call myself Christian.
Christianity is about diversity in unity.

I'm not gonna pretend I know the minds of all men. The bit about escapism is my assumption, and whatever I assume can be wrong.

That said, I too would very much like to know what motivates people to become believers if they were unbelievers?
An agonstic suddenly finding faith I can understand, because arguably, there's been some sort of faith there all along.. But an Atheist?

I'd need a massive burden of rock solid evidence of the divine to even consider the divine. I'm very courious about that changed you people's minds?

Cabra, you're always wellcome amongst the ranks of unbelievers ;)

Oh, he's been very moderate ever since he became pope. But while being a cardinal, he was one of the fire and brimstone people, condemning others, pushing excommunications, trying to silence criticism, overall a very oppressive, hateful person.
My idea of a church is a place that welcomes everybody and doesn't shut the door on anybody. Hm, I haven't read that many of his writings, so I can't really comment.

Ok since i didnt really get an answer from the first request about Liskeinland's transfer from atheist to believer other than it just happening.... Sorry, it's just that there wasn't really an answer to give!

Ok since i didnt really get an answer from the first request about Liskeinland's transfer from atheist to believer other than it just happening....

Can YOU (or anyone else) tell your story of atheist/indifferent to believer?

And how about Ex-christians who have become atheist/agnostic?
I am an ex-Catholic turned agnostic/soft-atheist (meaning i do not believe in an unproven deity without evidence but I dont think we are able to prove it one way or another)

UpwardThrust, do you believe there is something divine? If you do, is it something you can specify, or is it just some sort of feeling that there's something going on behind the scenes?

Well, I sure am fighting hard to keep my faith here :)
I was raised Catholic, but critical, so I guess I don't count as conversion.
But in these discussions here I sometimes start to feel more agnostic than Christian... especially if another Christian is trying to shut me out, getting angry at me for not sharing the exact same opinion and telling me I've nor right to call myself Christian.
Christianity is about diversity in unity.
Yeah everyone seems to think their interpretation of that confusing muddled book to be correct

when people differ on a topic where they believe they have to be right to save their souls they fight tooth and nail to not be wrong (they seem to fight the idea that maybe god is bigger then all that and all religions are a little bit right ... they want to be all right)

I'm not gonna pretend I know the minds of all men. The bit about escapism is my assumption, and whatever I assume can be wrong.

That said, I too would very much like to know what motivates people to become believers if they were unbelievers?
An agonstic suddenly finding faith I can understand, because arguably, there's been some sort of faith there all along.. But an Atheist?

I'd need a massive burden of rock solid evidence of the divine to even consider the divine. I'm very courious about that changed you people's minds?
Understanding what the divine with me was, and realising (literally "making real") the knowledge that I had known god all along.

Your "bit about escapism" targeted personal religions, and organized religion is anything but; it is collective belief, such as Paternia exemplifies.

Well, I sure am fighting hard to keep my faith here :)
I was raised Catholic, but critical, so I guess I don't count as conversion.
But in these discussions here I sometimes start to feel more agnostic than Christian... especially if another Christian is trying to shut me out, getting angry at me for not sharing the exact same opinion and telling me I've nor right to call myself Christian.
Christianity is about diversity in unity.

*applause* Unfortunately most of the catholics i encounter tend to be the hellfire damnation kind. Well done on being one of the exceptions to this. I find it slightly insane that you believe in christ as the saviour and yet other christians are actively abusing you for not agreeing with their brand of christianity.

UpwardThrust, do you believe there is something divine? If you do, is it something you can specify, or is it just some sort of feeling that there's something going on behind the scenes?
I have a general feeling of no ... but I can deffinatly see myself in later years rolling over to general deist

I dont pretend I have all the answeres so i leave myself room to move with what i think and feel
Right now I have no faith in a specific deity much less one at all but I can see the detached watch maker sort of god

(me and the christian god dont get along ... never again lol) but general deism would be in the picture

So really, it's more a case of agnostics leaning towards atheism or finding religion?

By the way, I better clear that escapism bit up (if I can?). I meant people use religion, on a personal level, as a sort of escape from whatever boggles their minds. Nothing more. And again, it's just my personal speculation/assumption. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, and I have no problem revising my assumption if it doesn't hold water. Hence my last few questions.

Also, I'm not so arrogant as to say I'm better than anyone else. Some of my close friends are religious, and I doubt they'd put up with me if I regarded them as lesser people for it. I just think it's a pity religious people need religion, because I don't understand how they benefit from it. That's also something you guys could help me with if you want?

In other words, you want magic as your evidence that god is real. :)
Magic would be nice. Shouldn't be too hard for an omnipotent being, but if you'll read the second part of my post you'll see that I don't require magic. Proof that the universe couldn't exist without divine intercession would be quite acceptable. Unfortunately creationists just haven't been able to come up with good solid evidence.

So really, it's more a case of agnostics leaning towards atheism or finding religion?

By the way, I better clear that escapism bit up (if I can?). I meant people use religion, on a personal level, as a sort of escape from whatever boggles their minds. Nothing more. And again, it's just my personal speculation/assumption. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, and I have no problem revising my assumption if it doesn't hold water. Hence my last few questions.

Also, I'm not so arrogant as to say I'm better than anyone else. Some of my close friends are religious, and I doubt they'd put up with me if I regarded them as lesser people for it. I just think it's a pity religious people need religion, because I don't understand how they benefit from it. That's also something you guys could help me with if you want?


I don't use religion as explanantion for things I can't comprehend. Also, I don't use religion as a justification for my actions.

It's not easy to describe how I benefit from religion... do you know the feeling of being loved?
I'm religious because even though my childhood was living hell and my life now is nothing out of the ordinary and not too great, I still feel as if I was loved.
I adore the concept of an entity that is capable of loving all of humanity, despite or even because of it's faults. And this love is something I try to live up to, although I know that I'm not capable of ever really getting there.
It's something that shaped my view of the world, it's something that keeps me going, it includes all the diversity, all the differences and all the struggle of humanity and somehow finds the harmony. It's difficult, trying to love and to forgive everyone, but I think it's worth the effort any day.

I hope I don't sound too much like a stoned hippie here...

Ok since i didnt really get an answer from the first request about Liskeinland's transfer from atheist to believer other than it just happening....

Can YOU (or anyone else) tell your story of atheist/indifferent to believer?

And how about Ex-christians who have become atheist/agnostic?

One of the things that sparked my religious re-awakening was sitting back and listening to what some people had to say about the Church and christians in general. Even though I knew very little compared to what I do now, a began looking deeper into the Church to defend its existence and precepts.

This and one day, something just opened me up to a whole new awareness of the faith, and I decided to delve as deeply into the faith and understand it as I could before my brain exploded.

A real prophecy:

"And unto you a child shall be born and he shall be called immanuel."

and

"The virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son."

and some evidence:
1. The complexity of cells and atoms them selves. Scientists them selfs have said that the cell and atom is extreamly complex.

2. The fact that evolution can't happen. It can't happen because it defies the law of enthropy which states that things break down over time which we see these days.

3. The fact that the earth is exactly where it needs to be placed. A few degrees and it would freeze or burn up.

i shall post more later. I'm also Luthern Church Missouri Synod(LCMS).
Save it. Those prophecies can't be confirmed. The first was only witnessed by some chick who was soon to be pregnant, and could easily have been made up by her to keep her from being labeled as a slut for getting pregnant before marriage.

The second, I can't verify that she was a virgin. I want prophecies that are specific and easily confirmed.

Your creationist arguments are unsatisfactory as well. I'm not new at this. I've been examining the issue for years. 1 Yeah, they're complex, but you must demonstrate irriducible complexity. You can't do that until we know much more about the cell and the atom. 2 You're just wrong. Creationists like to quote half of the second law of thermodynamics. Unfortunately the second half blows their theory to shit. The earth is not a closed system. 3 Sorry, anthropic principle doesn't work. Think of the many planets that must exist in the universe. By sheer probability a few should be able to support life of some sort.

Only the third one was a secret.

The first prophecy:

The Secret imparted to the three shepherd children at Fatima on July 13, 1917 had three parts. The first part was fully revealed in Sr. Lucy’s Third and Fourth Memoirs, written at the command of her bishop, in 1941. This first part of the Secret of Fatima describes what Lucy, Jacinta and Francisco saw on that day. We quote from Sister Lucy’s memoirs:

She [Our Lady of Fatima] opened Her hands once more, as She had done during the two previous months. The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls [of the damned] in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. (It must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons could be distinguished [from the souls of the damned] by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals.1 This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, Who had already prepared us by promising, in the first apparition, to take us to Heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror.2

Our Lady then explained to the children, "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go."

The second prophecy:

Having just shown the fate of the damned (in the first part of the Secret of Fatima) to the three shepherd children of Fatima, on July 13, 1917, Our Lady then confided to them the second part of the Secret. This second part primarily concerns Heaven’s requests for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for the Communions of Reparation on the First Saturdays and the consequences of failing to heed these requests. As recorded in Sister Lucy’s memoirs, the second part of the Secret is as follows:

To save them [poor sinners who are on the road to hell], God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse war will break out during the reign of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions against the Church and against the Holy Father.

To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.1

In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

Speculation on the content of the third secret (http://www.devilsfinalbattle.com/ch13.htm)
The first one's not even a prophecy. Just a vision of hell. The second one has way too much wiggle room. "If my requests are met", and no date placed on the conversion of Russia make it worthless as prophecy. You'd get a better result from a good cold reader.

Well, I sure am fighting hard to keep my faith here :)
I was raised Catholic, but critical, so I guess I don't count as conversion.
But in these discussions here I sometimes start to feel more agnostic than Christian... especially if another Christian is trying to shut me out, getting angry at me for not sharing the exact same opinion and telling me I've nor right to call myself Christian.
Christianity is about diversity in unity.

I assume the "other Christian" is me.

I'm not getting angry at you because we disagree. I'm angry because you are claiming to be a faithful Catholic but flat-out disagree with infallible church doctrine. Sure, you're a Christian, but you're not a Catholic.

I guess refuting "The Church doesn't have an official position on abortion," counts as me shutting you out?

One of the things that sparked my religious re-awakening was sitting back and listening to what some people had to say about the Church and christians in general. Even though I knew very little compared to what I do now, a began looking deeper into the Church to defend its existence and precepts.

This and one day, something just opened me up to a whole new awareness of the faith, and I decided to delve as deeply into the faith and understand it as I could before my brain exploded.

I can understand and respect that. Sounds sort of like a mirror image of what my religious life was like. I grew up generally agnostic, went through some peer guilt trips as 'friends' attacked my lack of faith. I i started looking deeper into explantions of how things can happen with the exculsion of God.

One day i just found that everything seems to not need a God to explain it so i tried delving deeper into human perception and reason.

Kind of strange how people saying negative things about christianity made you defend your faith and delve deeper into it and, conversely, it was christians preaching at me and saying negative things about non-believers that drove me away..... There's something to be said for reverse psychology.

Now everyone DONT send me money!

I'm not trying to force you out of the Church Cabra, I'm telling you that you aren't a member of the Church, even though you'd obviously like to be. I urge you to reconsider you rejection of Catholic Dogma. I wouldn't want to lose you.

Magic would be nice. Shouldn't be too hard for an omnipotent being, but if you'll read the second part of my post you'll see that I don't require magic. Proof that the universe couldn't exist without divine intercession would be quite acceptable. Unfortunately creationists just haven't been able to come up with good solid evidence.
I did read it. I just think it's also talking about magic.

I'm not trying to force you out of the Church Cabra, I'm telling you that you aren't a member of the Church, even though you'd obviously like to be. I urge you to reconsider you rejection of Catholic Dogma. I wouldn't want to lose you. I think the term is "not a full member of the Church". Heresy is not the same as excommunication.

I did read it. I just think it's also talking about magic.
Maybe so. But then isn't that what gods are supposed to do? Can you call something a god if it is limited by the same physical laws as us? Isn't a creator who builds universes through sheer will using "magic"?

I just think it's a pity religious people need religion, because I don't understand how they benefit from it. That's also something you guys could help me with if you want?
Do you also pity the nuclear physicist because you don't understand how they benefit from string theory? (hoping you aren't one :))

The benefit would be different, depending on the religious beliefs, but always personal. One benefit, I find, is similar to the benefit of being part of a group of people, like a society or culture. The benefit there is having a place to center yourself among like minds and bodies, individuals sharing and participating as one. It helps define you. Belief in a god who is all helps define your place in the universe. It centers you, spiritually rather than spacially.

Maybe so. But then isn't that what gods are supposed to do? Can you call something a god if it is limited by the same physical laws as us? Isn't a creator who builds universes through sheer will using "magic"?
Well if there's no magic involved, there really isn't much reason to suspect a god, is there? Besides, didn't it perform all sorts of magic feats back in the day?

Personally I doubt I'll ever accept it's existence without a wee bit of magic. Even if god appeared before me and said something, my reaction would be to seek out psychiatric help. So magic? Yes please :p

I have to turn this around, as your questions were in the wrong order. ;)
Isn't a creator who builds universes through sheer will using "magic"?
Yes.

Maybe so. But then isn't that what gods are supposed to do?
Not all gods have a mythology that includes creation, no. The myth of the creator is a myth of self-creation (the god creating itself, the universe). It's not about us, his creation, except in our role of identification with the god, which the Abrahamic religions most certainly do not do. The surrounding religions, however, did --for example in Babylon, where the priestess/woman, in the role of the Whore Goddess, glorified the prostitute. The creator is actually a variation of the hero, whose myth is a story of self-discovery.

The purpose of religion is a relationship with the divine, and the purpose of myth is to assist on the path to self-discovery. Taking it literally, it makes no sense.
Can you call something a god if it is limited by the same physical laws as us?
Yes. You can call something a god that you put yourself into relationship with, and venerate. That includes non-material things, like ideals.

Do you also pity the nuclear physicist because you don't understand how they benefit from string theory? (hoping you aren't one :))

The benefit would be different, depending on the religious beliefs, but always personal. One benefit, I find, is similar to the benefit of being part of a group of people, like a society or culture. The benefit there is having a place to center yourself among like minds and bodies, individuals sharing and participating as one. It helps define you. Belief in a god who is all helps define your place in the universe. It centers you, spiritually rather than spacially.
Hah! Don't worry, I'm not. And if I were, I doubt I'd be working on string/superstring/M-theory ;)

Anyway, thanks both of you for your feedback. The benefit of socializing with likeminded people is never to be underestimated. Everyone needs it, at least I think so. But it's that bit about defining yourself with your religion. How can that be a positive thing? Please notice I'm not saying it isn't. Just that I don't understand it and suspect it isn't a very desirable thing.
Also, while belonging to a looser or tighter social unit is desirable for everyone (again, I think so), I have strong reservations about how good a thing it is, when the society relies on millenia old scripture to define and govern itself. I'm not saying everything old is bad, but seriously... There's passages in the bible condoning slavery (and similar odd things in other scripture). For example, I have a hard time see how such an institution is a good thing when it denies women to do what they want with their own bodies, or preaches against homo/bi-sexuality.
But I guess it boils back down to me not getting what all the fuss is about. Because if some institution adapted anti-gay veiws one day, because they agreed gays were a menace (imagine a reason), I wouldn't have such a hard time understand it. I still might disagree, but at least I'd understand their motivation,

The benefit of socializing with likeminded people is never to be underestimated. Everyone needs it, at least I think so. But it's that bit about defining yourself with your religion. How can that be a positive thing? Please notice I'm not saying it isn't. Just that I don't understand it and suspect it isn't a very desirable thing.
I don't know how it cannot be a positive thing. I can't imagine that; can you help me out? Maybe rephrase the question. What a person does while armed with this definition of themselves is another matter.

Also, while belonging to a looser or tighter social unit is desirable for everyone (again, I think so), I have strong reservations about how good a thing it is, when the society relies on millenia old scripture to define and govern itself. I'm not saying everything old is bad, but seriously... There's passages in the bible condoning slavery (and similar odd things in other scripture). For example, I have a hard time see how such an institution is a good thing when it denies women to do what they want with their own bodies, or preaches against homo/bi-sexuality.
But I guess it boils back down to me not getting what all the fuss is about. Because if some institution adapted anti-gay veiws one day, because they agreed gays were a menace (imagine a reason), I wouldn't have such a hard time understand it. I still might disagree, but at least I'd understand their motivation,
I agree. I believe that the myth should evolve as the culture does. It's not that there is no moral value in the 2,000-year old texts, but, as you point out, there is not as much chance of identifiying with the culture, and the god, in the ways portrayed, and so putting yourself in relationship to the same thing in the same way they did.

I don't know how it cannot be a positive thing. I can't imagine that; can you help me out? Maybe rephrase the question. What a person does while armed with this definition of themselves is another matter.
Uhm.. I can try. I wish I was better at English and more eloquent in general.
Basically I educate myself and form opinions based on what I know and can understand. After that, I modify my opinions, actions and whatnot, based on how the world reacts to me.
The impression I got is that you start with something you consider divine and use your interpretation of it to define yourself. After that you do what I do.. Right?
The reason I doubt the wisdom in that is because instead of figuring out what your basic agenda's are, you seek that information outside yourself. I'm not too sure that's very very conductive to mental health or personality in the long run. But then, if I did the same, it would projecting my own personallity and interpreting it as something divine. I'm pretty sure you'll agree that's, at best, not very healthy. And since I don't believe in anything divine, I hope you can appreciate what I'm getting at. I really am sorry if I've offended you now. I suspect I'd be offended by me... :(
Not too sure how else to ask my questions though. If you think I'm full of it, just feel happy you don't have to put up with me in real life, and ignore the post :)

I agree. I believe that the myth should evolve as the culture does. It's not that there is no moral value in the 2,000-year old texts, but, as you point out, there is not as much chance of identifiying with the culture, and the god, in the ways portrayed, and so putting yourself in relationship to the same thing in the same way they did.
I didn't expect you would, but I'm very glad you do! As I've already said, autonomy is what I appreciate most in humans. Both on social and personal levels.

Uhm.. I can try. I wish I was better at English and more eloquent in general.
Basically I educate myself and form opinions based on what I know and can understand. After that, I modify my opinions, actions and whatnot, based on how the world reacts to me.
The impression I got is that you start with something you consider divine and use your interpretation of it to define yourself. After that you do what I do.. Right?
I don't know; what do you do? (teasing) ;)

I see where this is heading, now.
The reason I doubt the wisdom in that is because instead of figuring out what your basic agenda's are, you seek that information outside yourself. I'm not too sure that's very very conductive to mental health or personality in the long run. But then, if I did the same, it would projecting my own personallity and interpreting it as something divine. I'm pretty sure you'll agree that's, at best, not very healthy. And since I don't believe in anything divine, I hope you can appreciate what I'm getting at. I really am sorry if I've offended you now. I suspect I'd be offended by me... :(
Not too sure how else to ask my questions though. If you think I'm full of it, just feel happy you don't have to put up with me in real life, and ignore the post :)
Religion, as I see it, is about self-knowledge. God isn't "out there," but "in here." (That's my personal version of it, not for anyone but myself; but I'm not alone in it, as I've picked up ideas of it from reading other's words, their experiences and thoughts.) I can see your argument applying to organized religion, though, where the agenda of, for instance, the church takes precedence over a person's personal beliefs. That can be dangerous, yes.

I don't know; what do you do? (teasing) ;)

I see where this is heading, now.

Religion, as I see it, is about self-knowledge. God isn't "out there," but "in here." (That's my personal version of it, not for anyone but myself; but I'm not alone in it, as I've picked up ideas of it from reading other's words, their experiences and thoughts.) I can see your argument applying to organized religion, though, where the agenda of, for instance, the church takes precedence over a person's personal beliefs. That can be dangerous, yes.
Hehe, sorry. I keep picturing you as part of an organised religion. My bad.
Blame all the talking I've done over the last few days with Cabra & Neo Rogolia. Thanks a lot for your answer. If others want to fill me in, please do. I'll ponder this for a while :)

I'm not trying to force you out of the Church Cabra, I'm telling you that you aren't a member of the Church, even though you'd obviously like to be. I urge you to reconsider you rejection of Catholic Dogma. I wouldn't want to lose you.

You can like it or dislike it, but I'm IN the church.
I got to know a great number of people in the church, I met fanatics like my grandfather and one of my teachers, I met nuns who are fighting the dogma of celibacy, I met theologists who struggle to get women ordained, I met complacent people who are happy that the church will tell them in minute detail what to believe and how to live their life, I met thinkers I agreed with and others I didn't agree with.
Disobedience of faithful Catholics made the church eventually realise that the dogma of a flat earth was wrong, it made them recognise the heliocentric view, it made the church realise that women have a right to education, it made them realise that the congregations will benefit more from masses said in the local language rather than Latin... I could go on for days, but I think my point is clear.
I will not leave the church because I am devoted to it, but I will not close my eyes to its shortcomings!

And, yes, telling me that because of that I'm not in the church is nothing else than slamming the door in my face. But I don't think you are any authority to tell me that I'm a heretic and should be excommunicated, so I'll stay.

I don't use religion as explanantion for things I can't comprehend. Also, I don't use religion as a justification for my actions.

It's not easy to describe how I benefit from religion... do you know the feeling of being loved?
I'm religious because even though my childhood was living hell and my life now is nothing out of the ordinary and not too great, I still feel as if I was loved.
I adore the concept of an entity that is capable of loving all of humanity, despite or even because of it's faults. And this love is something I try to live up to, although I know that I'm not capable of ever really getting there.
It's something that shaped my view of the world, it's something that keeps me going, it includes all the diversity, all the differences and all the struggle of humanity and somehow finds the harmony. It's difficult, trying to love and to forgive everyone, but I think it's worth the effort any day.

I hope I don't sound too much like a stoned hippie here...

I know that feeling by heart, although loneliness, abuse and abandonment were frequent in my childhood I never felt that I was without someone who cared and loved me, mourned my situation and hoped for improvement.
I just had to save myself first, not wait for that being to save me.
And I have never lost hope or doubted mankinds ability to choose to be nice to eachother, but we have to do it ourselves, otherwise there is no point, we would not learn anything without the struggle for goodness and kindness.
To be able to perceive light you have to have darkness.

To be able to perceive light you have to have darkness.
In order to appreciate life, you have to have looked death in the face.

And smiled.

Religion, as I see it, is about self-knowledge. God isn't "out there," but "in here." (That's my personal version of it, not for anyone but myself; but I'm not alone in it, as I've picked up ideas of it from reading other's words, their experiences and thoughts.) I can see your argument applying to organized religion, though, where the agenda of, for instance, the church takes precedence over a person's personal beliefs. That can be dangerous, yes.

You caught the bullet :)

I believe in god because I feel the presence of god in myself and in each and every being and object in my world. I feel that we are surrounded by love and encouraged to do our best, that we are forgiven our shortcomings.
But I also believe that we have to fix what we break and clean up the mess we make on our way through life, forgiveness does not mean that the wounds are healed in the world and in other beings.
Therefore I need to repair the damage caused by my mistakes and my cruelty, no matter if I am forgiven or not.
I do not demand this of others though, that would be presumptous and unfair, they must choose their own paths and face their own inner demons.

"Abortion and gay marriage are irreconcialable with the Catholic faith and you are in serious heresy."

Catholic, mebbe, but Christain? I'd say no.

Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the only path to Heaven? Or the only legitamate Christain Church?

I as Greek Orthodox, I recognise you pope-worshipers as a real christian church, I'd appreciate the same (pope-worshipers was ment as a joke, I have nothing against the Catholic Church, have the utmost respect for the only Pope I've ever known, John Paul II. Don't take this last part as serious, I am useing humor, not being combattive. I love you all!

The part above it, though, was a serious question)


"The purpose of religion is a relationship with the divine, and the purpose of myth is to assist on the path to self-discovery. Taking it literally, it makes no sense."

Exactly!!

Although I prolly take certain parts more literally than you, my view is that it is symbology to get you to provoke you to attempt to understand something that is inconcevable to the human mind.

I also believe somewhat in the legitimacy and oneness of all religions, as God is bigger than any one human instetution or idea.


My spacific beliefs as to the nature of God I cannot put here into words, and am not nearly skilled enough to even attempt to convey a concept like this through anything other that straight talking we are doing now, which is inseficient.

Alot of it is still "I don't know, mebbe I will at some point, mebbe I won't know 'till I die"

Medetation has helped me sort stuffs out alot.

"Abortion and gay marriage are irreconcialable with the Catholic faith and you are in serious heresy."

Catholic, mebbe, but Christain? I'd say no.

Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the only path to Heaven? Or the only legitamate Christain Church?

I as Greek Orthodox, I recognise you pope-worshipers as a real christian church, I'd appreciate the same (pope-worshipers was ment as a joke, I have nothing against the Catholic Church, have the utmost respect for the only Pope I've ever known, John Paul II. Don't take this last part as serious, I am useing humor, not being combattive. I love you all!

The part above it, though, was a serious question)


Of course I recognize the Orthodox as a legitimite Christian church. While I believe the Catholic Church to be the only Church given authority by Christ and holding the fullness of the faith, I also recognize that the Orthodox have a legitimate claim (although I don't hold the same opinion).

I favor the Orthodox above any other Church which is not in communion with Rome, most notably because they have a valid Eucharist and Holy Orders. The Orthodox Church also supports traditional Christian morality and values.

I also feel compassion for Orthodox in their struggle against Communism in Eastern Europe.

That little bit about heresy was me arguing with Cabra, I was informing him about the Catholic Church's position on the issue, and that his position alienates him from the Church by a self-imposed excommunication.

And, yes, telling me that because of that I'm not in the church is nothing else than slamming the door in my face. But I don't think you are any authority to tell me that I'm a heretic and should be excommunicated, so I'll stay.

I'm not saying that you should be excommunicated; I'm saying you ARE.

I believe I've given you the quote from Canon Law that sets forth that anyone who believes a heresy (in this case life begins at the first heartbeat) that they have excommunicated THEMSELVES from the Church.

I'm sorry, but this is the truth set forth in both the Cathechism and the Canon. Simply denying the fact this is what the Church says, as you have been doing, does no good. You can disagree with the Church, sure, but if you do so don't pretend to be in good standing and ignore evidence that refutes your claims (as you did when I debunked that the Church had no position on abortion).

do you believe that it is more important to be in good standing with the church, or with God? Are they even seperate to you?

And do you believe that someone can get into Heaven if they are a Baptist, let's say, or Lutheran, or Morman, some other form of Christanity?

Do you believe that atheists or Hindus or Muslims or (let's go out on a limb here) Mayans or other religons/non-christains can get into Heaven? Without converting, I mean.

Not any challenge or attack, mind you, just a few questions from a fellow fallower of Jesus. I enjoy hearing what other people think about things, and you have sparked my curiosity, my friend.

do you believe that it is more important to be in good standing with the church, or with God? Are they even seperate to you?

And do you believe that someone can get into Heaven if they are a Baptist, let's say, or Lutheran, or Morman, some other form of Christanity?

Do you believe that atheists or Hindus or Muslims or (let's go out on a limb here) Mayans or other religons/non-christains can get into Heaven? Without converting, I mean.

Not any challenge or attack, mind you, just a few questions from a fellow fallower of Jesus. I enjoy hearing what other people think about things, and you have sparked my curiosity, my friend.

As a Catholc, I believe the Church is the body of Christ with Christ himself as the head. The Church has been given the teaching authority that Christ had on Earth, to disrespect this authority would be to disrespect the authority of Christ who entrusted the Church with this authority.

Those who mean well in their search for God and are unable to know him through the Church and Jesus Christ have what we call "invincible ignorance". Those who have not heard the truth of Christ, yet still live good and moral lives are able to be saved. This does not apply to those who have access to the truth, yet deny it. It depends on the individual, not his beliefs. Only God knows what level of ignorance we all possess, just as only God knows if we are saved.

I see.

And how do you recooncile the mistakes the church has made with the doctrine of complete Jesus authority?

Like, say the Catholic church made something doctrine that you absolutly *knew* was not true, either about Jesus and faith, or about the world. Like, say the Catholic Church issues a statement tomarrow saying that the Earth is flat, and that the entire countinent of North America never sees rain (I'm makeing these impossible on porpouse to illistrate a point).

Or say they come out and say that Jesus was not the Son of God, or that Mary Magdiline and Jesus bore children together, or that forgiveness for those who had done you wrong and love for your neibhor is no longer part of Cathlic dogma.

Would you go along with the church? Or your own truth you knew in your heart? Or with what you know now to be the word of Jesus Christ?

Would you go along with the church? Or your own truth you knew in your heart? Or with what you know now to be the word of Jesus Christ?
I think the point he's trying to make is that his personal opinion isn't relevant. If he disagrees, he's out. He doesn't think he can disagree without being excommunicated...I think.

Disclaimer: I don't actually know what I'm talking about.

I see.

And how do you recooncile the mistakes the church has made with the doctrine of complete Jesus authority?

Like, say the Catholic church made something doctrine that you absolutly *knew* was not true, either about Jesus and faith, or about the world. Like, say the Catholic Church issues a statement tomarrow saying that the Earth is flat, and that the entire countinent of North America never sees rain (I'm makeing these impossible on porpouse to illistrate a point).

Or say they come out and say that Jesus was not the Son of God, or that Mary Magdiline and Jesus bore children together, or that forgiveness for those who had done you wrong and love for your neibhor is no longer part of Cathlic dogma.

Would you go along with the church? Or your own truth you knew in your heart? Or with what you know now to be the word of Jesus Christ?

The infallibility of the Church only encompasses faith and morals, so the entire first part about earth science means nothing.

The Pope and Magisterium simply couldn't proclaim the first or third as infallible doctrine since they are protected by the Holy Spirit from error. It is impossible. If the Pope declared this he would be declared an Anti-Pope by the Magisterium. The Chair of Peter would be considered to be vacant (sedevacantism).

I would be willing to accept the second as doctrine if the Church proclaimed it as such.

I'm not saying that you should be excommunicated; I'm saying you ARE.

I believe I've given you the quote from Canon Law that sets forth that anyone who believes a heresy (in this case life begins at the first heartbeat) that they have excommunicated THEMSELVES from the Church.

I'm sorry, but this is the truth set forth in both the Cathechism and the Canon. Simply denying the fact this is what the Church says, as you have been doing, does no good. You can disagree with the Church, sure, but if you do so don't pretend to be in good standing and ignore evidence that refutes your claims (as you did when I debunked that the Church had no position on abortion).


Please read my post again. I never said the church doesn't have an opinion on abortion, I know it does. I was saying I don't agree with it on the basis that the chruch has yet to state its opinion on when the soul enters the body.

You know, if everybody who disagrees with some part of the teachings of the chruch would be excommunicated, there would be no Catholics in most parts of the world... most Catholics I know (both inside the clergy and outside) disagree with the church on one point or another. And yet they all are Catholics....

I don't have a certain religion; I wonder about things, but I don't "believe" or "know" that any of my wonderings are true. I basically keep an open mind, and do my best to be a good person.

(My personal belief is that regardless of whether or not there might be a theory out there that is "correct," the human race in general - as in not everybody, just certain people - needs a religion in order to keep from going crazy.)

To me, your religion is something that you choose. Something that fits you personally, and makes sense to you.

Not to interrupt the debate, but I'd just like to applaud Cabra West for basically everything you've said. As a very disillusioned ex-Catholic, I wish there were more Catholics who were willing to think for themselves and possibly disagree with the occasional piece of dogma, and that there were fewer who'd declare them heretics for doing so. Keep up the good fight. :)

Not to interrupt the debate, but I'd just like to applaud Cabra West for basically everything you've said. As a very disillusioned ex-Catholic, I wish there were more Catholics who were willing to think for themselves and possibly disagree with the occasional piece of dogma, and that there were fewer who'd declare them heretics for doing so. Keep up the good fight. :)

Thank you. :)

Not to interrupt the debate, but I'd just like to applaud Cabra West for basically everything you've said. As a very disillusioned ex-Catholic, I wish there were more Catholics who were willing to think for themselves and possibly disagree with the occasional piece of dogma, and that there were fewer who'd declare them heretics for doing so. Keep up the good fight. :)

I second that.

(My personal belief is that regardless of whether or not there might be a theory out there that is "correct," the human race in general - as in not everybody, just certain people - needs a religion in order to keep from going crazy.)

To me, your religion is something that you choose. Something that fits you personally, and makes sense to you.
Hehe, while people here have actually managed to rock my opinions a little (not done thinking about what people have sayd yet), my immediate reaction is the opposite.
But hey, long live diversity.. I think..

Why is it that these threads always turn out as Christian vs. Atheists/Agnostics - The Big Fight?

How come we don't hear anything from Muslims, or Hindus? I know they must be out there somewhere...

Why is it that these threads always turn out as Christian vs. Atheists/Agnostics - The Big Fight?

How come we don't hear anything from Muslims, or Hindus? I know they must be out there somewhere...

They're probably watching, pointing, and laughing at it.

I think there is so much conflict between even similar religions because people are crazy. And dumb.
You say dumb, I say Idiots.... Whatever! Even Aethiests must believe something, it is in our nature -- typically Darwinism. We as humans seem to find the most mundane and stupid reasons to fight and kill one another, ie: road rage over being stuck in traffic. Judeaism, Buddism, Christianity and the Muslims Faiths are, at their cores, very accepting of others even those of other Faiths so those who use religion as an excuse to kill one another are full of it and unwilling to follow their own belief system!

I think the point he's trying to make is that his personal opinion isn't relevant. If he disagrees, he's out. He doesn't think he can disagree without being excommunicated...I think.

Disclaimer: I don't actually know what I'm talking about.
I have only partially been following this but for your Disclaimer: LOL I am right there with ya, can't stand the rigidness of religions like Catholism. I have a faith and personal relationship with God not a religion of Laws that tell me God is going to smit me if I slip even a little!

Thank you, Paternia for a thouroughly enjoyably civil exchange of ideas, I now feel I understand your position and mindset much better, you have my respect, and I wish you well in the rest of your life.

To Cabra West, similar accalades to those peepes have already said to you.

To all those who search for truth in their lives, and to all people out there, I wish you the best, and love and peace in your lives.

Why is it that these threads always turn out as Christian vs. Atheists/Agnostics - The Big Fight?

How come we don't hear anything from Muslims, or Hindus? I know they must be out there somewhere...
I know I haven't been around for long, but I think the fighting's blown a bit out of proportion. I haven't seen any of it here.
Sure, there's a couple of people here I couldn't agree any less with, but it seems we're all bright enough to realize we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not too sure I follow most people's declarations of Agnosticism/Atheism. To me at least, most of the Atheists appear to be Agnostics, and as an Atheist, I don't agree any more with them than I do with any other religious or semi-religious people. Again, it doesn't mean any of us can change eachothers minds.

In my experience - I know a few Hindu's & Muslims - Hindu's won't post in a debate like this. They'll explain themselves politely if asked, but they won't disciss their beliefs. Likewise, very few Muslims will. My impression is it's much too personal to be the subject of debate.

All that said, some of the posters here have managed to broarden my mind a little. I can't honestly say my opinions have changed, but my perspective have. At least a little bit. And I'm gratefull to you all for it. If Atheism really does signify some belief for me, it must be that opinions shouldn't be set in stone :)

All that said, some of the posters here have managed to broarden my mind a little. I can't honestly say my opinions have changed, but my perspective have. At least a little bit. And I'm gratefull to you all for it. If Atheism really does signify some belief for me, it must be that opinions shouldn't be set in stone :)

One must count with the option that one could be wrong, otherwise life will bring too much disappointment I think.

In my experience - I know a few Hindu's & Muslims - Hindu's won't post in a debate like this. They'll explain themselves politely if asked, but they won't disciss their beliefs. Likewise, very few Muslims will. My impression is it's much too personal to be the subject of debate.



Well, that would be nice for a change. I was curious to learn when I started that thread. I had no intention of it turning into such a heated debate and getting so insulting and personal at some stages.
Even though I myself am Christian, I firmly believe that other religions can teach a lot, too. After all, religion is not the answer in itself, but it can be a way to the answer.

I love it when people discuss things with diplomacy. It makes my day. Especially on the internet of all places!

Let me say that personally, I am an antheist. I don't capitalize it because my atheism is not dogmatic or religious in nature, it is simply that I am without theological doctrine of any sort.

That being said, I do believe religion has a place in society. Keep in mind that by saying this I do not mean to say that society needs religion, simply that religion can serve a society should it be there.

I think that most of the fundamental questions of existence are probably answerable. Not that they will be answered within my lifetime, or that at anytime everyone will understand everything. That would, of course, be a tad idealistic. But I do believe the answers are out there and, by and large, obtainable. I also believe that these answers will, more likely than not, be secular in nature.

But this does nothing to affect what I see to be the importance of religion. A physicist can understand in great detail the throwing of a baseball: its ark, angle of attack, trajectory, velocity, etcetera; but this will not help him catch the ball. In the same way, a certain indigenous people of Bali have a religious system setup that explains all issues of planting and harvesting rice. When "modern man" discovered this, they gave the people modern know-how of agricultural matters. For a few seasons this proved very productive, but after that the harvest began to wane. Soon enough the people of Bali returned to their religious system and all has been fine since then.

Though I do not claim to understand the specific benefits of the more wide-spread modern religions, I can certainly concede that there are some and that many people may be better served to follow these than alternative sciences.

It is my personal opinion however, that while this is all fine and dandy, as soon as religion stops serving the individual and society, and instead becomes served by these, problems arise. That is why fundamentalism of all shapes and sizes must be carefully observed and cautioned.

bump

I love it when people discuss things with diplomacy. It makes my day. Especially on the internet of all places!

Let me say that personally, I am an antheist. I don't capitalize it because my atheism is not dogmatic or religious in nature, it is simply that I am without theological doctrine of any sort.

That being said, I do believe religion has a place in society. Keep in mind that by saying this I do not mean to say that society needs religion, simply that religion can serve a society should it be there.

I think that most of the fundamental questions of existence are probably answerable. Not that they will be answered within my lifetime, or that at anytime everyone will understand everything. That would, of course, be a tad idealistic. But I do believe the answers are out there and, by and large, obtainable. I also believe that these answers will, more likely than not, be secular in nature.

But this does nothing to affect what I see to be the importance of religion. A physicist can understand in great detail the throwing of a baseball: its ark, angle of attack, trajectory, velocity, etcetera; but this will not help him catch the ball. In the same way, a certain indigenous people of Bali have a religious system setup that explains all issues of planting and harvesting rice. When "modern man" discovered this, they gave the people modern know-how of agricultural matters. For a few seasons this proved very productive, but after that the harvest began to wane. Soon enough the people of Bali returned to their religious system and all has been fine since then.

Though I do not claim to understand the specific benefits of the more wide-spread modern religions, I can certainly concede that there are some and that many people may be better served to follow these than alternative sciences.

It is my personal opinion however, that while this is all fine and dandy, as soon as religion stops serving the individual and society, and instead becomes served by these, problems arise. That is why fundamentalism of all shapes and sizes must be carefully observed and cautioned.
Interesting opinion from someone with your name. Not at all what I would have expected:p

I am very antagonistic and I'm exceedingly rude most of the time. calling me a loudmouth wouldn't be all wrong. I often get into both verbal and physical fights when I disagree with people. But it's not something I'm proud of. I've spend the last several years trying to change, because I'm painfully aware that these are the markings of a true arsehole.

My experience with religion have been two-fold. I have a few close friends who believe in various things, and the majority of my friends does as well. These people have never (with one execption) involved me in their faith, and I have never encouraged them to do so. I consider it respectful of them they don't involve me beyond declaring where they stand. Likewise, I wouldn't dream of trying to convince them they're wrong. They know I think they're wrong, just like I know they think I'm wrong. Debating it is useless if you honestly give a shit about the person, because there simply is no way to make a believer out of an atheist, just like there's no way to kill faith. And religious debates almost always ends up with one trying to prove or disprove the other. I guess the morale is that friendship is more important than religion (or the lack of it).
I do know a couple of muslim guys who, when they found out something personal about me, felt they had to intervene. It was very unpleasant. Really. To them, it seemed I was doing myself great harm. Obviously they cared (they are some of my closest friends), so they felt they had no choice but to bring their religion into it. After a couple of weeks, it became painfully clear to all of us that we could either stop being friends, or they could accept that I did what I did. We're still friends, and I'm proud to say that I've actually managed to change their minds. Not that they'll ever admit it, but I have. I can tell. By the way, that was my first encounter with Islam in any meaningful way.

The second manner in which I usually encounter religion, is with people I don't know and who don't know me. Complete strangers who think they somehow have the right to come and tell me I'm bad and that only XXXX can save me.
Or people who ask me for money for their religion, just because I happen to be sitting somewhere or walking down the street... Or who try to sell - usually not give, but sell, unless it's JW's - religious propaganda to me.
Or bastard preists who, in spite of being asked politely and repeatedly not to say a word about god, just goes ahead and holds a hellfire speach, when I'm trying to bury an atheist friend.

These latter kinds of people piss me off to no end. I've more than once been very close to killing them for it. And it's funny, because I really don't give a shit about their religion. It's the people themselves I hate.
But those people have given me a healthy distrust of anything associated with religion and faith. I've never been religious. I've never for a moment thought "there just might be something". And I've never really understood people who do. Mostly I've written it off to a combination of cultural inheritance, insecurity and sometimes self-glorification/-justification.
These latter people have made me think long and hard about religion. Not whether there's something to it, but whether it's damaging to people.

As people who've read through this thread will know, I had come to the conclusion religion is indeed a dangerous and harmful thing. In my mind, I've often compared it to drug induced psychosis.
...However, I'm not at all sure about that anymore. It seems more likely that these disrespectful and obnoxious idiots just use religion as an excuse to be obnoxious idiots. Like present day neonazi's. They don't believe in the shit they spew, but it's convenient because they feel it justifies the shit they want to spew at people.

This is where the wonderful world of NS'ers have changed my persective. Still, I'm not at all sure religion is a very healthy practice. And I'm not sure I'll ever come to a conclusion after this debate.

Episcopalian Christian- very similar to Catholic, except that ministers can marry and are not as uptight on divorce.