NationStates Jolt Archive

Now it's time for Willy's tales of a Catholic living in the Bible Belt of another denomination. So today I was approached by a pentecostal, who wanted to "save" my soul from the Satan's Church. He goes through the usual ammo that I've heard. "You worship graven images" "Your Church is the Whore of Babylon" blah blah blah. You know what I find funny about all of this? Every time this has happened to me, they claim that they speak for God, and that they know what God hates. So apparently they have a direct phone line with God itself. Yea, can anyone spot the problem with this? Well 1. No one speaks for God, God can speak for itself. 2. By saying that they are trying to save my soul, means that I am condemned to Hell unless I convert to their denomination. Which goes against Matthews 7:1-2. Only God reserves the right to condemn someone. Of course this one gets all melodramatic by saying "I am the watch tower" and "I have warned you, you're blood is not on my hands." Yea, thanks chief, I didn't know that me being Catholic meant that my blood would be on your hands. However, that was not the high point (or low point) of this whole "witnessing" of this person. He then shows me two website which are really umm...interesting. The first one states the whole underlining of everyone who has ever "witnessed" to me. I am damned to Hell unless I convert. As usual the site's information on Catholicism is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and oh wrong. The other one pretty much lumped Catholicism in with cults like Scientology, Heaven's Gate etc. I pretty much didn't even bother reading the material.

You know, I don't "witness", why because most people like me find it annoying. I would much rather help out my community, help out my church, donate to the charities that I strongly support, and I would rather pray the rosary in the privacy of my own home, or in church before Mass. I don't go around damning people to Hell in the name of God, and shoving my faith down their throats. If people truly want to find out about Jesus, and about the Roman Catholic Church, I believe they will approach me, or approach a Father. I believe in showing what my Faith has taught me, than just telling people about it.

People really should just stop "witnessing" to me, because I am strong in my faith, and it's going to take a pretty strong and powerful even to shake the foundation I have in God, Jesus, Mary, The Saints, and the Roman Catholic Church.

THe prophets in the OT do speak for God.

THe prophets in the OT do speak for God.

True, but I doubt this guy does.

I’m an atheist who knows more about the Bible than 99% of Christians, so I have fun with them when they try to preach to me.

I’ve noticed that Catholics tend to be pretty cool about that stuff, more open minded on average. Most Catholics I know don’t even believe in the stuff that they’re supposed to, like Papal infallibility, I know one Catholic chick that didn't even know what that meant until I explained it to her.

Cheer up Wilgrove, us Catholics need not worry about those splitters ;)

Edit: I remember...doing the Timewarp...

As a man raised Roman Catholic but currently agnostic...I never did understand the Catholic-hate by other Christian religions. The differences are nitpicky details anyhow, usually stemming by someone in history such as Henry VII, Luther, or Calvin who thought they were better than the church.

You worship the same god, and that god tells you to love one another...it's not hard to understand.

Like the saying goes "Don't sweat the little things".

I’m an atheist who knows more about the Bible than 99% of Christians, so I have fun with them when they try to preach to me.

I’ve noticed that Catholics tend to be pretty cool about that stuff, more open minded on average. Most Catholics I know don’t even believe in the stuff that they’re supposed to, like Papal infallibility, I know one Catholic chick that didn't even know what that meant until I explained it to her.

Popes are only infalliable when speaking on issues of faith, or they are sitting on the seat of St. Peter.

As a man raised Roman Catholic but currently agnostic...I never did understand the Catholic-hate by other Christian religions. The differences are nitpicky details anyhow, usually stemming by someone in history such as Henry VII, Luther, or Calvin who thought they were better than the church.

You worship the same god, and that god tells you to love one another...it's not hard to understand.

It might be a bit of a hijack, but I'm glad that people in the USA get annoyed by this kind of missionary zeal as well.
There's no perceivable mission of any denomination in my home country of Germany (not counting the odd Krishna trying to feed you organic cookies, that is), even Jehova's Witnesses don't really have much of a presence, and so most people here were rather surprised and slightly puzzled when a couple of years back the first mormons showed up on inner-city pedestrian zones trying to engage people in conversations about faith.
Now, personally, I regarded that as impolite to the extreme. Faith is something personal and private, and even the JWs showed enough manners not to approach people in public surroundings. Overall, the handful of Mormons was regarded as a slightly annoying curiosity.

Never having lived in the States, it's easy to assume that sights like that are more common there and people in general will put up with it a lot more than here. I'm reliefed to hear that's not really the case. :)

*snip*

As a non-Christian, I find Catholics to be superior to other Christian denominations in most respects. Many Protestant denominations seem to insist that the only way for an adherant to be pious is to draw others to the faith.

Catholicism seems more about demonstrating faith through ones own actions. A far more useful and laudable stance.

I think that guy you ran into is just jealous. :)

You worship the same god, and that god tells you to love one another...it's not hard to understand.

Q...F...T!

Now it's time for Willy's tales of a Catholic living in the Bible Belt of another denomination. So today I was approached by a pentecostal, who wanted to "save" my soul from the Satan's Church. He goes through the usual ammo that I've heard. "You worship graven images" "Your Church is the Whore of Babylon" blah blah blah. You know what I find funny about all of this? Every time this has happened to me, they claim that they speak for God, and that they know what God hates. So apparently they have a direct phone line with God itself. Yea, can anyone spot the problem with this? Well 1. No one speaks for God, God can speak for itself. 2. By saying that they are trying to save my soul, means that I am condemned to Hell unless I convert to their denomination. Which goes against Matthews 7:1-2. Only God reserves the right to condemn someone. Of course this one gets all melodramatic by saying "I am the watch tower" and "I have warned you, you're blood is not on my hands." Yea, thanks chief, I didn't know that me being Catholic meant that my blood would be on your hands. However, that was not the high point (or low point) of this whole "witnessing" of this person. He then shows me two website which are really umm...interesting. The first one states the whole underlining of everyone who has ever "witnessed" to me. I am damned to Hell unless I convert. As usual the site's information on Catholicism is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and oh wrong. The other one pretty much lumped Catholicism in with cults like Scientology, Heaven's Gate etc. I pretty much didn't even bother reading the material.

You know, I don't "witness", why because most people like me find it annoying. I would much rather help out my community, help out my church, donate to the charities that I strongly support, and I would rather pray the rosary in the privacy of my own home, or in church before Mass. I don't go around damning people to Hell in the name of God, and shoving my faith down their throats. If people truly want to find out about Jesus, and about the Roman Catholic Church, I believe they will approach me, or approach a Father. I believe in showing what my Faith has taught me, than just telling people about it.

People really should just stop "witnessing" to me, because I am strong in my faith, and it's going to take a pretty strong and powerful even to shake the foundation I have in God, Jesus, Mary, The Saints, and the Roman Catholic Church.

if someone did that to me i'd just laugh in their face.

end of story

As a man raised Roman Catholic but currently agnostic...I never did understand the Catholic-hate by other Christian religions. The differences are nitpicky details anyhow, usually stemming by someone in history such as Henry VII, Luther, or Calvin who thought they were better than the church.

You worship the same god, and that god tells you to love one another...it's not hard to understand.
Prods.:rolleyes:
The Anglican Church the bastard son of the Church of England, created just because a man wanted to get his dick wet.

You worship the same god, and that god tells you to love one another...it's not hard to understand.Q...F...T!It would seem it's indeed impossible to grasp for quite a lot of people ;)

People really should just stop "witnessing" to me, because I am strong in my faith, and it's going to take a pretty strong and powerful even to shake the foundation I have in God, Jesus, Mary, The Saints, and the Roman Catholic Church.
See, trolls exist in real life too!

I'd point and laugh at someone who tried to convert me.

I'd point and laugh at someone who tried to convert me.

That's my normal first reaction. :D

See, trolls exist in real life too!
I am one, IRLly. If people talk to me about religion, I can not help start trolling about the different problems in their illusions. With the excuse of one very sane catholic and one muslim, I trolled against most people, who tried to tell me about why their God is superior.

the last person who came to talk about there religion at my door left fast after what i said to them

the last person who came to talk about there religion at my door left fast after what i said to them

What did you say to them?

*is super-curious*

What did you say to them?

*is super-curious*"Turtles heads!"

- Then he bend over & spread his cheeks.

What did you say to them?

*is super-curious*

short story they said what religion they where in and i said not married and i was in the middle of sex with my lady and her friends
that was the third time i saw old people move fast in my life

The next time any of this nonsense comes up, simply say, "Thank you for your concern but I already have a relationship with Christ."

If they persist: GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!

:D

"Turtles heads!"

- Then he bend over & spread his cheeks.

no my step borther did that when i was ten to some, it made me laugh for a hour

that was the third time i saw old people move fast in my life

LOL!

Good call! :)

no my step borther did that when i was ten to some, it made me laugh for a hourKids are fucking nasty :p

My responses to saviour types depends on the occation. I punched one very annoying fucker in the nose once, but that guy had it comming. Bastard just wouldn't leave me alone.

Otherwise the most extreme thing I've done, was to throw a bucket of water at the fools. They'd been by several times over a week, so finally I just told them to hold on for a min, filled a bucket & poured it on the eager little cunts.

Honestly though, that kind of people piss me off to no end. Basically they say "You're filth, you deserve to be tortured, and you fail as a human being." I'm pretty sure that if they didn't wrap their obnoxious arrogance up in superstitious insanity, they'd be beaten into a bloody pulp by the first person they descended on. I don't really understand the whole "Just be polite" attitude. I fail to see why they should get special treatment, just because they're superstitious.

After all, when you get right down to it, they're no different from the immortal alien of The Hitchhiker's Guide, whose goal in life is to deliver a personal insult to every single inhabitant of the universe. I'm always tempted to clubber the fuckers, and though I can see why that might be overreacting, I utterly fail to comprehend why we shouldn't insult them right back. Especially considering how elaborate their shit is. I mean, even saying "I hope you suffer a slow & agonising death" doesn't come close to the shit they fling about.

The next time any of this nonsense comes up, simply say, "Thank you for your concern but I already have a relationship with Christ."

If they persist: GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!

:D

agreed.

if they are notably pentecostal, just lay your hand on their head and start praying loudly about the demons that you are trying to extract, surely they will be thankful!

Next time, excuse yourself, telling him you’ve got to go worship Mary and attend to some alter boys. :p

Prods.:rolleyes:
The Anglican Church the bastard son of the Church of England, created just because a man wanted to get his dick wet.

Only because Henry was shootin' blanks and couldn't get that boy, no matter how hard he fucked.

LOL!

Good call! :)
it was
Kids are fucking nasty :p

my step borther was a teenager at the time

I'm a devout irish catholic, yeah, we don't know how to grow potatoes, screw jesus, our prophet is John Kennedy, we are all 24/7 drunks, and we talk to leprauchans (just some absurd thingsi have heard people honestly think are true about irish catholics. And i try to keep an open mind about other denominations, but most other christians, especially the devout ones make me soooooooooo mad.
Which is highlighted in the simpsons episode where Bart and Homer want to go catholic because they enjoy it, and Marge and Ned think this is horrible and the worst thing ever (sadly, more non-catholic christians then you think believe this way).
I have more islamic friends then non catholic christian friends. I have never met a christian hating muslim in my life (obviously i know there are some in the world) but i have met many many many catholic hating christians. Rangeing from my class mates, to my teachers, to my 87 year old devout anglican next door neighbour.

my step borther was a teenager at the time
Correction - teenage boys are crass little bastards. :p

Sorry Wigrove. I agree with you on a lot, but I need to disagree on this issue.

Is the person wrong, behaving inappropriately, and probably sinning? Yes, most definately.

But, the Roman Catholic Church has a lot of problems in its doctrine. The Pope being the head of the Church, for example. The doctrine of transubstantiation, the use of the Apocrypha as Scripture, the "veneration" of saints, the mediation by the priests, the seven sacraments (rather than two), the teaching of supererrogation, and more are all examples of false teaching promoted by that denomination.

Does this mean that Roman Catholics are not Christian? No, but I think they are a perilously close to not being Christian and I would feel much better if they repented and converted to another catholic and orthodox denomination.

Correction - teenage boys are crass little bastards. :p

i learned how to swear and learned other things thanks to him

agreed.

if they are notably pentecostal, just lay your hand on their head and start praying loudly about the demons that you are trying to extract, surely they will be thankful!

:D

I was at a Pentacostal church once and was standing and praying. This man came up to me, grabbed my arm, put his other hand on my forehead, and started babbling (he would call it speaking in tongues, but there was no interpretation).

I was pretty alarmed.

they did that to me too.

they dragged me down to the alter, and started rocking me back and forth, everyone babbling, the preacher screaming "THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU" it was like a scary rendition of "The Exorcist"

my "friend" who brought me to church asked "do you feel better?" on the way home....to which I replied "yeah, wanna go get high?"

:p

They drug you to the altar?!?!

I don't think I would have let them do that. The church I went to wasn't that extreme.

:D

I was at a Pentacostal church once and was standing and praying. This man came up to me, grabbed my arm, put his other hand on my forehead, and started babbling (he would call it speaking in tongues, but there was no interpretation).

I was pretty alarmed.

they did that to me too.

they dragged me down to the alter, and started rocking me back and forth, everyone babbling, the preacher screaming "THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU" it was like a scary rendition of "The Exorcist"

my "friend" who brought me to church asked "do you feel better?" on the way home....to which I replied "yeah, wanna go get high?"

:p

my "friend" who brought me to church asked "do you feel better?" on the way home....to which I replied "yeah, wanna go get high?"

:p
Best answer ever! I love it!

there were 4 of the ushers, apparently my purple hair and tongue peircing meant "devil worship"

Go figure.

They drug you to the altar?!?!

I don't think I would have let them do that. The church I went to wasn't that extreme.

there were 4 of the ushers, apparently my purple hair and tongue peircing meant "devil worship"

But, the Roman Catholic Church has a lot of problems in its doctrine. The Pope being the head of the Church, for example. The doctrine of transubstantiation, the use of the Apocrypha as Scripture, the "veneration" of saints, the mediation by the priests, the seven sacraments (rather than two), the teaching of supererrogation, and more are all examples of false teaching promoted by that denomination.

OK, so the Church is full of red tape and changes at a dinosaur's pace. Letting the Church speak for all Catholics is like letting George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld speak for all Americans or letting Jerry Falwell speak for all Baptists. No Church is perfect, but I'd rather work with the Catholics, who do massive amounts of charity work even if it's selective, than the fundamentalist kooks who take people's money and spend it on banning this and that when they're not getting high on meth and gay hookers. Count me as one who is happy to join the Catholic Church and will never call myself a Protestant as long as I live.

OK, so the Church is full of red tape and changes at a dinosaur's pace. Letting the Church speak for all Catholics is like letting George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld speak for all Americans or letting Jerry Falwell speak for all Baptists. No Church is perfect, but I'd rather work with the Catholics, who do massive amounts of charity work even if it's selective, than the fundamentalist kooks who take people's money and spend it on banning this and that when they're not getting high on meth and gay hookers. Count me as one who is happy to join the Catholic Church and will never call myself a Protestant as long as I live.

Nicely put, but ... isn't it the nature of being a Roman Catholic that the Church does speak for you? I mean, you call yourself a Roman Catholic and have been baptised in that faith, shouldn't you follow the rules of the Church and wouldn't pronouncements by the Church be the tenets of your faith? I'm not saying you can't work to change things you don't like, you can and you should, I think that the Church does speak for all Catholics.

Wow, you mean it's actually annoying to have religious maniacs whine about how you should convert?

This is a shocking, stunning discovery.

Stop the f-ing presses, thisis going on the front page of the New York Times!

You're totally going to win a Pulitzer for discovering this and bringing it to our attention!!!

:D

I was at a Pentacostal church once and was standing and praying. This man came up to me, grabbed my arm, put his other hand on my forehead, and started babbling (he would call it speaking in tongues, but there was no interpretation).

I was pretty alarmed.


I can't understand that so called speaking in tongues. As far as I know if somebody is really speaking in tounges, isn't it tha case that theyy are then understood by all people no matter what language they speak?

So I guess if you didn't understand it, you where dealing with a liar at best and a charlatern at worst.

Nicely put, but ... isn't it the nature of being a Roman Catholic that the Church does speak for you? I mean, you call yourself a Roman Catholic and have been baptised in that faith, shouldn't you follow the rules of the Church and wouldn't pronouncements by the Church be the tenets of your faith? I'm not saying you can't work to change things you don't like, you can and you should, I think that the Church does speak for all Catholics.

That's the intend, but intent is very different from how things really work. A lot of Catholics believe that the Church speaks for them. It's nice because they don't have to think for themselves. Everything is laid out for them - abortion and euthanasia are always wrong no matter the circumstances, birth control is a sin, sex is only for marital procreation, gay people should be patronized, non-Church-sanctioned marriages don't count, divorce is bad in all circumstances, and you have to like Notre Dame's football team.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. However, in practice, there is. If the Church chose to excommunicate all those who disagreed with some of their teachings, it would have a scant following and would be insignificant in the world's stage. If it chose to attempt to force its beliefs on people, it would probably have to take up arms to do so, and no one wants another Crusade. Instead, the Church can speak from its pulpit on matters of importance, and those who don't agree can thumb their noses at it.

I can call myself a Catholic and believe that banning abortion's a bad idea. I can favor gay marriage, even...or no marriage at all. I can argue that sex is OK between consenting adults, and if it doesn't result in a child, that's OK. I will tell you that birth control can be very useful and even life-saving. I will also argue that divorce isn't that bad; life's too short to be miserable. And I will root against Notre Dame's football team until my dying breath. I am a liberal Catholic. There are others like me. We ignore those who say that the Church speaks for everyone. They ignore us. They serve to give the Church a leg to stand on. We exist to tell them to hold their horses. The Church can claim to speak for everyone till they're blue in the face. They don't.

Oh my gawsh!

Purple hair! Pierced tongue!

To be honest, I don't smile on those things either. I don't think they're sinful, but I think most persons have the wrong idea when they have those things done.


Haha really such as?

there were 4 of the ushers, apparently my purple hair and tongue peircing meant "devil worship"

Oh my gawsh!

Purple hair! Pierced tongue! :rolleyes:

To be honest, I don't smile on those things either. I don't think they're sinful, but I think most persons have the wrong idea when they have those things done.

I can't understand that so called speaking in tongues. As far as I know if somebody is really speaking in tounges, isn't it tha case that theyy are then understood by all people no matter what language they speak?

So I guess if you didn't understand it, you where dealing with a liar at best and a charlatern at worst.

3 Types of Biblical speaking in tongues:

Preaching in tongues: I speak English but a native Chinese person hears Chinese

Prophesying in tongues: I speak some unknown tongue to everyone, and there must be a translation

Praying in tongues: personal prayer language between you and God. No translation needed, though you should pray that God reveals to you what you are saying. Should be done privately. I do this one.

Haha really such as?

Such as what? They're wrong ideas?

Some do it to conform, which is wrong. Some do it to rebel, which is wrong. Some do it to shock, which is wrong.

The only reasons you should pierce, dye is because it looks cool, or to advance God's kingdom. Conformity, rebellion, shock, etc. might happen because you follow the right reasons, but that's beyond your control.

Prods.:rolleyes:
The Anglican Church the bastard son of the Church of England, created just because a man wanted to get his dick wet.

Argh. This is something of a pet peeve of mine, firstly being an Anglican myself, and secondly having done quiet a lot of work on the Reformation for my History A level. Henry VIII did not found the Church of England! The Church of England was founded by Elizabeth I in the 1550s. I would give you the exact date, but I don't have my old textbooks with me right now, and I don't trust Wikipedia. :p The only thing Henry VIII did was abolish Papal Supremacy in England. In all other respects, the Henrician church was Catholic. Henry hated the Protestant ideas of Luther, he even wrote a book condemning them that got him the title Protector of the Faith from Rome!

Henry's divorce and the split from Rome were purely political. In fact, the Pope was initially prepared to grant the divorce. However, at the time troops of the Holy Roman Empire were menacing the Vatican, and Catherine of Aragon just happened to be one of the Emperor's relations. With the Emperor leaning on his arm, the Pope quickly changed his mind.

It wasn't until the death of Henry did Protestant doctrines start to become favoured. His son, Edward, had been educated by Protestant scholars, who Henry had been forced to turn to after the break from Rome. He introduced sweeping reforms, putting in place a very Protestant church and doing away with as much of the Catholic ceremony of his father as he could. He died young though, and his Catholic older sister Mary swept aside his reforms and re-established full Papal authority. On her death, Elizabeth (again, raised a Protestant) came to the throne. By this point there had been decades of religious upheaval, and so Elizabeth made it her goal to create a Media Via, or Middle Way. Soon after her coronation, she founded the Church of England, keeping much of the old Catholic ceremony, but making the liturgy of the service deliberately vague so that both Catholic and Protestant could attend the same service. She desired not to create a window into men's souls, but to create a place where both sides could worship together. And not burn each other. Of course, there remained controversies, one major early example the issue of priest's vestments and whether or not they should be worn. But the Anglican church survived, and became a stabilising force while the rest of Western Europe was tearing itself apart with religious war.

Sorry. Rant over. XD

3 Types of Biblical speaking in tongues:

Preaching in tongues: I speak English but a native Chinese person hears Chinese

Prophesying in tongues: I speak some unknown tongue to everyone, and there must be a translation

Praying in tongues: personal prayer language between you and God. No translation needed, though you should pray that God reveals to you what you are saying. Should be done privately. I do this one.

So how do you garentee the validity of the sencond one?

Such as what? They're wrong ideas?

Some do it to conform, which is wrong. Some do it to rebel, which is wrong. Some do it to shock, which is wrong.

The only reasons you should pierce, dye is because it looks cool, or to advance God's kingdom. Conformity, rebellion, shock, etc. might happen because you follow the right reasons, but that's beyond your control.


Hold on so you are saying that to conform is wrong, and to not conform is wrong? Then that leaves us with which course of action?

As an aside, where does this leave free will?

Such as what? They're wrong ideas?

Some do it to conform, which is wrong. Some do it to rebel, which is wrong. Some do it to shock, which is wrong.

The only reasons you should pierce, dye is because it looks cool, or to advance God's kingdom. Conformity, rebellion, shock, etc. might happen because you follow the right reasons, but that's beyond your control.

to dye your hair purple because it looks cool is also wrong......vanity yeah?

I had purple hair (and blue, green, orange etc.) because I wanted to.

I have pink hair now, I didn't do it to shock anyone, or because I want to look weird (although that's a side effect) or for any other reason than I wanted to. (hard to explain)

Argh. This is something of a pet peeve of mine, firstly being an Anglican myself, and secondly having done quiet a lot of work on the Reformation for my History A level. Henry VIII did not found the Church of England! The Church of England was founded by Elizabeth I in the 1550s. I would give you the exact date, but I don't have my old textbooks with me right now, and I don't trust Wikipedia. :p The only thing Henry VIII did was abolish Papal Supremacy in England. In all other respects, the Henrician church was Catholic. Henry hated the Protestant ideas of Luther, he even wrote a book condemning them that got him the title Protector of the Faith from Rome!

Henry's divorce and the split from Rome were purely political. In fact, the Pope was initially prepared to grant the divorce. However, at the time troops of the Holy Roman Empire were menacing the Vatican, and Catherine of Aragon just happened to be one of the Emperor's relations. With the Emperor leaning on his arm, the Pope quickly changed his mind.

It wasn't until the death of Henry did Protestant doctrines start to become favoured. His son, Edward, had been educated by Protestant scholars, who Henry had been forced to turn to after the break from Rome. He introduced sweeping reforms, putting in place a very Protestant church and doing away with as much of the Catholic ceremony of his father as he could. He died young though, and his Catholic older sister Mary swept aside his reforms and re-established full Papal authority. On her death, Elizabeth (again, raised a Protestant) came to the throne. By this point there had been decades of religious upheaval, and so Elizabeth made it her goal to create a Media Via, or Middle Way. Soon after her coronation, she founded the Church of England, keeping much of the old Catholic ceremony, but making the liturgy of the service deliberately vague so that both Catholic and Protestant could attend the same service. She desired not to create a window into men's souls, but to create a place where both sides could worship together. And not burn each other. Of course, there remained controversies, one major early example the issue of priest's vestments and whether or not they should be worn. But the Anglican church survived, and became a stabilising force while the rest of Western Europe was tearing itself apart with religious war.

Sorry. Rant over. XD

There there feel better?

So how do you garentee the validity of the sencond one?

How do I guarantee the validity?

Well, first, is there an interpretation?

Does that interpretation agree with Scripture?

Is that interpretation revealing anything in addition to Scripture? (If so, probably not valid: nothing in addition to Scripture is morally binding.)

Most "speaking in tongues" fails the first test.

to dye your hair purple because it looks cool is also wrong......vanity yeah?

I don't know. I used to think that dying hair (any color) or any other attempt to make oneself more beautiful other than correcting defects was vain, but now I'm not so sure. I would never do it, but I think the reason "it looks cool" might not be so bad.

I had purple hair (and blue, green, orange etc.) because I wanted to.

Fine.

I have pink hair now, I didn't do it to shock anyone, or because I want to look weird (although that's a side effect) or for any other reason than I wanted to.

Fine.

(hard to explain)

No need, I understand ;)

Uhm.. Why would vanity, conformity, non-conformity, provocation & whatever the fuck else, be wrong? Is it because Goat sayz so! Or is there an actual reason?

Hold on so you are saying that to conform is wrong, and to not conform is wrong? Then that leaves us with which course of action?

As an aside, where does this leave free will?

I'm speaking of society. You should conform to God. Whether that means that you rebel or conform to society (or groups within society) is a consequence, not the motive.

I don't understand what you mean about free will.

I'm speaking of society. You should conform to God. Whether that means that you rebel or conform to society (or groups within society) is a consequence, not the motive.Eh.. Why?
Even if we ignore the why bit, there's still the how left. How do you conform to a non-entity, or to an entity that doesn't want you to know anything about it?
If you take the words of other people (or their writings), then you're just conforming to their perception of what proper behaviour is. There's no obvious reason to believe Dog, God or the fucking Star Goat likes your behaviour, is there?I don't understand what you mean about free will.Isn't things like your behaviour acts of free will?

Uhm.. Why would vanity, conformity, non-conformity, provocation & whatever the fuck else, be wrong? Is it because Goat sayz so! Or is there an actual reason?

Because we are to do all things for the glory of God.

Even saying "just because I want to" is giving glory ot God (so long as it's not disobeying God's Law) because what you're saying is "God, You put this desire (which isn't sinful if it does not go against God's Law) in me, and I'm going to use it."

Because we are to do all things for the glory of God.

Even saying "just because I want to" is giving glory ot God (so long as it's not disobeying God's Law) because what you're saying is "God, You put this desire (which isn't sinful if it does not go against God's Law) in me, and I'm going to use it."I'm tempted to exclaim "Oh God!!"

Did you actually read your own post? It's Dog's fault when we do something Dog likes, and it's our fault when we do something Dog dislikes... Regardless of whether we think Dog has anything what so ever to do with it.

Makes no fucking sense.

Eh.. Why?
Even if we ignore the why bit, there's still the how left. How do you conform to a non-entity, or to an entity that doesn't want you to know anything about it?
If you take the words of other people (or their writings), then you're just conforming to their perception of what proper behaviour is. There's no obvious reason to believe Dog, God or the fucking Star Goat likes your behaviour, is there?Isn't things like your behaviour acts of free will?

1 Corinthians 10:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:31;&version=47;)

You use the Bible. I have plenty of reasons for believing it to be the Word of God, but that's not the topic of this thread.

1 Corinthians 10:31]You use the Bible. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:31;&version=47;)Yes, yes, you've already made it perfectly clear everything should be done for the glory of some critter or other. I asked you why that is. I have plenty of reasons for believing it to be the Word of God, but that's not the topic of this thread.Just like I have plenty to believe it's nothing but the collected, edited works of a few thousand years worth of moderately to extremely disturbed human beings. But as you said, that's besides the point. For now.

The what's not, is that if you can't establish beyond reasonable doubt that you're correct, you are just conforming to a bunch of dead humans.

what part of Calvinist don't you get?:pEvery single one? :fluffle:

I'm tempted to exclaim "Oh God!!"

Did you actually read your own post? It's Dog's fault when we do something Dog likes, and it's our fault when we do something Dog dislikes... Regardless of whether we think Dog has anything what so ever to do with it.

Makes no fucking sense.

what part of Calvinist don't you get?:p

No Church is perfect, but I'd rather work with the Catholics...than the fundamentalist kooks... will never call myself a Protestant as long as I live.Wait a minute. Not all Protestants are "fundamentalist kooks." I might be misinterpreting what you're saying, but this wasn't the first anti-Protestant comment (over-simplification, I know, but consider it shorthand) I saw on this thread, so I wanted to speak up.

I'm not currently aligned with any belief system (call me agnostic if you really need a label) and my parents are both retired, but I was raised in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by two Presbyterian pastors. (In case anyone doesn't know, the Presbyterian church is a Protestant, Christian religion. I had a Catholic friend once who thought anyone who wasn't Catholic wasn't Christian. I got headaches talking to her about it.) My parents are two of the most liberal people I know, they don't force their religion down anyone's throat, they don't go door-to-door, they don't view their worth as Christians as being defined by if they meet their quota in converts, they are not fundamentalists...

I think the problem here is that "Protestant" is such a huge umbrella term - it covers a multitude of different denominations (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc.). Heck, even my uncle (another pastor) is a different, much more conservative and fundamentalist type of Presbyterian. It's all Christianity - you just disagree on the details.

Just please keep in mind that the Catholics on this thread are as guilty of making assumptions about Protestants as the people they're complaining about making assumptions about Catholics. If you're going to complain about people lumping you in with a bunch of misconceptions, don't commit the same error by lumping others together.

Thank you. That is all.

but I was raised in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Oh, that purgatorium.

I've finally made up my mind to leave. Once I get my license, I'm going to start going to a PCA church near my home.

Wait a minute. Not all Protestants are "fundamentalist kooks." I might be misinterpreting what you're saying, but this wasn't the first anti-Protestant comment (over-simplification, I know, but consider it shorthand) I saw on this thread, so I wanted to speak up.

I'm not currently aligned with any belief system (call me agnostic if you really need a label) and my parents are both retired, but I was raised in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by two Presbyterian pastors. (In case anyone doesn't know, the Presbyterian church is a Protestant, Christian religion. I had a Catholic friend once who thought anyone who wasn't Catholic wasn't Christian. I got headaches talking to her about it.) My parents are two of the most liberal people I know, they don't force their religion down anyone's throat, they don't go door-to-door, they don't view their worth as Christians as being defined by if they meet their quota in converts, they are not fundamentalists...

I think the problem here is that "Protestant" is such a huge umbrella term - it covers a multitude of different denominations (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc.). Heck, even my uncle (another pastor) is a different, much more conservative and fundamentalist type of Presbyterian. It's all Christianity - you just disagree on the details.

Just please keep in mind that the Catholics on this thread are as guilty of making assumptions about Protestants as the people they're complaining about making assumptions about Catholics. If you're going to complain about people lumping you in with a bunch of misconceptions, don't commit the same error by lumping others together.

Thank you. That is all.

where exactly do you get off making an intelligent and well thought out noninflammatory post with a nation name that makes me giggle?

*looks for other posts thinking this must be a fluke*

Oh, that purgatorium.

I've finally made up my mind to leave.Well, you notice I said I'm not currently aligned with any belief system. Being a Pastors' Kid (PK) does wonders for spoiling one on organized religions. I saw a lot of behind-the-scenes hypocrisy and other nonsense (not from my parents, from their congregations).

where exactly do you get off making an intelligent and well thought out noninflammatory post with a nation name that makes me giggle?*laughs* You had me a little worried with the first few words of that sentence. ... Coming from you, Smunkee, I take that as a compliment (I've seen you around on the board). As for my nation name - the default flag is Mickey colors; I couldn't resist making a Disney reference, and "Mickey Mouse" was taken. Glad you got a giggle out of it.

*looks for other posts thinking this must be a fluke*Good luck with that. :) I lurk more than actually post, and have no idea where my other posts are, as I usually post my two cents and then leave with no intention of following up.

Oh, and the reason I did come back to this thread? I forgot to say that I agree with the OP - I can't stand people who are intent on "saving" me. Don't call me, I'll call you.

Cheers!

As a man raised Roman Catholic but currently agnostic...I never did understand the Catholic-hate by other Christian religions. The differences are nitpicky details anyhow, usually stemming by someone in history such as Henry VII, Luther, or Calvin who thought they were better than the church.

You worship the same god, and that god tells you to love one another...it's not hard to understand.

I know, it always made me wonder as well...but it happens not just in religion...on the left, it's the Trots and the MLs who hate each other the most...I swear, worse than they hate the Right...

When you think about it, all christians worship graven images. Whether it's statues of Jesus or crosses, they do it.

It's one of those parts of the bible that's ignored except by people with a point to make.

I don't worship any graven images (I don't think...)

there is a slight difference between wearing a cross and praying to Mary (I don't do either btw)

But you guys pray in front of crosses fairly often. I'm not saying graven images are bad, I'm just saying that's a part of the bible you guys don't really follow. There's plenty of them, after all. The Unitarians don't stone gays, and the evangelicals cast the first stone despite not being without sin.

When you think about it, all christians worship graven images. Whether it's statues of Jesus or crosses, they do it.

It's one of those parts of the bible that's ignored except by people with a point to make.

I don't worship any graven images (I don't think...)

there is a slight difference between wearing a cross and praying to Mary (I don't do either btw)

When you think about it, all christians worship graven images. Whether it's statues of Jesus or crosses, they do it.

It's one of those parts of the bible that's ignored except by people with a point to make.

Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q49: Which is the second commandment?
A: The second commandment is, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

Q50: What is required in the second commandment?
A: The second commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his world.

Q51: What is forbidden in the second commandment?
A: The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word.

Q52: What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment?
A: The reasons annexed to the second commandment are, God's sovereignty over us, his propriety in us, and the zeal he hath to his own worship.

So, we ought not to have any image in worship: no crosses, no statues, no pictures, no images in stain glass. Neither should we have pictures of God anywhere, including pictures of Jesus in portraits or movies (Mel Gibson!).

And it makes no difference whether we are worshipping to or through, God says not to do it.

From Theopedia (http://www.theopedia.com/Idolatry):
In some cases, it is not only the veneration of images, but also the making of an image that is avoided. Any visual representations of Jesus of Nazareth, including drawings, paintings, stained glass windows, sculpture, and other forms of representational art, are considered a violation of the commandment of God prohibiting the pretended depiction of deity by images. Calvinist theologian J. I. Packer, in chapter 3 of his book Knowing God, asserted that even to imagine Jesus Christ as having a specific physical appearance would be a form of idol worship. A typical Christian argument for this position might be that, God was incarnate as a human being, not as an object of wood, stone or canvas; and, therefore the only God-directed service of images permitted, is the service of other people.

Others go even farther to eliminate, if it were possible, any kind of religiously symbolic art of any kind, in addition to any representational art. The use of a cross, censer, candles, or vestments in a place of worship, is considered idolatrous by some. By using tools and items of furniture or clothing only in the context of religious ritual, these implements seem set apart as holy; they would be profaned by ordinary use. This too is believed to pose a danger that these objects are being worshipped or are becoming talismans. During the period of Archbishop William Laud's conflicts with Puritans within the Church of England, the use of ritual implements prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer was a frequent cause of conflict.

Wait a minute. Not all Protestants are "fundamentalist kooks." I might be misinterpreting what you're saying, but this wasn't the first anti-Protestant comment (over-simplification, I know, but consider it shorthand) I saw on this thread, so I wanted to speak up.

Conversely, not all Catholics believe that the Church speaks for them. However, both of them have a problem of being associated with the less favorable aspects of their religions. The Catholics have Rome, which is seen as a bunch of stodgy old men who keep pointless, disagreeable rules in place because they made sense a thousand years ago. The Protestants have the loud, firebrand preachers who take people's money and lobby to have everything outlawed. I simply find it easier to associate myself with a group that I can reasonably ignore.

I'm not currently aligned with any belief system (call me agnostic if you really need a label) and my parents are both retired, but I was raised in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by two Presbyterian pastors. (In case anyone doesn't know, the Presbyterian church is a Protestant, Christian religion. I had a Catholic friend once who thought anyone who wasn't Catholic wasn't Christian. I got headaches talking to her about it.) My parents are two of the most liberal people I know, they don't force their religion down anyone's throat, they don't go door-to-door, they don't view their worth as Christians as being defined by if they meet their quota in converts, they are not fundamentalists...

Just like Protestant denominations, some Catholic parishes are reasonably nice and some are full of assholes. The parish I go to is run by a pretty nice priest and a fairly intelligent group of dedicated Christians. However, the parish up the street tried to raise $66 million in donations...not for any disaster relief, not even for a new building because the old one was falling apart...but to build an ORGAN. A fucking ORGAN. And here's what made it a real winner - they insisted on minimum donations of $7,500. You want to give us $5,000 for the organ? Nope. We don't want it. Go away, poor person.

There's more variety among Protestants, sure, because none of them feel the need to be associated with a Church that's 8,000 or so miles away. So that means there are plenty of nice, pleasant, accepting churches. It also means that there are plenty that are run by fire-breathing assholes who advocate the death penalty for eating shellfish or working on Sunday. So that boils down to this - the nicest, most liberal Christians who love and accept anyone are likelier to be Protestants. The flip side is that the biggest jerkoffs are also likely to be Protestants. And I don't just mean the ones who say that Catholics aren't Christians or that non-Catholics aren't Christians.

I think the problem here is that "Protestant" is such a huge umbrella term - it covers a multitude of different denominations (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc.). Heck, even my uncle (another pastor) is a different, much more conservative and fundamentalist type of Presbyterian. It's all Christianity - you just disagree on the details.

No kidding. It does kind of make you wonder how there are so many different Protestant denominations and yet only one Catholic church.

Just please keep in mind that the Catholics on this thread are as guilty of making assumptions about Protestants as the people they're complaining about making assumptions about Catholics. If you're going to complain about people lumping you in with a bunch of misconceptions, don't commit the same error by lumping others together.

Thank you. That is all.

The reason I said I wouldn't be a Protestant again is simple - I tried it. I grew up a Lutheran. I honestly hated it. It soured me on Christianity, and frankly, the only reason I went back to it is that my wife introduced me to a really nice parish. If anything happens with that and I become uncomfortable with it, out I go with Catholicism and it's time for a new God.

Of course, after the diatribe that I went into against the more firebrand Protestant leaders, I can't, in good faith, consider the religion I toyed with for a while before I met my wife - Islam. I was learning a lot about Islam for the year before I met her, and I might have considered converting before I met her, but the last thing I would want is to be in the same boat as bin Laden.

But you guys pray in front of crosses fairly often. I'm not saying graven images are bad, I'm just saying that's a part of the bible you guys don't really follow. There's plenty of them, after all. The Unitarians don't stone gays, and the evangelicals cast the first stone despite not being without sin.

I don't pray in front of crosses, I don't know any protestants that do.

I am tired of Christain bashing threads, it seems a new one pops up at least once a week.

Aww.. It totally must suck having someone come after you with their beliefs. I mean, that never happens, and to have them do that to you?! Aww.. :(

You poor little victim. [/Sarcasm]

Aww.. It totally must suck having someone come after you with their beliefs. I mean, that never happens, and to have them do that to you?! Aww.. :(

You poor little victim. [/Sarcasm]



Your beliefs are yours, God did give you freewill. I don't attack your beliefs so why can't you afford me the same respect? Finally express your mislaid attitude to the hand because the face doesn't care to hear it.

Your beliefs are yours, God did give you freewill. I don't attack your beliefs so why can't you afford me the same respect?

There is no God. And did I attack your beliefs? No.
Finally express your mislaid attitude to the hand because the face doesn't care to hear it.

You cared enough to reply to me, now didn't you?

That doesn't mean I wish to hear it.

Too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin'
Too many teardrops for one heart
To carry on
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry, now
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry
Ninety-six tears c'mon and lemme hear you cry, now
Ninety-six tears (whoo!) I wanna hear you cry
Night and day, yeah, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears cry cry cry
C'mon baby, let me hear you cry now, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears! Yeah! C'mon now
Uh-ninety-six tears!


I'm not your baby, thank you

That doesn't mean I wish to hear it.

You're a cute kid.

Asking politely and crying are to differant things.

I am tired of Christain bashing threads, it seems a new one pops up at least once a week.

Too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin'
Too many teardrops for one heart
To carry on
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry, now
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry
Ninety-six tears c'mon and lemme hear you cry, now
Ninety-six tears (whoo!) I wanna hear you cry
Night and day, yeah, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears cry cry cry
C'mon baby, let me hear you cry now, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears! Yeah! C'mon now
Uh-ninety-six tears!

Nicely put, but ... isn't it the nature of being a Roman Catholic that the Church does speak for you? I mean, you call yourself a Roman Catholic and have been baptised in that faith, shouldn't you follow the rules of the Church and wouldn't pronouncements by the Church be the tenets of your faith? I'm not saying you can't work to change things you don't like, you can and you should, I think that the Church does speak for all Catholics.

Depends on what the matter is, there are levels of things that have to be accepted, you have Dogma which one must agree with, doctrine which one is suppose to accept, but which is more open to change, and theological opinions, which are not official and will difer from church official to church official. Most people just wind up paying attention to the parts they agree with and either ignoring the bits they disagree with, like conservative Catholics here in the US ignoring that the Pope said that the Iraq war didn't meet the qualifications for a "just war," or they will try and argue that their view is the one with biblical backing and get the thig they dislike changed.

Asking politely and crying are to differant things.

Cute, cute, cute kid.

Too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin'
Too many teardrops for one heart
To carry on
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry, now
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry
Ninety-six tears c'mon and lemme hear you cry, now
Ninety-six tears (whoo!) I wanna hear you cry
Night and day, yeah, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears cry cry cry
C'mon baby, let me hear you cry now, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears! Yeah! C'mon now
Uh-ninety-six tears!
You know I find it anoying when the chritian fundies go off bashing whatever is pissing them off at any given moment, but that dosen't mean it's an less annoying to see the athiests also acting like jackasses. Serously, athiests, justifiably, bitch about theists coming on and attaking anyone that disagrees with their view, why can't they learn from that and not attack those theists who aren't trying to convert anyone.

Cute, cute, cute kid.

Now, come on, you know Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the US, nay, around the world! I'm surprised we haven't seen any thrown to the lions (although given the Lions' record this year, I bet a Sunday school class could beat them).

Now, come on, you know Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the US, nay, around the world! I'm surprised we haven't seen any thrown to the lions (although given the Lions' record this year, I bet a Sunday school class could beat them).

only if we all pray really really hard. :)

I am tired of Christain bashing threads, it seems a new one pops up at least once a week.

You do realize Wilgrove is catholic, don't you?

only if we all pray really really hard. :)

:p

You know I find it anoying when the chritian fundies go off bashing whatever is pissing them off at any given moment, but that dosen't mean it's an less annoying to see the athiests also acting like jackasses. Serously, athiests, justifiably, bitch about theists coming on and attaking anyone that disagrees with their view, why can't they learn from that and not attack those theists who aren't trying to convert anyone.Outside places like NSG, where all manner of opinions may be present, argued & torn to shreds, where exactly do you see atheists rant about the joys of atheism?

But hey, assuming you really have heard about a single non-fictional instance of it happening, why should religion even be considered socially acceptable? Why shouldn't it be confronted at every turn out in the real world? Is superstition really desirable in society?

Outside places like NSG, where all manner of opinions may be present, argued & torn to shreds, where exactly do you see atheists rant about the joys of atheism?

But hey, assuming you really have heard about a single non-fictional instance of it happening, why should religion even be considered socially acceptable? Why shouldn't it be confronted at every turn out in the real world? Is superstition really desirable in society?

Richard Dawkins has lately taken up militant atheism, as in his book The God Delusion. As an atheist myself, I find that vaguely embarrassing. I agree that religion is essentially imaginary friends for adults, but as long as people keep it to themselves, or rather, out of my face, I don't mind if they mouth pious platitudes. It seems to calm many of them down.

I've decided to start trying to convert people who try to convert me.

Sorry Wigrove. I agree with you on a lot, but I need to disagree on this issue.

Is the person wrong, behaving inappropriately, and probably sinning? Yes, most definately.

But, the Roman Catholic Church has a lot of problems in its doctrine. The Pope being the head of the Church, for example. The doctrine of transubstantiation, the use of the Apocrypha as Scripture, the "veneration" of saints, the mediation by the priests, the seven sacraments (rather than two), the teaching of supererrogation, and more are all examples of false teaching promoted by that denomination.

Does this mean that Roman Catholics are not Christian? No, but I think they are a perilously close to not being Christian and I would feel much better if they repented and converted to another catholic and orthodox denomination.

Ahhh, now we get down to the nitty gritty of exactly why one batch of hooey
is not as good as the other batches of hooey.

Richard Dawkins has lately taken up militant atheism, as in his book The God Delusion. As an atheist myself, I find that vaguely embarrassing. I agree that religion is essentially imaginary friends for adults, but as long as people keep it to themselves, or rather, out of my face, I don't mind if they mouth pious platitudes. It seems to calm many of them down.

It wasn't called the opiate of the people for nothing eh?

I think the protestants and catholics should sit down, shut up, practice their respective religions, and stop bothering each other and everyone else.

Outside places like NSG, where all manner of opinions may be present, argued & torn to shreds, where exactly do you see atheists rant about the joys of atheism?

Militant, explicit atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, James Randi and others come to mind. But in all honesty, all of them come off as angry, arrogant, humorless assholes rather than happy and fulfilled.

I can definitely see why most people don't want anything to do with explicit atheism...it produces people like them.

But hey, assuming you really have heard about a single non-fictional instance of it happening, why should religion even be considered socially acceptable? Why shouldn't it be confronted at every turn out in the real world? Is superstition really desirable in society?

Why should art, or music, or anything else be acceptable? Religion is an idea that produces many beautiful and meaningful things for a lot of people, and to render it unacceptable due to "superstition" is nothing more than irrationality in its finest form. If it's not affecting you, you have no justifiable reason to complain. Religious people should have as much freedom to think on their own as the "freethinkers" do.

It wasn't called the opiate of the people for nothing eh?
:p

I think the protestants and catholics should sit down, shut up, practice their respective religions, and stop bothering each other and everyone else.
Oh, you're no fun! :p

Outside places like NSG, where all manner of opinions may be present, argued & torn to shreds, where exactly do you see atheists rant about the joys of atheism?

But hey, assuming you really have heard about a single non-fictional instance of it happening, why should religion even be considered socially acceptable? Why shouldn't it be confronted at every turn out in the real world? Is superstition really desirable in society?

Who's talking about outside of NSG, I specifically said that I find it just as annoying when the atheists here act like jackasses with out being provoked when the theists here do it without being provoked. I just find it annoying when people act like jackasses without being provoked. As for why should religion be considered acceptable, well quite frankly so long as they aren't trying to force their beliefs on anyone, as was the case here, I don't see why it's anyones buisness what they believe. If it was a discussion about how evolution is bullshit I would consider snide comments perfectly acceptable, but this was not such a discusion and well on topic posts about finding overly eneretic evangelizers annoying would be apropriate, just popping into harass people about their beliefs is dickish, because frankly overly evangelic atheists are just as obnoxious as those they always bitch about.

Richard Dawkins has lately taken up militant atheism, as in his book The God Delusion. As an atheist myself, I find that vaguely embarrassing. I agree that religion is essentially imaginary friends for adults, but as long as people keep it to themselves, or rather, out of my face, I don't mind if they mouth pious platitudes. It seems to calm many of them down.I haven't read it, but having read other rants of his, I'm having a hard time believing he's 'evangelizing'. It's my impression the man's simply concerned about the role religion plays in society, and I'd be lying if I said I'm not.

I mean, it's seriously a socially acceptable thing to fill your kid's head with fucked up lies, as long as it's called religion. It's just fine to treat other people like shit in countless ways, as long as it's called religion. And it's just fine for religious people to loudly proclaim "I don't give a shit what you say", because they're religious..

I know people who went through living hell, because of their religious beliefs. I'm in love with a woman who spend half her life living as a sort of sub-human, because of the religious beliefs of her society. Not that she was abused or anything, she just wasn't as human as the male half of our species. And this.. Filthy, fucked up, downright evil shit, is just fine... Because it's called religion.

I don't think so. I don't think anyone needs to be saved or please fictional entities. I don't think anyone deserves to be so methodically dehumanised they'll disregard their own sense of ethics & adopt something invented by others. I don't think people should be prevented from it, but I seriously do not think ignoring it can be justified.

Perhaps it's easiest to view it like this: I think religion's fine as long as it makes people happy. I think it's anything but, when it makes people unhappy.

I mean, it's seriously a socially acceptable thing to fill your kid's head with fucked up lies, as long as it's called science. It's just fine to treat other people like shit in countless ways, as long as it's called free thinking. And it's just fine for scientific and free thinking people to loudly proclaim "I don't give a shit what you say", because they're secular.

Fixed.

I haven't read it, but having read other rants of his, I'm having a hard time believing he's 'evangelizing'. It's my impression the man's simply concerned about the role religion plays in society, and I'd be lying if I said I'm not.

Ever heard of the "Richard Dawkins Award" for promoting atheism? It's effectively an award for evangelism in the atheist community. I mean, you don't name something The God Delusion or call religion a "virus of the mind" unless you're trying to convert people. Switch a few things around and those could fit in to a Chick tract.

And don't forget his plan to distribute pamphlets in schools promoting secularism...

I mean, it's seriously a socially acceptable thing to fill your kid's head with fucked up lies, as long as it's called religion. It's just fine to treat other people like shit in countless ways, as long as it's called religion. And it's just fine for religious people to loudly proclaim "I don't give a shit what you say", because they're religious..

There are very few people that are indoctrinated enough in to their beliefs to seriously be able to consider them in an objective light. Those that do are no different than the fanatics in any belief system; the only difference is the terms and the texts involved.

And people do have a right to not give a shit about what you say. What they don't have is the right to force their opinions on you.

-snip-

Snipped, and agree 100%.

Militant, explicit atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, James Randi and others come to mind. But in all honesty, all of them come off as angry, arrogant, humorless assholes rather than happy and fulfilled.

"All of them" meaning "all explicit atheists," or "all of Richard Dawkins, etc."?

I can definitely see why most people don't want anything to do with explicit atheism...it produces people like them.

Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Pope Benedict XVI, innumerable homophobes and sexists... sorry, I don't think you have much of a case here.

At least explicit atheism doesn't encourage bigotry.

"All of them" meaning "all explicit atheists," or "all of Richard Dawkins, etc."?

All of them mentioned in my post. It would be wrong to label all atheists like that, especially considering many of them are as different from the people I mentioned as any theist.

Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Pope Benedict XVI, innumerable homophobes and sexists... sorry, I don't think you have much of a case here.

Yeah, but that's a handful of people out of billions. And there are some very good religious leaders as well; neither group can be painted with the same brush, and neither can they be judged according to the leaders in their communities.

I believe that the atheists I mentioned don't paint a good picture of the community by any stretch. And that doesn't help anyone on either side of the religious field.

At least explicit atheism doesn't encourage bigotry.

No, but it does come across as stifling and dogmatic, and some of the things Dawkins has said are verging pretty close to outright prejudice and bigotry against religious people.

Yeah, but that's a handful of people out of billions.

No, it isn't a handful at all. It's countless millions - almost certainly a majority, especially on issues like homophobia (whatever the "love the sinner, hate the sin" shit.)

The liberal religious, as they have been historically, remain rather marginalized on the global level today.

And there are some very good religious leaders as well;

"Good" for what? I can think of lots of religious leaders I admire (MLK Jr., Oscar Romero, Desmond Tutu) and a few religious movements I can support (Liberation Theology), but in all honesty I have a very hard time seeing very good religious leaders in the issues where religions tend to do worst - on the social issues, where at the best they tend to go with a patronizing toleration.

No, but it does come across as stifling and dogmatic,

Then perhaps you are perceiving it incorrectly. Adopting a position need not be "stifling and dogmatic."

and some of the things Dawkins has said are verging pretty close to outright prejudice and bigotry against religious people.

Quote them, please.

Prods.:rolleyes:
The Anglican Church the bastard son of the Church of England, created just because a man wanted to get his dick wet.

Wow. An enormous simplification of a period of history and the problems of the house of Tudor just before the Mid-Tudor Crisis. A-Level History FTW. :p

on the left, it's the Trots and the MLs who hate each other the most...I swear, worse than they hate the Right...

Well, it's not like they don't have good reason.

No, it isn't a handful at all. It's countless millions - almost certainly a majority, especially on issues like homophobia (whatever the "love the sinner, hate the sin" shit.)

The liberal religious, as they have been historically, remain rather marginalized on the global level today.

And, in reality, those attitudes exist outside of religion. In fact, there are many places where anti-homosexual, anti-Semitic, and racist sentiments exist without any kind of religious justification. For example, the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, and China were some of the most repressive, homophobic regimes on Earth. Their intolerance of social or sexual differences was far more pronounced than anything seen in the west.



Religion has its problems; there's not much more I can say than that.

[QUOTE]Then perhaps you are perceiving it incorrectly. Adopting a position need not be "stifling and dogmatic."

No, but when you say that it is rationally impossible to take a position other than yours, that borders on dogmatism quite well. Don't forget that he utterly trashes any attempt to reconcile religion and science.

Quote them, please.

"For many people, part of growing up is killing off the virus of faith with a good strong dose of rational thinking. But if an individual doesn't succeed in shaking it off, his mind is stuck in a permanent state of infancy, and there is a real danger that he will infect the next generation."

"If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?"

I could find more, but these show his utter disdain for people with opinions and beliefs different than his own than him quite well.

And, in reality, those attitudes exist outside of religion. In fact, there are many places where anti-homosexual, anti-Semitic, and racist sentiments exist without any kind of religious justification. For example, the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, and China were some of the most repressive, homophobic regimes on Earth. Their intolerance of social or sexual differences was far more pronounced than anything seen in the west.

That was a nod to pre-existing cultures influenced by religion - just as the Soviet Union exploited Russian nationalism despite its supposed socialist internationalism.

(Actually, for a while back in the 1920s the Soviet Union had the most liberal laws on homosexuality of any European country, though that was changed by Stalin, and several countries in the Eastern Bloc, East Germany in particular, were not significantly behind the West on the question.)

Religion has its problems; there's not much more I can say than that.

So what are its benefits?

No, but when you say that it is rationally impossible to take a position other than yours, that borders on dogmatism quite well.

What does "rationally impossible" mean? There is nothing dogmatic about saying that your position is the most rational; indeed, usually when someone says "I think this," that's exactly what they mean.

Don't forget that he utterly trashes any attempt to reconcile religion and science.

And there's nothing dogmatic about that, either, to the extent that religion makes scientific claims (and in most manifestations, it does.)

"For many people, part of growing up is killing off the virus of faith with a good strong dose of rational thinking. But if an individual doesn't succeed in shaking it off, his mind is stuck in a permanent state of infancy, and there is a real danger that he will infect the next generation."

I'll give you this one.

"If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?"

How is this position bigoted?

"If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?"
Wait he wants us to get rid of all the work Newton did? That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Wait he wants us to get rid of all the work Newton did? That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

The context indicates that he was referring to the theological achievements of theologians.

The context indicates that he was referring to the theological achievements of theologians.

Doesn't make it any less of a sweeping generalisation that attempts to potray anyone who would consider studying religion :shockhorror: as somehow of inferior intellect despite the fact that many of those who provided the ground work for modern science were theologions or members of religous orders, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Bacon, ect all great minds who contributed to science while also being either theologians or members of religous orders and thats just looking at it from scientific point of view it doesn't even aproach the matter of the amount of influence theologians had on other subjects like philosophy or interms of events history.

as somehow of inferior intellect

He didn't say that.

Just don't tell people your religion and they won't try to save you.

He didn't say that.

It was certainly implied, and even with out that it is a blatently incorrect to claim the theories of theologians have had no effect on the world, the Reformation was to an exent at its root all about theological debates, and it had a profound effect on the history of Europe.

It was certainly implied,

No, it wasn't even implied.

He is saying that they are wasting their time, not that they are stupid.

and even with out that it is a blatently incorrect to claim the theories of theologians have had no effect on the world, the Reformation was to an exent at its root all about theological debates, and it had a profound effect on the history of Europe.

I don't think Dawkins would dispute that theological disagreements can have real-world implications; all disagreements can. His point is regarding theological ACHIEVEMENTS - that generating additional insight into the nature of God is useless and irrelevant.

No, it wasn't even implied.

He is saying that they are wasting their time, not that they are stupid.



I don't think Dawkins would dispute that theological disagreements can have real-world implications; all disagreements can. His point is regarding theological ACHIEVEMENTS - that generating additional insight into the nature of God is useless and irrelevant.

You know what, I'm willing to concede the point, I was reading more into than I should due to my own personal annoyance at the way some athiests and scientists try to down play or outright ignore the impact that religion and religous individuals has had on science over the course of history.

Now it's time for Willy's tales of a Catholic living in the Bible Belt of another denomination. So today I was approached by a pentecostal, who wanted to "save" my soul from the Satan's Church. He goes through the usual ammo that I've heard. "You worship graven images" "Your Church is the Whore of Babylon" blah blah blah. You know what I find funny about all of this? Every time this has happened to me, they claim that they speak for God, and that they know what God hates. So apparently they have a direct phone line with God itself. Yea, can anyone spot the problem with this? Well 1. No one speaks for God, God can speak for itself. 2. By saying that they are trying to save my soul, means that I am condemned to Hell unless I convert to their denomination. Which goes against Matthews 7:1-2. Only God reserves the right to condemn someone. Of course this one gets all melodramatic by saying "I am the watch tower" and "I have warned you, you're blood is not on my hands." Yea, thanks chief, I didn't know that me being Catholic meant that my blood would be on your hands. However, that was not the high point (or low point) of this whole "witnessing" of this person. He then shows me two website which are really umm...interesting. The first one states the whole underlining of everyone who has ever "witnessed" to me. I am damned to Hell unless I convert. As usual the site's information on Catholicism is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and oh wrong. The other one pretty much lumped Catholicism in with cults like Scientology, Heaven's Gate etc. I pretty much didn't even bother reading the material.

You know, I don't "witness", why because most people like me find it annoying. I would much rather help out my community, help out my church, donate to the charities that I strongly support, and I would rather pray the rosary in the privacy of my own home, or in church before Mass. I don't go around damning people to Hell in the name of God, and shoving my faith down their throats. If people truly want to find out about Jesus, and about the Roman Catholic Church, I believe they will approach me, or approach a Father. I believe in showing what my Faith has taught me, than just telling people about it.

People really should just stop "witnessing" to me, because I am strong in my faith, and it's going to take a pretty strong and powerful even to shake the foundation I have in God, Jesus, Mary, The Saints, and the Roman Catholic Church.

I just look those types square in the eye and tell 'em there's more of God in (whatever random thing catches my attention at that moment) than inside their dusty old churches, their mouldering books or their (to me) obscure rituals - and frankly, that I don't need anyone or anything to in any way present an obstacle between my own self and that which I hold dear - and finally, that I am neither interested in hearing them regurgitate some doctrine, nor do I care to waste my time explaining my own system of personal belief, as they are clearly not interested in anyone's point of view other than their own.

It usually gets 'em out of my face quick enough. If not, I've got fallbacks.

That was a nod to pre-existing cultures influenced by religion - just as the Soviet Union exploited Russian nationalism despite its supposed socialist internationalism.

The point is that repressing religion doesn't wipe out bigotry. The Soviets attempted 74 years of social engineering

(Actually, for a while back in the 1920s the Soviet Union had the most liberal laws on homosexuality of any European country, though that was changed by Stalin, and several countries in the Eastern Bloc, East Germany in particular, were not significantly behind the West on the question.)

True. The pre-Stalin USSR was a lot better than what came after him. And East Germany was kind of unique, because it had a lot more contact with the West and its leadership was by and large more tolerant than other regimes, mainly due to the aftermath of the Nazi era. Stalin's insanity nearly resulted in a Nazi-scale purge of the Jews following WWII (not to mention the victims already murdered in the gulags during the war.

The same can be said of Czechoslovakia and Hungary, both of which were far more liberal than the USSR.

So what are its benefits?

Well, for one it provides a sense of community and meaning that other systems might not be able to. It has been shown in studies that religious people are more generous to charity and in fact tend to be less stressed and healthier than less devout individuals.

Also, many world religions are actively involved in humanitarian and volunteer work, and religious organizations operate many clinics, schools, and orphanages in places that lack them. The Roman Catholic Church in particular is notable for its social justice and work in mediating conflicts.

What does "rationally impossible" mean? There is nothing dogmatic about saying that your position is the most rational; indeed, usually when someone says "I think this," that's exactly what they mean.

In other words, anyone who believes science and religion can coexist are irrational and wrong. He considers the possibility of science and religion coexisting to be ridiculous and sees them at odds rather than as complementary. No offense to him, but the creationists take a very similar viewpoint in regard to the relations between science and religion.

And there's nothing dogmatic about that, either, to the extent that religion makes scientific claims (and in most manifestations, it does.)

Problem is, he doesn't stop there. He goes beyond science and in to an attack on the concept of the spiritual itself; his attacks are on the same shaky ground as the proofs for or against God, and his argument consists almost entirely of those same, old arguments.

How is this position bigoted?

Because it's nothing more than antireligious denial. If anyone is delusional about religion's contributions to society, it's Dawkins.

Consider the fact that Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard (among others, but these are the best known and arguably most influential) were two of the early founders of the rational philosophy of which Dawkins is so fond; rationalism itself has its origins in the scholastic school of philosophy that theologians developed extensively in the Middle Ages.

Also, some of the greatest scientists and philosophers in history were theologians, and it was their work in theology that motivated them to work in their other fields. In fact, I would go so far to say that theology is second perhaps only to science in its shaping of the modern world, and continues to be a main contributor to the fields of ethics and philosophy. Not to mention it was theologians that saved much of our ancient knowledge and preserved literacy during the Dark Ages; without their work, it might have taken far longer to recover than it did.

He didn't say that.

"For many people, part of growing up is killing off the virus of faith with a good strong dose of rational thinking. But if an individual doesn't succeed in shaking it off, his mind is stuck in a permanent state of infancy, and there is a real danger that he will infect the next generation."

"A cowardly flabbiness of the intellect afflicts otherwise rational people confronted with long-established religions,"

Translation: If you don't think religion is irrational, you're a coward and an idiot. And religious people are also idiots.

Oh, and here's a classic:


"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."

I wonder what the reaction would be if I replaced that with "the World Jewry" or "Islam" or "secularism"?

The point is that repressing religion doesn't wipe out bigotry.

Not when that bigotry is ingrained through hundreds of years of religious persecution, no.

True. The pre-Stalin USSR was a lot better than what came after him. And East Germany was kind of unique, because it had a lot more contact with the West and its leadership was by and large more tolerant than other regimes, mainly due to the aftermath of the Nazi era.

In addition, Germany had a substantial gay rights movement in the pre-Nazi era; actually it could reasonably be considered the birthplace, more or less, of modern gay rights activism, dating at least back to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs in the nineteenth century.

In other words, anyone who believes science and religion can coexist are irrational and wrong.

Wrong, yes; irrational, not necessarily. No one gets everything right.

He considers the possibility of science and religion coexisting to be ridiculous and sees them at odds rather than as complementary.

It is unquestionable that religions make scientific claims all the time, at least on the surface. Science and religion are not as conveniently divided into separate spheres as some seem to think. Only deism could possibly account for such a strict division, with God playing no role at all in the world.

No offense to him, but the creationists take a very similar viewpoint in regard to the relations between science and religion.

Of course they do. And sometimes the positions of the religious fundamentalists on certain things are more philosophically coherent than the positions of the religious liberals.

Problem is, he doesn't stop there. He goes beyond science and in to an attack on the concept of the spiritual itself; his attacks are on the same shaky ground as the proofs for or against God, and his argument consists almost entirely of those same, old arguments.

While he does not prove the non-existence of God, he makes a very good case that belief in God is absurd.

Because it's nothing more than antireligious denial. If anyone is delusional about religion's contributions to society, it's Dawkins.

He didn't say religion, he said theology.

Consider the fact that Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard (among others, but these are the best known and arguably most influential) were two of the early founders of the rational philosophy of which Dawkins is so fond; rationalism itself has its origins in the scholastic school of philosophy that theologians developed extensively in the Middle Ages.

Rationalism questioned religious orthodoxy from the beginning. No one ever reads Descartes for the theology; he is worth anything only for his skepticism. And Spinoza was excommunicated.

In fact, I would go so far to say that theology is second perhaps only to science in its shaping of the modern world, and continues to be a main contributor to the fields of ethics and philosophy.

Theology is part of philosophy, and in modern times has very little bearing on ethics.

Particular theological positions (like the precise nature of the Trinity) have had practically no bearing whatsoever on the world except insofar as disagreements over them spilled over into politics.

Not to mention it was theologians that saved much of our ancient knowledge and preserved literacy during the Dark Ages; without their work, it might have taken far longer to recover than it did.

Theologians. Not theology.

Translation: If you don't think religion is irrational, you're a coward and an idiot.

No, just a coward, and it's not clear he means EVERYONE who doesn't think religion is irrational, just some people.

"Cowardly flabbiness of intellect" afflicts "otherwise rational people" - that is, intelligent people, on this one particular subject, suspend their intellect to their faith.

He is undoubtedly right that this is a very common tendency; indeed, some religious philosophers have gone so far as to say that this is part and parcel of religious belief.

And religious people are also idiots.

I didn't read "permanent state of infancy" as referring to idiocy, but to a kind of intellectual servility.

See, for instance, Lucky's speech in Waiting for Godot; Beckett's point was somewhat similar.

indeed, some religious philosophers have gone so far as to say that this is part and parcel of religious belief.

Saint Manuel Bueno, Martyr (http://personal.ecu.edu/mayberryn/sanmanuel.htm)

Not when that bigotry is ingrained through hundreds of years of religious persecution, no.

But at the same time, the Soviets were capable of eliminating other problems like misogyny and discrimination in the workforce in ways that would not be seen in the West for a long time afterwards. They were successful in containing these attitudes which had been problems in pre-Revolutionary Russia.

Of course, though, we also have to remember that the perversion of science through ideologies like Social Darwinism and eugenics provided a "secular" reason to oppose homosexual behavior in the same timeframe.

In addition, Germany had a substantial gay rights movement in the pre-Nazi era; actually it could reasonably be considered the birthplace, more or less, of modern gay rights activism, dating at least back to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs in the nineteenth century.

Yes, that's true. Of course, German culture has had a more sexually liberal attitude than most of Europe for a long time, so it makes sense that men like Ulrichs or Kertbeny would be able to advocate these kinds of changes.

They did run in to trouble with the law, but the comparatively low level of effort spent punishing them (as compared to the punishment of Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing [in the 1950's no less]) shows that they were much more liberal in regard to sexuality than other nations of the time.

Wrong, yes; irrational, not necessarily. No one gets everything right.

Well, he's a fan of labeling things "irrational" as if it is some kind of sin.

It is unquestionable that religions make scientific claims all the time, at least on the surface. Science and religion are not as conveniently divided into separate spheres as some seem to think. Only deism could possibly account for such a strict division, with God playing no role at all in the world.



Of course they do. And sometimes the positions of the religious fundamentalists on certain things are more philosophically coherent than the positions of the religious liberals.

But coherence doesn't necessarily mean correct. A situationalist argument isn't coherent, but it does work very well in a lot of cases. Sometimes, adhering to strict definitions simply doesn't work.

While he does not prove the non-existence of God, he makes a very good case that belief in God is absurd.

Absurdity isn't a bad thing. If anything, the absurdity of God fits quite well with the overall nature of our universe, which is, for lack of a better word, weird and irrational.

It's not the God outlined in the rigid forms prescribed by organized religion, but it is a definition of God.

He didn't say religion, he said theology.

Yes, but it's hard to disassociate

Rationalism questioned religious orthodoxy from the beginning. No one ever reads Descartes for the theology; he is worth anything only for his skepticism. And Spinoza was excommunicated.

Yes, but their ideas stemmed from their theological studies; these theologians were using religion to combat orthodoxy, and they derived their rational thought from their personal religious beliefs. If anything, it shows that religion in and of itself doesn't produce dogmatism, but rather unwillingness to examine the beliefs in question.

Theology is part of philosophy, and in modern times has very little bearing on ethics.

Many philosophers of religion shaped other parts of modern ethics; Paul Tillich, for example, was a major shaper of existentialism while Richard Swinburne has done a lot of work in the philosophy of science.

Particular theological positions (like the precise nature of the Trinity) have had practically no bearing whatsoever on the world except insofar as disagreements over them spilled over into politics.

Disputes over that concept and other spirit-physical relationships in Christian doctrine played a major role in concepts like mind-body relations, monism and dualism, and the philosophy of mind in general all stemmed from the early work of theologians.

Theologians. Not theology.

But theology was what motivated their thought; theology was the underlying reason that they went in to fields like science and philosophy. They saw those studies as service to God, and tied them in to their study of religion.

Theologians. Not theology.

Indeed. It is also scientists, not science, that have shaped the modern world.

But at the same time, the Soviets were capable of eliminating other problems like misogyny and discrimination in the workforce in ways that would not be seen in the West for a long time afterwards. They were successful in containing these attitudes which had been problems in pre-Revolutionary Russia.

Without a gay rights movement, combating homophobia wasn't much of an issue.

Of course, though, we also have to remember that the perversion of science through ideologies like Social Darwinism and eugenics provided a "secular" reason to oppose homosexual behavior in the same timeframe.

Yes, but not so much in the Soviet Union.

They did run in to trouble with the law, but the comparatively low level of effort spent punishing them (as compared to the punishment of Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing [in the 1950's no less]) shows that they were much more liberal in regard to sexuality than other nations of the time.

Actually, punishments for homosexuality have been relatively rare throughout most of history... it doesn't go away whatever you do, so usually the laws were fairly laxly enforced.

The first half of the twentieth century (beginning around the time of Oscar Wilde) was, in the US and the UK, probably less tolerant of homosexuality than much of the nineteenth century - but even then, persecution was intermittent and superficial.

The worst effects of homophobia for the average gay person, throughout history and to this day, have tended to be the social marginalization that goes along with it, not legal persecution.

Well, he's a fan of labeling things "irrational" as if it is some kind of sin.

Indeed, that is perhaps his most grievous problem.

But coherence doesn't necessarily mean correct. A situationalist argument isn't coherent, but it does work very well in a lot of cases.

"Situationalist" as in of or related to situation ethics? How is that incoherent?

Sometimes, adhering to strict definitions simply doesn't work.

When?

Absurdity isn't a bad thing. If anything, the absurdity of God fits quite well with the overall nature of our universe, which is, for lack of a better word, weird and irrational.

How is our universe weird and irrational?

Yes, but their ideas stemmed from their theological studies; these theologians were using religion to combat orthodoxy, and they derived their rational thought from their personal religious beliefs.

I would argue the opposite. Their personal religious beliefs were socially indoctrinated into them, and they attempted to bring them in line with the rational thought they recognized was correct. As usual when you start with a conclusion, the arguments they generated were very poor. (For a really good example of this, read Descartes.)

Many philosophers of religion shaped other parts of modern ethics; Paul Tillich, for example, was a major shaper of existentialism while Richard Swinburne has done a lot of work in the philosophy of science.

Yes, philosophy in general (existentialism in particular, by its very nature) has been influenced by theology, but not ethics so much.

Disputes over that concept and other spirit-physical relationships in Christian doctrine played a major role in concepts like mind-body relations, monism and dualism, and the philosophy of mind in general all stemmed from the early work of theologians.

That's metaphysics more generally, not theology. The arguments are distinct and need no direct connections.

But theology was what motivated their thought; theology was the underlying reason that they went in to fields like science and philosophy. They saw those studies as service to God, and tied them in to their study of religion.

I would argue that this was their given justification more than their actual motive; secular societies hardly have a hard time generating scientists and philosophers.

Indeed. It is also scientists, not science, that have shaped the modern world.

Absolutely not. The theory of relativity is far more important than Einstein.

Absolutely not. The theory of relativity is far more important than Einstein.

Likewise, the theology upon which theologians base their faith is more important than theologians themselves.

Because without Einstein, there would be no Theory of Relativity.
Without theologians, who follow the principles of theology, the many important documents that were thus preserved would not exist today.

Likewise, the theology upon which theologians base their faith is more important than theologians themselves.

No, the theology is unimportant. If the theologians had held different positions and advocated different theories, they still would have preserved the documents. If they had just been a bunch of philosophers who didn't care about the nature of God, they would probably have done the same thing.

Einstein's influence, however, is almost entirely contingent on his Theory of Relativity. What's important about him is his science.

Actually, punishments for homosexuality have been relatively rare throughout most of history... it doesn't go away whatever you do, so usually the laws were fairly laxly enforced.

Depends on the society. Many nomadic tribes, particularly in the Middle East, had no qualms castrating a man found engaging in homosexual relations.

Other societies, particularly the Greeks, embraced homosexuality as the ultimate expression of love--agape, shared only between two men, which transcended the primal passion exhibited in procreational sex.

Depends on the society. Many nomadic tribes, particularly in the Middle East, had no qualms castrating a man found engaging in homosexual relations.

And did they do so regularly, as a matter of practice... or did they just say that that was their policy?

Other societies, particularly the Greeks, embraced homosexuality as the ultimate expression of love--agape, shared only between two men, which transcended the primal passion exhibited in procreational sex.

Not "homosexuality" per se - a certain highly limited and sexually restrained relationship between two males. And that was the perspective of some of the philosophers, not the "Greek perspective" in general. Males exclusively sexually attracted to males were not regarded with respect in Ancient Greece.

And I certainly didn't mean to imply that all societies have historically been homophobic; I was speaking specifically of Western societies in the past thousand years or so.

No, the theology is unimportant. If the theologians had held different positions and advocated different theories, they still would have preserved the documents. If they had just been a bunch of philosophers who didn't care about the nature of God, they would probably have done the same thing.

Doesn't change the reality that 1) they were men entrenched in the faith of the Church and 2) we cannot assume that they would have done the same under different circumstances. The theology is important because, empirically, it is a result of this that the theologians took it upon themselves to preserve the documents in the first place. Without the theology, the theologians wouldn't have existed. Anything else is unfounded conjecture.

Einstein's influence, however, is almost entirely contingent on his Theory of Relativity. What's important about him is his science.

Again, without Einstein there would be no Theory of Relativity. It is, as you said, his influence, derived from his theory. The science came after the scientist; without scientists, there would be no science. Without theology, no theologians.

And did they do so regularly, as a matter of practice... or did they just say that that was their policy?

This I do not know with a significant degree of certainty. It is my understanding that it was an enforced policy, pertaining especially to intercourse between an adult male and a boy.



Not "homosexuality" per se - a certain highly limited and sexually restrained relationship between two males. And that was the perspective of some of the philosophers, not the "Greek perspective" in general. Males exclusively sexually attracted to males were not regarded with respect in Ancient Greece.

I can agree with this.

And I certainly didn't mean to imply that all societies have historically been homophobic; I was speaking specifically of Western societies in the past thousand years or so.

Indeed; in which case, your point stands.

Without the theology, the theologians wouldn't have existed.

:confused:

And you are still missing Dawkin's point. Even if after intense philosophical reflection, we conclude that a particular conception of the precise nature of God's three components is correct, so what? Why should anyone care?

Again, without Einstein there would be no Theory of Relativity.

Nonsense; someone else would have discovered it.

The science came after the scientist; without scientists, there would be no science. Without theology, no theologians.

Actually, if you want to draw the parallel, you would have to say "without theologians, no theology" - which is irrelevant to your point.

This I do not know with a significant degree of certainty. It is my understanding that it was an enforced policy, pertaining especially to intercourse between an adult male and a boy.

My sources on the history of homophobia are typically Eurocentric, but I am aware of a significant history of tolerance for homosexuality in the Islamic Middle East.

The extent of such toleration beyond upper-class culture, as with Ancient Greece, is unclear.

Until you mentioned them, I don't believe I've read anything about the policies of nomadic tribes in the Middle East.

But you guys pray in front of crosses fairly often. I'm not saying graven images are bad, I'm just saying that's a part of the bible you guys don't really follow. There's plenty of them, after all. The Unitarians don't stone gays, and the evangelicals cast the first stone despite not being without sin.

Of course Unitarians don't stone gays, they marry their couples. They're not even a Christian church anymore. I should know, I am one.

Argh. This is something of a pet peeve of mine, firstly being an Anglican myself, and secondly having done quiet a lot of work on the Reformation for my History A level. Henry VIII did not found the Church of England! The Church of England was founded by Elizabeth I in the 1550s. I would give you the exact date, but I don't have my old textbooks with me right now, and I don't trust Wikipedia. :p The only thing Henry VIII did was abolish Papal Supremacy in England. In all other respects, the Henrician church was Catholic. Henry hated the Protestant ideas of Luther, he even wrote a book condemning them that got him the title Protector of the Faith from Rome!

Henry's divorce and the split from Rome were purely political. In fact, the Pope was initially prepared to grant the divorce. However, at the time troops of the Holy Roman Empire were menacing the Vatican, and Catherine of Aragon just happened to be one of the Emperor's relations. With the Emperor leaning on his arm, the Pope quickly changed his mind.

It wasn't until the death of Henry did Protestant doctrines start to become favoured. His son, Edward, had been educated by Protestant scholars, who Henry had been forced to turn to after the break from Rome. He introduced sweeping reforms, putting in place a very Protestant church and doing away with as much of the Catholic ceremony of his father as he could. He died young though, and his Catholic older sister Mary swept aside his reforms and re-established full Papal authority. On her death, Elizabeth (again, raised a Protestant) came to the throne. By this point there had been decades of religious upheaval, and so Elizabeth made it her goal to create a Media Via, or Middle Way. Soon after her coronation, she founded the Church of England, keeping much of the old Catholic ceremony, but making the liturgy of the service deliberately vague so that both Catholic and Protestant could attend the same service. She desired not to create a window into men's souls, but to create a place where both sides could worship together. And not burn each other. Of course, there remained controversies, one major early example the issue of priest's vestments and whether or not they should be worn. But the Anglican church survived, and became a stabilising force while the rest of Western Europe was tearing itself apart with religious war.

Sorry. Rant over. XD
Well you certainly deserve points for such a long post.
But Elizabeth isn't the flavour of the month around these parts...

I can call myself a Catholic and believe that banning abortion's a bad idea. I can favor gay marriage, even...or no marriage at all. I can argue that sex is OK between consenting adults, and if it doesn't result in a child, that's OK. I will tell you that birth control can be very useful and even life-saving. I will also argue that divorce isn't that bad; life's too short to be miserable. And I will root against Notre Dame's football team until my dying breath. I am a liberal Catholic. There are others like me. We ignore those who say that the Church speaks for everyone. They ignore us. They serve to give the Church a leg to stand on. We exist to tell them to hold their horses. The Church can claim to speak for everyone till they're blue in the face. They don't.

Most Catholics in America are liberal. Political ideology has less to do with religion than with culture. Those who are members of groups (Jews, racial minorities, Catholics) who have been down trodden tend to vote liberal because they know what it means to suffer and would like to cause as little of it as possible.

Those who belong to a group that sees itself as privileged tend to vote conservative because when suffering is dished out they are of the opinion that they will receive the least of it. I noted once before here that conservatives would rather vote for someone who promises to hurth people than to help them because their own personalities makes them believe that no politician will do something good, so they have more trust for a politician who tells them that he's going to hurt everyone, but hurt them the least. Their percieved cultural privilege is the reason that they believe they will be spared. Not their Christ.

:confused:

And you are still missing Dawkin's point. Even if after intense philosophical reflection, we conclude that a particular conception of the precise nature of God's three components is correct, so what? Why should anyone care?

Yes; that is not the point. It's not the tenets of theology being discussed. It's the theologians, students of theology, who are. My point was that you made a distinction between the the theologians preserving the documents, not theology, which is true; however, the implication of the purely human aspect of the desire or rather act of preservation is false. If the theologians had not been influenced by their theology, they would not have existed, as circumstance would be inconceivably different. We cannot say they would have preserved the documents were they not theologians, because there is no way of knowing what the circumstances would have been otherwise. Thus, if there had been no theology, then the theologians would not have had the opportunity, as dictated by the conditions established by the virtue of them following the theological path, to preserve the documents, and they would have in fact been lost, as it was theologians, not people following a different course in life, who saved the documents from destruction. The thing about history is that it can only be observed; conjectures involving "if" have no place, because they do not affect the reality of the situation. One can decide whether an action was right or wrong. but cannot presume to suggest that things would have been the same under different circumstances.



Nonsense; someone else would have discovered it.

Einstein discovered it. We cannot assume that without Einstein, we would have a Theory of Relativity today. The circumstances of Einstein's life that led to his discovery and publication, of his revelation, are his and his alone; they led to his discovery. The idea of assuming the same result under a different circumstance in the life an entirely different person are conjecture that are, ultimately, unprovable and unfounded.





Actually, if you want to draw the parallel, you would have to say "without theologians, no theology" - which is irrelevant to your point.

Irrelevant, maybe, but logical nonetheless. Without someone to study or otherwise observe a particular field, that field cannot be said to exist, because its evidence is there, but it only materializes when someone takes the initiative to observe it and make connections.

My sources on the history of homophobia are typically Eurocentric, but I am aware of a significant history of tolerance for homosexuality in the Islamic Middle East.

The extent of such toleration beyond upper-class culture, as with Ancient Greece, is unclear.

Until you mentioned them, I don't believe I've read anything about the policies of nomadic tribes in the Middle East.

They are primarily pre-Islamic tribes that existed outside the bounds of the realm of influence of any significant uniting force until the introduction of Islam.

Ever heard of the "Richard Dawkins Award" for promoting atheism? It's effectively an award for evangelism in the atheist community. I mean, you don't name something The God Delusion or call religion a "virus of the mind" unless you're trying to convert people. Switch a few things around and those could fit in to a Chick tract.

And don't forget his plan to distribute pamphlets in schools promoting secularism...



There are very few people that are indoctrinated enough in to their beliefs to seriously be able to consider them in an objective light. Those that do are no different than the fanatics in any belief system; the only difference is the terms and the texts involved.

And people do have a right to not give a shit about what you say. What they don't have is the right to force their opinions on you.



Snipped, and agree 100%.

And is putting out leaflets promoting secularism (aka rationalism) such a bad thing given the amount of religious propaganda there is?

PS Even th e word 'propaganda' was invented by the church.

Now it's time for Willy's tales of a Catholic living in the Bible Belt of another denomination. So today I was approached by a pentecostal, who wanted to "save" my soul from the Satan's Church. He goes through the usual ammo that I've heard. "You worship graven images" "Your Church is the Whore of Babylon" blah blah blah. You know what I find funny about all of this? Every time this has happened to me, they claim that they speak for God, and that they know what God hates. So apparently they have a direct phone line with God itself. Yea, can anyone spot the problem with this? Well 1. No one speaks for God, God can speak for itself. 2. By saying that they are trying to save my soul, means that I am condemned to Hell unless I convert to their denomination. Which goes against Matthews 7:1-2. Only God reserves the right to condemn someone. Of course this one gets all melodramatic by saying "I am the watch tower" and "I have warned you, you're blood is not on my hands." Yea, thanks chief, I didn't know that me being Catholic meant that my blood would be on your hands. However, that was not the high point (or low point) of this whole "witnessing" of this person. He then shows me two website which are really umm...interesting. The first one states the whole underlining of everyone who has ever "witnessed" to me. I am damned to Hell unless I convert. As usual the site's information on Catholicism is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and oh wrong. The other one pretty much lumped Catholicism in with cults like Scientology, Heaven's Gate etc. I pretty much didn't even bother reading the material.

You know, I don't "witness", why because most people like me find it annoying. I would much rather help out my community, help out my church, donate to the charities that I strongly support, and I would rather pray the rosary in the privacy of my own home, or in church before Mass. I don't go around damning people to Hell in the name of God, and shoving my faith down their throats. If people truly want to find out about Jesus, and about the Roman Catholic Church, I believe they will approach me, or approach a Father. I believe in showing what my Faith has taught me, than just telling people about it.

People really should just stop "witnessing" to me, because I am strong in my faith, and it's going to take a pretty strong and powerful even to shake the foundation I have in God, Jesus, Mary, The Saints, and the Roman Catholic Church.

Right there with ya. It's like people think they can log onto some sort of Protestant website and get actual, objective honest facts about the Catholic Church (Or Mormon, or Jehova's Witness or whatever) and it never even occurs to them to question its reliability, and they will presume to tell YOU what you believe, instead of asking you.

A few years ago when I first converted to the LDS church (Mormon) I had people trying to ram arguments like that down my throat (As if telling me I worshipped Satan was supposed to get me to open my mind to their point of view, right?) Once, I even had someone tell me that my church taught that God impregnated Mary physically to conceive Jesus... What do you think they said when I told them that was incorrect? Do you think they said "Oh, well thats' what I had heard. Guess it wasn't right. Sorry." No. More like "WELL YOU'RE JUST BEING DECEIVED! THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE!"

I found it entertaining for the first couple of years but now it's just annoying.

I think the protestants and catholics should sit down, shut up, practice their respective religions, and stop bothering each other and everyone else.Amen!

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Add-on: Can we expand "protestants and catholics" to "all people of all faiths and beliefs"?

You're a cute kid.


Thank You for the compliment of implied youth, but unforunately I am no longer a kid.

Too many teardrops for one heart to be cryin'
Too many teardrops for one heart
To carry on
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry ninety-six tears
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry, now
You're gonna cry cry, cry, cry
Ninety-six tears c'mon and lemme hear you cry, now
Ninety-six tears (whoo!) I wanna hear you cry
Night and day, yeah, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears cry cry cry
C'mon baby, let me hear you cry now, all night long
Uh-ninety-six tears! Yeah! C'mon now
Uh-ninety-six tears!

Your a sick little puppy who can only feel important when you put someone else down.

Amen!

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Add-on: Can we expand "protestants and catholics" to "all people of all faiths and beliefs"?

or expand it further to "everyone" it would sure make my life easier.

Right there with ya. It's like people think they can log onto some sort of Protestant website and get actual, objective honest facts about the Catholic Church (Or Mormon, or Jehova's Witness or whatever) and it never even occurs to them to question its reliability, and they will presume to tell YOU what you believe, instead of asking you.

A few years ago when I first converted to the LDS church (Mormon) I had people trying to ram arguments like that down my throat (As if telling me I worshipped Satan was supposed to get me to open my mind to their point of view, right?) Once, I even had someone tell me that my church taught that God impregnated Mary physically to conceive Jesus... What do you think they said when I told them that was incorrect? Do you think they said "Oh, well thats' what I had heard. Guess it wasn't right. Sorry." No. More like "WELL YOU'RE JUST BEING DECEIVED! THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE!"

I found it entertaining for the first couple of years but now it's just annoying.

People like that suck. These seem to be the same ones that tell me that since I believe in a god other than the Christian one, that I'm actually worshipping "Satan." When I tell them that I don't believe in the existance of this being, they act all shocked and don't believe me.

And is putting out leaflets promoting secularism (aka rationalism) such a bad thing given the amount of religious propaganda there is?

If the secular community doesn't want to appear hypocritical, then yes. Evangelism is evangelism no matter who does it; given that secular groups tend to be the most vocal opponents of evangelical belief systems, it's rather hypocritical to be using the same tactics to promote your agenda.

Not to mention it goes against Dawkins hissy fit about kids being raised in certain religious traditions; it's wrong to bring them up believing in God but it's a-ok to indoctrinate them with secularism.

Secularism isn't a religion. It's being in favor of religion and state being kept separate.

I am religious, but I also want a secular government.

I would agree that 'secularism' tracts are a pretty silly idea though.

Secularism isn't a religion. It's being in favor of religion and state being kept separate.

That's correct, it's a political ideology. The point is that he's doing the exact same thing that he criticizes others for doing, making him a total hypocrite. Even worse, he's doing it in schools with the intent of using them for indoctrination.

I am religious, but I also want a secular government.

Seconded.

The point is that he's doing the exact same thing that he criticizes others for doing, making him a total hypocrite. Even worse, he's doing it in schools with the intent of using them for indoctrination.



Like I said, I agree with that, it really goes against the idea to do that sort of thing.

If the secular community doesn't want to appear hypocritical, then yes. Evangelism is evangelism no matter who does it; given that secular groups tend to be the most vocal opponents of evangelical belief systems, it's rather hypocritical to be using the same tactics to promote your agenda.

Not to mention it goes against Dawkins hissy fit about kids being raised in certain religious traditions; it's wrong to bring them up believing in God but it's a-ok to indoctrinate them with secularism.

secularists aren't against the tactic of 'convincing others of their position'. who would ever hold such a silly position?

Protestants don't really know, or want to know, who their parents are, do they?
Judaism + Paganism = Catholic Church
Catholic Church + Renaissance = Reformation/Protestantism.

Protestants are the children of the Catholic Church. Whether they like it or not, everything they believe is either a reaction to or a variation of Catholic dogma and ritual. Their Bible was, in essence, compiled by Catholic theologians from Old Testament sources and hundreds, possibly thousands, of "gospels" written by many people. They are really Catholics in rebellion against their parents.

Protestants don't really know, or want to know, who their parents are, do they?
Judaism + Paganism = Catholic Church
Catholic Church + Renaissance = Reformation/Protestantism.

Protestants are the children of the Catholic Church. Whether they like it or not, everything they believe is either a reaction to or a variation of Catholic dogma and ritual. Their Bible was, in essence, compiled by Catholic theologians from Old Testament sources and hundreds, possibly thousands, of "gospels" written by many people. They are really Catholics in rebellion against their parents.

My sister is a major-league anti-Catholic shriller, and at the same time attacks my Church (Mormon). (Yah, she's a fundamentalist.) Which I find ironic because one of her favorite attacks against my church is based on her belief, which comes directly from a Medieval Pope, whom she also despises.

It' sreally funny when I point that out to her :D

People like that suck. These seem to be the same ones that tell me that since I believe in a god other than the Christian one, that I'm actually worshipping "Satan." When I tell them that I don't believe in the existance of this being, they act all shocked and don't believe me.

I think the really shrill ones are the ones who, on some level, have doubts about their own religious convictions and they need to beat others down in some attempt to validate themselves. Some even admit to being dishonest about their approach to attacking others, believing that the ends (converting you) justify the means (lying).

my Church (Mormon)

weird

weird

?

secularists aren't against the tactic of 'convincing others of their position'. who would ever hold such a silly position?

Well, if you're going to bitch about people raising their kids to be in the same religious tradition as their parents, and then proceed to do the exact same thing with your own ideology, in schools no less, that's utterly hypocritical.

If anything, this is even worse because it adds indoctrination to education.

Well, if you're going to bitch about people raising their kids to be in the same religious tradition as their parents, and then proceed to do the exact same thing with your own ideology, in schools no less, that's utterly hypocritical.

not really. it is not a question of raising people within an ideology in general. it couldn't be, as there is literally no way to avoid that.

nobody can demonstrate that one religion is right (especially since they are actually all wrong), so in order to function as a society with multiple religious traditions operating within it, we must achieve a societal common ground that allows us to do so. ta da, secularism. the problem with anything else is that it does not achieve this agreed on (well, between non-lunatics) societal goal.

?

why the question mark?

not really. it is not a question of raising people within an ideology in general. it couldn't be, as there is literally no way to avoid that.

But schools shouldn't be teaching ideologies. They should be letting kids think for themselves as much as possible.

nobody can demonstrate that one religion is right (especially since they are actually all wrong), so in order to function as a society with multiple religious traditions operating within it, we must achieve a societal common ground that allows us to do so. ta da, secularism. the problem with anything else is that it does not achieve this agreed on (well, between non-lunatics) societal goal.

The point isn't the validity of secularism (whose validity is pretty clear, especially for people who believe in God like myself), it's the concept of teaching kids a particular viewpoint in schools and raising them to adhere to a certain form of thought. Schools should teach facts, not viewpoints, especially when you're putting something like this in the hands of teachers who might use it to force their views on students.

What they're doing is they are using schools to propagate their views on religion, and that is not right. And, of course, given that it's combined with philosophical rationalism (which is an ideology), it is just plain not appropriate.

But schools shouldn't be teaching ideologies. They should be letting kids think for themselves as much as possible.

that sounds awfully like an ideology to me. in fact, it is one of a number of competing ideologies that are currently in play.