NationStates Jolt Archive

I am just curious What religions people here have! So vote in my poll if you feel like it!!! I am a catholic.

i am a Mormon

I'm agnostic leaning towards the belief that there is a God in the Christian sense of the word.
But then I get incredibly anti-religious when it come to certain issues, for example, gay rights, abortions and what not. That's where we part.

No specific religion

I'm not exactly an atheist, but I definately reject the idea of an interventionist God; it seems just too convenient that He has a very well-defined set of political views.

If I had to pick one though I'd have to go with Judaism. I don't generally like agnostics and atheists, while I agree with them [as far as theology goes] most of the time, make the same mistake as religious believers in trying to prove something in reality using either something that doesnt exist [or something that exists 'above' reality] to prove their points.

I'm sorry, but if it doesn't exist in reality, then as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist at all. "Supernatural," is, as I see it, a contradiction in terms.

I'm a Mahayana Buddhist.

I can really dissaprove of the way my church (catholic) is being run! I do not like the new pope at all! He calls my Fav. music rock evil music!! U2 is not evil!

I'm a Mahayana Buddhist.

Thats the one I left out! :headbang: It was on the tip of my tounge and I couldent get it out!! Buddhist!

I believe that "God" is the sum total of all existence and all consciousness, is the source of everything in the Universe (both "good" and "evil" which I believe are just childish nonsense ways of looking at things). I believe that God doesn't really give a shit what we do, we are here to experience physical reality in all its forms. I believe religions are an excellent way to control ignorant masses, so as a political tool they are valuable, but in a more real sense I believe they are all a bunch of nonsense and drivel. A great cosmic waste of energy that God looks at and shakes his head, thinking "I give them brains and this is what they come up with???"

I'm strongly atheist now.. I was agnostic.. but now I firmly believe there is no god, nor is there a reason for one.

Born and raised Catholic. At this point, I'm what they call an "alienated Catholic", what with all the crap that's been going down in the church lately.

I'm still convinced that deep down it's a good religion...just needs a severe kick in ass.

Roman Catholic. I love my religon! just not the pope!!Loved pope john paul!!

I'm pagan. Technically, you'd consider me Wiccan, but I've really been slacking off on the holidays lately...lucky I'm not in a coven..they wouldn't want me around being this lazy..

Catholic, but i agree with you about the music P and C, U2 is good!

Roman Catholic. I love my religon! just not the pope!!Loved pope john paul!!

Yeah, whats with Benedict huh?

Condemning Harry Potter? Can't he think of anything more ORIGINAL?! Like condemning...pigeons or something?

I've never quite got why people hate Harry Potter, the good guys always win because they are so good, whats wrong with that, apart from the fact it's slightly pathetic.

I'm a proud Catholic traditionalist.

No abortion.
No gay marriages.
No priestesses.

I would prefer if they brought back the Tridentine Mass and cracked down on rogue heterodox priests and bishops.

I am a catholic!

I'm a proud Catholic traditionalist.

No abortion.
No gay marriages.
No priestesses.

I would prefer if they brought back the Tridentine Mass and cracked down on rogue heterodox priests and bishops.

Your name kinda gave it away

I've never quite got why people hate Harry Potter, the good guys always win because they are so good, whats wrong with that, apart from the fact it's slightly pathetic.

Personally I think the whole series is crap. I condemn it for being SHIT, not because it has "black magic".

I think HP is great!! #6 was great!!

I am a catholic!

Good first post

You should have just put Catholic.

It alienates Byzantine and other Eastern Catholics.

Not to mention Roman Catholic was a term invented by Henry VIII while creating his bastardized Anglican "Catholic" church.

I think HP is great!! #6 was great!!

Good for you.

You should have just put Catholic.

It alienates Byzantine and other Eastern Catholics.

Not to mention Roman Catholic was a term invented by Henry VIII while creating his bastardized Anglican "Catholic" church.

Those are called chritsian churchs not catholic! they would fall under protistant!

Those are called chritsian churchs not catholic! they would fall under protistant!

Catholic is Christian my man, and work on your spelling and grammar.

I've never quite got why people hate Harry Potter, the good guys always win because they are so good, whats wrong with that, apart from the fact it's slightly pathetic.

I like Harry Potter myself...

I'm definitely sticking by freedom of speech and human rights.. ;)

There's been quite a fascination with religion lately.

About the Pope's condemnation: he in fact said it "subtly seduces the souls of children before they have the knowledge to discern the true religion."

Jon Stewart replies, "And who'd know more about subtly seducing children than..." A bit mean, I know, but a good line.

Myself, I've "created" my own religion. I believe in an interventionist Divinity, just one that intervenes very rarely. I attempt to be agnostic about most things, just because I can't know much as a human. But I've always seen evidence for a creator (such as... Creation.)

There's been quite a fascination with religion lately.

Yeah, we seem to have many budding anthropologists on this forum.

Catholic is Christian my man, and work on your spelling and grammar.


A long time ago we had one Roman Catholic Church. Then The eastern churches broak apart from thr catholic church because they dident like the pope! that created the protistant Church. Then Henry VII of england dident like the pope pushing him around so he made the anglecan church(not sure of the spelling) They are not called catholic churchs but christian churchs!

A long time ago we had one Roman Catholic Church. Then The eastern churches broak apart from thr catholic church because they dident like the pope! that created the protistant Church. Then Henry VII of england dident like the pope pushing him around so he made the anglecan church(not sure of the spelling) They are not called catholic churchs but christian churchs!

Use a dictionary. This is very difficult to understand.

My 'belief set' about that sort of thing is agnostic, but I'm not part of a religion. If I was, it would be the church triumphant of the apathetic agnostic..

Those are called chritsian churchs not catholic! they would fall under protistant!

No you fool.

Catholic = Christian.

And the Eastern Catholic churches are most definitely in communion with Rome. You may be thinking of Eastern Orthodox but they aren't Protestant either.

And I enjoy stealing Harry Potter books from little children and burning them in a big rally with the rest of the Boy Scouts from my parish. No, seriously.

Athiest as in without god. No belief in a god or gods. Strong athiest with respect to an interventionist god or gods. Agnostic to immaterial god or gods that are not claimed to have any connection to or influence on the material world.

And I enjoy stealing Harry Potter books from little children and burning them in a big rally with the rest of the Boy Scouts from my parish. No, seriously.

Scared of you...

You are talking about people that are still catholic? Dident break away from the pope??

A long time ago we had one Roman Catholic Church. Then The eastern churches broak apart from thr catholic church because they dident like the pope! that created the protistant Church. Then Henry VII of england dident like the pope pushing him around so he made the anglecan church(not sure of the spelling) They are not called catholic churchs but christian churchs!

I think you need a little schooling on this matter.

Catholic Church = Original Christian Church

Eastern Orthodox = Split in 1054 over the addition of filioque into the Nicene Creed and rejected Papal primacy in favor of a "federalized" system where the Patriarch of each region had primacy over his region and they are all loosely affiliated.

Protestant = Branches of Christianity of which the first one thusly named Lutheranism started by Martin Luther in the 16th Century in Germany. Henry VIII later instituted the Anglican Catholic Church or Church of England even though he denounced Protestantism a few years prior, because he was angry at the Pope for not annuling his marriage with Catherine of Aragon and wanted a son so his line could rule England for another generation. Very diverse bunch. Newest set of Christians yet some claim to be the only ones and seem to have gotten to you as well.

Pantheist, a believer in mystisism through connection to your natural self, and all that. I don't believe in any despotic god-figure... I respect Christians (I have a strong Catholic upbringing), but I just don't understand the self-damning and restraint that comes with Christianity in general.

And I enjoy stealing Harry Potter books from little children and burning them in a big rally with the rest of the Boy Scouts from my parish. No, seriously.

http://www2.lib.udel.edu/subj/hist/images/book_burning.jpg

Just like those guys...

I think Islam is the right one for me. I see all other Monotheistic as Muslims themselves, Polytheistics a bit confused, and athiests completely lost^^

Protestant = Branch of Christianity started by Martin Luther in the 16th Century in Germany. Very diverse bunch. Newest set of Christians yet some claim to be the only true ones and seem to have gotten to you as well.

Let us not get into a Catholic VS Protestant VS Orthodox thing here. That's been going on since...

Well since ever...

OK! I got confused with what you were asking!

U said eastern Catholics arent Roman Catholics! All Catholics are Roman Catholics. It is just the name of the religon! If you lived in China you are still a Roman Catholic!!

I think Islam is the right one for me. I see all other Monotheistic as Muslims themselves, Polytheistics a bit confused, and athiests completely lost^^

Well atheists have the greatest grasp in my eyes, while all people who believe in a god or gods as lost.

OK! I got confused with what you were asking!

U said eastern Catholics arent Roman Catholics! All Catholics are Roman Catholics. It is just the name of the religon! If you lived in China you are still a Roman Catholic!!

Okay, just stop shouting.

OK! I got confused with what you were asking!

U said eastern Catholics arent Roman Catholics! All Catholics are Roman Catholics. It is just the name of the religon! If you lived in China you are still a Roman Catholic!!

Roman is the name of the rite. Also known as the Latin Rite.

A Byzantine Catholic Church is just as loyal to the Pope as a Roman Catholic Church. Roman is just a subclass among Catholic.

I think we both misunderstood each other.

Well atheists have the greatest grasp in my eyes, while all people who believe in a god or gods as lost.

I think you're all lost. I am my own damn god. :)

Okay, just stop shouting.

I am not shouting I am typing. LOL

You need more choices than Roman Catholic and Protestant. What if you're in a church that strives to adhere to the standards set by the early churches in Acts and the epistles? I'm pre-Catholic.

Roman is the name of the rite. Also known as the Latin Rite.

A Byzantine Catholic Church is just as loyal to the Pope as a Roman Catholic Church. Roman is just a subclass among Catholic.

I think we both misunderstood each other.

whatever. as long as I know all catholics are catholics I dont really care.

truce! lol

I'm a proud Catholic traditionalist.

No abortion.
No gay marriages.
No priestesses.

I would prefer if they brought back the Tridentine Mass and cracked down on rogue heterodox priests and bishops.

I second that!

You need more choices than Roman Catholic and Protestant. What if you're in a church that strives to adhere to the standards set by the early churches in Acts and the epistles? I'm pre-Catholic.

well than choose other. I was useing Protistant as all other Christ religons. as I thought all others were!

Well, thank God I am off tommorow because its 4 30am here and I got to get to bed!!

...Huh, wait a minute while I turn down my THRASHING SATANIC DEATH METAL, I can't hear you...

You need more choices than Roman Catholic and Protestant. What if you're in a church that strives to adhere to the standards set by the early churches in Acts and the epistles? I'm pre-Catholic.

then your striving to be Catholic

Zoist Christian

Good nite! God bless the people who beleve in him and the people who dont!!

You need more choices than Roman Catholic and Protestant. What if you're in a church that strives to adhere to the standards set by the early churches in Acts and the epistles? I'm pre-Catholic.

There was no pre-Catholic Church.

It was still the Catholic Church back then, it had different practices, sure, but Peter was the Pope since Jesus ascended, so the Church has been there since the beginning.

then your striving to be Catholic
Actually he's not... Zoism is based on the Early church of Acts.
I strive to be more Early-christian-like

Actually he's not... Zoism is based on the Early church of Acts.
I strive to be more Early-christian-like

The Church of Acts is the earliest Rite of the Catholic Church.

There was no pre-Catholic Church.

It was still the Catholic Church back then, it had different practices, sure, but Peter was the Pope since Jesus ascended, so the Church has been there since the beginning.
He means Pre- Modern Roman CAtholic and Mideval Catholic(I am assuming)
That is when it was more of a council of men(not to be sexist) leading the Church.

He means Pre- Modern Roman CAtholic and Mideval Catholic(I am assuming)
That is when it was more of a council of men(not to be sexist) leading the Church.

Even the Orthodox christians declare some belief in papal authority ( first among equals) historically I cant see how anyone could prove the church was led in any other way except from the pope thru the bishops.

Hmm, looks like not too many posting are Protestant.

I am, and I'm Baptist, though I'll go to any Christian church because the core beliefs are the same. And though I'm Baptist, my dad is Lutheran, so I've got dual upbringing, though both churches are Protestant.

Course, if I couldn't decide on a church, I could always go to Lakewood! Non-denominational, and Joel is quite the speaker.

Though it really sucks that they took over the Compaq center, cause Toyota center is in the middle of downtown Houston and just kinda...sucks.

there is no god and religion is a tool to controll peoples way of life....

the amount of times i have been flamed for saying such things doesnt even worry me no more, i couldnt care if you jesus freaks get on your high horse and try to bring me down because i'll come back and throw a few questions your way that will have you either doubting your own beliefs or have you in denial because if im right, your life is meaningless and the only thing waiting for you in the afterlife is you becoming worm food :rolleyes:

here is the perfect question for all you religious nuts out there....If "god" created the world and everything we could ever know in a week, around 6000 years ago, why is it radio carbon dating scientifically proves the world is around 4.5 billion years old?

devine power or gods will does not count as a reasonable explation either, if your going to prove something, you need scientific facts to back up your claims ;)

I'm not religious because frankly, I don't see how there can be so many different beliefs if there is only one God, for example.

As for nitpicking, I wouldn't say 'Buddhist' is the religion you'd 'forgotten', because you've missed all the Asian religions. You've also missed Hinduism, which is pretty important seeing as how it's a major world religion.

It should be recognized (Catholic Paternia :ahem ahem: - Orthodox is technically the original form of Christianity.) that Christianity has THREE major denominations: Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent. And even better, there are millions of types of those. Be careful of what you say, because the Eastern Orthodox and the Orthodox Christians are different.

Me, I am Methdistical-Baptist, basicly, a Methodist who is also a Baptist.

There was no pre-Catholic Church.

It was still the Catholic Church back then, it had different practices, sure, but Peter was the Pope since Jesus ascended, so the Church has been there since the beginning.



Peter denied superiority to the other apostles on several occassions. Also, the Greek translation calls Peter "Petros" which translate to small stone or pebble; not "Petra" which would refer to a boulder or rock of sufficient size to become the cornerstone of the Church. It was not peter Himself but Peter's confession of Christ that the Church was founded upon.

Even the Orthodox christians declare some belief in papal authority ( first among equals) historically I cant see how anyone could prove the church was led in any other way except from the pope thru the bishops.

They have patriarchs in different regions. it's more of a democracy rather than the Catholic 'autocracy' though.

In the Orthodox Orthodox Church,there were-are patriarchs in Constantinople/Istanbul, Jerusalem, Alexandria and one other I've forgotten. The Pope was originally the Patriarch of Rome. Only, if I still remember correctly, his followers believed that their Roman Patriarch was the head of all others, rather than the one who was in Constantinople, and the branches started.

Sorry for double posting.

there is no god and religion is a tool to controll peoples way of life....

the amount of times i have been flamed for saying such things doesnt even worry me no more, i couldnt care if you jesus freaks get on your high horse and try to bring me down because i'll come back and throw a few questions your way that will have you either doubting your own beliefs or have you in denial because if im right, your life is meaningless and the only thing waiting for you in the afterlife is you becoming worm food :rolleyes:

here is the perfect question for all you religious nuts out there....If "god" created the world and everything we could ever know in a week, around 6000 years ago, why is it radio carbon dating scientifically proves the world is around 4.5 billion years old?

devine power or gods will does not count as a reasonable explation either, if your going to prove something, you need scientific facts to back up your claims ;)



Meseteleca's puppet I presume? :rolleyes:

there is no god and religion is a tool to controll peoples way of life....

the amount of times i have been flamed for saying such things doesnt even worry me no more, i couldnt care if you jesus freaks get on your high horse and try to bring me down because i'll come back and throw a few questions your way that will have you either doubting your own beliefs or have you in denial because if im right, your life is meaningless and the only thing waiting for you in the afterlife is you becoming worm food :rolleyes:

here is the perfect question for all you religious nuts out there....If "god" created the world and everything we could ever know in a week, around 6000 years ago, why is it radio carbon dating scientifically proves the world is around 4.5 billion years old?

devine power or gods will does not count as a reasonable explation either, if your going to prove something, you need scientific facts to back up your claims ;)

While I dont agree with you on the age of the earth The Catholic church doesnt demand that I cant believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, neither does it teach that I cant accept evolution. I am only bound to believe that man is made up of body and soul, and that God placed that soul there in adam the first man. If evolution is true than man wasnt man until god gave him a soul. your attack do not shake my faith, but they are amusing.

They have patriarchs in different regions. it's more of a democracy rather than the Catholic 'autocracy' though.

In the Orthodox Orthodox Church,there were-are patriarchs in Constantinople/Istanbul, Jerusalem, Alexandria and one other I've forgotten. The Pope was originally the Patriarch of Rome. Only, if I still remember correctly, his followers believed that their Roman Patriarch was the head of all others, rather than the one who was in Constantinople, and the branches started.

Sorry for double posting.

I agree and God willing we will unite once again with the holy fahter(Pope) as head of the universal church.

there is no god and religion is a tool to controll peoples way of life....

the amount of times i have been flamed for saying such things doesnt even worry me no more, i couldnt care if you jesus freaks get on your high horse and try to bring me down because i'll come back and throw a few questions your way that will have you either doubting your own beliefs or have you in denial because if im right, your life is meaningless and the only thing waiting for you in the afterlife is you becoming worm food :rolleyes:

here is the perfect question for all you religious nuts out there....If "god" created the world and everything we could ever know in a week, around 6000 years ago, why is it radio carbon dating scientifically proves the world is around 4.5 billion years old?

devine power or gods will does not count as a reasonable explation either, if your going to prove something, you need scientific facts to back up your claims ;)

Radio carbon dating has been proven to be faulty as there are many, many, things that can give a false result, especially when you consider how many things have happened to the world since its creation. It's impossible to try to date it through carbon dating.

And learn how to spell. Those winking smilies are infinitely obnoxious as well.

To think that you could shake the foundations of our faith in your ignorance is the height of arrogance. Especially when many of us think that story may be figurative and don't necessarily believe that if it was literal that it was 6,000 years ago.

Peter denied superiority to the other apostles on several occassions. Also, the Greek translation calls Peter "Petros" which translate to small stone or pebble; not "Petra" which would refer to a boulder or rock of sufficient size to become the cornerstone of the Church. It was not peter Himself but Peter's confession of Christ that the Church was founded upon.
Sorry, but petra would be the feminine form of the name and Christ would not have given him a womens name. Why dont you look what paul called him? It was Kephas which means large rock in aramaic, Jesus' own language!

Radio carbon dating has been proven to be faulty as there are many, many, things that can give a false result, especially when you consider how many things have happened to the world since its creation. It's impossible to try to date it through carbon dating.

And learn how to spell. Those winking smilies are infinitely obnoxious as well.

To think that you could shake the foundations of our faith in your ignorance is the height of arrogance.

Ice coring is indisputable and dates back to 160,000 years ago. Therefore the 6,000 year old notion is thrown out the window. Radio carbon dating does not produce false results (in fact it put the shroud of turin as a false).

Meseteleca's puppet I presume? :rolleyes:

I'm going to have a moderator investigate this post, and post a complaint in the moderation. You have no right to attack me for no reason.

Ice coring is indisputable and dates back to 160,000 years ago. Therefore the 6,000 year old notion is thrown out the window. Radio carbon dating does not produce false results (in fact it put the shroud of turin as a false).

Wrong the piece taken from the shroud was a patch not of the original linen. and why dont you go to http://www.shroudstory.com/index.htm. For some more scientific facts about hte shroud.

Wrong the piece taken from the shroud was a patch not of the original linen. and why dont you go to http://www.shroudstory.com/index.htm. For some more scientific facts about hte shroud.

That's false. It in fact was.

http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

"The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval. "

Sorry.

Wrong the piece taken from the shroud was a patch not of the original linen. and why dont you go to http://www.shroudstory.com/index.htm. For some more scientific facts about hte shroud.
There've been dozens of tests. All of them peg the shroud at the same age. Add the utter impossibility that it was ever over a body, and you've got a medieval hoax.

I'm going to have a moderator investigate this post, and post a complaint in the moderation. You have no right to attack me for no reason.


I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing out the fact that you both sound oddly similar.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing out the fact that you both sound oddly similar.

It is against the rules to accuse people of such things, and I have reported it. They will do an investigation and I hope you will be disciplined for throwing such accusations against me.

Sorry, but petra would be the feminine form of the name and Christ would not have given him a womens name. Why dont you look what paul called him? It was Kephas which means large rock in aramaic, Jesus' own language!


I'll concede the point for now, as I never expected a reponse and am therefore unprepared to debate it :p

It is against the rules to accuse people of such things, and I have reported it. They will do an investigation and I hope you will be disciplined for throwing such accusations against me.



Umm...no.

Other.

Deist (God, but no Jesus or Bible or w/e)

-Tomás

Umm...no.

Ummm yes. You have been reported and I'll leave this to the moderators. Don't be snappy with me. And don't you bring up my name when I said nothing to you.

There've been dozens of tests. All of them peg the shroud at the same age. Add the utter impossibility that it was ever over a body, and you've got a medieval hoax.

Further proving your ignorance:

The shroud was locked up in a vault in a monastery when a fire was started. The shroud was affected by the fire, even though it was never physically touched. This exposure to fire is around the time the tests ping it at, virtually nulling that argument.

The effects of fire on carbon dating have been proven outside of the Shroud in the past as well.

This is one of the examples of faulty carbon dating I mentioned in my previous post.

Ummm yes. You have been reported and I'll leave this to the moderators. Don't be snappy with me. And don't you bring up my name when I said nothing to you.

When you post in the same thread as Neo, heck even in the same forum, you are fair game to be mentioned. He wasn't even criticizing you, let alone flaming you.

You're just self-victimizing and looking for pity. Save it, please.

Thats the one I left out! :headbang: It was on the tip of my tounge and I couldent get it out!! Buddhist!

:D . I'm glad i gave you something to think about.

Further proving your ignorance:

The shroud was locked up in a vault in a monastery when a fire was started. The shroud was affected by the fire, even though it was never physically touched. This exposure to fire is around the time the tests ping it at, virtually nulling that argument.

The effects of fire on carbon dating have been proven outside of the Shroud in the past as well.

This is one of the examples of faulty carbon dating I mentioned in my previous post.
I've seen the shroud. Only certain parts are burned. Fire only affects C-14 dating when the object being tested actually burned. The unburned spots will reveal its true age. It's really basic science.

I note that you never addressed my point about how it could never have touched an actual body. There's no distortion.

When you post in the same thread as Neo, heck even in the same forum, you are fair game to be mentioned. He wasn't even criticizing you, let alone flaming you.

You're just self-victimizing and looking for pity. Save it, please.

This doesn't involve you. No one is fair game. You follow the rules or don't post at all. You have been crude since you got here. I'll be happy when you get banned.

The internet is like virtual East Germany. :) I don't believe in any god or gods.

When you post in the same thread as Neo, heck even in the same forum, you are fair game to be mentioned. He wasn't even criticizing you, let alone flaming you.

You're just self-victimizing and looking for pity. Save it, please.



I'm a she :( And Sinuhue said that putting female in my location would stop all the misconceptions :confused:

This doesn't involve you. No one is fair game. You follow the rules or don't post at all. You have been crude since you got here. I'll be happy when you get banned.

The thing is neither have us have broken any rules. We aren't flaming you. Neo just mentioned you and you snap, and I just criticized you, not flamed you.

This doesn't involve you. No one is fair game. You follow the rules or don't post at all. You have been crude since you got here. I'll be happy when you get banned.



Isn't openly wishing ill towards others another form of flaming and, thus, bannable? ;)

The thing is neither have us have broken any rules. We aren't flaming you. Neo just mentioned you and you snap, and I just criticized you, not flamed you.

Neo doesn't mention me. In fact you have not been considerate.

A long time ago we had one Roman Catholic Church. Then The eastern churches broak apart from thr catholic church because they dident like the pope! that created the protistant Church. Then Henry VII of england dident like the pope pushing him around so he made the anglecan church(not sure of the spelling) They are not called catholic churchs but christian churchs!

Actually, the Eastern Churchs broke off from the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope moved his HQ from Byzantium to Italy. They felt betrayed, and broke off to form the Greek Orthodoxy Church (i think that is the wording). The Protistant church i believe was formed in France or something later on.

Isn't openly wishing ill towards others another form of flaming and, thus, bannable? ;)

Nope. I'm not wishing ill towards another person. I'm just saying he has been crude.

I'm protestant. My dad is a Southern Baptist Pastor, and I plan to join either a Methodist or a United Church of Christ soon.

Nope. I'm not wishing ill towards another person. I'm just saying he has been crude.



I'll be happy when you get banned.


(insert the necessary 1 character here)

Actually, the Eastern Churchs broke off from the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope moved his HQ from Byzantium to Italy. They felt betrayed, and broke off to form the Greek Orthodoxy Church (i think that is the wording). The Protistant church i believe was formed in France or something later on.

The Eastern Churches didn't care that the Pope moved to Rome, since that happened 900 YEARS PRIOR TO THE SEPERATION. I mentioned the reasons before, you can consult that.

And Protestantism was formed in Prussia, that's north-eastern Germany.

Just a note: the word catholic means general, universal and "christian", so any religion that accepts Jesus Christ is a catholic religion. Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, all are catholic. If you capitalise the "c" to make it Catholic, it generally implies the Roman Catholic Church governed by the Pope. But even this form can also refer to the ancient undivided Christian Church or its present representatives including the Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

OK! I got confused with what you were asking!

U said eastern Catholics arent Roman Catholics! All Catholics are Roman Catholics. It is just the name of the religon! If you lived in China you are still a Roman Catholic!!

Actually i believe there is an Irish Catholic Church. Maybe It's diferent? Besides the Eastern Church is called the Greek Orthodox Church, because it originated in Greece.

(insert the necessary 1 character here)

You get me so pissed off. You know.. you are going on my ignore list.

Just a note: the word catholic means general, universal and "christian", so any religion that accepts Jesus Christ is a catholic religion. Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, all are catholic. If you capitalise the "c" to make it Catholic, it generally implies the Roman Catholic Church governed by the Pope. But even this form can also refer to the ancient undivided Christian Church or its present representatives including the Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

For a church to be catholic it must be universal.

Anglican Catholic Church is a huge oxymoron. How can it be catholic when the world consists of more than England and countries of English descent?

Same can be said of the Orthodox, they tend to be nationalized or regionalized.

The only Church that can claim to be catholic is the Catholic Church. Its many rites attest to this.

The world catholic's (note lowercase) definition has nothing to do with Christianity, it merely means universal.

I'm a proud Catholic traditionalist.

No abortion.
No gay marriages.
No priestesses.

I would prefer if they brought back the Tridentine Mass and cracked down on rogue heterodox priests and bishops.

Abortion? Personnaly i think women have the right to do with their bodies as they will.
Gay Marriage? Who the hell cares if two guys love each other and want to get married! I'll support 'em! Besides, i don't remember anyone in the bible ever saying that gay marriage is wrong, except that one guy who turned his back on Jesus a few times...but i'm sure he's credibale. Then again, they also say that inter-racial marriage is a sin, in the bible.
Priestesses? Well, i think that if a women wants to preach the word of God, she should be allowed to. This entire thing about not allowing women into the priesthood of the church is based on archaic beliefs that women are satanspawn, and that they have no souls.

Besides, if the U.S. government bans gay marriage, i'd think it would be passing religious freedom laws, because the fact that only a man and a women can marry is a religious belief, and if a religious belief pertaining only to a certain group is instated into a federal law that impresses that belief onto groups that may noy believe in it, America's Democracy becomes a Theocracy, and a Theocratic society would undermine the entire principle of America's founding!

Besides, what right of it is yours to dictate whether two loving individuals can't marry? Marriage is a basic freedom, and must be respected!

For a church to be catholic it must be universal.

Anglican Catholic Church is a huge oxymoron. How can it be catholic when the world consists of more than England and countries of English descent?

Same can be said of the Orthodox, they tend to be nationalized or regionalized.

The only Church that can claim to be catholic is the Catholic Church. Its many rites attest to this.

The world catholic's (note lowercase) definition has nothing to do with Christianity, it merely means universal.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:catholic

Thanks for ignorantly leaving out the East.

I'm in the West, and Buddhist.

Which qualifies as an "Atheistic Religion" by western standards.

This poll is myopic, and ineffectual. I can't vote.

Abortion? Personnaly i think women have the right to do with their bodies as they will.
Gay Marriage? Who the hell cares if two guys love each other and want to get married! I'll support 'em! Besides, i don't remember anyone in the bible ever saying that gay marriage is wrong, except that one guy who turned his back on Jesus a few times...but i'm sure he's credibale. Then again, they also say that inter-racial marriage is a sin, in the bible.
Priestesses? Well, i think that if a women wants to preach the word of God, she should be allowed to. This entire thing about not allowing women into the priesthood of the church is based on archaic beliefs that women are satanspawn, and that they have no souls.

Besides, if the U.S. government bans gay marriage, i'd think it would be passing religious freedom laws, because the fact that only a man and a women can marry is a religious belief, and if a religious belief pertaining only to a certain group is instated into a federal law that impresses that belief onto groups that may noy believe in it, America's Democracy becomes a Theocracy, and a Theocratic society would undermine the entire principle of America's founding!

Besides, what right of it is yours to dictate whether two loving individuals can't marry? Marriage is a basic freedom, and must be respected!

Congratulations on presenting an argument consisting of strawman propaganda.

The fact is abortion isn't doing what the women will to do with their body, but the fetuses. We can prove the body of the fetus is not the woman's because it was created by the joining of a sperm and an egg, and due to the fact that the placenta which transfers vital resources from the mother to the fetus does not allow the blood from either body to mix with another. This clearly shows that the fetus is another life and not the woman's to destroy.

And Peter is not the only one to denounce homosexuality in the Bible. It recurs throughout the Old and New Testaments. I won't go through listing every mention of it in the Bible, but due to the reccurance of threads like these, you can easily find the references. Or you can Google it.

What you said the Church thinks about women is so ridiculously false. The reason women cannot be ordained is that a priest as the representative of Christ at Mass must be male. Just as a woman gives life physically, a man gives life spiritually. It is not only undesirable to ordain women, it is impossible. No one is restricting women from preaching in the Church, but a priest's duties involve far more than preaching.

About a theocratic government, America was founded on religious principles carried over from British common-law, the founders all believed in Jesus Christ, and the majority of Americans are Christians. Have fun trying to eliminate all Christianity from the government.

Please produce the source of a state marriage being a guaranteed right, nationwide.

I thought this thread was a place to present your beliefs, not try to refute others'.

America was not founded on christianity and is not a theocratic nation. Keep your bible out of government. I'm an american citizen too. You will not abuse my civil rights. America is a secular nation.

Thanks for ignorantly leaving out the East.

I'm in the West, and Buddhist.

Which qualifies as an "Atheistic Religion" by western standards.

This poll is myopic, and ineffectual. I can't vote.

Don't give him such a hard time about it. He apolagized. Besides, you can just mark 'other'! It's nothing to get mad about. Remember 3 and 6 of the Eight-Fold Path, Samma vaca, Samma vayama.

America was not founded on christianity and is not a theocratic nation. Keep your bible out of government. I'm an american citizen too. You will not abuse my civil rights. America is a secular nation.

I'm not abusing your civil rights, I'm merely exercising my own.


You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac El Dorado convertible hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and get baby seal's eyes for head lights, yeah!

And I'm gonna drive in that baby at 115 miles per hour getting 1 mile per gallon, sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonald's in the old fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers ,and when I'm done sucking down those greeseball burgers I'm gonna wipe my mouth with the American flag and then I'm gonna toss the styrofoam containers right out the side and there ain't a goddamn thing anybody can do about it.

You know why? Because we've got the bombs, that's why! 2 words, nuclear weapons, OK?! Canada, Germany, France, they can have all the democracy they want. They can have a big democracy cakewalk right through the middle of the Mall and it won't make a lick of difference because we've got the bombs, OK?!

I'm gonna get the Duke, and John Castive Eddies, and Lee Marvin, and Sam Peckenthorp, and Benedict XVI, and Jimmy Falwell, and a case of whiskey, and drive down to Texas and start a big Christian fascist party to supress your civil rights and intern all gays and non-Christians, yeah!

I love how you think that I have some sort of authority over you to prevent you from exercising your civil rights. Just because I criticize them doesn't mean I can stop you from doing anything. Stop being whiney.

Thanks to Denis Leary for the rant.

I'm not abusing your civil rights, I'm merely exercising my own.


You can have all the views you want, but once they limit my civil rights that's unconstitutional.

Congratulations on presenting an argument consisting of strawman propaganda.

The fact is abortion isn't doing what the women will to do with their body, but the fetuses.

[...]

And Peter is not the only one to denounce homosexuality in the Bible. It recurs throughout the Old and New Testaments.

[...]


What you said the Church thinks about women is so ridiculously false.

[...]

Have fun trying to eliminate all Christianity from the government.

Please produce the source of a state marriage being a guaranteed right, nationwide.

I thought this thread was a place to present your beliefs, not try to refute others'.

Catholic Paternia, dear, you can google a definition of 'hypocrite' for yourself. Read what it says; it might interest you.

But while we're at it, what can you tell me about your views on the polygamous traditions of the Mormons?

You've already stated that you think Chrisitianity plays a huge role in the government. So indulge me. Why is it that people are cracking down on fellow Christians?

i am a vietamese zen buddhist

Catholic Paternia, dear, you can google a definition of 'hypocrite' for yourself. Read what it says; it might interest you.

But while we're at it, what can you tell me about your views on the polygamous traditions of the Mormons?

You've already stated that you think Chrisitianity plays a huge role in the government. So indulge me. Why is it that people are cracking down on fellow Christians?

Way to ignore my arguments, and I am in no way endeared to you.

Mormons hold many pagan beliefs and are considered non-Christian or at least far out in left-field by the majority of Christians.

Now before you address me, at least have the respect and decency to address my arguments.

America was not founded on christianity and is not a theocratic nation. Keep your bible out of government. I'm an american citizen too. You will not abuse my civil rights. America is a secular nation.

Thankyou. I love you.

You can have all the views you want, but once they limit my civil rights that's unconstitutional.

How am I limiting your civil rights by telling you that you're immoral and horribly wrong?

Thankyou. I love you.

Hahah.....

Catholic:

How am I limiting your civil rights by telling you that you're immoral and horribly wrong?

I'm not immoral and horribly wrong. You are. You are a discriminating person..

Oh no, not this again...

I discriminate between right and wrong, unlike moral relativists like you.

So yes, I am a discriminating person.

I discriminate between right and wrong, unlike moral relativists like you.

So yes, I am a discriminating person.

Your religion is responsible for the inquistions.. crusades.. I know more about right and wrong. I'm not a moral relativists (again never speak for me).

You are frightening.

i am a vietamese zen buddhist

Way to ignore my arguments, and I am in no way endeared to you.

Mormons hold many pagan beliefs and are considered non-Christian or at least far out in left-field by the majority of Christians.

Now before you address me, at least have the respect and decency to address my arguments.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Christianity was centered on the Nicene Creed? Mormons adhere to that, do they not?

As for your arguments, I didn't bother,at first. I've heard all those before, and you're not going to sway anyone -- and I'm sorry to say, especially when you bring the Bible into it.

What you said about the sperm and the egg. Okay. That's a great point. But why don't we just call it a chemical reaction, hmm? Everything is a chemical reaction, and no one's yelling about the poor copper because it was displaced.

But maybe you don't believe in that. Now, your main argument is that you're taking away someone's life, if I am reading correctly. Well, why isn't smoking banned then? Second hand smoking istaking away someone's life. Or war? How can Christians endorse war if they're so keen on keeping a fetus that isn't even fully developed to have its own thoughts?

And you don't see the Jewish filling the streets because the Old Testament says NO GAYS.

I know you aren't endeared to me. I'd be worried about who I mess with if you were.

Inquisition and Crusades don't bother me in the least bit.

The perpetrators of the infamous Spanish Inquisition were not authorized by Rome and were excommunicated for going overboard.

Legitimate inquisitions and crusades are nothing to be ashamed of, I'm actually proud of them.

You obviously have a distorted sense of right and wrong if you are homosexual. I don't need to start fights and assert my right to disagree myself every time I'm criticized, either.

I'd prefer it if I frightened you somewhat, actually.

will i couda shout holes throu the bible but i wont.that is your path if it makes you happy go for it.and i am not going to get scitific and dont wont to.bless

Please produce the source of a state marriage being a guaranteed right, nationwide.

I thought this thread was a place to present your beliefs, not try to refute others'.

You know what, your right, marriage isn't a garenteed right. But why shouldn't it be? You people pride yourselves on great social equality, yet you can't seem to get over the fact that to Guys can love each other! Shouldn't two people who onest-to-god love each other be able to celabrate their love by spending the rest of their lives together with the same rights that are given to strait couples? Ofcourse! This same argument that God doesn't want this was also presented when the argument was on about inter-racial marriage. People were saying "God doesn't want the different races to intermingale! That's why he put them on different continents!". Of course, we now know that skin colour is based on the amount of radiation from the sun absorbed by the pigments in your skin, which adapt to protect you from the radiation you come into contact with. The only real written-down reason that those people had a case was the fact that inter-racial marriage is condemned in the bible. When we look back on those people now, we think to ourselves "How dumb were those people! Saying people couldn't marry because of the colour of their skin! That's racism!". The same thing will be thought about Homosexual marriages in 20 years time. Your also right that America is based on christian teachings (one nation under god and all that). That is one problem with your country, and it has caused alot of pain for the past 200 years or so...

Besides, give me ONE good reason why Homosexual marriage is so bad anyway? Why Bush says it will destroy Western civilzation? The only thing that's different is the sex!

Abortion? Personnaly i think women have the right to do with their bodies as they will.
Gay Marriage? Who the hell cares if two guys love each other and want to get married! I'll support 'em! Besides, i don't remember anyone in the bible ever saying that gay marriage is wrong, except that one guy who turned his back on Jesus a few times...but i'm sure he's credibale. Then again, they also say that inter-racial marriage is a sin, in the bible.
Priestesses? Well, i think that if a women wants to preach the word of God, she should be allowed to. This entire thing about not allowing women into the priesthood of the church is based on archaic beliefs that women are satanspawn, and that they have no souls.

Besides, if the U.S. government bans gay marriage, i'd think it would be passing religious freedom laws, because the fact that only a man and a women can marry is a religious belief, and if a religious belief pertaining only to a certain group is instated into a federal law that impresses that belief onto groups that may noy believe in it, America's Democracy becomes a Theocracy, and a Theocratic society would undermine the entire principle of America's founding!

Besides, what right of it is yours to dictate whether two loving individuals can't marry? Marriage is a basic freedom, and must be respected!


Oy vey :rolleyes:

You obviously have a distorted sense of right and wrong if you are homosexual. I don't need to start fights and assert my right to disagree myself every time I'm criticized, either.

No, you are the one with the distorted sense of right and wrong because you defend atrocities, and you defend murder.


I'd prefer it if I frightened you somewhat, actually.

I'm frightened you defend murder.

Inquisition and Crusades don't bother me in the bit.

The perpetrators of the infamous Spanish Inquisition were not authorized by Rome and were excommunicated for going overboard.

Legitimate inquisitions and crusades are nothing to be ashamed of, I'm actually proud of them.

You obviously have a distorted sense of right and wrong if you are homosexual. I don't need to start fights and assert my right to disagree myself every time I'm criticized, either.

I'd prefer it if I frightened you somewhat, actually.

If you're addressing me, what do I care about the crusades? It's been 'apologized' for already. (I don't understand how moral it can be if you're proud of something the leader of your church has apologized for)

And it's called the 'psyche'. The 'mind'. 'hormones' maybe. It's all SCIENCE. You know, nice thing that we study in school? More chemical reactions if that's what you want to call it. More THINGS that keep you and I running. If you want a bad analogy, think of it as liking the dumbest boy in the whole continent. He's cute, he's rich, he's got a great personality. Well guess what, you've still got a distorted sense of right and wrong by my standards.

I'm afraid you've already started the fight. As for me? I smirked a little and backed everyone else up.

Now tell me about those Mormons.

Oh, and before I forget.You don't frighten me one bit, so you can keep dreaming about your little sick murders.

You can have all the views you want, but once they limit my civil rights that's unconstitutional.



Sticking your head in the sand and whining incessantly isn't listed as right, at least from what I recall.

This ones's a whopper, so I'll take it piece by piece.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Christianity was centered on the Nicene Creed? Mormons adhere to that, do they not?

Actually, no, they don't!

As for your arguments, I didn't bother,at first. I've heard all those before, and you're not going to sway anyone -- and I'm sorry to say, especially when you bring the Bible into it.

I only brought the Bible into the parts of the argument where you called on the Bible, IE Peter and the denunciation of homosexuality in the Bible. I argued my first point quite secularly. The third point of the argument is in itself an argument over a religion.


What you said about the sperm and the egg. Okay. That's a great point. But why don't we just call it a chemical reaction, hmm? Everything is a chemical reaction, and no one's yelling about the poor copper because it was displaced.

Last I checked no mineral had rights. That fetus is a living human, so it has rights.


But maybe you don't believe in that. Now, your main argument is that you're taking away someone's life, if I am reading correctly. Well, why isn't smoking banned then? Second hand smoking istaking away someone's life. Or war? How can Christians endorse war if they're so keen on keeping a fetus that isn't even fully developed to have its own thoughts?

You're mixing apples and oranges with your smoking point. Smoking doesn't fundamentally involve killing someone. It is detrimental to someone's health, but it is negligible compared to many things, among them breaking open the back of someone's skull and sucking their brains out with a vacuum.

Most Christian churches are opposed to war in general, but wars can be justified. Killing an innocent human for no reason other than convenience can never be justified.


And you don't see the Jewish filling the streets because the Old Testament says NO GAYS.

Maybe because that's there are far less Jews, and the majority of their religion have since drastically liberalized or become atheists.


I know you aren't endeared to me. I'd be worried about who I mess with if you were.

I didn't quite understand that, but okay.

Sticking your head in the sand and whining incessantly isn't listed as right, at least from what I recall.

Wake up. Religious people have their heads in the sand. I have my head in reality. You are the ones whining about stuff. You are also morally repugnant.

Way to ignore my arguments, and I am in no way endeared to you.

Mormons hold many pagan beliefs and are considered non-Christian or at least far out in left-field by the majority of Christians.

Now before you address me, at least have the respect and decency to address my arguments.



Mormons are about as much Christian as dogs are cats. They reject many portions of the Bible as flawed and corrupt, and basically have formed a new religion that expands upon Christianity and has a new prophet. They are like Islam, minus the credibility.

Wake up. Religious people have their heads in the sand. I have my head in reality. You are the ones whining about stuff. You are also morally repugnant.



I'll paraphrase your recent actions: "Mr. Moderator!!! Neo Rogolia accused me of having a puppet!!! I want you to take action, regardless of the fact that got warned for flaming her last night!"

Accurate enough, hon?

I'll paraphrase your recent actions: "Mr. Moderator!!! Neo Rogolia accused me of having a puppet!!! I want you to take action, regardless of the fact that got warned for flaming her last night!"

Accurate enough, hon?

I did that because it was a serious accusation and I said nothing to you. you should shut your mouth.

If you're addressing me, what do I care about the crusades? It's been 'apologized' for already. (I don't understand how moral it can be if you're proud of something the leader of your church has apologized for)

And it's called the 'psyche'. The 'mind'. 'hormones' maybe. It's all SCIENCE. You know, nice thing that we study in school? More chemical reactions if that's what you want to call it. More THINGS that keep you and I running. If you want a bad analogy, think of it as liking the dumbest boy in the whole continent. He's cute, he's rich, he's got a great personality. Well guess what, you've still got a distorted sense of right and wrong by my standards.

I'm afraid you've already started the fight. As for me? I smirked a little and backed everyone else up.

Now tell me about those Mormons.

Oh, and before I forget.You don't frighten me one bit, so you can keep dreaming about your little sick murders.

That post was aimed at Mesa, not you.

Inquisition and Crusades don't bother me in the bit.

The perpetrators of the infamous Spanish Inquisition were not authorized by Rome and were excommunicated for going overboard.

Legitimate inquisitions and crusades are nothing to be ashamed of, I'm actually proud of them.

You obviously have a distorted sense of right and wrong if you are homosexual. I don't need to start fights and assert my right to disagree myself every time I'm criticized, either.

I'd prefer it if I frightened you somewhat, actually.

You're proud of them? You're proud of the Inquisitions that killed tens of thousands of innocent Men, women, and children? You're proud of the Crusades that killed hundreds of thousands of people, simply for a pile of stone? I think the real holyness of Jeruselem resides not in the city itself, but in its history. Besides, the Da Vinci Code revealse that the Holy Grail isn't actually a grail, but something more (i've got to read that book sometime :) ). The crusades were a monument to the Barbarity of the Human race. And by the way, what does being homosexual have to do with someones sense of right and wrong? We're all human.

No, you are the one with the distorted sense of right and wrong because you defend atrocities, and you defend murder.




I'm frightened you defend murder.



Since a lot of pro-death advocates love to throw the "It's not murder because it's lawful" thing in my face, it's my turn: Following that logic, neither were the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition.

now you got me started.frist i must ask waht is riet and wrong ya morder is wrong steling is wrong sxeuolmisconduct is wrong but the rist is gray to me.and here is way every civilzation has a deffrent view on it just look at japan thy take carer of the perens waen thay get old and we in the us send them to a nrsing home.

You're proud of them? You're proud of the Inquisitions that killed tens of thousands of innocent Men, women, and children? You're proud of the Crusades that killed hundreds of thousands of people, simply for a pile of stone? I think the real holyness of Jeruselem resides not in the city itself, but in its history. Besides, the Da Vinci Code revealse that the Holy Grail isn't actually a grail, but something more (i've got to read that book sometime :) ). The crusades were a monument to the Barbarity of the Human race. And by the way, what does being homosexual have to do with someones sense of right and wrong? We're all human.



I was going to dissect your post piece by piece and give you a refutation you earned, but then you cited the Da Vinci Code.

now you got me started.frist i must ask waht is riet and wrong ya morder is wrong steling is wrong sxeuolmisconduct is wrong but the rist is gray to me.and here is way every civilzation has a deffrent view on it just look at japan thy take carer of the perens waen thay get old and we in the us send them to a nrsing home.

I'll start debating you when you run that through Word and I can understand it.

I'm Zoroastrian.

I'll start debating you when you run that through Word and I can understand it.


I think he's Dutch. The words in that post looked very Dutch to me :D

Arguing with fundamentalist religious people is like arguing with a tape recorder that keeps repeating the same thing.

Addition: I will now be putting two people on my block list. I have no patience for this.

Arguing with fundamentalist religious people is like arguing with a tape recorder that keeps repeating the same thing.



You use the same cliché comparisons over and over: "Talking to a Christian is like arguing with a tape recorder/answering machine." Get some new material, hon.

You're proud of them? You're proud of the Inquisitions that killed tens of thousands of innocent Men, women, and children? You're proud of the Crusades that killed hundreds of thousands of people, simply for a pile of stone? I think the real holyness of Jeruselem resides not in the city itself, but in its history. Besides, the Da Vinci Code revealse that the Holy Grail isn't actually a grail, but something more (i've got to read that book sometime :) ). The crusades were a monument to the Barbarity of the Human race. And by the way, what does being homosexual have to do with someones sense of right and wrong? We're all human.

Most inquisitions didn't kill people, merely excommunicate them. The ones where people were actually killed were executed by rogue elements who the Church had no control over.

The crusades were fought because the Turks were restricting the rights of pilgrims to Jerusalem and even killing them. Once we got the Holy Land, we fought to defend it so it wouldn't happen again. There were corrupt crusades such as the 4th one, but that was run by Venice and the Pope had virtually no control over it. The leaders of it were excommunicated as well.

The DaVinci code is a work of fiction. It's ridiculous you would cite it.

Most inquisitions didn't kill people, merely excommunicate them. The ones where people were actually killed were executed by rogue elements who the Church had no control over.

The crusades were fought because the Turks were restricting the rights of pilgrims to Jerusalem and even killing them. Once we got the Holy Land, we fought to defend it so it wouldn't happen again. There were corrupt crusades such as the 4th one, but that was run by Venice and the Pope had virtually no control over it. The leaders of it were excommunicated as well.


I've noticed people are quick to dismiss the fact that the Muslims were the original perpetrators of atrocity in the Crusades. It's fun using half-truths, no?

how can you say some thing is riet or wrong every nation has a deffrent set of conduct yes killing is wrong sxeuel misconduct wrong selling is wrong and lieing is wrong but the rest is gray to me.

Most inquisitions didn't kill people, merely excommunicate them. The ones where people were actually killed were executed by rogue elements who the Church had no control over.

The crusades were fought because the Turks were restricting the rights of pilgrims to Jerusalem and even killing them. Once we got the Holy Land, we fought to defend it so it wouldn't happen again. There were corrupt crusades such as the 4th one, but that was run by Venice and the Pope had virtually no control over it. The leaders of it were excommunicated as well.

Uhm...

Was it really necessary to butcher the entire population of Antioch and the entire Muslim and Jewish population of Jerusalem? That's what transpired. Hell, the streets of Jerusalem were KNEE DEEP in blood in some areas. They even killed a bunch of Orthodox Christians too.

You use the same cliché comparisons over and over: "Talking to a Christian is like arguing with a tape recorder/answering machine." Get some new material, hon.

If you'd like to make a call, please try again. If you'd like to make a call, please try again. If you'd like to make a call, please try again.

That's what you sound like.

Uhm...

Was it really necessary to butcher the entire population of Antioch and the entire Muslim and Jewish population of Jerusalem? That's what transpired. Hell, the streets of Jerusalem were KNEE DEEP in blood in some areas. They even killed a bunch of Orthodox Christians too.



Knee-deep in blood? Just like when the pagan Romans laid siege to Jerusalem and destroyed the temple?

If you'd like to make a call, please try again. If you'd like to make a call, please try again. If you'd like to make a call, please try again.

That's what you sound like.


/childish imitation mode on


Here's what you sound like: "NYAH NYAH, I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOUR EVIDENCE BECAUSE I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE~ WRONG~!"

/childish imitation mode off

Dear God, make it stop.

Okay guys, WAKE UP and listen to someone who ISN'T Christian and hasn't been preached too for more than half their life.

Remember the NICENE CREED everybody? A couple of wise men who sat around a table because there were disagreements all over the place -- much like what's happening here -- and decided that they would write a creed that would define who is Christian and who is not?

And YOU, Catholic whatsit. You should notice that I never brought up Peter or Paul or whoever founded the respective Churches in Alexandria and Constantinople. I have never once brought up the apostles. Don't act like I don't know a thing about Christianity, because believe me, I do.

Your war point. I was thinking more along the lines of American support in Iraq. It was pretty clear that there was no real reason to head off and slam a country into turmoil and suicide bombings here and there. There's still Christian support for it, and there are CHILDREN dying there. Innocent children who have the choice to live or die because they're no encased in someone else's body.

And I'll present you with a time-old argument: Gays adopt because they can't have children of their own. Kind of helps the world a bit especially when real people are nothing like Angelina Jolie who adopts orphans from third world countries. I say YES to the gays. They're human too. They have choices too. They're not encased in someone else's body either.

As for "Maybe because that's there are far less Jews, and the majority of their religion have since drastically liberalized or become atheists."

You should be more tolerant of the Jewish community. That would do you a whole lot of good as well. Besides, I have many Jewish friends and they have never said a bad thing about homosexuals.

How am I being intolerant of Jews? I haven't even criticized them.

So you're playing the hateful fascist Christian bully card too?

The Catholic Church, the one which I'm a member of, did not support the War in Iraq so your point is lost on me.

You obviously have a distorted sense of right and wrong if you are homosexual.

W.

T.

F.

How ironic to see the word "distorted" in that sentence...

How am I being intolerant of Jews? I haven't even criticized them.

So you're playing the hateful fascist Christian bully card too?

The Catholic Church, the one which I'm a member of, did not support the War in Iraq so your point is lost on me.



You should be thankful, at least he didn't include the words "Nazi" and "Holocaust".

W.

T.

F.

How ironic to see the word "distorted" in that sentence...


If embracing sin is moral, then your comment would be valid. Sadly, it's not, nor is that comment.

Knee-deep in blood? Just like when the pagan Romans laid siege to Jerusalem and destroyed the temple?

Now you're mixing things up.

The pagans had reason. See, a long long time ago, monotheism was radical. Unheard of. Besides, that entire era was all about territory, kind of like in Ancient Greece when armies would sack other cities.

The crusades were Christians battles against another two religions who believe in the same God. Now THAT, my friends, is just plain weird.

So the Romans are justified and the Christians aren't?

The Romans were oppresing the Jews on the own land.

The Christians were opening their Holy Places from Muslim tyranny. They killed Christian pilgrims wholesale. You're making it look like the Crusades started just because the Christians were angry at Muslims for having a different religion, when in fact you can trace it to being the other way around

Can you do anything but produce strawmen arguments?

The Catholic Church, the one which I'm a member of, did not support the War in Iraq so your point is lost on me.

If you'd stop thinking the Catholic Church is the only Christian church.

The reason women cannot be ordained is that a priest as the representative of Christ at Mass must be male.

This is one of the funniest sentences I have read in a while. Let's rephrase it:

"The reason priests have to be male is that priests have to be male."

Convincing argument, that...

So the Romans are justified and the Christians aren't?

The Romans were oppresing the Jews on the own land.

The Christians were opening their Holy Places from Muslim tyranny. They killed Christian pilgrims wholesale. You're making it look like the Crusades started just because the Christians were angry at Muslims for having a different religion, when in fact you can trace it to being the other way around


Well the Christians used propaganda, of all things. Drawings of the muslims dressed like Satin himself had landed in Jerusalem and was plaguing the city.

You're making it sound like the Muslims started it. They didn't. The Empire was deteriorating, people needed to fight, so they fought amongst themselves. The Christians (ex-Vikings and so on) were killing the Muslims, and vice versa.

The Romans are justified because of territorial want.

Well the Christians used propaganda, of all things. Drawings of the muslims dressed like Satin himself had landed in Jerusalem and was plaguing the city.

You're making it sound like the Muslims started it. They didn't. The Empire was deteriorating, people needed to fight, so they fought amongst themselves. The Christians (ex-Vikings and so on) were killing the Muslims, and vice versa.

The Romans are justified because of territorial want.


As did the pagans. Persecution of Christians was mainly done because they thought the peaceful and submissive religion would "overthrow" them, because they felt they would lose their grip on power to monotheists who had no desire but to live according to their religion. Rome can never be justified in its unprovoked atrocities. The Crusades, on the other hand, were a reaction to Muslim attacks on pilgrims to Jerusalem. I'm not Catholic, and I don't entirely agree with the Crusades, but at least learn to tell the difference between the intentions behind pagan persecution of Christians and Catholic retaliation to Muslim atrocities.

here is the perfect question for all you religious nuts out there....If "god" created the world and everything we could ever know in a week, around 6000 years ago, why is it radio carbon dating scientifically proves the world is around 4.5 billion years old?


Here is a question that will do the same thing that yours was supposed to do to me.
Well maybe two.

How long is a "God-day?" if you'll understand the relativity of the term day. Maybe to him a day is something much longer than ours.

How long did Adam actually spend in the garden?? It could have been your 4.5 billion years. Either way it's been about that 6000 since he left.

I'm not Catholic, and I don't entirely agree with the Crusades, but at least learn to tell the difference between the intentions behind pagan persecution of Christians and Catholic retaliation to Muslim atrocities.

You're taking a biased viewpoint. At least I've evaluated all information and can say that no one provoked anyone. It just so happened that there was an urge to fight,so they fought. ONly the Byzantine emperor chickened out and askedfor help. So the propaganda (which really should be called unorthodox) was brought in, and little kids marched off to their graves.

As for difference, I think I have it all down to pat. To me, it seems as though you don't know what 'difference' this is. So maybe we're heading along on a parallel traintrack going opposite directions.

There were a few Jews who killed the Romans too, by the way. But that's neither here nor there.

You're taking a biased viewpoint. At least I've evaluated all information and can say that no one provoked anyone. It just so happened that there was an urge to fight,so they fought. ONly the Byzantine emperor chickened out and askedfor help. So the propaganda (which really should be called unorthodox) was brought in, and little kids marched off to their graves.

As for difference, I think I have it all down to pat. To me, it seems as though you don't know what 'difference' this is. So maybe we're heading along on a parallel traintrack going opposite directions.

There were a few Jews who killed the Romans too, by the way. But that's neither here nor there.


The zealots ambushed Romans, but they were Jewish. Christians were peaceful, Christ Himself stated that when he picked up the ear one of his disciples lopped off his captors and said "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword".

On a less serious note:

Have I told you lately that I love you Neo? :D

I am currently practicing Buddhism. Buddhists don't necessarily have to believe in god, but I don't rule out the possibility that there is one. I believe in an unspecific god which created the universe, may or may not be controlling it, and has characteristics incomprehensable to human minds.

On a less serious note:

Have I told you lately that I love you Neo? :D


Thank you :) but I already have a crush on Dragons B....oops, I've said too much! :D

I am currently practicing Buddhism. Buddhists don't necessarily have to believe in god, but I don't rule out the possibility that there is one. I believe in an unspecific god which created the universe, may or may not be controlling it, and has characteristics incomprehensable to human minds.



My brother has a Buddha belly, but that's about as close to Buddhism as I come ;)

Mormons are about as much Christian as dogs are cats. They reject many portions of the Bible as flawed and corrupt, and basically have formed a new religion that expands upon Christianity and has a new prophet. They are like Islam, minus the credibility.

Agh hem...I can't say that I've actaully ever rejected a single part of the Bible.
See here's the basis of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormon church. We claim to be a modern day restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ, hence the 'of Latter Day Saints'.
That and we've got The Book of Mormon which is another testament of Jesus Christ, and is a record of his dealings with the people of the America's. If any of you there recall John 10:16 it says, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." Yeah its something along those lines.

Btw one of the main points on which our church is founded is believing in the Bible, just thought I'd add that in. It's the 8th Article of Faith, just in case any of you were wondering or feel like looking it up for yourself.

Agh hem...I can't say that I've actaully ever rejected a single part of the Bible.
See here's the basis of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormon church. We claim to be a modern day restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ, hence the 'of Latter Day Saints'.
That and we've got The Book of Mormon which is another testament of Jesus Christ, and is a record of his dealings with the people of the America's. If any of you there recall John 10:16 it says, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." Yeah its something along those lines.

Btw one of the main points on which our church is founded is believing in the Bible, just thought I'd add that in. It's the 8th Article of Faith, just in case any of you were wondering or feel like looking it up for yourself.



I was just studying Mormonism a few weeks ago. If you accept the Bible, then how do you reconcile the new gospel on the golden tablets with this excerpt:

Galatians 1:6-10 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.




Sorry if I sound a bit cross right now, I'm just very tired so I'll be heading to bed. Good night!

I'd like to clarify some.. I'm atheist existentialist. I did not mention that before. I mainly follow the ideas of Nietzsche and Camus.

I was just studying Mormonism a few weeks ago. If you accept the Bible, then how do you reconcile the new gospel on the golden tablets with this excerpt:



I hate to leave short answers that seem to lead nowhere but everytime I type a reasonable reply my connection times out. (Dial up bytes!)
Check out the Joseph Smith History sometime. Maybe if you feel like it go to The Church's webpage. (lds.org) I'm sure that'll be more useful than I ever could be.

If embracing sin is moral, then your comment would be valid. Sadly, it's not, nor is that comment.
See this is why I try to distinguish between morals and ethics.

Morals is what fundies use to oppress other people, isolate them socially, condem their lives and just behave like all-round bastards.

Ethics is what the rest of us use as a guideline to get along with the maximum number or people, and try to ensure that they do the same.

NR noone called you a nazi so get over it. The only things you have in common is some prejudice and a massive persecution complex.

See this is why I try to distinguish between morals and ethics.

Morals is what fundies use to oppress other people, isolate them socially, condem their lives and just behave like all-round bastards.

Ethics is what the rest of us use as a guideline to get along with the maximum number or people, and try to ensure that they do the same.



I hate to be the stick in everybody's mud but again, I disagree with this point. I have morals, and I've never actually seen it oppress a single person. Morals to me would seem like personal guidelines that establish the difference between right and wrong. Sadly though, some people like to go overboard and try to impress their own upon everybody else.
Ethics are something else, but somewhat related. A person could have the lowest moral standards but an extremely high work ethic. The opposite could be just as true, the most zealous person in the world could be a lazy bum. Ethics deals with responsibilty and your actions towards others whereas morals are how you act, even when nobody else is around. In my opinion.

I hate to be the stick in everybody's mud but again, I disagree with this point. I have morals, and I've never actually seen it oppress a single person. Morals to me would seem like personal guidlines that establish the difference between right and wrong. Sadly though, some people like to go overboard and try to impress their own upon everybody else.
Ethics are something else, but somewhat related. A person could have the lowest moral standards but an extremely high work ethic. The opposite could be just as true, the most zealous person in the world could be a lazy bum. Ethics deals with responsibilty and your actions towards others whereas morals are how you act, even when nobody else is around. In my opinion.

Which is exactly what that post was refering to. When judging others or interacting with others, use ethics, not morals. Otherwise you're views will be regarded as aggressive and oppressive.
When judging yourself, apply whatever you want.

Which is exactly what that post was refering to. When judging others or interacting with others, use ethics, not morals. Otherwise you're views will be regarded as aggressive and oppressive.
When judging yourself, apply whatever you want.

Interacting sure, judging-->no.

No matter what in somebody's eyes we have a tainted view or standpoint. I'll deal with a person but I refuse to judge them. Even if you are the most accepting person when you judge, somebody'll find you to be agressive or opressive. Even if just because you don't think like they do.

I'm a Mahayana Buddhist.
Pretty much. With a bit of pagan-esque nature reverence built in. (After all, we're not meant to go to nibbana until every blade of grass is enlightened. :p )

Interacting sure, judging-->no.

I guess that is the big difference between you and NR then. I personally regard "not judging others" as a moral value in itself. And a very important one, at that.

See this is why I try to distinguish between morals and ethics.

Morals is what fundies use to oppress other people, isolate them socially, condem their lives and just behave like all-round bastards.

Ethics is what the rest of us use as a guideline to get along with the maximum number or people, and try to ensure that they do the same.

NR noone called you a nazi so get over it. The only things you have in common is some prejudice and a massive persecution complex.
Morals are simple, and absolute: that's right, that's wrong.

Ethics are what we do dependent upon morals.
Do we act, or do we sit on our hands?
Do we go left or right?
Do we care, or do we turn the other cheek?

I am atheist, but I will say this. God only exists in the minds of those who believe in GOD. So in a way GOD does exist.
I will leave it at that because anything that I have to say has already been heard countless times.

BTW: I was born and raised as a Catholic.

Wiccan.

anyway is Cronsia around? in english we're supposed to research the Methodist religion. from what I've read its founder John Wesley was rather ahead of his time on women in religion. Way before women sufferage in like the reign of George the third I think, he allowed women to preach.

I am atheist, but I will say this. God only exists in the minds of those who believe in GOD. So in a way GOD does exist.
I will leave it at that because anything that I have to say has already been heard countless times.

BTW: I was born and raised as a Catholic.

Some god exists because people think he does? That's a very weak statement.

I choose other, because choosing a religion is too restricting. Just believe in what you believe in.

Morals are simple, and absolute: that's right, that's wrong.

Ethics are what we do dependent upon morals.
Do we act, or do we sit on our hands?
Do we go left or right?
Do we care, or do we turn the other cheek?
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.


n.
A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

I hold the two things mean exactly the same, in the situation where I used them. Further, I hold 'morals' is more religious laden than 'ethics'.
NS General should provide plenty of proof of the latter.

I'm a christian spiritualist.

The DaVinci code is a work of fiction. It's ridiculous you would cite it.

Sorry. When i said that, i ment Da Vinci's studies on religion. He discivered alot of things the church had tried to keep secret, but decided not to air his findings because the church would have denounced him, maybe even called him a heretic. If that happened, he'd never work in Europe again, and he would lose jis livelihood. The book "The Da Vinci Code" is based on those findings. That's why i want to read it.

I am Pagan - which invariably fails to show up as an option in these polls.

Pretty much. With a bit of pagan-esque nature reverence built in. (After all, we're not meant to go to nibbana until every blade of grass is enlightened. :p )

Yes, but, based upon my fores into the field of bioengineering, we're basically going to be working from the ground up. We will also, ofcourse, have to make puppys sentient (i'm not leaving without my Winnie!). I'm sure the Buddha will understand! :D

I'm a Mahayana Buddhist.
Is Buddhism a religion then?
What about the parable of the soldier on the battlefield?

buddhist/pagan

It's high time to become less tolerant towards religion.

Scientists get grilled for every statement they make (and rightly so), while tolerance and respect is expected towards anyone talking bullshit based on some compilation of badly written and unprecisely reretanslated texts from the bronze age. A real fine reference to build your life on!

Official: Roman-Catholic
Real: Atheist
Converting to: Christian Gnosticism

I'm an alacartist! Basically I pick and choose my own beleifs! I am a 'Catholic' who believes in God, hates the Catholic Chruch and thinks the bible is the Chruchs pr guide.

I am a Shamanist. I was raised a Methodist by my mother, but it was a poor fit for my beliefs. My father was a lapsed Catholic, who had been raised part of his life by his grandfather, a Cherokee medicine helper. While taking an education course at Vassar, I read about the religious beliefs common to most native religions. I realized those beliefs matched mine perfectly, and started learning about my great-grandfather's religion. Soon afterward I had a vision where Coyote spirit came to me and showed me my totems. I was "born again" into a very ancient and spiritually fulfilling religion. Os-da-dvn!

OK! I got confused with what you were asking!

U said eastern Catholics arent Roman Catholics! All Catholics are Roman Catholics. It is just the name of the religon! If you lived in China you are still a Roman Catholic!!

He's not talking about the geographical east, but the West/East Roman empires, and the Church of Byzantium, the eastern Romans, did split from western influence. IRC they were Orthodox, not Protestant. I was under the impression that the Protestant church was formed later, to protest against what they saw as the "Decadance" in Catholism.

Forgive me if I'm wrong history buffs, but wasn't the eastern church created by Constantine the great before the papist church? If some one can clear that up for me.

wiccan with strong leaning towards Laveyan satanism :)

Other - Agnostic I really don't give a damn either way

I don't believe in god, but when it comes to which god not to believe in, i don't believe in the Christian god.