God [Archive] - MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Nightingale

01-18-2003, 08:52 PM

raised Roman Catholic. I found too many things about Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general that I didn't like, particularly its intolerance of people who believe differently, and its active conversion strategies. My view is that if people have an interest in your faith, they will seek you out. There is no need to actively recruit. For some reason, many christians are intolerant of other religions to the point of feeling threatened by them. Other religions, however, for the most part tend to be rather tolerant of christianity. I don't care what path you walk as long as you don't try to trample on mine. Open dialogue is good. "You're going to hell if you don't convert!" is bad.

I found Wicca/Paganism in high school. Nobody "recruited" me. I found it on my own in a book, found the ideas in the book meshed with everything I already believed, and actively sought out others on the same path. What really struck me was the two main ideas. The first is "There is no one true way." Each person needs to follow their own path. No path is better or worse than anyone else's, just different. We're all different people, and naturally, we will approach the concept of god and religious faith differently.

The second was "If it harms none, do what you will." This means that your actions shouldn't cause pain or suffering to anyone or anything, yourself included. What it pretty much amounts to is that if your actions don't help someone out, make someone feel good, or spread a little love around, it probably isn't something you should be doing. It also stretches to include inaction. If anyone (yourself included) is harmed by your failing to act, then you've still violated the rule, so you can't just say "I don't want to get involved." because by being human and a member of society, you are already involved. The problem I always had with the ten commandments is that I found people doing evil things and justifying them because they weren't forbidden by those rules.

Wicca really doesn't have any "sacred texts" or bibles or whatever. I've found that religions with large texts can twist the text to mean whatever they need it to mean to suit their purpose through selective editing. They also don't always take into account the historical times in which the documents were written, and even if those documents were divinely inspired, they were still written through a human "lens" and human beings are just that. Human.

"Harm none" is kind of hard to screw up. Its more a way of life than a way of religion. Being Wiccan means that I see God in everything and everyone. It makes me accountable for my actions.

Many people are afraid of Wicca and Wiccans (who sometimes call themselves "white witches") mainly because they don't understand. Wiccans sometimes use the term "witch" because it relates to the pre christian European idea of the "wise woman", "witch" or "herbalist". we don't fly on broomsticks and turn people into frogs. We have no "magic" beyond that magic that every human being possesses. What we call "spells" are nothing more than prayers and prayer rituals, just like church, and many of the christian rituals have pagan roots... you know Easter? the name comes from the pagan festival of
Eostara (EE-star-uh), the spring holiday. That's why you eat chocolate rabbits, think about little baby chicks, and color eggs...they're pagan fertility symbols. The early christians set their festival of life at the same time and adopted the same symbols.

Pagans and Christians are two branches of the same tree. We both respect life and the world we live in, and want to change it for the better. We love our friends, our families, and our world, and would never harm another human being without due cause.

If you have a question about wicca, ask a wiccan. please. don't assume. don't generalize. and please don't assume that what your priest or pastor says about us is correct, because they probably don't know any more than you do.

Good books to look at for more information are:

anything by Silver Ravenwolf
anything by Scott Cunningham
Pagans and Christians (forget author's name...its written by a christian, though, and is a very interesting read. the man has done his research well on both sides of the issue).

respectfully,

-N-

Kiz Bell

01-18-2003, 10:08 PM

Hi,

I am a Witch and a Pagan but I am not Wiccan. I have been a witch for about 17 or 18 years now. The most common question I get asked is are you a white witch or a black witch? I tell 'em I'm a Green Witch! Depending on my mood I might also call myself a Kitchen Witch. I don't call myself a Wiccan because my main influences are from traditional Norse and Celtic witchcraft/shamanism rather than the Alexandrian or whatever style Wicca I've seen.

Real witchcraft is about as similar to Charmed as your local dojo is to the Power Rangers. Witchcraft also has nothing to Satanism either. Satan is a Christian concept. Witchcraft does have a God/Goddess figure though. Being female I naturally gravitate toward the Goddess side though.

For me witchcraft is less about rituals and covens (I'm not in one) than it is about healing (both people and animals) through herbalism, healing through massage and counselling, and other related skills, as well as the growing, care and identification of medicinal plants, and the care of people and animals in sickness and in health. My spiritual path also requires strict vegetarianism. I have not eaten any meat or byproducts for over 16 years now.

But that is my path. Other witches may follow different ones. Just like other religions, witchcraft/paganism/wicca is incredibly diverse, and gets it's fundementalist fruitcakes like all others - but don't judge all of us witches by them. They're no more representative of this religion that your local bible-bashing born again Jesus-freak is of general Christianity.

"Blessed Be", Kiz

Bob Hubbard

01-18-2003, 10:17 PM

A couple of side threads to this discussion would be, does your faith help, hinder or have no effect your training?

How does a Christian resolve the 'turn the other cheek' or the Wiccan the 'Harm None' aspects with martial training?

With the obvious 'flavoring' of religions other than your own in the arts, how do you deal with the conflicts between your beliefs and the traditions of the art you study?

Did you select an art based on its 'compatability' with you own belief system?

These are the questions I come up with when I think about thise subject... if anyone would like to pick up any of them for discussion, please start a new thread.

I personally find it interesting that the members of this board cross all nationalities, all races, genders, religions and orientations, and for the most part, can communicate in positive manners.

Nightingale, I used to work with Paul Telesco, husband of Trish Telesco. Wonderful woman, terrific author and an excelent cook. I had my first lesson in japanese sword techniques at their house. Haven't seen em in years though. heh.

:asian:

Blindside

01-19-2003, 12:13 AM

I'm used to be an agnostic, now I'm an atheist.

Generally I believe that the concept of God or an afterlife is a mental crutch to help people face the world. (As in: "God is testing me," or "I prayed to God for help," or "everything is OK, so-in-so is in a better place now.)

I follow an ethic that is derived from a Judeo/Christian system, but I believe that morality can be taught independent of a religious framework. I think that religions got alot of things right when they set up their moral frameworks, but that it usually because the same types of frameworks tend to make societies work best.

I believe that we exist because some DNA fragments we are carrying around are attempting to replicate and we are an extremely successful method of replication.

I do not recruit people into my belief system and do not usually initiate discussions on religion, but I'm always up for a good debate. (I've had a couple of doozies with a Campus Crusade for Christ director when I was in college, it was good clean fun.)

Lamont

TLH3rdDan

01-19-2003, 12:47 AM

well being from "The South" and "The Bible Belt" this question pops up alot and i ussually end up pi$$ing alot of people off around here :rofl: go figure huh... im an atheist... i believe that religions and gods or supreme beings were created simply to give answers to things people did not have answers for... take most ancient religions were you had a god or goddess that was resposible for every single aspect of the world... it was just a way of explaining things... then someone got smart and rolled all the gods and goddesses up into one god... not a bad thing... and i believe that they were created to keep everyone in line with the old lines of dont do that youll go to hell or something along those lines...

Blindside

01-19-2003, 01:22 AM

Hey TLH,

You know you are going to Hell right???

:rofl:

Lamont

TLH3rdDan

01-19-2003, 10:45 AM

well if there is a hell i wont be alone and it will be the biggest party of all times... im sure heaven would be pretty boring without ozzy, ac/dc, the stones, and countless other bands... :D

Rich Parsons

01-19-2003, 11:04 AM

As for my Beliefs, I was raised in an agnostic Christian house hold from to parents who were raised as strick Seventh Day Adventists.

I have perused the Old Testiment, the New Testiment, The Koran (* Qu'ran *), some Dao, Budhism, Ancentor worship and the spritis of Nature (* Native American *)

I have even read Nietzsche and his treatise God is Dead.
"Yet I was to choose to Believe would not my Belief then be Greater, knowing that God does not exist"

And I also have many classes in Science/Physics and Chemistry, etc., ..., .

I have a personal belief system out of this I call

Zen Agnostic who recognizes that there is to much commonality in the make up of the universe to have had it created by random.
(* My Path is for me and I expect no one else to follow it or to even understand it. *)

I also believe that our planet is not alone in the Universe. We are located on the outer tip of one of the spirals of the Milky Way which as Galaxy's goes is small and no where near the center. If you argue we are the only life in the Universe. In Engineering if you have billion data points that give you a constant and one that gives you an anomaly, you basically make a foot note of it and go with the constant. In this case the constant would be no life in the Universe.

Remeber you all asked ! :D

Nightingale

01-19-2003, 11:07 AM

in wicca, self defense is not only justified, it is MANDATORY under the rule of "harm none." "Harm none" covers both action and INACTION, so therefore, if, by your own inaction, you allow yourself to be harmed, you violate the rule. Thus, you must defend yourself in order to minimize the amount of harm done. The harm is minimized, because although you may cause injury to the other party, you aren't going to cause rape or murder.

For all you christians out there, self defense is permitted (or at least, not prohibited) by the ten commandments. There are two versions of a particular commandment. some books say "thou shalt not kill." while others say "thou shalt not murder." if you trace the bible back to the original aramaic text (or even back to the latin), you discover that the word used translates much closer to murder than to kill. therefore, one could draw the conclusion, that since the writers of the book got that specific regarding murder, that some kinds of harm and killing could be acceptable under certain circumstances.

Master of Blades

01-19-2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Rich Parsons

Remeber you all asked ! :D

Actually, I asked :p

Originally posted by nightingale8472
in wicca, self defense is not only justified, it is MANDATORY under the rule of "harm none." "Harm none" covers both action and INACTION, so therefore, if, by your own inaction, you allow yourself to be harmed, you violate the rule. Thus, you must defend yourself in order to minimize the amount of harm done. The harm is minimized, because although you may cause injury to the other party, you aren't going to cause rape or murder.

For all you christians out there, self defense is permitted (or at least, not prohibited) by the ten commandments. There are two versions of a particular commandment. some books say "thou shalt not kill." while others say "thou shalt not murder." if you trace the bible back to the original aramaic text (or even back to the latin), you discover that the word used translates much closer to murder than to kill. therefore, one could draw the conclusion, that since the writers of the book got that specific regarding murder, that some kinds of harm and killing could be acceptable under certain circumstances.

Very very very interesting. I wonder what the Jewish religeon stands on that subject.....:asian:

Elfan

01-19-2003, 12:53 PM

Athiest.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

I find that site extremly useful for information on different religions.

sweeper

01-20-2003, 04:17 AM

this one's hard for me.. agnostic/athiest I guess, depends who I talk to.

basicly if I'm in a room if athiests I argue in favor of thiests, with thiests I argue for the athiest. My personal view on religion is pritty darn simple, I havn't seen an argument that can prove beon d a shadow of a doubt that either A: there is nothing to reality beond the empiricul universe. and B: That there is something to reality beond the empiricul universe. Leading me to my core belief of "Who cares?" (actualy directed twards myself so maybe more of a "do I care?"). That is to say my life choices would not change if I were to join a religion so why bother?

Actualy the arguments and counter arguments I have considered are a bit more complicated but basicly I don't like organised religious bodies, I personaly don't like the idea of having religious leaders.

(edit) Almost forgot about Kaith's question.

As in my case my religious outlook (or lack of) is essentialy a result of my personality and the way I think, my MA perspectives mirror my religious perspectives in most regards, so I like to practice in an environment where there is little dictation but rather more of a mutual scholastic persuit, that is to say we don't do things because someone told us to but rather because after discusion and experimentation evidence points to it being a good choice. (hope all this makes sence to someone.. it's late and my mind might not be working properly :-p)

Yari

01-20-2003, 09:11 AM

I just don't beleive... I want to know. What I know I live by.. What I don't know I reflect on.

The question if your religious or if there is a god, are quite uninteressting, because they come down to a beleif system. Any beleif system builds on absolute truth ( a truth that can't be disscussed), which doesn't emphesize discussing it ( or can't tollerate it).

And somewere in my philosphical self I don't beleive in good or bad. Things change, sometimes it's more of one thing, other times it's something else. But thinking of things as good or bad, you use a reference point. Thinking that things are good and bad will just start you off on the path of "better/worse" also called judgemental. Some might say I don't judge, but already there you just did. The other part of good/bad, is that both sides are correct, it's a point of view. And just because you take one side, does that justify that the other side should exsist?

In my world duality is a part of the world. You can't just choose one side, because it'll change. It's the nature of good and bad. They change as times goes by....

/Yari

qizmoduis

01-20-2003, 01:20 PM

Regarding god-belief, I'm an atheist. My beliefs in general are probably best accomodated by secular humanism. I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic schools. Probably the biggest reason I dropped the religious stuff was that it just makes no sense to me. While growing up I voraciously read historical stuff, old mythologies from other cultures, bibles, etc. I also gobbled science fiction like candy. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that I couldn't really distinguish among theistic-beliefs. They all originated in primitive cultures' attempts to explain things that happened to them over the ages, lacking the modern scientific principles and knowledge base that we have now.

Cruentus

01-20-2003, 01:47 PM

ya'll have done it now. Here I am in my office on a holiday trying to get work done, and someone had to ask about "God". Now I am going to give my lengthy response, bore everyone, and not get as much done as I expected too today. I'll try to keep this as short and as interesting as I can, but here is my conversion story. and Oh well, here it goes.....;)

When I was a kid, I had gone through the Catholic sacraments and catechism. I had a horrible time with the religious education program when I was growing up, mostly do to ignorant and intolerant instructors. Most of these were volunteers who had no training in childhood development or teaching, so they were unable to recognize what the “trained” teachers and councilors had recognized in the public schools; that I acted the way I did in religious ed. class because I had serious problems at home. You see, I also came from a “broken” home, and an abusive environment. This turned me completely away from the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general. I couldn’t see how Christianity could be “the answer” when people seemed to act outright “evil” in the name of it. So I decided that Christianity wasn’t for me.

I had an urgent need to find some sort of answer, however, because I wanted to justify ending my own life. Now I have to put a little disclaimer here: I was only 11 years old when I had reached the suicidal stage, but don’t let my young age fool you. At the time I was probably on my 10th psychologist (of which only one had diagnosed me as suicidal with homicidal tendancies). Most of these doctors where testing my aptitude, however; apparently I have a talent for conceptual logic and communication. That is not for everyone on this forum to know the details about, because I don’t think I’m better then anyone else. Everyone has their talents. I just want to make the point that I had been thinking and reading about subjects that take conceptual logic beyond the scope of the average adult when I was about 7 or 8 years old, so by the time I was 11 I had read through and thought through quite a bit, I would say.

Too much knowledge for a young kid with no moral direction is no good, however, because I had rationalized the insignificance of my own existence. That, coupled with my overall lack of enjoyment of everyday life (getting my @$$ kicked at school by bullies, then at home by my parents wasn’t helping), I wanted to end my own life. I had decided that before I do so that I had better figure out what life means. So I looked everywhere I could find outside of Christianity for answers. This luckily brought me past my suicidal stage, and I was realizing that there was far too much out there for me to discover, and that killing myself would probably not be such a good idea.

By 8th grade, life was much better. My parents separated, so my abusive father was no longer as much of an influence. I had gotten proficient enough in my TKD to prevent myself from getting bullied, and I had just started Arnis a year before. Although I went through the motions of a Catholic conformation to appease my mother, I had developed more of an eastern thought in terms of religion; with the philosophies of Taoism, Zen Buddhism, Confucism, and Menceism mixed with an anthropomorphic concept of God. I did not identify myself as a Catholic at all.

That summer after my 8th grade year, I went to Canada on vacation with my mom and brothers to a little resort in Red Bay Canada, off the Georgian pinincula. I met this guy up there who was an Evengelical Christian. He was cool, and not “preachy” or annoying like many “bible-beaters” I had met. We got into a conversation about religion. We respected each other’s views, but I admitted that much of what he said had made sense. I had decided to look back into Christian philosophy, realizing that it did have some value, even though I had not agreed to become Christian. He had sent me a New King James Bible, of which I read the entire thing. I had taken what I liked, and discarded (more or less) what I didn’t.

My search continued through my graduating high school. I had Christian philosophy mixed in with eastern thought. I had also identified with tribal “Pagan” belief systems, particularly those of a Celtic origin. Then the rational for Christianity, one day out of the blue, hit me harder then it had ever had.

THE RATIONAL:

Take 6 people from various cultural backgrounds, and put them in a room: Lets say one Jew from Israel, one Druid from England, an atheist from America, a Christian from Mexico, a Muslim from Iran, and a Buddhist monk from an isolated area in the himilayan mountains. Then ask them various moral questions, such as “Is it O.K. to unjustifiably murder someone?” or “Is it O.K. to steal?”

Assuming that the people who were picked are not “psychopaths” or deemed “insane” by the standard of their own culture, these people will have a general agreement on key moral issues. Granted, the rational might vary when asked a detailed question. For instance, the Atheist may believe that it would be O.K. to kill someone if you are defending yourself, but the Buddhist might believe that even in that case, that would be murder. But the answer to the broad question: “Is it O.K. to unjustifiably kill someone, the general concensus would be ‘no.’”

Then ask these same people if there are individuals in their culture who have broken these generally accepted “rules.” They will all answer “yes” of course. Now all of you ask yourself, do you have morals or standards that you are unable to live up to? How about your community, or heritage? Don’t you see people all around you who make mistakes daily, and don’t meet their own standards? Don’t you?

Now, examine the animal kingdom. A little lion is eating a fresh kill, and a bigger lion comes along and is hungry. The bigger lion pushes the little lion aside and takes the food. The little lion doesn’t exclaim “Hey, that’s my food! That’s stealing! I’m gonna take you to court!” The little lion might not be pleased, but the fact is that the animal kingdom doesn’t have a method of “rationalizing morals” the way that we do. Evidance shows that they are working purely out of conditioned response, and instinct. Animals don’t have ideals that go beyond the scope of their capabilities like humans do.

So what logical explianation is there for all of this? Nature, and the animal kingdom, conforms to a cycle of birth and death. The same is with our humanly bodies, which will eventually become dust again. But, as humans we are constantly trying to take ourselves out of that cycle. This is why we don’t conform well to nature in itself; our destruction of the earth is an unfortunate extension of our personal conflicts with this cycle. And, we are the only beings on this planet that have a standard that is “outside” of ourselves; and no one knows exactly what that standard is because it wasn’t created by humans alone. The only logical explaination, when you think about it, is the Judeo-Christian one; that there is a God beyond us, who created us, and who has set the standards. Since we are not perfect, we struggle to conform to these standards that are beyond us. Since we have souls we desire to be in a place outside of the cycle of birth and death. Without something more powerful then us, we wouldn’t even have the desire to try to conform to standards beyond ourselve. We want to improve ourselves because we want to be like God, and we are made in that image.

The Paradox of Evil was also better solved by Christianity then other religions. How can there be evil if there is a God out there who is ultimately good? God is love, and according to Christian theology, he wants us to love before we can be in heaven. In order for us to love, we have to have the ability to “choose” love or not. Otherwise, it would be forced, and it wouldn’t be love at all. Love is what it is because we have the choice to love or not. It is when humans choose “not” to love, or to “walk in truth;” that is when problems arise. There is no middle ground. Every choice and behavior is made either for God (good) or for the opposite of God (evil). The “Devil,” according to theology, just happened to be one of God’s closest angels who chose the opposite of God. Evil exists in this world from people choosing the opposite of God. This evil is the unfortunate, but neccissary consequence of allowing us humans who are not perfect to have the freedom of choice. Our freedom is our own downfall. That is the paradox.

Then, the final argument for Christianity involves Christ himself. When you read the bible stories, you realize more and more that Christ claimed to be the son of God, basically God walking around in the flesh. The only choices that are available to us, then, is that either 1. Jesus is the son of God, or 2. Jesus was insane, or 3. Jesus is the biggest fraud and lier that this world has ever known. There is no middle ground here. Upon realizing that this “Jesus” person has had such an influence on this world, and that his teachings make sense, and are yet profound still today almost 2000 years later, and all the other proofs that point towards Jesus being a pretty wise, smart, good, and self sacrificing guy, only one conclusion comes to mind. #1 must be correct…Jesus must be who he said he was.

I am now a practicing Catholic. I had realized that the mistakes made towards me when I was younger were human mistakes, and not the fault of the religion, church, or the truth that exists behind the religion. Unfortunatily human mistakes in the name of religion are very grave. They are a result of human ignorance, not the religion itself. I chose Catholicism because even with the rules and standards of the church, I was able to intigrate the truths that I had learned from eastern theology, and Pegan/tribal thought, exept now God is the underlying purpose for these beliefs. Plus, the Catholic Church is the oldest existing Christian church, and its belief system, rituals, etc. are the closest I can get to the actual practices of the apostiles during the time of Christ. Plus, the doctrine just makes plain sense to me.

Well, this is my outlook, and how I came to realize what I know to be true. My beliefs may be correct, or incorrect, but they are probably a little of both to some degree. One thing that is a fact, however, is that not everyone can be right. There is a truth out there, and you are either on your own journey towards it, or you are not. I hope for your sake that you are. Just don’t be afraid to take the narrow path, to enjoy the scenery, and to ask for directions along the way.

Peace, love, and with respect,

PAUL

:asian:

Abbax8

01-20-2003, 03:33 PM

Paul,
IMHO, NUF SAID, AND WELL SAID!!!

Peace
Dennis

fringe_dweller

01-20-2003, 07:24 PM

Well for I'm a Christian and as for why - it's experience...
When I was young my parents bought me up in a Baptist church, I loved it as a little kid but as I got older the whole thing seemed a bit boring and restrictive. Somewhere along the line things got out of hand and I started getting into some stupid stuff. Eventually woke up and wondered what had become of my life and decided to give this church that some of the kids at school were talking about. This was at age 17.
Started seeing a girl and while we were mucking around she fell over and sprained her ankle to the point where she had to get crutches. Went to church that night where someone bent over and put their hands on her ankle and asked God to heal her and she threw away her crutches and walked. That was pretty impressive.

Deathtrap101

01-20-2003, 10:00 PM

Very well put there Paul, great post.

I am a Christian, sometimes question parts of it and always trying to make my faith stronger. This thread has done some good for me.

Jill666

01-20-2003, 10:30 PM

No, thank you.

Cruentus

01-21-2003, 09:15 AM

:)

And for the record, I respect everyones right to have their own beliefs. This post wasn't predominatily Christian; actually it seemed to be predominatily "athiest". I can respect that, it's their journay, but I just wanted to give an alternative. More importantly, I wanted to explain the logic behind my alternative.

I really am enjoying this post so far, and hearing everyones point of view.:D

Jill666 O.K. Jill, you got my attention. I am totally confused... are you saying "God, No Thank You" as in your not interested in God, or are you saying "God.....No, Thank YOU" like your actually thanking God for something. Or, like God thanked you for something, and you said "No, Thank You" as in "my Pleasure."

Really, I don't know what you mean.

Nightingale

01-21-2003, 11:26 AM

seemed to me like she was saying no thanks to the idea of god.

Cruentus

01-21-2003, 03:46 PM

Yea, probably.

I'm just being kind of an antagonist, (or a-hole, whichever you'd prefer to call it:p ). I was attempting to get her to elaborate a little bit. The comment seemed a little snide after my post, and the few others after mine, anyhow.

It wasn't like she was simply stating her belief's, or giving a useful reasoning behind her beliefs. A good example of an appropriate "non-christian" answer on this thread was quizmoduis post. He stated he was an athiest, and gave his reasoning behind it. I may not agree with him, but he at least stated his beliefs in a constructive manner. In fact, even the other posts that were briefer then his where pretty constructive, I thought.

I didn't feel that Jill666 had stated her opinion in the same constructive manner as the rest of the posts here, whether intentional or not. Plus, linguistic structure of "God....No, Thank You." is pretty confusing as well when you think about it, even though I could guess what she probably meant by it.

Anyways, I'm rambling. Sorry. If Jill666 didn't want to elaborate or discuss her beliefs in a constructive way, then she should not have posted on a thread that is primarily discussing religious beliefs. I don't know if that is the case with her or not, though, at least not until she posts something in explaination.

:cool:

Cruentus

01-21-2003, 03:52 PM

O.K., now I really am being an @-hole. :lol:

I'm totally just kidding around, though. I hope you all, including you Jill666, will see the humor, and not get POed at me.:D :asian:

fist of fury

01-21-2003, 04:10 PM

I'm not an atheist or agnostic. I think religion is a load of crap that people use as a crutch to argue how right they are and how wrong everybody else is. I was somewhat of an atheist when I was younger until I was told that evolution was scientific.

Johnathan Napalm

01-21-2003, 04:27 PM

I don't go slamming my religion down anyone's throat. What pisses me off are people going around slamming other people's religions. People who state that religion is a clutch, have no clue what they are talking about, either due to youthful ignorance, or simply ignorance.

fist of fury

01-21-2003, 04:32 PM

I agree ignorance is a big problem today. It seems to be more rampant in today's society than ever before.

Zoran

01-21-2003, 04:42 PM

I was born a Serbian Orthodox.

Really a Christian under my own terms...not affiliated to any church or religious group.;)

Follower of the Tao of Z-Rex :D

Quick Sand

01-21-2003, 05:30 PM

My thoughts tend to be more along the lines of sweeper. I haven't made a decision about whether or not I believe there is some higher power(s) and I think I'll keep it that way for a while.

There maybe very well be a higher power of some kind or there may not be, but either way I try to live my life as a good person.

I think being relegious can be a very good thing in some cases and I know it has really helped some of my family and friends.

Like I said, either way I try to be a good person and I guess I'll find out when I die. :asian:

arnisador

01-21-2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Zoran
I was born a Serbian Orthodox.

While in college I dated a girl who was Russian Orthodox. I learned that Russian Orthodox holidays fell whenever she had an exam.

Zoran

01-21-2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by arnisador
While in college I dated a girl who was Russian Orthodox. I learned that Russian Orthodox holidays fell whenever she had an exam.

Wife is Russian Orthodox. Our holidays are based on an older version of the calendar. Before the Catholics changed it.

Example:
Christmas falls on 12/25. On the Old calendar 12/25 is on 1/7. So I get to have 2 Christmas holidays. :D

Elfan

01-21-2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Zoran
Wife is Russian Orthodox. Our holidays are based on an older version of the calendar. Before the Catholics changed it.

Example:
Christmas falls on 12/25. On the Old calendar 12/25 is on 1/7. So I get to have 2 Christmas holidays. :D

heh lucky you, the Eastern Orthodox people I know just get to wait until the 7th, no fun on the 25th for them.

Jill666

01-21-2003, 11:00 PM

Not at all your fault you caught me at the wrong time of year- I do tend to be reactionary to the topics of religion or God (from about early November to February).

I grew up Catholic. My childhood wasn't pleasant, and religion became a bizzarre backdrop for other things-

I have read your post. I am truly pleased you have beliefs that sustain you and make sense to you. Also, you opened up a great deal, which couldn't be easy.

I have studied a number of religions and thought I had the answer a number of times, just to find I don't even know the question. And frankly, I don't care. I try to grow and be a decent, honest person. I usually fall short. Who doesn't?

My husband on the other hand, has recently been "saved" and seems to think I should be too. I'm hoping my 9-year marriage gets through this. So, yup, your candor got rewarded with a knee-jerk response that you didn't deserve.

I can't reason out my beliefs, and lack much of the education to match many here, so that's all for now...

Peace out

Samurai

01-22-2003, 08:33 AM

My views.......
http://www.geocities.com/indianamartialarts/christian.htm

Jeremy Bays

Blindside

01-22-2003, 10:27 AM

Posted by Napalm: People who state that religion is a clutch, have no clue what they are talking about, either due to youthful ignorance, or simply ignorance.

Posted by Fist:I agree ignorance is a big problem today. It seems to be more rampant in today's society than ever before.

What is your definition of ignorance? I would argue that what you are viewing as ignorance (lack of education or information) is actually just the opposite. It is the access to more information regarding human psychology and behavior that makes such statements perfectly valid as a opinion.

The posts on this thread have shown alot of people who have researched and have described what and why they believe the way they do. That is most certainly not ignorance.

Lamont

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 10:44 AM

When people say that religion is a clutch, they have NOT a clue what grace and faith mean. They have never felt it nor experienced it. They have no clue how it enriches one's life and enables a person to blossom beyond the confine of the atheist's limited existence. Yet they seem to see fit to generalize all the religious people as weak. It is not only ignorance, but also arrogance.

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Blindside
What is your definition of ignorance? I would argue that what you are viewing as ignorance (lack of education or information) is actually just the opposite. It is the access to more information regarding human psychology and behavior that makes such statements perfectly valid as a opinion.

The posts on this thread have shown alot of people who have researched and have described what and why they believe the way they do. That is most certainly not ignorance.

Lamont
In my opinion ignorance isn't necessarily a lack of education or information. To me it's the laziness in that people will accept almost everything they hear without researching it themselves. Do you believe it because it's what you believe or because it's what you were told to believe. Religious intolerance is another form of ignorance, people who feel they have to convert the world by cramming thier belief's down others throats. I speak from experience as I used to be like that and then one day I finally wised up and realized people can believe what they want and it isn't my place to change thier mind. I agree most people that have posted on this thread have researched and believe what they do because of thier own discoveries they used intelligence and not just followed the crowd. Unlike many today who just follow like a mass of mindless cattle.

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 11:06 AM

On ignorance: Given my history, I can absolutely state with all confidence that my lack of belief in a deity-concept is NOT based on ignorance. In my experience, the opposite is true. It is most often the case, that such claims about atheism arise out of a provincial and credulous mindset that is generally incapable of objectively analyzing an opposing stance on a set of beliefs that has been ingrained from birth (in whatever form). Most people in the US think that atheists are evil, immoral, satan-worshipping, baby-killers who should be thrown out of the country. They have been taught such things by their religious leaders, and actually believe it. I've been told such things to my face by more people than I can count. I was taught of the evil horrors of atheists while growing up.

I do believe that religion is generally a crutch for people, for whatever reason. It is also, in a larger sense, a power structure that allows folks to be manipulated in subtle and very insidious ways. What better way to control people then through their beliefs? With religion, there is always a way to motivate believers, by setting up and controlling their perceptions of "the others"; those who do not share their beliefs. Often, the others become scapegoats for the power-mongers. History bears out my viewpoint. Religion may occasionally benefit individuals, but such benefits are temporary. In the long run, religions can only do harm, both personally and on a global scale. Most of the time, the personal harm of a religion is insignificant and only involves small prejudices, loss of critical thinking ability and objectivity, etc.
Witness the constant manifestations of nonsensical thinking: Qi, John Edwards, the Pet Psychic, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathics, fortune-telling, Miss Cleo, etc. All of this can be directly traced to religious training.

My opinions about religion - and this is very important to understand - are utterly distinct from my beliefs in deities. I arrived at those conclusions more or less separately, through close observation, intense introspection, harsh analysis of my own beliefs, and much reading and discussion.

But then, it's much simpler and probably more self-validating to dismiss my beliefs and lack of belief as ignorance. That very neatly sidesteps the necessity to examine your own beliefs in order to understand mine. Examining one's closely-held beliefs is possibly the most psychologically painful process a person can experience, especially when those beliefs have been taught to you since before you you could speak.

Uh......

That's more than I intended to say. Sorry about that. I get twitchy fingers when subjects like this come up. I hope I haven't offended anyone; I've tried to keep my writing as emotionless as possible, but this is such a touchy subject. I usually stay as far away from it as I can.

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 11:08 AM

It is one thing to state your own belief, whatever that may or may not be. That is fine. People can respect that. It is another to generalize and pigeonhole other people for what they believe or do not believe. You cannot possibly know every one of them for what they have in their hearts. Who are you to judge? It makes you no better than those you seek to condemn.

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 11:19 AM

I don't judge any of them until they start pushing it my face. And true my opinion maybe somewhat jaded since I live in the "bible Belt". And as I stated earlier I used to be that way I condemed people to a certain degree it was my job to save everybody from going to hell. Well it very well maybe but i was going about it all wrong. And as i got older I learned to question things and not take everything that comes from the pulpit as pure and absolute truth. Look at the average church goer and many of them do the same i've been to many different churhces in my life. Hell there are at least 2 churches of various religions on just about every street corner. I've had former friends from highschool that were having problems back then serious problems that I helped. They got invovled in the church and I've left since then and changed some of my beliefs and they will have nothing to do with me because in thier opinion I'm a back slidder sad really. As i said earlier I have my faith I'd never be able to become an athiest there's no way I could believe evolution is scientific.

Blindside

01-22-2003, 11:24 AM

They have never felt it nor experienced it. They have no clue how it enriches one's life and enables a person to blossom beyond the confine of the atheist's limited existence.

Ah, OK you are talking about ignorance of faith. Which would be fair except there are lots of people just on this thread that started in different faiths and moved away from it.

That an atheists existence is limited is of course your opinion, an atheist could argue that you are deluded for believing there is a greater existence out there.

This would be exactly the cRutch that I was refering to earlier. How does faith enrich your life? Does it give you a sense of purpose? A sense of security? Moral correctness?

As a child we (hopefully) had our parents to guide and help us and to answer those tough questions (why is the sky blue?). One of the big difficulties of adolescence is the coming of adulthood and the understanding that we are supposed to now be independent. As an analogy I view the person who requires faith to be a child, dependent upon the belief there is some great parent out there who will answer take the questions you can't answer and protect you when times are hard. The atheist has to deal with life on its true terms, because they have no mythical being/structure to remove some of those mental responsibilites.

So I may be ignorant of faith, but then I'm ignorant of crack too, I can emperically view the effects and restrictions of both and decide that I want neither.

Lamont

edited because I forget to include a quote

“I submit that we are both atheist, I simply believe in one fewer god than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours."
~Stephen F. Frost

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by qizmoduis .....Most people in the US think that atheists are evil, immoral, satan-worshipping, baby-killers who should be thrown out of the country. They have been taught such things by their religious leaders, and actually believe it. I've been told such things to my face by more people than I can count. I was taught of the evil horrors of atheists while growing up. ..

That is generalization. I have not heard that been taught to me nor my friends. I am a Christian. But I don't harbour any negative opinions toward non-Christians nor atheists. I tend to get pissed when other people stereotype me.

I do believe that religion is generally a crutch for people, for whatever reason. It is also, in a larger sense, a power structure that allows folks to be manipulated in subtle and very insidious ways. What better way to control people then through their beliefs? With religion, there is always a way to motivate believers, by setting up and controlling their perceptions of "the others"; those who do not share their beliefs. Often, the others become scapegoats for the power-mongers. History bears out my viewpoint. Religion may occasionally benefit individuals, but such benefits are temporary. In the long run, religions can only do harm, both personally and on a global scale. Most of the time, the personal harm of a religion is insignificant and only involves small prejudices, loss of critical thinking ability and objectivity, etc.
Witness the constant manifestations of nonsensical thinking: Qi, John Edwards, the Pet Psychic, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathics, fortune-telling, Miss Cleo, etc. All of this can be directly traced to religious training.

This is a reflection of ignorance of the existence of a majority of Christians who neither control, nor seek to control, nor controlled by any person, any institution nor any power. Your view is a reflection of utter ignorance of the existence of free will. 99% of the Christians do not live a life as you have stereotyped. I think ignorance can be defined as " YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, YET YOU SEE FIT TO TALK"

The assertion that religion is harmful, is pure garbage. Which religion teaches people to harm, hurt and destroy? NONE. This is like saying martial art is harmful to people in the long run! YES. That is exactly what you are saying.

You seem to have mistaken the evil deed that crooks and political hacks have done using religion as cover, as the evil deed in religion itself. Just b/c some criminals use martial art to commit crime, does that criminalize martial arts? But your logic says just that!

To attribute the nonsensical garbage you listed to religion is the most absurd thing ! It is a reflection of your ignorance in generalizing being religious as being irrational. Do you think atheists alone alone have a monopoly on rationale and logic? :rolleyes:

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by fist of fury
I don't judge any of them until they start pushing it my face. And true my opinion maybe somewhat jaded since I live in the "bible Belt". And as I stated earlier I used to be that way I condemed people to a certain degree it was my job to save everybody from going to hell. Well it very well maybe but i was going about it all wrong. And as i got older I learned to question things and not take everything that comes from the pulpit as pure and absolute truth. Look at the average church goer and many of them do the same i've been to many different churhces in my life. Hell there are at least 2 churches of various religions on just about every street corner. I've had former friends from highschool that were having problems back then serious problems that I helped. They got invovled in the church and I've left since then and changed some of my beliefs and they will have nothing to do with me because in thier opinion I'm a back slidder sad really. As i said earlier I have my faith I'd never be able to become an athiest there's no way I could believe evolution is scientific.

You are judging the rest of the world, based ONLY on you own exposure/experience. Do you think your experience is the universal standard that applies to every other human beings?

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
Witness the constant manifestations of nonsensical thinking: Qi, John Edwards, the Pet Psychic, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathics, fortune-telling, Miss Cleo, etc. All of this can be directly traced to religious training.

To me the evolution theory is non sensical thinking yet it was crammed down my throat as scientific fact.

Blindside

01-22-2003, 11:41 AM

The assertion that religion is harmful, is pure garbage. Which religion teaches people to harm, hurt and destroy? NONE.

Hmmm.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

I believe that comes out of the Bible, which many people will say is the word of god.

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
You are judging the rest of the world, based ONLY on you own exposure/experience. Do you think your experience is the universal standard that applies to every other human beings?

In my opinion it applies to the majority ,but this is only my opinion the majority of religious people I have met. I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong but until I see something to change my opinion I will stick with what I beleive. Many can't think outside of the "box" turn on any religious station. Look at the children that grow up in a church do you think thier parents teach them about other religious without a bias so the child can make his/her own decision. I don't think that everyone out there that has a religious faith is an ignorant boob but my opinion is that is the majority

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Blindside
Ah, OK you are talking about ignorance of faith. Which would be fair except there are lots of people just on this thread that started in different faiths and moved away from it.

That an atheists existence is limited is of course your opinion, an atheist could argue that you are deluded for believing there is a greater existence out there.

1. There are also many who started out as Christians, left to explore and later returned. So what is your point?

2. If the atheists want to accuse the majority of the people on earth as being deluded except for the atheists, go right ahead.

This would be exactly the cRutch that I was refering to earlier. How does faith enrich your life? Does it give you a sense of purpose? A sense of security? Moral correctness?

If you don't know, then what makes your view worth more than a pile of dog poop?

As a child we (hopefully) had our parents to guide and help us and to answer those tough questions (why is the sky blue?). One of the big difficulties of adolescence is the coming of adulthood and the understanding that we are supposed to now be independent. As an analogy I view the person who requires faith to be a child, dependent upon the belief there is some great parent out there who will answer take the questions you can't answer and protect you when times are hard. The atheist has to deal with life on its true terms, because they have no mythical being/structure to remove some of those mental responsibilites.

Sheer arrogance! As if you alone have a monopoly of rationality, logic and facing life head on. Sheer stupidity to assume others as having their "mental responsibilites removed". I have nothing but contempt for people who demonstrate such sheer ignorance as to pressume so much about others' lives. HOW OLD ARE YOU? How can you seriously go around assuming you know about how everyone else grows up?

So I may be ignorant of faith, but then I'm ignorant of crack too, I can emperically view the effects and restrictions of both and decide that I want neither.

Great analogy. :rolleyes: . Your empirical view on religion and religious people, is WRONG. But, No one cares what you want for yourself. However, when you make an ignorant statement, expect to be rebutted. :)

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 11:47 AM

Johnathan Napalm, you wish not to be sterotyped, yet you give a stereotypical reply. You failed to read and understand ANY point in my post, and instead of responding rationally, you counter-attacked with an emotional, baseless diatribe. I could have re-constructed your post almost verbatim from various discussions with other theists over the past few years.

That's why I don't usually engage in these debates. I cannot use reason to oppose emotion, and religions are entirely emotional.

Fist of Fury: Evolution is a different topic. For more information, you should really read up on the facts of evolution and the theory of how evolution most likely happened. Try www.talkorigins.org for good information. There is no scientific debate regarding the facts of evolution. In fact, my personal opinion is that evolution is so much an application of common sense that it's silly to deny that it happens. Arguing about the details, of course, is both appropriate and important. Modern biological science and medicine wouldn't exist without it. There is certainly no viable and reasonable alternative.

Blindside

01-22-2003, 11:49 AM

To me the evolution theory is non sensical thinking yet it was crammed down my throat as scientific fact.

Evolutionary theory is not a fact, it is a THEORY. A theory that is shown to be essentially true becomes a law. However, the current model for evolution is the best model out there because no other model can survive near the level of examination it has. It has problems, and those problems are being addressed by current research, just like any othe scientific issue. The counter theory of creationism really doesn't have any evidence for it, it just pokes holes in the evolution argument.

Lamont

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 11:54 AM

qiz- Thanks I'll check it out
Blindside- The thing that annoyed me was it was never presented as theory but as fact. My biggest problem is at least present several thoeries and allow people to make thier own educated decisions. To me that's just as bad as what people complain that religion is doing.
I don't want to turn this into an evolution debate.

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Blindside
Hmmm.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
I believe that comes out of the Bible, which many people will say is the word of god.

I have no idea what that means.

You can spend the rest of your life to quote things out of the Bible that are wrong, inconsistent, wicked, bloody, self contradictory etc etc etc.
You can also talk endlessly about how out of date the current Christian doctrines may be in some areas.

I do not wish to go into that.

If you care to, read the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

Blindside

01-22-2003, 11:58 AM

Hey Napalm chill out. This is a debate, you are now supposed to poke holes in my argument, not call me names.

Great analogy. . Your empirical view on religion and religious people, is WRONG. But, No one cares what you want for yourself. However, when you make an ignorant statement, expect to be rebutted.

This is not a rebuttal, A rebuttal means "to refute by offering countering evidence" something that you have not done.

I await your rebuttal.

Lamont

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by fist of fury
In my opinion it applies to the majority ,but this is only my opinion the majority of religious people I have met. I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong but until I see something to change my opinion I will stick with what I beleive. Many can't think outside of the "box" turn on any religious station. Look at the children that grow up in a church do you think thier parents teach them about other religious without a bias so the child can make his/her own decision. I don't think that everyone out there that has a religious faith is an ignorant boob but my opinion is that is the majority

I am not aware of the Bible belt situation. May be you should get away from those people. I can assure you that even in one of the best known research institutes in the country, I have met an extensive network of religious people who are doing the most advanced scientific research in their respective fields. And these are certainly quite UNLIKE what you have described. That is why. your assertion regarding the"majority" cannot be true.

Cruentus

01-22-2003, 12:03 PM

Hey, thanks for explaining your position a little bit better. Believe me, I understand a bit of what you might be going through. As you had read, I had been a victim of bad s**t in the name of religion. It does make it really hard to want to even deal with the subject when that is the case. Also, I apoligize if I seemed rude, and I didn't really mean to put you in an uncomfortable position.

In regards to your husband being "saved", I can only imagine the problems that this could cause your marraige. I have never been married, but I have seen situations like that turn for the worst.

I'll relate to you my recent situation; maybe it might help a little. I have been with the same girlfriend for over a year now, and we have plans for marraige. My plans are to propose sometime this year (which is no secret to her; she knows it's comin' so I don't mind saying so online), and we will probably tie the knot 2005 spring.

When we had met, she had never been baptized. In fact, on our second date we had talked a bit about religion. It started when she was relaying to me a story about a Baptist who had been "saved" who she had gone on a date with. They had gone out to play racket ball, and he kept stopping the game to talk to her about religion; how she was all wrong in her beliefs and how she needs to go to his church, and how she hasn't been "saved" yet (cause of course HE could tell somehow who'll go to heaven and who won't) and yada-yada-yada.....he just wouldn't quit. Needless to say, that date ended early.:p

So we had a good laugh about that. We did talk briefly about our beliefs, and basically she had relayed to me that she believed in God, but she wasn't particularly religious. There was a lot she needed to look into. I had told her in more of a brief manner then I had even on this forum what my beliefs were, and I relayed the message in a non-threatening manner. I was just satisfied knowing that she was open-minded, searching, and open to the idea of "God". That was all I needed. I realized that it is HER journey, not mine, and that ramming my belief system down her throat would not turn her on to my belief system. She knew that I was there and available for questioning. She saw the way I lived and how important God was to me in my life. Other then that, it is really up to her to do her own searching.

Before this Christmass, an entire year after that second date, she had told me that she wanted to become a Catholic. I didn't ask, she told me. Prior to making this decision, she had read the parts of "The Catecism of the Catholic Church." Prior to that she had looked into other ways of thought. She had also talked to her Grandma (of whom she identified with pretty well) about the Church, and had gone to mass with her a few times. She had made an informed decision that was right for HER.

We went to mass this Christmass, and we have been going ever since. She is also in the RCIA program, which is basically the adult education program that prepares people for baptism. We are at a pretty cool church that keeps the tradition, yet at the same time the Priests are pretty open minded and progressive. This Easter, my girlfriend will be baptised, confirmed, and she will recieve holy communion. As somebody who wants to marry this girl, I couldn't be happier.

The important thing about this story is that she made this decision on her own. She did her own research, she did her own searching, and she decided that this was right for her. And by letting her search for her self, I was a possitive influence on her growth. Had I of tried to ram my ideas down her throat, no matter how good my intentions would have been, we wouldn't be together today, and she might not want to be a Catholic today.

Now, Jill, bear with me here.....I'm no Dr. Phil, and I don't know the exact situation between you and your husband, but I would guess by the sound of it that he needs to let you do your own searching. This will be tough for him because many of the people who follow the evengelical idea that they know when a person has been "saved" or not also follow the idea that in marraige 2 people literally become one person, with the husband as the "head." The two beliefs don't have to go hand and hand, but they usually come in the same package. He may in fact be getting this package every Sunday morning at church service. Under this belief system, it becomes inherently difficult to allow the woman in the marrage to have her own identity. Regardless, what he probably needs to realize is that 9 years ago when you two first got married, niether of you upheld the Christian beliefs that he now follows. Whether for the better or not, HE is the one who changed his belief system, NOT YOU. Just because he has changed his values, he can't expect you to run out and do the same just because he wants you to. He needs to allow you to have your own journey, so you can make the decision on your own. From a Christian perspective, he needs to trust in God, and that the Holy Spirit will lead you in the right direction. He also needs to be prepared to accept you if you choose a different path then he. He also needs to understand that the more he pressures you, the more difficult it will be for you to have your own journey.

O.K.....I know that it was unsolicited, but dammit I just spent all that time writting it, so it is to late now, I'm postin' it! Hopefully that was helpful, and hopefully I made sense and didn't sound like a moron. :p

In all seriousness though, I hope that I helped. I do wish you and your husband the best. I hope that your 9 year marraige lasts many more happy years.

With Humility and Respect,
PAUL
:asian:

Blindside

01-22-2003, 12:04 PM

I don't want to turn this into an evolution debate.

Cool, maybe we'll make it a seperate thread. :) Nah, I'm not up on the latest counter and counter-counter arguments. Let me get up to speed, say six months or so? :D

Lamont

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Blindside Evolutionary theory is not a fact, it is a THEORY. A theory that is shown to be essentially true becomes a law. However, the current model for evolution is the best model out there because no other model can survive near the level of examination it has. It has problems, and those problems are being addressed by current research, just like any othe scientific issue. The counter theory of creationism really doesn't have any evidence for it, it just pokes holes in the evolution argument.

Lamont
The majority of Christian parents teach their children about creationism, just like they teach their children about Santa Claus, the Tooth fairly and the Easter Bunny.

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
I am not aware of the Bible belt situation. May be you should get away from those people. I can assure you that even in one of the best known research institutes in the country, I have met an extensive network of religious people who are doing the most advanced scientific research in their respective fields. And these are certainly quite UNLIKE what you have described. That is why. your assertion regarding the"majority" cannot be true.

Well the bible belt covers alot of the southern portion of the U.S. it's hard to get away from. It's actually kind of funny to see so many churches everywhere it's almost like fast food chains you can order whatever religion you want. At then end of my street are 2 different churches sdown the road there is going to be another one. And I have met alot of highly intelligent scientist also that have strong faith and I credit them for helping me to think more.

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Blindside
Hmmm.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

I believe that comes out of the Bible, which many people will say is the word of god.

The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to. What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood. I was trained to take things on faith. Don't question. Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes. The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness. Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority. If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.

Don't try to tell me it isn't this way. The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.

:soapbox:

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
Johnathan Napalm, you wish not to be sterotyped, yet you give a stereotypical reply. You failed to read and understand ANY point in my post, and instead of responding rationally, you counter-attacked with an emotional, baseless diatribe. I could have re-constructed your post almost verbatim from various discussions with other theists over the past few years.

That's why I don't usually engage in these debates. I cannot use reason to oppose emotion, and religions are entirely emotional.

Why don't YOU reread my post again? I rebutted you point by point. And showed the serious flaw of you assertion.

Your dismissive attitude rivals your narrow mindedness in this area.

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
I have no idea what that means.

You can spend the rest of your life to quote things out of the Bible that are wrong, inconsistent, wicked, bloody, self contradictory etc etc etc.
You can also talk endlessly about how out of date the current Christian doctrines may be in some areas.

I do not wish to go into that.

If you care to, read the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

That IS the New Testament.

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by fist of fury
Well the bible belt covers alot of the southern portion of the U.S. it's hard to get away from. It's actually kind of funny to see so many churches everywhere it's almost like fast food chains you can order whatever religion you want. At then end of my street are 2 different churches sdown the road there is going to be another one. And I have met alot of highly intelligent scientist also that have strong faith and I credit them for helping me to think more.

Heck, where I used to work, there were 10 churches between my downtown apt and my office. I walked past them every day. No one ever preached to me nor harassed me, except for this jerk who told me I was going to hell b/c I am a Catholic. *sigh*

Blindside

01-22-2003, 12:15 PM

.Posted by qizmodius The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

Yeah, I actually read that last week, but I hadn't had any confirmation on it so I didn't bring it up. (It is also why it came to mind so fast.) If they had kept the original hebrew "poisoner" term it is a quite logical thing to do.

Lamont

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to. What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood. I was trained to take things on faith. Don't question. Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes. The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness. Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority. If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.

Don't try to tell me it isn't this way. The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.

:soapbox:
I've been there myself , but as I read the bible for myself and did more research I found that it doesnt push the don't question issue that's more of a church thing. I've learned more by questioning my own beliefs than just accepting things. I also attempted to learn about other faiths and see what they beleive and why instead of just assuming they are wrong.

Jill666

01-22-2003, 12:21 PM

Hey Paul- well congratulations. I hope all goes well with you both.

As for the debate that has taken place in the last 24- wow. Guys cool off a bit, you're making good arguments.

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to. What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood. I was trained to take things on faith. Don't question. Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes. The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness. Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority. If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.

Don't try to tell me it isn't this way. The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.

:soapbox:

Blame your parents! Heck Christians children are taught that God loves them. Jesus loves them. The angels protect them.

Growing up, I have not been told otherwise. I was warmed that if I broke the laws and commit crimes, there would be hell to pay. I was never forbid to question nor to explore.

I have seldom met religion organizations that are as close minded as you described. Granted there will always be a few nuts. But that is not the majority.

Just what kind of churches you people have been exposed to? Don't you realize it is the nuts thumbing the Bible "invoking God's name in vain" that is the source of the problems? and not religion itself.

To use your analogy. In martial art, a knife hand to the wind pipe is a death blow. It is a fact. Now if some crooks learn that and kill someone with a knife hand that crushed the windpipe. Does that make the martial art evil? ENLIGHTEN ME PLEASE!!

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Why don't YOU reread my post again? I rebutted you point by point. And showed the serious flaw of you assertion.

Your dismissive attitude rivals your narrow mindedness in this area.

As Blindside already pointed out, you didn't rebut my points, you simply disagreed, vehemently in some cases. The dismissive attitude was yours, not mine, and is unfortunately all too common. Again, I would suggest that, in order to avoid being stereotyped, don't respond in a stereotypical way.

Regarding my reference to peoples' beliefs about atheists, I admit to exaggerating quite a bit. To be more precise, and less inflammatory, I should have stated it thus: The vast majority of people in this country believe that atheists are immoral. There are, demonstrably so, large subgroups of believers that hold additional beliefs about atheists, including the ones that I mentioned. Our illustrious president's own father once suggested that atheists like myself should not be considered as citizens of this country during his presidential campaign. There are probably between 20 and 40 million atheists in our country right now, but how often do you ever see any of us actually speak up? I can assure you, it isn't due to any additional apathy beyond the current background level in this country. What do you think would happen to a political candidate who admitted to being an atheists, even if he/she had an outstanding record of philanthropy, generosity, and general morality?

And as usual, in a discussion where folks were asked to reveal their beliefs, the atheists are attacked, simply because they do not share your beliefs. I've found, that my simple existence is offensive to many people.

Not once did I ever make judgements of believers in my posts. All I did was express my opinions of RELIGIONS. You chose to take those opinions are attacks on your person. Whose fault is that?

Finally, your accusation of narrow-mindedness on my part is extraordinarily ironic. You, I'm sure, won't agree.

Blindside

01-22-2003, 12:25 PM

As for the debate that has taken place in the last 24- wow. Guys cool off a bit, you're making good arguments.

Last 24 hours? Hah, I think most of this thread has happened this morning. Oh, yeah this is really helping my work productivity, I'll just have to work late tonight. :)

Lamont

Cruentus

01-22-2003, 12:27 PM

Hey Paul- well congratulations. I hope all goes well with you both.

As for the debate that has taken place in the last 24- wow. Guys cool off a bit, you're making good arguments.

Actually, this debate flared up within about the last hour or so. I was at work writing a response to you, and by the time I got around to posting, there where pages of writing in fromt of me.

Guys slow down! I have to catch up here! :CTF:

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by fist of fury ...
I've been there myself , but as I read the bible for myself and did more research I found that it doesnt push the don't question issue that's more of a church thing......

Exactly. It is the people. Not the religion itself. The religion itself cannot do anything, any more than a martial art can go out and hurt someone, or a gun walking down the street to shoot someone.

It is the nuts using these tools to cause problems.

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Blame your parents! Heck Christians children are taught that God loves them. Jesus loves them. The angels protect them.

Growing up, I have not been told otherwise. I was warmed that if I broke the laws and commit crimes, there would be hell to pay. I was never forbid to question nor to explore.

I have seldom met religion organizations that are as close minded as you described. Granted there will always be a few nuts. But that is not the majority.

Just what kind of churches you people have been exposed to? Don't you realize it is the nuts thumbing the Bible "invoking God's name in vain" that is the source of the problems? and not religion itself.

To use your analogy. In martial art, a knife hand to the wind pipe is a death blow. It is a fact. Now if some crooks learn that and kill someone with a knife hand that crushed the windpipe. Does that make the martial art evil? ENLIGHTEN ME PLEASE!!

That's somewhat appropriate, but the real question is this: Does the intent or the "evilness" of the person diminish the damage done by the weapon? It is true that "evil" isn't an attribute of the art, or of the weapon. But regardless of intent or attitude, if I hit you in the throat with a swordhand, you'll still die. And, in the same light, if a child is taught to be unworthy, he/she will fell unworthy.

I'm not speaking of religious nuts here. My experience is quite mainstream. My family are as non-nutty as you can imagine. They're simple, lower-middle-class American Roman Catholics. Nothing weird, nothing crazy, just simple believers who brought me up the same way they were brought up.

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
As Blindside already pointed out, you didn't rebut my points, you simply disagreed, vehemently in some cases. The dismissive attitude was yours, not mine, and is unfortunately all too common. Again, I would suggest that, in order to avoid being stereotyped, don't respond in a stereotypical way.

Regarding my reference to peoples' beliefs about atheists, I admit to exaggerating quite a bit. To be more precise, and less inflammatory, I should have stated it thus: The vast majority of people in this country believe that atheists are immoral. There are, demonstrably so, large subgroups of believers that hold additional beliefs about atheists, including the ones that I mentioned. Our illustrious president's own father once suggested that atheists like myself should not be considered as citizens of this country during his presidential campaign. There are probably between 20 and 40 million atheists in our country right now, but how often do you ever see any of us actually speak up? I can assure you, it isn't due to any additional apathy beyond the current background level in this country. What do you think would happen to a political candidate who admitted to being an atheists, even if he/she had an outstanding record of philanthropy, generosity, and general morality?

And as usual, in a discussion where folks were asked to reveal their beliefs, the atheists are attacked, simply because they do not share your beliefs. I've found, that my simple existence is offensive to many people.

Not once did I ever make judgements of believers in my posts. All I did was express my opinions of RELIGIONS. You chose to take those opinions are attacks on your person. Whose fault is that?

Finally, your accusation of narrow-mindedness on my part is extraordinarily ironic. You, I'm sure, won't agree.

May be you should reread your post again. You are attacking religion and religious people as a group. You sugar-coated it by calling that "expressing your view". To you, that absorb you and allow you to claim self righteousness. No one here attack atheists, other than rebutting atheists attack on us. All the posts here are basically atheists attacking religions and religious people. Your victimization mentality is clouding your view.

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by PAUL
Actually, this debate flared up within about the last hour or so. I was at work writing a response to you, and by the time I got around to posting, there where pages of writing in fromt of me.

Guys slow down! I have to catch up here! :CTF:

Sorry. This is what happens when I have to spend too much time compiling large amounts of code.:D

Either that or I practice techniques in my office. That gets me weird looks. Especially Fleeing Chicken, since I need a bit of hallway space for that.

Jill666

01-22-2003, 12:47 PM

Well any religion, like any other system created by men will be faulty, since we are faulty. I'm leery of any religion at this point as all have people at their head. "Men are weak". Maybe so.

True, faith in the hands of people can become a very ugly thing, manifesting in the weirdest ways. So what do we do? I've chosen to do nothing. Maybe not the best choice, and very unpopular with my family, but I can't buy into a religion wholesale, and really don't get anything out of showing up at a structure to do my own worshipping, since I don't believe in God.

Although I don't necessarily disbelieve in God- I do not call myself an atheist. I can't say I'd never return to Christianity. I do believe in chemistry. I find the human body an amazing thing, and trained in western medicine I enjoy healing it. I do feel there is a life force or chi, and am trying to learn more about that aspect. That doen't make me a Buddhist. I believe there is power in the earth itself, and anyone who has spent the night in a forest will know what I mean. That doesn't make me a Wiccan or Pagan, but there is a system of beliefs there I feel makes a lot of sense.

Meanwhile, I study ECG interpretation, give medicines and change dressings, I encourage my patients to go to activities and call their minister when they are dying. And I learn how to inflict pain or injury even to death, so I can keep living. If I live long enough, maybe I find something I can believe in with all my heart.

Maybe not.

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
That's somewhat appropriate, but the real question is this: Does the intent or the "evilness" of the person diminish the damage done by the weapon? It is true that "evil" isn't an attribute of the art, or of the weapon. But regardless of intent or attitude, if I hit you in the throat with a swordhand, you'll still die. And, in the same light, if a child is taught to be unworthy, he/she will fell unworthy.

I'm not speaking of religious nuts here. My experience is quite mainstream. My family are as non-nutty as you can imagine. They're simple, lower-middle-class American Roman Catholics. Nothing weird, nothing crazy, just simple believers who brought me up the same way they were brought up.

What are you talking about? What kind of religion that teaches children that they are unworthy? Something is seriously wrong in your household. Don't blame it on the Roman Catholic Church or any church, for that matter.

The first paragraph is ******** and you know it. Just admit that the intent of the religion is good, only that evil people distort it to cover their own evil design.

As I have stated, it is the people who are responsible for the problems, and NOT religion itself. It is the people who distort the intent of religion to feed their own crooked design. It is the criminals who misused martial art to maim and kill. It is the criminals who fire the bullets that kills.

Jill666

01-22-2003, 12:51 PM

Actually, those weird looks are probably a good thing.

Gotta keep those office dwellers on their toes.

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
May be you should reread your post again. You are attacking religion and religious people as a group. You sugar-coated it by calling that "expressing your view". To you, that absorb you and allow you to claim self righteousness. No one here attack atheists, other than rebutting atheists attack on us. All the posts here are basically atheists attacking religions and religious people. Your victimization mentality is clouding your view.

You're partially correct. I'll agree that I'm expressing opinions that attack religions and religious thought patterns. I'm most certainly NOT attacking religious people, other than disagreeing with them.

I should say, that it isn't everyone here attacking atheists, but rather YOU. There are plenty of other believers here that didn't pop off like a rocket when an atheist dared to express their opinions. You, however, took it personally. You claimed we were ignorant and arrogant, and then got offended when I, and some others, chose to respond.

It's probably best we discontinue this particular thread of contention. We're on a path that has no conclusion but hurt feelings, and I'm not interested in that.

I want to point out that I don't claim to be the final arbiter of all that is known and will be known. I'm as full of faults and frailties and failures as the next person. I'm wrong all the time and have no problem admitting when I don't know the answer to something. Everyone has boughts of self-righteousness, and I'm certainly no exception.

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
What are you talking about? What kind of religion that teaches children that they are unworthy? Something is seriously wrong in your household. Don't blame it on the Roman Catholic Church or any church, for that matter.

The first paragraph is ******** and you know it. Just admit that the intent of the religion is good, only that evil people distort it to cover their own evil design.

As I have stated, it is the people who are responsible for the problems, and NOT religion itself. It is the people who distort the intent of religion to feed their own crooked design. It is the criminals who misused martial art to maim and kill. It is the criminals who fire the bullets that kills.

What is original sin? (Roman catholic centric, I know).

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Jill666

If I live long enough, maybe I find something I can believe in with all my heart.

Maybe not.

Maybe you don't need it. When I left religious activities behind, there was no hole in my life. When I realized I didn't believe in God, there was no hole in my thoughts and in my feelings. Religion and theism was grafted onto me, it wasn't a part of me.

Blindside

01-22-2003, 01:06 PM

What are you talking about? What kind of religion that teaches children that they are unworthy? Something is seriously wrong in your household. Don't blame it on the Roman Catholic Church or any church, for that matter.

In the Roman Catholic church you need to be cleansed of your sins by a priest, and the way sins are set up, you can't be human and not sin. (The definition of the word sin is "to miss the mark.") According to church doctrine if you are not clean you cannot go to heaven, that is the purpose of the last rites.

In most protestant Christianity it is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior that will act as the cleansing agent or filter when you go to heaven.

Either way, both sects teach that you can't be human and be acceptable to heaven without doing something extra. Following that chain of logic, a human being simply human is not worthy of heaven.

Lamont

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 01:06 PM

@ Qiz

No. I only state that you are wrong and ignorant in your attack on religion and religious people. I don't condemn atheists for their belief. Never did I once state that atheists are to be condemned for what they believe. I am only pissed that when atheists are telling me what I think, or what I believe, when they have no idea what I think or believe. I don't pound on you for how you want to live your life, rather you have no business in telling me how I am living my life.

I have been saying that you are wrong in generalizing religious people as mindless idiots who can't think for themselves. And you are wrong in condemning religion for the crimes committed by people who misused religion.

Did you see me condemning the atheist's way of life?

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Blindside
In the Roman Catholic church you need to be cleansed of your sins by a priest, and the way sins are set up, you can't be human and not sin. (The definition of the word sin is "to miss the mark.") According to church doctrine if you are not clean you cannot go to heaven, that is the purpose of the last rites.

In most protestant Christianity it is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior that will act as the cleansing agent or filter when you go to heaven.

Either way, both sects teach that you can't be human and be acceptable to heaven without doing something extra. Following that chain of logic, a human being simply human is not worthy of heaven.

Lamont

Sure, some nuts will adhere to that, by the book. Today, the Roman Catholic church does not judge. If your heart is clean, you will not be condemned. If your remorse is sincere, you are forgiven. By the way, religion is not just about finding a place to go after you check out! Heck no. There is a lot more than that. How you live your life on earth is of paramount importance. Love thy neighbors are not empty words (although some people take that too literally :D ) You have a mission in this life, not just screw around and check into paradise later.

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 01:24 PM

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 01:31 PM

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Blindside

Either way, both sects teach that you can't be human and be acceptable to heaven without doing something extra. Following that chain of logic, a human being simply human is not worthy of heaven.

Lamont
To throw some more coals on the fire

Is it so hard to except that humanity is flawed? Isn't that what other religions that have a beleif in reincarnation basically teach? That you are reincarnated to atone for sins of the past to eventually reach enlightenment,nirvana,etc....?

Blindside

01-22-2003, 01:36 PM

Today, the Roman Catholic church does not judge.

Errr, what?

Wasn't the 1996 Papal Convocation that decided that sex WITHIN marriage, that was not expressly for the purpose of conceiving children, was "in moderation" not a sin?

That sounds like judgement, it sounds like judgement of the most minute parts of a Roman Catholics life.

The Roman Catholic church is most certainly not in the business of rubber stamping someone's passport to heaven. A homosexual with a pure heart is not considered pure, nor a murderer. The Church passes judgement on what is and is not acceptable. That is the very reason for its existence.

Lamont

Jill666

01-22-2003, 01:46 PM

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Sex that leads to Hell isn't safe". Implying that exramarital sex or homosexual sex will result in you going to hell. I couldn't believe someone would want to put a judgement like that on their car. It made me so nuts, I started to rip it off, then realized I may actually be caught and arrested for some stupid property crime because of this jackass. :angry:

The fact that a church feels it appropriate to make a judgement like that is just the knid of thing that drives me further away. Of course, anyone has the right to believe what they want and put it on their car. Too bad it's something so hateful.

Blindside

01-22-2003, 01:47 PM

Is it so hard to except that humanity is flawed? Isn't that what other religions that have a beleif in reincarnation basically teach? That you are reincarnated to atone for sins of the past to eventually reach enlightenment,nirvana,etc....?

I don't have any problem with humans being flawed, how can a collection of cells driven by a collection of neurons be considered perfect? Look at all of the useless accessories we are provided with, a completely useless organ in the appendix, patches of hair on our underarms and groin that don't have any insulative properties, and an overly large brain that gets us into silly debates like this.

Perfect, naw, but it is up to us to muddle through the best we can.

Lamont

edited to add another quote

“The distinctive human problem from time immemorial has been the need to spiritualize human life, to lift it onto a special immortal plane, beyond the cycles of life and death that characterize all other organisms.”
~Ernest Becker

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Blindside
I don't have any problem with humans being flawed, how can a collection of cells driven by a collection of neurons be considered perfect? Look at all of the useless accessories we are provided with, a completely useless organ in the appendix, patches of hair on our underarms and groin that don't have any insulative properties, and an overly large brain that gets us into silly debates like this.

Perfect, naw, but it is up to us to muddle through the best we can.

Lamont

edited to add another quote

“The distinctive human problem from time immemorial has been the need to spiritualize human life, to lift it onto a special immortal plane, beyond the cycles of life and death that characterize all other organisms.”
~Ernest Becker

Debate are good though they really make think,well most in most cases.
Besides You just don't realize that I'm right and everyone else here is wrong and if you disagree with that well... your wrong again.:D

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Blindside
Errr, what?

Wasn't the 1996 Papal Convocation that decided that sex WITHIN marriage, that was not expressly for the purpose of conceiving children, was "in moderation" not a sin?

That sounds like judgement, it sounds like judgement of the most minute parts of a Roman Catholics life.

The Roman Catholic church is most certainly not in the business of rubber stamping someone's passport to heaven. A homosexual with a pure heart is not considered pure, nor a murderer. The Church passes judgement on what is and is not acceptable. That is the very reason for its existence.

Lamont

Jesus!! You were talking about the last rite and all, regarding passport to heavan. So, I was referring to the fact that, if you ask the Church if your uncle on his deathbed is going to heavan or hell, you will be told that ONLY God can judge and that the Church will not judge him. The Church will not say "Pay for this last rite and he is good to go, buddy!" :rolleyes: Neither will the Church says "Your homo uncle is gonna rot in hell, buddy"

"..The Church passes judgement on what is and is not acceptable. That is the very reason for its existence...."

WRONG! You don't know what you are talking about, with such exaggerated simplification. I don't even know where to begin to correct you, less this turns into an evangelical adventure. Since you have already decided Christianity isn't for you, I am not going to waste my time.

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Jill666
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Sex that leads to Hell isn't safe". Implying that exramarital sex or homosexual sex will result in you going to hell. I couldn't believe someone would want to put a judgement like that on their car. It made me so nuts, I started to rip it off, then realized I may actually be caught and arrested for some stupid property crime because of this jackass. :angry:

The fact that a church feels it appropriate to make a judgement like that is just the knid of thing that drives me further away. Of course, anyone has the right to believe what they want and put it on their car. Too bad it's something so hateful.
Look, in this country, you can go register your own Church today as a tax-exempt religious organization. Then you can appoint your self the founder of your religion. You can write your own Bible or interpret the Bible anyway you want, as long as you don't practice anything that violate the penal codes.

People should not attribute every nut case to Christianity.

Bob Hubbard

01-22-2003, 02:11 PM

Folks, I'm a little late checking in on this party, but going with the intent of the original poster,

P.s Can we have no religeon bashing here.....I just want to here views etc

can we tone it down a bit? Everyone has their own opinions, and I doubt highly that anyone will change their opinions based on a few posts here. This has become a hot subject, and we'd just like to see it stay cool and friendly.

k?

Thanks all. :)

Master of Blades

01-22-2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz

can we tone it down a bit? Everyone has their own opinions, and I doubt highly that anyone will change their opinions based on a few posts here. This has become a hot subject, and we'd just like to see it stay cool and friendly.

k?

Thanks all. :)

Was about to say.......It would be very helpful and make it easier to read over :asian:

Blindside

01-22-2003, 02:16 PM

Jesus!!

You know you just took the Lord's name in vain....

WRONG! You don't know what you are talking about, with such exaggerated simplification.

Well, OK, it was a simplification.

Please describe to me what the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church is. In terms that a layman could understand. Do you take communion or confess to a priest?

If so, why?

If only god can judge you, what need have you for the organized hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church?

Lamont

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 02:17 PM

Religion and politics 2 subject that are hard to discuss without someone getting mad.

fist of fury

01-22-2003, 02:20 PM

Ok how about discussing this

The Nine Satanic Statements

from The Satanic Bible, ©1969

by Anton Szandor LaVey

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

Cruentus

01-22-2003, 02:22 PM

Quizmodus: I think that when you first posted your beliefs, you started off fine, but since your logic has fallen short, I think.

“Given my history, I can absolutely state with all confidence that my lack of belief in a deity-concept is NOT based on ignorance. In my experience, the opposite is true.”

Your assumption is that people choose religion based on ignorance. Then you proceed to broadly generalize people in religion. You forgetting that ignorant people are everywhere, in the religious community as well as outside. If you look around you, it would appear that there is no real correlation between “ignorance” and “religious people.” There are many religious people who are ignorant; there are many atheists who are ignorant. There are also religious people who are not ignorant, and atheists who are no ignorant as well. So to say imply that “People choose religion out of ignorance” is faulty logic, because clearly ignorance and non-ignorance exists on both sides.

“I do believe that religion is generally a crutch for people, for whatever reason”

Could that reason be the same reason why you uphold your beliefs? Could your beliefs be a crutch? Could it be that by your desire to be “better” and “smarter” then the masses, you hold on to the idea that the masses are ignorant because they illogically believe in, as you put it…

“nonsensical thinking: Qi, John Edwards, the Pet Psychic, UFOs, Bigfoot, homeopathics, fortune-telling, Miss Cleo, etc. All of this can be directly traced to religious training.”

Your idea’s certainly place you as better and smarter then all of us, now doesn’t it? Is that your crutch? Are you fulfilling a need to be beyond everyone else?

Maybe an alternative solution might be that religious people aren’t all illogically using religion as a crutch, or as a reason to feel superior, but that they are merely trying to define their own values and beliefs while trying to logically find a purpose in the world, and logically trying to find out how this purpose fits in with an explanation of the world, and they use religion as a means to this. That would also leave you with an alternative; that you are attempting to do the same with your anti-religious beliefs. For the alternative to exist for you, then you would have to acknowledge that the same alternative is there for the religious. This would require you to step down from the pedistal, however, and play on the same field as the rest of us.

“Religion may occasionally benefit individuals, but such benefits are temporary. In the long run, religions can only do harm, both personally and on a global scale.”

You can use bad examples of how evil people have done harm in the name of religion, but this fails to refute the idea’s presented in the religion’s themselves. You can bring up an example of an immoral cult leader who claimed to be a Christian, and I can bring up Mother Theresa. Either way, neither of us are are argueing for or against the religion. We would only be discussing individuals within that religion. And to say that religion only benefits people temporarily is a faulty assumption with no evidence to back the claim; just as is your argument on religion only doing harm on a global scale. You broadly generalize while failing to look at all of the facts (such as the potential good religion may have done). That my friend, is illogical.

“But then, it's much simpler and probably more self-validating to dismiss my beliefs and lack of belief as ignorance. That very neatly sidesteps the necessity to examine your own beliefs in order to understand mine. Examining one's closely-held beliefs is possibly the most psychologically painful process a person can experience, especially when those beliefs have been taught to you since before you you could speak.”

But, are you not doing the same to people are religious? You have clearly dismissed religious people as being ignorant. I wonder if this neatly sidesteps the necessity for you to examine your beliefs in order to understand someone elses. The argument applies to you just the same.

“I've tried to keep my writing as emotionless as possible, but this is such a touchy subject.”

It’s a touchy and emotional subject for you partially because, as you said, examining one’s closely held beliefs is possibly the most psychologically painful process a person can experience. Maybe that is why you “sidestep” other beliefs as well, maybe your just as afraid to lose your resolve or redefine your values just as much as the masses.

“Johnathan Napalm, you wish not to be sterotyped, yet you give a stereotypical reply. You failed to read and understand ANY point in my post, and instead of responding rationally, you counter-attacked with an emotional, baseless diatribe. I could have re-constructed your post almost verbatim from various discussions with other theists over the past few years.

That's why I don't usually engage in these debates. I cannot use reason to oppose emotion, and religions are entirely emotional.”

I’m sure you may consider your replies unique for most atheists, and Jonathans to be stereotypical. Does that make you better? Considering that it would appear that you are doing the exact same thing that you blame theists for doing (such as stereotyping, sidestepping arguments, using your arguments to put you on a pedistle above the masses, and using empty logic to base your arguments), I would hazard to guess that you are no better at all. Considering this, I also believe based on the structure of your argument that you use the ruse of “reason” to hide your underlying negative "emotion" towards the religious. If this is true then this is probably worse then argueing with emotion alone because you are lying to yourself. You see religion and religious arguements are not entirely emotional to me, but it certainly is to you, as you have proven with your own words.

“The word is actually "poisoner", but that didn't stop the religiously motivated murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents througout the middle ages.

But that is only part of the harm that I'm referring to. What I tend to be concerned about is the psychological harm that religious training inflicts, especially in early childhood. I was trained to take things on faith. Don't question. Doubting Thomas was the bad guy, because he didn't believe until shown the holes. The lesson, of course, is to accept what your told without question, without doubt, often in spite of evidence to the contrary. Another point of harm, and this is more tenuous, but still significant in my opinion, is the underlying lesson in most modern religions, and that is the lesson of unworthiness. Children are taught that they are evil by nature, unworthy to exist from birth, and can only be "saved" through the abrogation of self-responsibililty to an external, absolute "moral" authority. If anyone can explain to me how it is not psychologically harmful to constantly tell children that they are evil and unworthy, I'll send them a dollar.

Don't try to tell me it isn't this way. The unworthiness of the human condition is the very very basic tenet of christianity, as is unquestioning, unexamined faith.”

You are taking a scripture out of context, and a bad example of “bad people” and using it for an argument against religion. That logic is just as faulty as the people in the middle ages who did the same; taking scripture out of context, and using faulty examples. Luckily for you people haven’t been killed by your faulty logic, but I would hate to see you in a place of power.

It also sounds like your bringing up a bad example of how to expose children to religion. Is this something that you were exposed to? I know that I was, and it turned me away for quite some time. Hopefully your not using your personal bad experience to base your views on an entire religion. It would be one thing to say that you have difficulty with religion because of what you had been exposed to as a child. It’s entirely another to base your belief system on your personal difficulties while trying to find alternative arguments for it all the while. If that is the case then what you are doing is no better then those who blindly follow what the religious say. For purposely going against what the religious say just for the sake of not following them (then finding later justification for your actions) is just as blind.

By the way, the unworthiness of human condition is an inherent Christian doctrine, but presenting it to Children in the manner you purpose is not. It does not and should not have to be presented in a manner that it scars the child. You also lump in “unquestioning, unexamined faith” which totally false in your pretense. It is definatily O.K. examine your faith, for open-minded doubt is the sibling of faith. Doubting Thomas wasn’t the bad guy; he was still an apostle and saint. He just needed more convincing then the average person. Judas was (one of the) bad guys, who knew the “truth” yet sold out anyways. Get it straight.

“Not once did I ever make judgements of believers in my posts. All I did was express my opinions of RELIGIONS. You chose to take those opinions are attacks on your person. Whose fault is that?”

It’s YOUR fault, quizmodus. You blantently said that religious people are ignorant. Read what you wrote, and don’t try to play it out like your posts haven’t been an attack to religious people, as well as religions in general. I am not offended by you, you are at least very cordial in your arguments, but that doesn’t change the fact that you have been attacking all along.

“It is true that "evil" isn't an attribute of the art, or of the weapon. But regardless of intent or attitude, if I hit you in the throat with a swordhand, you'll still die. And, in the same light, if a child is taught to be unworthy, he/she will fell unworthy.”

Just as you feel “unworthy” today. This is why you have designed your beliefs as they are, to place you in a more logical and comfortable place, above everyone else. This is just my perception. I am very sorry that your experiences have been what they have. Please understand, once again, that the doctrine you refer to wasn’t designed to make kids feel like crap. It was designed so that a person will have humility and recognize a higher power out there beyond himself, one that he must turn to for guidance. We turn to the higher power and other people because no one person has all the answers, and no one can survive completely by themselves. This doctrine needs to be presented to children when they are ready to hear it (not when they are too young), and with care so they don’t get the wrong idea.

Well, I think I have said enough. I don’t mean to slam you, and I am not angry at you, or anything like that. It’s just that you felt that the argument against you on this thread wasn’t logical enough. So, I felt compelled to give you some logic from a different perspective. I’m sure I haven’t convinced you to want to change your beliefs by refuting you, but I just hope that someone like yourself and others here who sound intelligent enough will keep looking for answers. You certainly don’t have them all, nor do I. Just keep searching, and don’t brush off ideas because of your predispostition against them due to bad experience, or because you’ve looked into it “before”.

And, keep writing them codes, and practicing in your office! I don’t write code, but I practice in my office just the same!
:p
PAUL

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
You said atheists were arrogant and narrow-minded, who rejected god-belief out of ignorance. I never claimed anything about YOU personally, nor did I have anything to say about how you live your life. It is not my fault that you took my explanations concerning MY beliefs as a personal attack on YOU.

WRONG! I said, atheists are ignorant and arrogant in their presumptuous condemnation of people they don't even know,based on these people's belief . I never have any problem with what your accept or reject for yourself. OTOH, your disparaging remark about the majority of people as being hateful, needing a crutch, incapable of independent thinking, subject to manipulation by religion. Now, how can any one take that as an insult? :rolleyes:

You are putting words in my mouth (ok, on my monitor). But, I will say, that you cannot separate religion from the crimes, since it is the religion itself, and it's power structures, that enable it's misuse. In fact, I submit that the misuse of religion is actually part of what gives it such power as it has and has had in the past.

Does misuse of guns make guns evil? Does misuse of martial art make martial art evil? Heck. Neither can you separate these from the crimes. It is the inherent firepower of the firearms and the killing power of martial art that make them powerful too!

I saw you condemning atheists as ignorant and arrogant. I never condemned your way of life.

Oh, and you are absolutely incorrect about the church's teachings on original sin. Allowing the possibility that a person can escape their human heritage of "sin" is not any kind of a change in their teachings, just a modern waffling on the subject so they won't be viewed as bigotted against non-Catholics.

Allow me to clarify that one more time. Someone's denomination or religion is NEVER EVER a concern of mine. It is only important to me what kind of a person he/she is. I have zero problem with atheists. I only have problem with them making presumptuous comment about people they don't even know based on those peoples' religions.

As for your comment on the heritage of "sin", I'll pass on that one, as you already think you know so much about the institition whitewashing itself already. So it is pointless.

Blindside

01-22-2003, 02:29 PM

I think I'll go ahead and take a break here, besides its lunchtime.

Thanks for the debate all, I do wish we had more supporters of various other religions here. At times I felt sorry for Mr. Napalm because he was outnumbered and outgunned. To be fair to him his religion is one of the biggest and most obvious targets available so there is alot of ammo to throw downrange so to speak.

I would be interested in the perspective of other religions, particularly Judiasm, Buddhism, or Shinto(ism?) but that is because those were the religions that my parents were raised in.

Props to Fist and Qiz for being in this little match.

Lamont

Rich Parsons

01-22-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
@ Qiz

No. I only state that you are wrong and ignorant in your attack on religion and religious people. I don't condemn atheists for their belief. Never did I once state that atheists are to be condemned for what they believe. I am only pissed that when atheists are telling me what I think, or what I believe, when they have no idea what I think or believe. I don't pound on you for how you want to live your life, rather you have no business in telling me how I am living my life.

I have been saying that you are wrong in generalizing religious people as mindless idiots who can't think for themselves. And you are wrong in condemning religion for the crimes committed by people who misused religion.

Did you see me condemning the atheist's way of life?

First, go back and read my original post for more information about me.

Second, In General Napalm, there are more people of faith / belief and religions that are condemning people for not believing their way, then there are non-believers who state that religion is . . . ,.

Why??? Well you see people believe because they were told to believe this way because their parents believed this way. This is not Faith by Choice as Paul as pointed out, but faith by guilt or blind ignorance. In my life I have seen more religious people / families / women who will tell me that " I AM WRONG!" for not being a "Fill in the Blank" and the go out and have un safe sex or get an abortion when their faith / religion does not allow this. You see us people on the fringe and the non-believers all try to just live our lives and some of us are good and some of are bad. Yet, almost every day we see priests and ministers in the news about driving drunk or an attack on a child, or know of some parishioner who is sleeping with another, yet they are not married to each other but to other people. Many times it is the people who scream the loudest about something that have the most to hide on that subject. The raving homophobe because he has some deep feeling he might be one, or the person who still is questioning their belief yet they scream down others so that they themselves do not get called into question. The people who accuse their spouses of cheating are many times felling guilty and accuse their spouse of this act to avoid the challenge to themselves.

Now, Napalm this is not an attack on you, nor is it a condemnation of all religions, it just a statement from what I have seen.

Now, let me look at history, in the Name of God the Copernicus was killed for his science about the world being round and that the earth rotated around the sun. Yes at one time this belief was a crime that the CHURCH required him to be imprisoned. He was slipped Hemlock to allow himself to kill himself and die and not live in jail for the rest of his life. Now, I know you are not going to jail me. Yet can you deny that there are people out there that would like to get rid of all of us sinners. Or how about getting rid of all of the Non-Christians in the USA for our own security. So, on the points that evolution was Crammed down your or other throats, I ask for you tolerance on this issue. As I gave tolerance on the issue of separation of Church and State In the US Constitution, when it came to being FORCED to recite the Pledge of allegiance with "UNDER GOD!", Which was added back around the turn of the 19th to 20th century by religious conservatives. The same was done to our money. Personally I believe the US Constitution give you and everyone else the right to belief the way you want, just do not tell me I am wrong and do not tell me I have to believe in GOD on my currency and in my pledge to my country which was based upon religious freedoms as one of the driving forces.

If you truly desire to have a state religion and to determine the correct belief system, then you need to get a referendum. Now, I am not saying you personally have stated this, I am just making an argument here (* Look up Argument in the Dictionary *). If you the Christian desires that Christianity be the national religion please get it passed as an amendment to the US Constitution. Just becareful, since the Muslim Belief is the largest concentrated belief system in the USA. WAIT WAIT!, yes there might be a few more Christians total of you count all Christians, I just do not see all the Christians getting together and deciding that a generic Christianity is what is required. I know that the Catholics would not allow this. (* Sorry Paul et al *), yet They do not allow their children to be members of things like Young Life a generic Christian group for children. And id the Catholics pull out, I am sure the rest will splinter as well. I made this argument on another post here in the Lock Room.

My Point is that there are more Religions people out there who tell other religious people and non-believers that they are wrong and or doing it incorrectly and or condemning them to hell then the non-believers and fringe questioning people who are telling people how to act or belief.

Now Napalm thank you for being such a good sport and allowing me to direct this Diatribe at you, even though it most certainly was not a direct attack on you, only a response to many of your posts and the posts of others.

Cruentus

01-22-2003, 02:44 PM

I just want to clarify a few things about Catholicism...

#1. The church judges what is a sin and what is not based on traditional teachings and scripture. It is not and has never been the job of the church to judge individuals. Humans cannot judge who is going to heaven or hell, that is Gods job. Many people, including some practicing Catholics, are confused by this and often make the mistake of judging. You will not, however, find an ounce of Catholic doctrine that says it is O.K. to judge people, this is one major reason why I chose to be Catholic.

#2 The heiarchy of the Church is there to protect the doctrine and the teachings of the church, teachings which have been around since the churches existance. This goes back to the time of the apostles when St. Peter (who we claim as the first "pope") was trying to establish the Christian Church in Rome, St. Paul was evangelizing and "correcting" incorrect teachings that were being taught in the name of christianity in other far off lands (letters of Paul). This was a small example of "church heiarchy".

With a the heeiarchy, it is not so easy for someone to misinterprete scripture, or change doctrine to suit their needs, at least not within the church. This is why the heiarchy exists, it is the attempt by the Catholic Church to keep the teachings as pure as possible, and as close to those of Jesus.

Now that I have clarified, blindside don't tell me "that's not what the Catholic Church does." I'm a Catholic, for crying out loud. That would be like you saying that your church believes God, and I say "no it doesn't because blah blah blah." You would be annoyed if I did that I'm sure, and you've done that more then once to Johnathan Napalm.

Everyone else....it was nice talkin to yea, but I'm out. It's almost 3 o'clock, and I haven't gotton a lick of work done. It will be interesting to see where this post has gone by tomorrow.

:cool:

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 03:04 PM

I'm out too, for now. I think I've said (and mis-said) enough for today, and I've got work to do too. This kind of debate is just too darned enticing!

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

;)

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 03:30 PM

@ Rich Parson
I have equal contempt for fanatics on both sides and in any religion, including Catholicsm. You won't see me defending the recalcitrant religious nuts throwing Bible at people's face. You won't see me following everything Vatican says. Heck, you won't see that many Catholics following everything Vatican says neither.

On religions, the biggest problem is people all too often mistakenly ignore the human factor as the culprit and blame the religion itself. To me that is like blaming guns for murder, and blaming cars for accidents, or blaming martial art for assault. Missing the point totally. It is the morons and idiots and crooks and criminals and power hungry political hacks that hijack the legitimate tools for criminal activities.

In your post, you listed all these so called "religious people" , they are nothing more than "judgemental people hiding behind the Bible". They interpret the Bible their own way and label it as Christianity. Just because these people who call themselves Christian, make assertion and proclaimation in the name of Christianity, does not make it the Gospel truth (no pun intended). You have to ask yourself "Is this the way God really is, as these people claim?" "Would God disown you because you don't believe him?" "Would you parents disown you because you hate them?" Heck I am sure they wouldn't be thrilled about it, but they wouldn't put a contract out on your head! Would God be less than your parents?

It goes back to separating Christianity from the human frailty that has distorted its teaching.

As for the separation of Church and State, that is worthy of another thread on its own lol

I just want to state that when I disagree with someone's views, it has nothing to do with the person himself/herself. Reasonable people can and often do disagree on issues.

qizmoduis

01-22-2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
That IS the New Testament.

Referring to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

D'oh! Sorry, this actually is the OT. Exodus, to be exact. My apologies. Doesn't change this little phrase's place in history, however.

fringe_dweller

01-22-2003, 05:33 PM

Damn the time difference!!!! Just got into work and look what I find - six pages of thread.

Just to add my 1c to this debate (australian currency being what it is) I find a lot of parallels between religion and martial arts.
There are people from both systems who just go along and have a good time, there are those who are active recruiters (or religious/ma nuts if you prefer).
With ma/religion there are many different types and only some people within those types who seek to claim that their style is the best and only true style. Splinter groups have formed within styles, you have "mcdojos" and money grabbing churches (and just as not all kma's are mcdojos not all churches are after your money).

What does that have to do with anything? Not a lot really - just dawned on me how similar things are and thought it might provide something new to the thread.

Respectfully,

Abbax8

01-22-2003, 06:16 PM

Well, OK, it was a simplification.

Please describe to me what the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church is. In terms that a layman could understand. Do you take communion or confess to a priest?

If so, why?

If only god can judge you, what need have you for the organized hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church?

Lamont

__________________
If I may enter the discussion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Communion, The Holy Eucharist, is the True Body and Blood of Christ, and that HE instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. This has been a teaching of the church since Apostolic Times. Confession also is ancient although it has gone through some changes over the milleniums. Basically it comes from Christ telling the Apostles "whoever sins you forgive are forgiven them. Whoevers sins you held bound, are held bound."By the way, if anyone trully wishes to know waht the Church teaches and WHY, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Peace
Dennis

arnisador

01-22-2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
WRONG! I said, atheists are ignorant and arrogant in their presumptuous condemnation of people they don't even know,based on these people's belief .

Anyone else see the irony in this statement?

TLH3rdDan

01-22-2003, 06:51 PM

wow! damn work lol i missed all this... well im not chiming in here for much but i think that one of the main points that someone brought up was missed back when this discussion... which is what does faith give you? why is faith important to your life?

p.s. this is just out of curiousity and not meant to single out any one person or religious sect

Nate_Hoopes

01-22-2003, 07:02 PM

Heres what i know about the whole religion thing... No one not one of us in the whole world can PROVE either side of the coin. However that being said, I dont believe in a god because one simply dosent make any sense to me, too far fetched, and i can equate all the bible stories or whatever you would like to call them as being simply stories of fairy tales.

That being said
I saw a comic a couple weeks ago, bizzaro to be more specific. I tired to find it but perhaps a description will do.

It showed two cave men running one carrying a spear, the other yells to him "No, Wait, first we have to invent religion to justify our actions.... Then we invent war."

Just something to think about.

Blindside

01-22-2003, 07:30 PM

the biggest problem is people all too often mistakenly ignore the human factor as the culprit and blame the religion itself. To me that is like blaming guns for murder, and blaming cars for accidents, or blaming martial art for assault. Missing the point totally.

Your analogy of religion to guns or martial arts is flawed. The problem with that statement is that a religion is made up of people, and it sets itself up to have some sort of morality or ethic. So when said religion is twisted into violating those ethics it is a huge transgression. A gun is ianimate, martial arts are a skill, religion is represents morality. If a religion has a significant number of events in its history that transgress the bounds of its own self-described morality, then people had better start questioning it.

To blame the flawed humans for being guilty of the bad things that were done in the name of the religion is a cop out. If fifteen of my martial arts students go out and start randomly beating people up and maiming them, I will be looked on as a poor teacher at the very least. Maybe I won't be found guilty in a court of law, but certainly in the eyes of the public. And the counter argument of "but the art is pure" is feeble at best.

A religion that has numerous atrocities commited in its name had better admit that its teachings have several problems. But instead those organizations cannot admit they were wrong, because then they admit that they aren't a good interpretation of the word of god.

Lamont

Dennis_Mahon

01-22-2003, 07:31 PM

Rich Parsons:

Now, let me look at history, in the Name of God the Copernicus was killed for his science about the world being round and that the earth rotated around the sun. Yes at one time this belief was a crime that the CHURCH required him to be imprisoned. He was slipped Hemlock to allow himself to kill himself and die and not live in jail for the rest of his life.

What exactly is your source for that statement? History records that Nicolaus Copernicus (also known as "Rheticus", due to his familial origins in Feldkirch, in ancient Rhaetia, Switzerland) died at Frauenburg, 24 May, 1543, from what appeared to be complications from a stroke. He was at no time imprisoned by the Church, nor forced to recant his position on the heliocentric system; indeed, if it were not for the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg, of Bishop Giese of Clum, and other leaders of the Church, the "Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits" might never have been writen, his theory instead being transmitted secretly to his students as the Pythagoreans did. Heilocentric theory only came to criticism seventy-three years later, when Galileo broke his agreement with the Church. It was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index on 5 March, 1616, and reinstated in 1620 after editing. The original manuscript was dedicated to Pope Paul III, and is in the family library of the Counts Nostitz in Prague.

Dennis_Mahon

01-22-2003, 07:39 PM

Blindeside:

If a religion has a significant number of events in its history that transgress the bounds of its own self-described morality, then people had better start questioning it.

So, what you are saying, in essence, is that a large number of people violate the rules of a moral system, it is the moral system that is at fault, not those who violate it? So, if a large number of people violate rules against murder, rape, and theft, it is those rules at fault, not the perpetrators?

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by arnisador
Anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Again, allow me to clarify myself (for the 10 thousand times).

Qiz has already made a blanket condemnation of religion and religious people. So that part is already KNOWN. Henceforth, I was rebutting his statement based on this KNOWN fact. It is ignorant and arrogant for atheists to make blanket presumption about people who they do not know. I made no condemnation on atheists' way of life or belief, only a rebuttal to their presumptuous assumption regarding how religious people are. Which, was clearly stated by the atheists in this thread. So there is no irony in my statement. I suggest you reread the whole thread again.

The fact is many religious people are rational , strong willed and in no need of a crutch and they are as tolerant and open minded as anyone else, if not more so. Christianity preaches hate the sin but not the sinners. I myself are not that righteous. I am basically live and let live. Religion is not a big factor in my life. So when I read the typical comment from atheists, I tend to get annoyed. Who the hell are these people to tell me what I am and am not? So.

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Blindside ....
To blame the flawed humans for being guilty of the bad things that were done in the name of the religion is a cop out. If fifteen of my martial arts students go out and start randomly beating people up and maiming them, I will be looked on as a poor teacher at the very least. Maybe I won't be found guilty in a court of law, but certainly in the eyes of the public. And the counter argument of "but the art is pure" is feeble at best.....

HA! look at your own logic! If 15 of your students are screw up, you are ready to condemn your martial art then? LOL

Well, lets put that martial art on trial then. Lets forbid people from learning that martial art then? Lets outlaw that martial art then?

Your logic is leaking big time, my friend.

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Nate_Hoopes
Heres what i know about the whole religion thing... No one not one of us in the whole world can PROVE either side of the coin. However that being said, I dont believe in a god because one simply dosent make any sense to me, too far fetched, and i can equate all the bible stories or whatever you would like to call them as being simply stories of fairy tales.

That being said
I saw a comic a couple weeks ago, bizzaro to be more specific. I tired to find it but perhaps a description will do.

It showed two cave men running one carrying a spear, the other yells to him "No, Wait, first we have to invent religion to justify our actions.... Then we invent war."

Just something to think about.

This is no different than someone who has no clue what Kempo is, but simply states that "I don't understand anything about it. It makes no sense to me. Therefore it must be some rubbish." Brilliant huh?

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by TLH3rdDan
wow! damn work lol i missed all this... well im not chiming in here for much but i think that one of the main points that someone brought up was missed back when this discussion... which is what does faith give you? why is faith important to your life?

p.s. this is just out of curiousity and not meant to single out any one person or religious sect

I would like to invite you to read these threads.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5525

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5458

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5440

Hopefully the real life stories of people can shed some light.

Dennis_Mahon

01-22-2003, 08:14 PM

Johnathan:

HA! look at your own logic! If 15 of your students are screw up, you are ready to condemn your martial art then? LOL

While I agree that there is a serious hole in the logic of Blindside's argument, I must point out that your ad hominem attack upon upon his character is in poor taste. You cannot allow your emotions to direct your actions, no matter how justified. Forgive my bluntness, but there is a cardinal rule to debate: No one will care if you're right if you're an @$$hole about it.

Bob Hubbard

01-22-2003, 08:22 PM

Let me put this arguement the way I see it...

Everyone has a belief..even if that belief is to believe nothing.

Everyone is currently using the belief system that is currently working for them, or seeking out one that will.

There is a ton of misinformation out there, and much of it has been mentioned in this thread.

The original intent of this thread was to just ask 'what do you believe in?'

It has evolved into theological debates, doctorine and more.

Go ahead and -discuss- things, but keep it civil and keep it friendly.

:asian:

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Dennis_Mahon
Johnathan:

While I agree that there is a serious hole in the logic of Blindside's argument, I must point out that your ad hominem attack upon upon his character is in poor taste. You cannot allow your emotions to direct your actions, no matter how justified. Forgive my bluntness, but there is a cardinal rule to debate: No one will care if you're right if you're an @$$hole about it.

If you would kindly point out where I have attacked his character, I would appreciate that and I would apologize.

Dennis_Mahon

01-22-2003, 08:34 PM

If you would kindly point out where I have attacked his character, I would appreciate that and I would apologize.

Upon reflection, I suppose that it is I that should apologize, and clarify: it is not so much as an attack upon his character, as it is the tone you take in your responses. By taunting your opponent, you turn the debate personal, turning it into a "me-against-you" situation, rather than an effort to ascertain the facts of the matter. A good adadge to remember in such situations is "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar".

What I am asking is that you take a moment to reign your anger, and to try and treat your opponent with some charity.

TLH3rdDan

01-22-2003, 08:39 PM

hummm so faith basically gives you a sense of security a sense of there must be a reason for everything in life correct? why then do you need a reason for everything? is is not believable that somethings simply happen and have no real reason or motive behind them?

next topic... if its true that god, alah, jesus... whatever you believe in exists in all things why do people feel the need to build churches and attend sermons and choose to accept one persons interpritation of something that should be interprited by each individual?

also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion? ussually trying to imposse that groups beliefs on another group... sorry for the spelling errors... in an after thought as im watching the horrors of american idol... maybe this whole discussion should be moved to its on thread?

Dennis_Mahon

01-22-2003, 09:00 PM

hummm so faith basically gives you a sense of security a sense of there must be a reason for everything in life correct?

Well, that is hardly unique to religion; one of the basic assumptions of modern science is that all effects have a cause, which essentially means that there must be a reason X event occurs.

why then do you need a reason for everything? is is not believable that somethings simply happen and have no real reason or motive behind them?

Because that would mean that the universe is essentially chaotic, and that contradicts the observable data. Much of what occurs in the universe can be explained; the difference between religion and science is that religion generally ascribes the cause to an entity (or entities) outside the material universe, while science ascribes all causes to material forces.

next topic... if its true that god, alah, jesus... whatever you believe in exists in all things why do people feel the need to build churches and attend sermons and choose to accept one persons interpritation of something that should be interprited by each individual?

Well, first of all, why do you assume that religious beliefs are something that should be interpreted by each individual? Secondly, most of the organized religions around the world can point to their diety as having appointed an earthly authority to interpret and teach their moral and ethical rules.

also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion?

I don't suppose you could back that statement up with hard, statistical proof?

TLH3rdDan

01-22-2003, 09:07 PM

so billy bob down the street got word from god 2000 years ago to preach to the masses? and that would explain everyone and their brother starting a church? hummm well cant give you exact deaths from the crusades i wasnt there... hummm aslo how about 9-11... the spanish inquisition... the salem witch trails... need i continue?? and incase you havent noticed yes most of things in nature and the universe are in chaos other wise it would be quite predictable and boring

Dennis_Mahon

01-22-2003, 09:29 PM

so billy bob down the street got word from god 2000 years ago to preach to the masses? and that would explain everyone and their brother starting a church?

Well, I doubt "Billy Bob" down the street claims he was here 2000 years ago. But, for the sake of arguement- why not? If "billy Bob" claims that the source of his authority to preach lived and gave that mission to his followers 2000 years ago, why should invalidate his claim?

hummm well cant give you exact deaths from the crusades i wasnt there... hummm aslo how about 9-11... the spanish inquisition... the salem witch trails... need i continue??

Continue with what? You made the assertion:

also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion?

Yet you now admit that you can't actually give proof to your assertion; why then, should we believe that the bloodiest wars and attrocities have been commited in the name of religion?

Blindside

01-22-2003, 09:36 PM

HA! look at your own logic! If 15 of your students are screw up, you are ready to condemn your martial art then? LOL

No, I'm willing to condemn myself. And to the general public it doesn't matter what the art is, because I was its representitive. If I am the only representive of the art would you send your child to study under me? I wouldn't because you would have a poor opinion of what I do.

There is no clear cut difference between the Art and the Instructor to the outsider. Just as there is no clear cut difference between the word of god and the teachings of the (for example) Catholic Church. The two are inextricably linked, you can't transgress your own codes in the name of god, and then write it off as nothing due to human flaws.

My example was not a good one, but I differ in your argument that you can seperate the religion from the people who worship the religion.

Blindside

01-22-2003, 09:46 PM

So, what you are saying, in essence, is that a large number of people violate the rules of a moral system, it is the moral system that is at fault, not those who violate it? So, if a large number of people violate rules against murder, rape, and theft, it is those rules at fault, not the perpetrators?

No, if a group of people who present a morality to the public and are then hypocritical enough to repeatedly violate that morality. Then I would expect people to question the institution that presents the morality and to investigate the morality itself.

If congress unanimously passed a resolution to ban alcohol, and it lasted for ten years. CNN finally breaks a story showing that congress was throwing friday night keggers for the entire duration, the public would question both the congress and the law.

This would be more of an argument against organized religion, than religion itself.

Lamont

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Blindside
No, I'm willing to condemn myself. And to the general public it doesn't matter what the art is, because I was its representitive. If I am the only representive of the art would you send your child to study under me? I wouldn't because you would have a poor opinion of what I do.

There is no clear cut difference between the Art and the Instructor to the outsider. Just as there is no clear cut difference between the word of god and the teachings of the (for example) Catholic Church. The two are inextricably linked, you can't transgress your own codes in the name of god, and then write it off as nothing due to human flaws.

My example was not a good one, but I differ in your argument that you can seperate the religion from the people who worship the religion.

What you fail to admit is that the art itself is not at fault. There is nothing wrong with the art itself. Whatever fault there is, lies in the people practicing and teaching it.

There IS distinction between you and the art. You are NOT the art. The art is NOT you.

The religion is NOT you. You are not the religion. The religion lives on with or without you. The art lives on with or without you.

IF you cannot accept this simple fact, then this is totally pointless. It becomes argumentative.

Dennis_Mahon

01-22-2003, 09:55 PM

No, I'm willing to condemn myself. And to the general public it doesn't matter what the art is, because I was its representitive. If I am the only representive of the art would you send your child to study under me? I wouldn't because you would have a poor opinion of what I do.

Perhaps not, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the technical proficiency- the "truth"- of the art you teach. An opinion- no matter how seemingly justified-is not necessarily a truth by virtue of its existence.

Just as there is no clear cut difference between the word of god and the teachings of the (for example) Catholic Church. The two are inextricably linked, you can't transgress your own codes in the name of god, and then write it off as nothing due to human flaws.

I don't suppose you provide an example of this?

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Blindside
No, if a group of people who present a morality to the public and are then hypocritical enough to repeatedly violate that morality. Then I would expect people to question the institution that presents the morality and to investigate the morality itself.

If congress unanimously passed a resolution to ban alcohol, and it lasted for ten years. CNN finally breaks a story showing that congress was throwing friday night keggers for the entire duration, the public would question both the congress and the law.

This would be more of an argument against organized religion, than religion itself.

Again, you fail to separate the people (drunken congressmen) from the institution (congress) and the ideal (the law in this case). Clearly, it is the conduct of the congressmen that was the issue, not the institution itself, nor the law, in your example.

If you say there are clergymen who are scum and phonies and even criminals, I am not going to argue the contrary. There are undesirable elements within the institution, and even the institution itself needs reform in many areas. These are all human factors.

TLH3rdDan

01-22-2003, 10:03 PM

:shrug: ok like i said i cant give you an exact death toll... sorry i dont keep track of those figures... so im assuming by your post that you believe those events happened for reasons other than religion? or perhaps no one died in them? or perhaps they were not cruel or did not attempt to inforce religion upon someone who did not believe in that religion? next so there really is no need to understand a religious text simply wanting to go out and preach is enough? so that would put us back to literal translations of say and eye for an eye.... or any other countless passages... but thats all ok right? and are you saying that the common man is not capable of understanding the bible? thats what it seems you are saying by saying that god apointed people to preach it... i thought the word of god was for everyone not just a privaliged few to translate the way they wish and feed to the masses? hummm yeah that sounds like a good idea hummm that brings david karesh to mind... thats right he was the new mesiah right??? but hey god told him he was... so he must have been right... ohhh well i guess you win on that one... hummm now as far as this whole debate is going your not going to change your views and im not going to change mine... so i guess we will have to agree to disagree

Johnathan Napalm

01-22-2003, 10:06 PM

Have you been drinking? That is just like my college roomate used to talk when he drank too much. :D

Dennis_Mahon

01-22-2003, 10:14 PM

ok like i said i cant give you an exact death toll... sorry i dont keep track of those figures... so im assuming by your post that you believe those events happened for reasons other than religion? or perhaps no one died in them? or perhaps they were not cruel or did not attempt to inforce religion upon someone who did not believe in that religion?

I never said that I didn't believe any of those things; what I asked is why we should believe you when you claim:

also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion?

when you readily admit that you can't back that assertion up. Care to answer the question?

next so there really is no need to understand a religious text simply wanting to go out and preach is enough? so that would put us back to literal translations of say and eye for an eye.... or any other countless passages... but thats all ok right?

Isn't that exactly your position? After all, you did assert:

if its true that god, alah, jesus... whatever you believe in exists in all things why do people feel the need to build churches and attend sermons and choose to accept one persons interpritation of something that should be interprited by each individual

Exactly which side of this argument are you pursuing?

TLH3rdDan

01-22-2003, 10:36 PM

ok simply cause you seem to be pushing the issue here is some info for you: salem witch trails http://www.salemwitchmuseum.com/learn.html

"With the exception of Giles Corey, who was pressed to death, the following were hanged:
Bridget Bishop
George Burroughs
Martha Carrier
Martha Corey
Mary Easty
Sarah Good
Elizabeth Howe
George Jacobs, Sr.
Susannah Martin
Rebecca Nurse
Alice Parker
Mary Parker
John Proctor
Ann Pudeator
Wilmott Redd
Margaret Scott
Samuel Wardwell
Sarah Wildes
John Willard "

9-11: do i really need to post numbers?

crusades: cant find a death toll but here have fun reading up on them http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html

lets see oh yes the spanish inquistion: http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm have fun reading that one.

anything else you need?

Dennis_Mahon

01-22-2003, 10:58 PM

Well first off, I take the 300,000+ death toll from the Spanish Inquisition with a huge grain of salt; it certainly flies in the face of the research done by Prof. Henry Kamen, of the Department of Jewish Studies at the University of Madrid. But for the sake of arguement, let's say they figure is correct. Further, since we don't have figures for the Crusades, let's assume that it was roughly double that of the Inquisition, and then add the figures from 9/11 and the Salem which trails. Rounded up, that equals approximately 1 million people killed "in the name of religion".

The National Holocaust Museum places the death toll of Jews killed by the Nazis during WWII somewhere between 6-12 million.

That event alone shows that your claim is, in fact, wrong.

TLH3rdDan

01-22-2003, 11:48 PM

if you really want to bring up the jews... they have been persicuted by christians and muslims and many other religions for years due to the fact that they refused to change their beliefs... now im sure we could set here all night and look up facts about how many times someone has tried to erradicate the jews based simply on their religious beliefs or cultural practices...

thats a nice rough estimation on the crusades death toll i would probably estimate it higher since most of the christian armies were between 20 and 100 thousand and since it doesnt make any claims to the size of the opposing armies which i would assume given the area incompassed by those lands it would be at least the same size as the christian armies... not to mention the countless civilians... ohhh by the way did you fail to see that these wonderful religious wars lasted for 200 plus years...so do i need to go back to the romans as well? when they began conquring the whole of europe and enforcing religion upon them? not to mention the current holly wars going on in the middle east that have been raging for centuries... all in the name of religion... sorry for limiting my previous examples to mainly christianity... they are not the only ones responsible... again this is an endless debate its been going on for a long long time before any of us were born... and i have a feeling it will continue long after we are all dead and gone...

TLH3rdDan

01-22-2003, 11:51 PM

ohhh just a little side note on your figures there for the holocaust... dont forget that the 12 million estimation... includes catholics, handicaped, poles, slavs, homosexuals, russians, you name the race if they didnt fit the nazi ideal of perfection they were killed... by the way that ideal of perfection mean racial, political, and religious,.

Johnathan Napalm

01-23-2003, 12:04 AM

None of any of that changes the fact that it is the people who were responsible for the crimes committed, and not the religions. No religions preach hatred, and destruction.

Heck, your parents told you to clean up your room, study hard, work hard, don't do drugs, don't drink and drive. But you don't listen. Whose fault is that? Yours! It isn't your parents' teaching that is flawed.

arnisador

01-23-2003, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Qiz has already made a blanket condemnation of religion and religious people. So that part is already KNOWN. Henceforth, I was rebutting his statement based on this KNOWN fact. It is ignorant and arrogant for atheists to make blanket presumption about people who they do not know. I made no condemnation on atheists' way of life or belief, only a rebuttal to their

But this is the problem--you're generalizing from a statement made by one atheist to the opinions of all atheists. The plural "atheists" and the use of "their" are the issue.

So, I still see the irony.

TLH3rdDan

01-23-2003, 12:14 AM

and once again ill say that we should just agree to disagree... i have my views you have yours... im not going to change yours... nor are you going to change mine... how ever this has been rather interesting... but i need some sleep lol

Rich Parsons

01-23-2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Dennis_Mahon
Rich Parsons:

What exactly is your source for that statement? History records that Nicolaus Copernicus (also known as "Rheticus", due to his familial origins in Feldkirch, in ancient Rhaetia, Switzerland) died at Frauenburg, 24 May, 1543, from what appeared to be complications from a stroke. He was at no time imprisoned by the Church, nor forced to recant his position on the heliocentric system; indeed, if it were not for the entreaties of Cardinal Schonberg, of Bishop Giese of Clum, and other leaders of the Church, the "Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits" might never have been writen, his theory instead being transmitted secretly to his students as the Pythagoreans did. Heilocentric theory only came to criticism seventy-three years later, when Galileo broke his agreement with the Church. It was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index on 5 March, 1616, and reinstated in 1620 after editing. The original manuscript was dedicated to Pope Paul III, and is in the family library of the Counts Nostitz in Prague.

DOH!

Please allow me to say I did not remember all the details while I was at work and unable to check references and being interrupted while trying to post. How dare them expect me to work while they are paying me? ;)

Seriously, it was Galileo who was condemned and convicted of Heresy. The execution of this sentence of life imprisonment was carried out with some sympathy and it was house arrest under direct inspection of the Inquisition! (* If you call that being sympathetic *)

Yes Galileo, did much work to prove Copernicus's works and theories.

Check here :
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

I hereby officially apologize for being wrong in my quote and stand corrected on that point only.

:asian:

MartialArtist

01-23-2003, 02:26 AM

My savior is a Jewish carpenter

And all the wars brought on in the NAME OF RELIGION was in reality, brought on by human ignorance, arrogance, and just plain old stupidity. People corrupt religion when they add a social hiearchy that tramples over the doctrine. A rebuttal is that the doctrine is a result of the people, but to obviously contradict doctrine isn't right. For instance, the Bible says "around the circle of the earth." I don't know whether it refers to the shape, but other than that, it has nothing on the earth's shape, yet people drew conclusions from it and persecuted people like Galileo.

How many wars/deaths have been brought on in liberty's name? A woman during the French revolution said something along the lines of that. WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War, War in Kosovo, War against Terrorism... All have a general root on the idea of liberty. Not to mention the French Revolution, the American Civil War, the American Revolution, etc. But is liberty bad? Or the people who do things under liberty's name?

Shinobi

01-23-2003, 04:28 AM

My beliefs....

Coming in late here in the middle of debates. I believe I am God. Not THE God, or only ONE God, I am my own God. I look at my life like this: I can choose to act irresponsible, stupid, lazy, ect. OR I can choose to act Responsible , smart, ect. My parents never forced any Religion on me so I allways just Believed in what felt natural to me. Which is me vowing to do everything in my ability as a Human to do. If I act irresponsible, I root out the isuue, and correct it. If I lack knowledge on a subject, I Educate myself on it.

I dictate my own life. For example, I make the rational choice to obey the Law, to show up to Work on time and act professional, ect. I treat others as they treat me. If they show respect towards me I reciprocate. If they choose to disrespect me, I stand up for myself. I allways try to do what is right.

I don't want involved in this debate, so I will say this. My life is mostly on a platform of non judgement. If someone chooses a different Path then me, as long as they leave my Beliefs alone, I respect theirs and leave it be. If for instance Jeff the Mechanic choose to go to Church every Sunday, that is great. He doesn't bother me, and in turn is given the same. Now if someone comes running up to me waving Religious material in my face bothering me, then I do judge them as a fanatic who is being rude.

Act like a Human and show Courtesy and everythings fine.

Just my view on things.

qizmoduis

01-23-2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by arnisador
But this is the problem--you're generalizing from a statement made by one atheist to the opinions of all atheists. The plural "atheists" and the use of "their" are the issue.

So, I still see the irony.

Not only that, but I most certainly did NOT condemn all religions and religious people. I did, however, express my opinion that religions are psychologically harmful in some ways.

That's not a condemnation of religious people. If I wish to express opinions of religious (or non-religious) people, I will do so on an individual basis based on their observed behavior.

So, on to the current sub-topic: can a religion be held responsible for the semi-collective actions of it's adherents?

It depends. Is the Catholic church of the middle ages responsible for the persecution and murder of Jews? Absolutely. It was doctrinal that Jews were directly responsible for the death of Jesus. Churches, until very recently, were very real, and very very powerful political entities. In many cases, they were more powerful than individual national governments. They controlled every aspect of a person's life, from the food they ate, to the jobs they performed, to the sexual positions they were allowed to utilize. Everything. A person's position in life was absolute, because it was granted by God Himself. A king was a king, and a slave was a slave, because God said so. At least, according to the church. It was doctrine. It was extraordinarily powerful. When Jesus said that faith could move mountains, he wasn't kidding. Those with faith can be used by those who know how to manipulate that faith. The evidence screams down through the millenia of religious-inspired violence to this very day.

You cannot separate doctrine from scripture, and you cannot separate the church from it's people. You especially cannot separate a church's words from it's deeds. Make no mistake, a religion isn't just a bunch of beliefs, but is in fact a power structure that operates on the level of those beliefs, and by manipulating those beliefs.

Is it arrogant of me to express this? I don't see why. Perhaps my delivery is wanting? Is it arrogant when a christian claims to know, despite all evidence to the contrary, that an invisible, intagible super-being exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe? Is it arrogant when a muslim claims that christians are wrong in their beliefs, for similar reasons? Why is it often the atheist and/or skeptic that is accused of arrogance, for the simple fact of not believing in something that to him, makes absolutely no sense, or for showing where some beliefs are contrary to demonstrable and observable facts?

My stance on god-belief is quite simple. The theist says: there is a god. I respond: prove it. Is that arrogant? If it is, why?

I like Shinobi's response. It's the way I conduct my life as well. But if someone asks for my opinions or my beliefs, I will describe them.

Cruentus

01-23-2003, 10:46 AM

One of the "problems" that the human race has had for quite a long time is the mixture of church and state. Religion gets blamed for this problem, but I would argue that it is not the fault of the religion, but the fault of the people who decided to integrate it into their government system, and use it as a means to control people.

Name almost any atrocity that "religion" by itself gets blamed for, and I'll bet that the atrocity was caused by a mixing of church and state. Remember, the Spanish inquisition was NOT the Catholic Church, or Christianity; it was the spanish government. The Crusades were considered a "religious war," but the reality is that Spain and other areas of Europe didn't want to get taken over by another Government system. Granted one group was motivated by "christianity" and the other "Islam," but that doesn't change the fact that it was two different government systems that were actually at ends. "Rome," ladies and gentlement, was also a "state" not a religion.

Now, I am not saying that all religious leaders were innocent in these examples that I have mentioned, but I am saying that we need to look at ALL the facts. The FACTS are that there are more to blame these atrocities on then just making "religion" the scapegoat. I find that people often would prefer to make religion's the scapegoat, however, because it lessons the guilt they feel for not following any moral athority beyond their own desires. For these people, no amount of evidence can be brought to the table that will change their minds.

When keeping the idea of church and state in mind , I have come to realize that these atrocities were not because the teachings of the religions were flawed per say, but that people had decided to use religion for the pursuit of power and greed. Since most of the religions that were used in the name of power and greed (Christianity and Muslim faiths to be percise) teach against the pursuit of power and greed, it would conclude that religion, by itself, is not the problem. So, to argue that the teachings of these religions are "flawed," and that is why these atrocities have occured is an empty arguement negating certain key facts.

Cruentus

01-23-2003, 11:01 AM

You cannot separate doctrine from scripture, and you cannot separate the church from it's people.

This point is where many of the theists and non-theists (I am including agnostics and others, not just athiests) split. I would say that you CAN and you SHOULD seperate church from people....particularly GOD from it's followers and the church. God is one thing, a religion is another, and the people that follow are another. God, to me is the perfect creator. The Religion, to me, is a human way of trying to explain God, God's ways, the world, and how to follow God. Is religion imperfect....yes of course. Is it this evil entity that causes all of the atrocities in the world, of course not. Then there is people.....People are the most flawed, and it is the actions of people that cause bad things to happend. People, on the other hand, also cause good things to happend as well. People are, however, a seperate entitiy from a religion, or from God.

You, as well as others, would disagree. This is fine, and then it just becomes a matter of which makes more sense to whom; and hopefully we'll all find the answer for ourselves for sure. This, however, is the percise point in the arguement where many factions begin to split.

Blindside

01-23-2003, 11:05 AM

Remember, the Spanish inquisition was NOT the Catholic Church, or Christianity; it was the spanish government.

Um, no. A papal bull by Pope Gregory IX put the Dominican order in charge of the Inquisition. It was also charged with rooting out the Albigensien heresies, which were centered in southern France.

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Lamont

Johnathan Napalm

01-23-2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
Not only that, but I most certainly did NOT condemn all religions and religious people. I did, however, express my opinion that religions are psychologically harmful in some ways.

That's not a condemnation of religious people. If I wish to express opinions of religious (or non-religious) people, I will do so on an individual basis based on their observed behavior.

Your selectivity is amazing. Even after Paul quoted your own sentence by sentence, you still don't get it.

.. Is the Catholic church of the middle ages responsible for the persecution and murder of Jews? Absolutely. It was doctrinal that Jews were directly responsible for the death of Jesus.

Jesus was a Jew. His fellow Jewish establishment wanted to get rid of Him because he threatened their status quo. The Roman administration went along because they didn't care when the Jewish establishment wanted another Jew nailed. To this days, the Jewish religion rejects Jesus as the messiah.

A lot of nations persecuted Jews as well as other weaker races. Gypsies were persecuted. The Koreans were persecuted by the Japanese. The Okinawan were persecuted by the Japanese. Muslim persecuted Slavs. Spaniards repaid their persecution by the Ottoman. One of your forefathers might have participated in the prosecution of Jews and other weaker people. In the middel ages, every body persecute everybody else they could make a scapegoat or bully. That was the way back then.

Churches, until very recently, were very real, and very very powerful political entities. In many cases, they were more powerful than individual national governments. They controlled every aspect of a person's life, from the food they ate, to the jobs they performed, to the sexual positions they were allowed to utilize. Everything. A person's position in life was absolute, because it was granted by God Himself. A king was a king, and a slave was a slave, because God said so. At least, according to the church. It was doctrine. It was extraordinarily powerful. When Jesus said that faith could move mountains, he wasn't kidding. Those with faith can be used by those who know how to manipulate that faith. The evidence screams down through the millenia of religious-inspired violence to this very day.

Again, for the 100 thousand times, it was the people running the church at the time, responsible for the problems.

Jesus didn't teach any of those things you listed. The people running the church at the time came up with those things. These people acted like modern day power hungry politicians.

The teaching of Christianity has nothing to do with this human misadventure.

You cannot manipulate faith. You can manipulate people. People manipulate people.

"Beware of false prophets". When false prophets use religion cover to manipulate the ill informed, the quilt lies in the false prophets, not the vehicle they hijacked.

Hitler hijacked patriotism to meet his end. Does that mean patriotism is evil??

Of course not! How can patriotism be evil in itself?

You cannot separate doctrine from scripture, and you cannot separate the church from it's people. You especially cannot separate a church's words from it's deeds. Make no mistake, a religion isn't just a bunch of beliefs, but is in fact a power structure that operates on the level of those beliefs, and by manipulating those beliefs.

You are simply being argumentative. There is no basis to your position. The people running the church in those times were history. The Bible is still there. If your position holds any water at all, the crusade, the witch hunt, and the persecution of Jews and all the evil deeds you have attributed to the church, ought to be still going on today. The people would still be blindly manipulated like a bunch of puppets.

None of those are still here, because the people behind the church are different today. So the Church today is different from the Church in the past.

It is complete idiocy to cast the sins of the past onto the Christians of today. That is so absurd.

Hey, some of your ancestors must be blood thirsty murderous barbarians, just like those of ours. What does that have to do with you? Nothing! Or would you rather argue that you are genetically linked and hence you are scumbag? lol

Cruentus

01-23-2003, 11:49 AM

Please describe to me what the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church is. In terms that a layman could understand. Do you take communion or confess to a priest?

If so, why?

If only god can judge you, what need have you for the organized hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church?

Hey, you asked a good darn question, so I thought I would answer you in brief.

The purpose of the Catholic Church covers many grounds, but I'll give you the main purpose. Mainly, the idea behind the Church and the "hierarchy" is to try to keep the teachings of Christ as pure as we can in our flawed world. The church does this not just by scripture alone. I don't remember the exact spot, but I believe that in a letter of Paul to the Theselonians, Paul mentions that we must uphold our beliefs from "the Traditions we uphold, or from a letter of ours." One of the ways that Catholics differ from main-stream Christians is that we don't follow scripture blindly, or by itself. The Bible is a collection of writings that date back thousands of years, and is the original scripts where written in archaic hebrew or aramaic. You have to look at anything that was written down within the context and purpose of the writing. It is important to know when when reading Genisis, for example, that Genisis was a recorded legand which had been passed down for generations orally before written down, and ment to be taken as truth in a figurative sense, not a literal sense. But when you are reading the Gospel according to Mathew you are reading a historacle interpretation from the perspective of Mathew and his followers, and is ment to be taken literally. Or at least this is what Matt and his followers percieved actually happend.

So, Catholics are not scriptural literalists. We rely on scripture, but also tradition and proper interpretation. That is why the church is around; it keeps the truth and the proofs straight beyond what any individual could do on their own. And the hierarchy exists so that it will be difficult for its leader to change the traditions, or interpretations, keeping as close as possible to the intent of the original apostles. At least, that is the intent.

The Catholic Church has long been noted for having the longest standing scholarly study of Christianity that the world has ever known. The Church is also there to study Christianity, and interpret it to lay people as best as it can what it believes is truth. This is important to it's laypeople because an organization as large as the Catholic Church does much more of a thorough job then any individual could when it comes to studying Christianity.

The Church also exists as a place for people to go and worship, and as a vehicle for lay people to grow personally. These are the main purposes of the Church, as I can see it.

Do you take communion or confess to a priest?

Yes, I do.

If only God can judge you, what need have you for the organized hierarchy of the Roman Church?

Good question also. God is the only judge, this is true. But the Church acts as a vehicle for interpreting the Christian belief system. A Priest has every right to tell me, "Paul, you know the church doesn't approve of you murdering people, and in fact, murder is a sin." The Priest has no right to say, "Paul, you know your going to hell of murdering all those people." There is a differance between interpretation (or "Judgement") of actions and interpretation (Judgement) of people.

A side note about confession: Some misconceptions about confession is that Catholics believe that you must go to confession to have your sins forgiven. This is not true. Another is that you are automatically forgiven if you go to confession. Also, not true.

Because (for arguements sake) Jesus is not walking around on earth right now, he had given his apostles the authority to forgive sins (check New Testament). Priests are just carrying out this apostolic tradition/authority. The Priest is acting as a mediator between me and God. Sure, I don't have to go to confession to be forgiven, but it's hard to get direct feedback just by praying and asking for forgiveness. And praying by myself doesn't always absolve me of my own feeling of guilt. When I want to get council from someone regarding my actions, I go to confession. It has a similar effect as a tribesman seeking council with a Shaman, or for a modern day contemporary paying big mula to go to a therapist. The differance is, when I go to a Priest I am asking for the Holy Spirit to see me through my sins, and the Priest is asking for the holy spirit to help him to give proper council.

And when I leave confession, am I forgiven? Well, that is truely up to God, not an institution, or another human being.

I hope I answered some of your questions. I am signing off, and I won't be posting again here until tomorrow. I have to limit my time on this forum, otherwise I'll never get any work done!

Peace...:cool:

Blindside

01-23-2003, 12:04 PM

Thanks Paul,

I posted that question, good response.

Lamont

Cruentus

01-23-2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Blindside
Um, no. A papal bull by Pope Gregory IX put the Dominican order in charge of the Inquisition. It was also charged with rooting out the Albigensien heresies, which were centered in southern France.

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Lamont

I know that I said I was signing off, but one last thing....

Um, yes. :p

I need to check my history a little to get the details, but I recall the problems occuring when the Spanish Government got involved with Pope Gregory's attempt to curb some of the misconceptions, or "heresies" that were going around. I'm sure some of the Dominican Monks where as fault as well, but remember that this is a time period where news-papers, media, and internet weren't exactly flurishing. If a Pope who is in a building at Vatican City says, "Hey, wouldn't it be a good idea to send some people out to evangalize, to try to curb some of the misconceptions that are going on?" And then, certian government leaders, coupled with certain members of a religious order decide that this means persecuting and killing, the Pope nor his bishops even aren't necisarily going to find out about it, and if they do it is likely that A. it will be to late, and B. the extent of the detail of how the inquisition handled themselves may never be known by the hierarchy of that time period.

Keep in mind, that members and leaders of the "Church" will always make mistakes, because leaders of any religion are human beings. Remember St. Peter (named Peter from Simon; Peter means "Rock", and Jesus stated "on this rock I will build my church...") was one of Jesus's most important apostles. Yet, he denied Christ 3 times, and this is mentioned in all of the Gospels. He was also "corrected" by Paul in the New testament, who was of much lesser authority. We use these examples to understand that even the most important and worthy individuals will make mistakes. No matter how seemingly perfect, no human being is God. Same goes for any institution.

This doesn't mean that because someone, or even a group of someones, makes mistakes that this means that the religion or belief system should be scraped as being a detriment to society. That arguement is illogical. Once again, the belief system by itself wasn't necessarily the cause of the mistakes that were made.

So, my point still stands: religion alone wasn't the problem, but the people who used religion, while at the same time blantently disregarding some of its key teachings, where the problem. This, as I had said before, often occured by mixing Church and State.

I really have to get back to work now, but if you have any aditional comments, Lemont, please feel free to state them. I will happily address them within the next day or two.

But, just remember, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
- Monty Python

:D

Blindside

01-23-2003, 12:50 PM

Regarding the founding of the Inquisition, it actually started at being aimed only at Christian heresies, namely the Albigensian and another (Walden something) heresies. Torture was permitted as a means of coercion. This is all under the guidelines put forth by Gregory IX, he also put an incredibly brutal man in charge of the Inquisition; Robert le Bougre. There were Dominican inquisitors in Spain, but the focus was in southern France and Germany.

It wasn't until almost 250 years later and the reign of Ferdinand did the Inquisition become "the Spanish Inquisition."

Lamont

qizmoduis

01-23-2003, 02:28 PM

PAUL,

Good responses there. Even though I'm no longer Catholic, I have often taken a stand against Catholic haters and have explained things the same way you did.

I do have to disagree about separating the church from it's people. In Catholic school, they teach that the church IS it's people. Without the people, there is no church. There can be no separation.

There is no personal responsibility upon churchgoers shoulders for past atrocities. That's silly. A lot of people on MY side try to do that, but not me. I certainly don't intend to give that impression, because such a stance is nonsense, and I think I've made clear in past posts how I feel about nonsense.

However, I do think its important for people of today to understand the root causes of all that nastiness in the past, and even the nastiness happening right now.

Oh, and you're absolutely right, that relgion ALONE isn't the whole problem, but I contend that it is one of the major root causes of most of our problems. Just ONE out of many. I think the world would be better off without religions, but only a little bit.

Cruentus

01-23-2003, 07:52 PM

O.K....

I did some research on the Inquisition as an institution before it became “The Spanish Inquisition.” I’ll give a brief synopsis:

Before the Inquisition, some of the things that went on leading to the use of “force” in the name of religion:

- Empress Theodora had put to death multitudes of Paulicians: 10th Century
- Emporor Alexius Commenus put to death Bogomilists: year 1118
- Louis VIII of France delegated “punishment” to those excommunicated: King Louis was decreed the year 1226.
- Louis IX of France had fully ordered the burning of “heretics” at the stake: 1249
- In Germany, the “Mirror of Saxon Laws” compiled around 1235 embodied as a law to execute unbelievers “at the stake.”

It is also important to note that in Italy under Emperor Frederick II, at least up until 1224, there was NO imperial law in Italy that mandated torture or stake burning for heretics. This was inspired by writings from Pope Innocent III, and Pope Honorius III.

Right around 1231, the “Inquisition” came to being. This was under Pope Gregory IX, who was elected in 1227 at the ripe age of 80. How and why the inquisition came to being is actually not verified in history, and historians and theologians have different theories regarding the matter.

One thing that is historically verifiable, though, is that during the middle ages there was a constant struggle between the Church trying to maintain control over herself, and rulers and emperors trying to gain control over the church. These emperors wanted to have free reign and wanted to change church doctrine to do so. Due to the heresies that were flourishing in Europe at the time, one theory was that the Inquisition was instituted to curb not just the heresies that the people believed, but heresies that were propagated by the rulers themselves as a means to try to overthrow the Church to hoard power for themselves. This would also explain why Pope Gregory IX excommunicated Frederick II twice, AFTER 1224 when Frederick had instituted his torture and execution of “heretics” policy.

Now was Pope Gregory IX a softy to heretics? No. Records show that he knew of the evils that were going on with the persecution of heretics, but being imperfect and human he was focused on other things. He never mandaded that these evils be stopped like other Popes before and after him. This was his mistake, and no human is perfect. To his defense, though, he was 80 years old and basically having to fight a war, more or less, with certain rulers of states that wanted to overthrow the church. On top of that, death and torture for any crime was the norm in the middle ages.

So, it is important to reinerate that the “torture and death” penalties for heretics were instituted BEFORE the inquisition, and these policies where instituted by the GOVERNMENT who were the emperors of these countries.

It is also important to note that historically for its beginning decades the Inquisition did not prescribe or even allow torture and death penalties for heretics. The Franciscan and Dominican orders were placed in charge of the Inquisition because the hope was that they wouldn’t be politically influenced by the worldly leaders and worldly laws. When the death and torture policies began, they were implemented by the government of the countries in where the heresies occurred. The Persecutions where carried out by the laws of the land, not by the Church itself.

As early as 1254, with Pope Innocent IV, the Church in fact prohibited perpetual imprisonment, torture, or death by the stake from the inquisitions. Similar mandates where given, in writing, by the proceeding Popes (Urban IV, Clement IV, Gregory X, Boniface VIII, etc.). The Laws of the Lands where the Inquisitons where occurring, however, would not allow these mandates to be implemented. The death and torture continued throughout the middle ages, but not by approval of the church.

So….what did we learn?

Although I oversimplified the argument before, the point still stands, and now I am bringing proof to the table. These sins where escalated by mixing Church and State, not by Church alone.

It is important that I clarify that no, Pope Gregory IX was not perfect. Neither was the Inquisitors who, at least after the first Century of the inquisition, probably knew that even though the church wouldn’t be punishing the people who were on trial, that the government of the land would torture and kill those convicted after they had left. Some of these people didn’t just make “mistakes” but they sinned very gravely indeed (in my opinion).

But it stands that these evils were in the hands of the people, and never once was it condoned by the religious doctrines of the Catholic Church. You will find no historical proof or doctrinal statements to prove me wrong on this point.

Once again, you can’t blame the religion for the human pursuit of greed and power. If religion wasn’t used as a vehicle or reasoning for these rulers to pursue greed and power, then something else would have been used instead.

:cool:

Cruentus

01-23-2003, 07:54 PM

Thanks for your response. I respect your point of view, even though I (of course) disagree.

Where you think the world would have been better without religion, I feel that the world would have been much, much worse.

But that is just my humble opinion....

:) :asian:

Rich Parsons

01-23-2003, 10:04 PM

Paul et al,

Good post on the Inquisition. And when I mentioned it I did not mean that the Church was the only 'evil' of the days. I also did not mention the crusade on purpose for many of the points you mentioned.

Yet, my Question still stands.

Why does the Church think it can decide matters of science?

I mean Galileo was convicted of Heresy only because he wrote and published data from his research, that showed Copernicus's Theories to be accurate or at least to be the best model to date.

So, excluding the human factor of Pope Gregory IX and those that execute the orders of the Church on their own or with the support of the Church, why would the theologians of the day think they were better scientists? I admit that many a school / university was funded in full or partially by the Church, and so being could limit what was taught on those campuses. Yet, they saw fit to prosecute someone for having a different opinion themselves.

So, Let me ask you a question, were not the Romans and Jews the just as 'bad' for prosecuting Christ and the Apostles and Christians for their belief that was different from the norm of the day.

Let me ask another question of you Paul and the others.

Paul you posted that if you put a bunch of people of different beliefs in the same room and ask them questions would not the core be really close to each other?

I continue this thought with the following:

As Abraham and Moses and the rest are to the Jews and Christ and the Apostles to the Christians, and Mohammed to the Muslims, could not Buddha have been sent a divine message? Could not Odin be the Father figure of the Norse and Dagda the Michael figure for the Norse as well?

Could not God in his infinite wisdom wish to tell people his message, and the human in each case that was delivered the message did their best with what they had?

Now for the Atheists, could not they also be on the right track? I mean assuming a normal person of course. I mean if they just live their lives as productive members of society and are good neighbors are they not also on the right path???

Usually they just do not want to be told they are wrong or need to be saved because they have not performed some ritual.

Here is a prime data point I use. Everyone asks me on St. Patrick's Day, where is my Green. Now if you are of Irish Decent and have done your history you would know that the Irish flag has three colors. Green, White and Orange. Green for the Catholics. Orange for the Protestants and White for the Truce between the two. Being on non Catholic Irish Decent I resent the fact that everyone assumes I should wear Green, when the color my family should wear is Orange. So, you see no matter how well mannered you and others are here on this board, every day we Atheists and agnostics run into people who condemn us with the comments and there words all because we do not believe as they do.

Well, that then leads to me stating I am bigger than you prove I am wrong by force, since I am too stupid to understand your way. This leads you to go get friends, and then I get friends with weapons and then your friends get bigger weapons and wars begin. All for the individuals involved yes, but all in the name of someone trying to convince others that they are right and that the others are wrong.

So, All I am asking is that if everyone agreed that it was ok to be different and to live with it and not try to change the other people then I believe that life would be a better place.

Now do I think that religion was a completely bad idea? No. Religion was a way to get society to adopt ways and laws that were beneficial to the survival of the whole. Yes many people took advantage of this. The Church did not have a celibacy vow until about 800 AD. The date is rough sorry. The reason was that there had become in existence dynasties of Bishops and Cardinals. The Church took measures here to correct an injustice. Fine, yet this vow was a MAN MADE vow, not a rule of the gospel.

Good Discussion
:asian:

white belt

01-23-2003, 10:33 PM

Three questions to put things in perspective.

1) When is now?

white belt

Nightingale

01-23-2003, 10:48 PM

quote: Now, let me look at history, in the Name of God the Copernicus was killed for his science about the world being round and that the earth rotated around the sun. Yes at one time this belief was a crime that the CHURCH required him to be imprisoned. He was slipped Hemlock to allow himself to kill himself and die and not live in jail for the rest of his life.

Galileo was the one imprisoned (he was sentenced to life in prison, but because of his age and ill health, it was commuted to house arrest) for giving more publicity to and expanding upon Copernicus's theory. Socrates was the one who drank hemlock. Copernicus himself seemed to be pretty much ignored. He died at a ripe old age of a cerebral hemorage, and never knew what a stir his theories had really caused.

Nightingale

01-23-2003, 10:58 PM

I don't believe in organized religion because:

churches are run by human beings, not gods.

human beings have their own personal feelings and agendas, and are inherently imperfect (if there's anyone out there who's never screwed up somewhere along the way, speak up now, cause I'd love to talk to you and see how you do it).

The problems I have with religions all seem to stem from the PEOPLE following them rather than the religions themselves.

I was raised catholic. A close family member of mine was a catholic priest for ten years. He told me many things that went on behind closed doors of the rectory, and these things weren't just happening with a few priests, but the majority (and he was a world lecturer and traveled quite a bit, so he did see a large portion of the catholic church, not just in the USA, but rome and south america and europe and asia as well). I find it hard to sit and listen to a priest giving "moral guidence" when I'm wondering if he's touching the altar boys or f-ing the pastor. To be a moral leader, you must first have morals yourself, and that doesn't seem to be a criteria for a lot of churches, and its very difficult to tell the bad from the good until its too late, so I've decided to muddle through on my own with the help of a few good friends and my own conscience.

Kirk

01-23-2003, 11:02 PM

I agree. Aside from the history of greed associated with
organized religion, the individual parishes (churches) themselves
are nothing but "club God" where people constantly violate the
"judge not lest ye be judged" phrase of wisdom. Even the
"progressive" churches are cliquish, and make others feel
welcome.

Jesus himself hung with lepors, hookers, theives and the like.
He never told anyone he was above them, or that they had to
change anything to sit in the house of God.

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by nightingale8472
I don't believe in organized religion because:

churches are run by human beings, not gods.

human beings have their own personal feelings and agendas, and are inherently imperfect (if there's anyone out there who's never screwed up somewhere along the way, speak up now, cause I'd love to talk to you and see how you do it).

The problems I have with religions all seem to stem from the PEOPLE following them rather than the religions themselves.

I was raised catholic. A close family member of mine was a catholic priest for ten years. He told me many things that went on behind closed doors of the rectory, and these things weren't just happening with a few priests, but the majority (and he was a world lecturer and traveled quite a bit, so he did see a large portion of the catholic church, not just in the USA, but rome and south america and europe and asia as well). I find it hard to sit and listen to a priest giving "moral guidence" when I'm wondering if he's touching the altar boys or f-ing the pastor. To be a moral leader, you must first have morals yourself, and that doesn't seem to be a criteria for a lot of churches, and its very difficult to tell the bad from the good until its too late, so I've decided to muddle through on my own with the help of a few good friends and my own conscience.

None of the problems has anything to do with the teaching of Christianity. The problems lie in the human factor, as you said it yourself. "..The problems I have with religions all seem to stem from the PEOPLE following them rather than the religions themselves..". But nonetheless, you tossed out Christianity alltogether? Not that it is my place to judge you, except that I find your logic illogical :)

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Kirk
I agree. Aside from the history of greed associated with
organized religion....
Oh really.. Care to elaborate on that and share with us some examples that are uniquely related to organized religion and not related to any other organization?

Jesus himself hung with lepors, hookers, theives and the like.
He never told anyone he was above them, or that they had to
change anything to sit in the house of God
Oh really.... Did he just tell people to keep on going on their merry way and all would be cool at the end just because they hung with Him? Please do tell.

Bob Hubbard

01-24-2003, 12:49 AM

There is a saying "God please save me from your followers".

I think that sums things up nicely.

Alot of folks have died over religion. More so have died due to greed and political ambitions.

Witchcraft was an excuse in the 1600's to get rid of those you didn't like, or whose property you wanted.

It was used to remove groups that caused problems for the favored.

Buffalo just dealt with a 'visit' from a group called the 'Army of God'. They hung out in front of a local womans center waving signs that said 'Call a Kopp'. James Kopp is an individual accused of murdering a doctor (who performed abortions) while he was at his home, with his family. He was shot to death in front of his children. These are 'Christians'.

BS.

Folks like that use the idea of a religion to justify their own twisted grabs for a moment of fame. David Koresh and Jim Jones used the system of religion to feed their own greed and desires for sex, power and wealth. There was no 'God' involved.

Just simple human greed.

I've read the christian bible heavily. Its a very good book. Theres a lot of guidelines for living based on the conditions of the day it was writen, and some very basic ideas that seem to be universal.

The Wiccans have a universal rule "Do as ye wish, but Harm None".

Christians and Jews have the 10 commandments.

Similar rules exist in Islam and the other religions and belief systems of the world.

There are certain 'Universal Concepts' that tie them all together.

Jesus Christ is a revered figure in Islam.

Muslims believe that Jesus (also known as Isa'l-Masih, Isa bin Maryam or simply Isa) was born from a virgin named Mary by the power of Allah. He was one of the great prophets of Allah, like Moses, and the last one before Muhammad. He was not the son of Allah, but he was Allah's Messiah, and he will eventually return.

Hindus believe he was an avatar.

Some Hindus go so far as to consider Jesus an avatar of God. (An avatar is an incarnation of God on earth, but not a unique one; Rama, Krishna, and Buddha are tradionally considered avatars. Some say Gandhi was one

Another source states:

Jesus or Jesus Christ , 1st-century Jewish teacher and prophet in whom Christians have traditionally seen the Messiah [Heb.,=annointed one, whence Christ from the Greek] and whom they have characterized as Son of God and as Word or Wisdom of God incarnate. Muslims acknowledge him as a prophet, and Hindus as an avatar (see avatara). He was born just before the death of King Herod the Great (37 B.C.–4 B.C.) and was crucified after a brief public ministry during Pontius Pilate's term as prefect of Judaea (A.D. 26–36).

I disagree with Paul on a few points, but the only one that matters is this:
I think we are all right...or at least, most of us. You can call it heaven, Elesium, Summerlands, etc. You can talk of being 'born again' or 'reincarnated'. There is a truth in there somewhere that is universal...we just get so hung up on finding that 'Right Thing' that we often times blind ourselves to the truth which is in plain view.

There is nothing wrong with Christianity...just the warped perceptions and actions of some of its followers...same is true of most religions. Islam is a fairly non-violent religion....its just that certain groups have warped things based on greed, power, fear or wealth to fan the flames of hate. Both sides are guilty of this. All in the name of a God who I'm certain wishes we could all just get along.

I see good things in alot of the religions...but, I'm happily pagan. One of the perks is Halloween is a major holiday, and, well, we got a heck of a lot of em....over 200+ to be certain. :) Now...if I could just get paid on those days. :D

Peace all.
:asian:

Bob Hubbard

01-24-2003, 12:54 AM

Oh really.. Care to elaborate on that and share with us some examples that are uniquely related to organized religion and not related to any other organization?

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/1518/13271

Pope John Paul has declared the year 2000 a Holy Year and with that Catholics can once again "earn" indulgences in order to get into heaven faster. Catholics believe they must suffer, to attain a spot in heaven, and by suffering they earn indulgences which leads to a faster trip. ....... Last Sunday the Pope issued what is known as a Papal Bull (ahem!) This Bull contained the provision that indulgences may once again be "earned" (as opposed to bought as they were in the 16th century).

Back in the 16th century, the Catholic Church actually sold indulgences to people hoping to either get into heaven sooner themselves, or get loved ones who had died, out of purgatory. It was the German monk Martin Luther who took exception to this and on October 31, 1517 nailed a copy of his 95 Theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany. He chose this day, in part, because November 1 was All Saints Day and he knew that the church would be packed. Martin Luther was opposed to the act of granting (much less selling!) indulgences because he was convinced that the Bible stated clearly that the earning/buying of indulgences was not necessary to attain a place in heaven. It was this act that touched off what we now know as the Lutheran Reformation. As you can imagine the Catholics were pissed. They wanted Luther's head on a platter and he was decreed a heretic. However, this non-suffering, Protestant, way of entering the pearly gates appealed to many people, and they told the Pope what he could do with his indulgences.
Theres more...its a tad sarcastic, and I have to verify a few points, but this basically agrees with what I learned in history class 15+ years ago.

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
.....Yet, my Question still stands.

Why does the Church think it can decide matters of science?

I mean Galileo was convicted of Heresy only because he wrote and published data from his research, that showed Copernicus's Theories to be accurate or at least to be the best model to date.

So, excluding the human factor of Pope Gregory IX and those that execute the orders of the Church on their own or with the support of the Church, why would the theologians of the day think they were better scientists? I admit that many a school / university was funded in full or partially by the Church, and so being could limit what was taught on those campuses. Yet, they saw fit to prosecute someone for having a different opinion themselves.

So, Let me ask you a question, were not the Romans and Jews the just as 'bad' for prosecuting Christ and the Apostles and Christians for their belief that was different from the norm of the day.

Let me ask another question of you Paul and the others.

Paul you posted that if you put a bunch of people of different beliefs in the same room and ask them questions would not the core be really close to each other?

I continue this thought with the following:

As Abraham and Moses and the rest are to the Jews and Christ and the Apostles to the Christians, and Mohammed to the Muslims, could not Buddha have been sent a divine message? Could not Odin be the Father figure of the Norse and Dagda the Michael figure for the Norse as well?

Could not God in his infinite wisdom wish to tell people his message, and the human in each case that was delivered the message did their best with what they had?

Now for the Atheists, could not they also be on the right track? I mean assuming a normal person of course. I mean if they just live their lives as productive members of society and are good neighbors are they not also on the right path???

Usually they just do not want to be told they are wrong or need to be saved because they have not performed some ritual.

Here is a prime data point I use. Everyone asks me on St. Patrick's Day, where is my Green. Now if you are of Irish Decent and have done your history you would know that the Irish flag has three colors. Green, White and Orange. Green for the Catholics. Orange for the Protestants and White for the Truce between the two. Being on non Catholic Irish Decent I resent the fact that everyone assumes I should wear Green, when the color my family should wear is Orange. So, you see no matter how well mannered you and others are here on this board, every day we Atheists and agnostics run into people who condemn us with the comments and there words all because we do not believe as they do.

Well, that then leads to me stating I am bigger than you prove I am wrong by force, since I am too stupid to understand your way. This leads you to go get friends, and then I get friends with weapons and then your friends get bigger weapons and wars begin. All for the individuals involved yes, but all in the name of someone trying to convince others that they are right and that the others are wrong.

So, All I am asking is that if everyone agreed that it was ok to be different and to live with it and not try to change the other people then I believe that life would be a better place.

Now do I think that religion was a completely bad idea? No. Religion was a way to get society to adopt ways and laws that were beneficial to the survival of the whole. Yes many people took advantage of this. The Church did not have a celibacy vow until about 800 AD. The date is rough sorry. The reason was that there had become in existence dynasties of Bishops and Cardinals. The Church took measures here to correct an injustice. Fine, yet this vow was a MAN MADE vow, not a rule of the gospel.

I will just touch on a few points.

1. Try to separate the things that relate to the human factor. You only need to ask yourself if the issue at hand is what Jesus had taught us or it is the people running the church who created it. Jesus said Love thy Father and love thy neighbors. He didn't teach about Inquisition, witch hunt nor crusade.

This is like if you practice Hapkido. But your instructor happens to be a crook with poor ethic and molests teenagers. You don't ditch Hapkido. You ditch the instructor and his school. Blaming Hapkido would be illogical. But that is EXACTLY what people typically do when it comes to Christianity.

2. Some religious people are judgemental. Some are not. Some martial art people look at non-martial people with contempt. But not all are that way.

There are honest, decent and honourable buddhists, muslims, atheists, wiccams (sp) etc. There are crooked and deceitful Catholics (although we are sure these are not true Catholics ;) )

Religious affiliation is like Mcdojo blackbelt. Anyone can have one for the asking. It says nothing about the character of the person.

Do I have special respect for truly religious people? Yes, for those who do not flaunt it but rather practice it out of their own heart. Just like I have special respect for martial art practitioners who practice the art quitely and do not flaunt their blackbelt or credential. For when people do something out of their hearts, they have to be true to themselves. Every religion teaches us to be a kind and compassionate person. Just like no martial art teaches us to assault and maim people.

3. Ezekiel 25:17 "..Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children...." I find this reflects the essence of martial art practicing.

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/1518/13271

Theres more...its a tad sarcastic, and I have to verify a few points, but this basically agrees with what I learned in history class 15+ years ago.

Shame on you Bob. Talk about selective retention! You conveniently left out what this "indulgence" is about.

Here is what you left out. "....As a Catholic you are encouraged to avoid smoking and drinking, give to charity (the Catholic Church?)[sarcastics remark is from the author], visit people in the hospital or in prison and you too can earn your way into heaven..."

There is this severe distortion of the intent of the Catholic church in this regard. The idea is that we must follow the steps of Christ in action, not in lip service. You must do your share to live up to "... shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.." to be "... his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children...".

The non Catholic christians believe in redemption by your own acceptance of Jesus as your personal saviour, ie redemption by grace. The Catholics emphasize redemption by deed. In their truest sense, both routes are two sides of the same coin, for Jesus said, "carry my cross and follow my steps" and He tended to the poors, the sick, and rejected the rich but greedy etc. He set the example of what to do. He also said "The Father and I are ONE. No one comes to the Father but through me."

As for what the Church did back then that caused the great schism that resulted in the rise of all other denominations, LMAO, that is EXACTLY like what has caused martial arts to branch off into different branches and styles!! Politics, ego, and money!! LOL

Bob Hubbard

01-24-2003, 01:54 AM

by Johnathan Napalm
Shame on you Bob. Talk about selective retention! You conveniently left out what this "indulgence" is about.

The author seemed a bit 'hostile', and I was focusing more on the 16th century versions, rather than the new 21st century versions, which I had hoped PAUL would clarify after reviewing the link as you did.

I'm not anywhere near to knowing whats what in the current catholic church as the last time I was in one was at my sons christening 11+ years ago.

:asian:

white belt

01-24-2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by white belt
Three questions to put things in perspective.

1) When is now?

white belt

:) ?

white belt

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
The author seemed a bit 'hostile', and I was focusing more on the 16th century versions, rather than the new 21st century versions, which I had hoped PAUL would clarify after reviewing the link as you did.

I'm not anywhere near to knowing whats what in the current catholic church as the last time I was in one was at my sons christening 11+ years ago.

Understood.

Now look at the Jubilee Indulgence that the contemptuous author so objected to and see what basis his contempt is based on.

Quoted from the Papal Bull he cited. http://www.catholic.net/linksframe.phtml?link=http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pope/y2k-uk.html

"...Likewise confirmed for the coming Jubilee is the norm whereby confessors can commute, on behalf of those legitimately impeded, both the work prescribed and the conditions required.(24) Cloistered men and women religious, the infirm and all those who for whatever reason are not able to leave their own house, can carry out, in lieu of a visit to a certain Church, a visit to the chapel of their house; should even this be impossible for them, they can gain the indulgence by spiritually uniting themselves with those carrying out the prescribed work in the ordinary manner and by offering to God their prayers, sufferings and discomforts. With regard to the required conditions, the faithful can gain the Jubilee indulgence:

1) In Rome, if they make a pious pilgrimage to one of the Patriarchal Basilicas, namely, the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican, the Archbasilica of the Most Holy Saviour at the Lateran, the Basilica of Saint Mary Major and the Basilica of Saint Paul on the Ostian Way, and there take part devoutly in Holy Mass or another liturgical celebration such as Lauds or Vespers, or some pious exercise (e.g., the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, the recitation of the Akathistos Hymn in honour of the Mother of God); furthermore, if they visit, as a group or individually, one of the four Patriarchal Basilicas and there spend some time in Eucharistic adoration and pious mediations, ending with the “Our Father”, the profession of faith in any approved form, and prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. To the four Patriarchal Basilicas are added, on this special occasion of the Great Jubilee, the following further places, under the same conditions: the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, the Basilica of Saint Lawrence in Campo Verano, the Shrine of Our Lady of Divine Love, and the Christian Catacombs.(25)

2) In the Holy Land, if, keeping the same conditions, they visit the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, or the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem or the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth.

3) In other ecclesiastical territories, if they make a sacred pilgrimage to the Cathedral Church or to other Churches or places designated by the Ordinary, and there assist devoutly at a liturgical celebration or other pious exercise, such as those mentioned above for the City of Rome; in addition, if they visit, in a group or individually, the Cathedral Church or a Shrine designated by the Ordinary, and there spend some time in pious meditation, ending with the “Our Father”, the profession of faith in any approved form, and prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

4) In any place, if they visit for a suitable time their brothers and sisters in need or in difficulty (the sick, the imprisoned, the elderly living alone, the handicapped, etc.), as if making a pilgrimage to Christ present in them (cf. Mt 25:34-36), and fulfilling the usual spiritual and sacramental conditions and saying the usual prayers. The faithful will certainly wish to repeat these visits throughout the Holy Year, since on each occasion they can gain the plenary indulgence, although obviously not more than once a day.

The plenary indulgence of the Jubilee can also be gained through actions which express in a practical and generous way the penitential spirit which is, as it were, the heart of the Jubilee. This would include abstaining for at least one whole day from unnecessary consumption (e.g., from smoking or alcohol, or fasting or practising abstinence according to the general rules of the Church and the norms laid down by the Bishops' Conferences) and donating a proportionate sum of money to the poor; supporting by a significant contribution works of a religious or social nature (especially for the benefit of abandoned children, young people in trouble, the elderly in need, foreigners in various countries seeking better living conditions); devoting a suitable portion of personal free time to activities benefitting the community, or other similar forms of personal sacrifice......"

LMAO! Yeah, HOW GREED FILLED, EVIL this Indulgence is! How can any sane person find this Indulgence morally objectionable?

Kirk

01-24-2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Kirk
I agree. Aside from the history of greed associated with
organized religion....

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Oh really.. Care to elaborate on that and share with us some examples that are uniquely related to organized religion and not related to any other organization?

The "Holy" Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition to be specific.

And on a broader scale, the religions (i'll finger point and say
Southern Baptists, Mormons, and Jehova's Witnesses) that say
"to earn passage to heaven you must go forth and witness".
Translation: Go get more people to join us, so they can pay their
tithings on Sunday.

Where I live, in South Texas, and ALL of Mexico was occupied by
Spain, by order of the Pope to convert the "heathens" to
Catholicism. Mexico was RIPE with gold.

Originally posted by Kirk
Jesus himself hung with lepors, hookers, theives and the like.
He never told anyone he was above them, or that they had to
change anything to sit in the house of God

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Oh really.... Did he just tell people to keep on going on their merry way and all would be cool at the end just because they hung with Him? Please do tell.

Jesus hung with THEM was the point I was trying to make. But
since you asked, no he didn't tell them that (as if you didn't know.
your patronizing attitude is just being ignored). But he also did
NOT tell them "you must go to church and put your money in the
plate, and turn your nose up to those that wear jeans in church,
or the man that's not freshly shaved, or the man that has a bit
of b.o. ", and so on.

fist of fury

01-24-2003, 09:24 AM

Well I was attempting to saty out of this thread but it's still going on and I can't resist.

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz

Christians and Jews have the 10 commandments.

What I always find funny is that most do follow the 10 commandments. You know there are actually 613 commandments ment to be followed. But the western church only focuses on the 10 of them LOLOL

fist of fury

01-24-2003, 09:27 AM

Ok then everybody let me ask this what makes somebody a christian? Belief in the christian God? going to church? following the 10 commandments?

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Kirk
The "Holy" Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition to be specific.

Please read Paul's posts on this. This has already been discussed. Paul has explained and provided extensive proof to rebutt.

And on a broader scale, the religions (i'll finger point and say
Southern Baptists, Mormons, and Jehova's Witnesses) that say
"to earn passage to heaven you must go forth and witness".
Translation: Go get more people to join us, so they can pay their
tithings on Sunday.

Granted, the Jehova's is a cult and should be treated as such. But what makes you think your translation is correct? Please elaborate.

I can't speak for other denominations or religions, but tilthing is not a Catholic practice. I have never heard of being asked to tilth. It is free choice donation.

BTW, have you checked out what evangelism means?

Where I live, in South Texas, and ALL of Mexico was occupied by
Spain, by order of the Pope to convert the "heathens" to
Catholicism. Mexico was RIPE with gold.

Human factor. I don't know what has to do with the teaching of Christianity. Jesus said you should accumulate treasure in heavan, not on earth. If the gold was accumulated and used to decorate the churches, what seems to be the problem?

Jesus hung with THEM was the point I was trying to make. But
since you asked, no he didn't tell them that (as if you didn't know.
your patronizing attitude is just being ignored). But he also did
NOT tell them "you must go to church and put your money in the
plate, and turn your nose up to those that wear jeans in church,
or the man that's not freshly shaved, or the man that has a bit
of b.o. ", and so on.
Good. Then why do you reject Jesus's teaching because somebody else said something wrong? So you agree that Jesus did not teach all the evil things and mistakes and what not?

fist of fury

01-24-2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm

Oh really.... Did he just tell people to keep on going on their merry way and all would be cool at the end just because they hung with Him? Please do tell.

Yes he did actually do that because the religious leaders and people felt they were too good to hang out with them. No I doubt he told them to go on thier merry way but, he probably ministered to them with kindness and understanding. Unlike most "christians" today who are to busy condeming the evil sinners forgetting that in God's eyes that sin is sin an nobody is above reproach or better than anybody else. You'll notice the only time he lost his temper and yelled was against the "religious" people turning the church into a marketplace.

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by fist of fury ....What I always find funny is that most do follow the 10 commandments. You know there are actually 613 commandments ment to be followed. But the western church only focuses on the 10 of them LOLOL

You are confusing Christianity with Judaism.

Kirk

01-24-2003, 09:57 AM

I was born and raised catholic, was an altar boy for about 8
years, and was a lay eucharistic minister. I was also a military
brat, so I've been in my share of various catholic churches, as
a parish member. MANY a priest would give the old "tis easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man
to get into heaven" bit, before the plate was passed
for "voluntary" donations. MANY a priest quoted the bible's verse
of how you should give 10 % of your earnings to God (a.k.a. the
church) before passing the plate. I don't buy voluntary one bit.

Note to you, look up "condescending" in the dictionary, and then
stop it.

fist of fury

01-24-2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
You are confusing Christianity with Judaism.

No actualy I'm not. Let me ask this In your opinion what is the purpose of the commandments?

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by fist of fury
Yes he did actually do that because the religious leaders and people felt they were too good to hang out with them. No I doubt he told them to go on thier merry way but, he probably ministered to them with kindness and understanding. Unlike most "christians" today who are to busy condeming the evil sinners forgetting that in God's eyes that sin is sin an nobody is above reproach or better than anybody else. You'll notice the only time he lost his temper and yelled was against the "religious" people turning the church into a marketplace.

There are a lot of christians who are in name only. Kind of like McDojo blackbelts.

I would invite you to explore what else Jesus had done and taught those people. That is if you care too. I am not evangelising here.

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Kirk
I was born and raised catholic, was an altar boy for about 8
years, and was a lay eucharistic minister. I was also a military
brat, so I've been in my share of various catholic churches, as
a parish member. MANY a priest would give the old "tis easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man
to get into heaven" bit, before the plate was passed
for "voluntary" donations. MANY a priest quoted the bible's verse
of how you should give 10 % of your earnings to God (a.k.a. the
church) before passing the plate. I don't buy voluntary one bit.

Note to you, look up "condescending" in the dictionary, and then
stop it.

Would you care to answer the questions I have posted earlier?

What you buy or don't buy is irelevent. No one has asked any one I know to tilth. That is a fact.

If I appear to be condescending, that is because you have been stating the same thing that Paul has already addressed with extensive posts. Why don't you read those?

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by fist of fury
No actualy I'm not. Let me ask this In your opinion what is the purpose of the commandments?

The 10 commandments?

Good lord. What kind of question is this? Sunday school?

Nightingale

01-24-2003, 10:13 AM

Tithing is absolutely a catholic practice. they call it "sacrificial giving" now. I remember sitting in church and hearing the deacon or person reading the announcements ask people to donate twenty percent of their income to the church. I've heard it at several different catholic parishes.

and to answer someone else's question:

I rejected christianity because every denomination of christianity puts a priest or minister up on a stage preaching, telling me what to do and how to do it as if he has some kind of direct telephone to heaven that I don't have. These people are just as clueless as I am.

I rejected christianity because it is based on something that is scientifically impossible: rising from the dead. you just flat out can't do that...and since god created the laws of science and physics and chemistry, it doesn't make any sense to me that he would wave a magic wand and make an exception just this once.

my theories are:
1. he wasn't actually dead, only in a coma, which kinda tosses the whole "rising from the dead" thing out the window.

2. reports of the rising were greatly exaggerated.

The problem is in the burden of proof. Although there were many historical records that say that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, there are none (save the bible) that record any of his activities after his crucifixion (someone tell me if I spelled that right, please). This doesn't make sense, because if he was someone who was seen by thousands of people, it would have been recorded somewhere other than in the gospels.

The bible is an interesting book, and it has many good lessons. However, I have doubts of its historical accuracy...with regards to the old testament: you had thousands of years of oral tradition before anything was written down...ever played a game of telephone? and the new testament: the gospels weren't written as chronicles as things happened...they were written many years after the death of Jesus. All our memories get a little fuzzy when we look back on something that happened more than ten years ago... and the story of the birth of Jesus and the conception and all that (in one of the gospels, don't remember which one)...this was written by one of the apostles, but according to the story itself, the writer wasn't there. He must have heard it from someone else (not denying the possiblilty that it could be accurate, just bringing up the possibility that it may not be).

The points I see for christianity:

when taken as it is meant to be, it has a good moral code, and many of the followers mean well.

history says Jesus existed.

The points I see against christianity:

Rising from the dead defies science.
There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.
The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.

My problem with christianity is that there is no source other than the bible that gives credit to the bible as truth. The bible says it is the word of god. however, anybody can say that, and people who are trying to become religious leaders often do. I need some other sources here, historical records that don't have a vested interest in promoting christianity.

Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it correct...remember, lots of people believed the world was flat.

Kirk

01-24-2003, 10:23 AM

The gold didn't go just to decorate the church. Just like
confession wasn't ONLY to absolve sins.

I never rejected Jesus' teachings. I reject organized religion, and
the human law that church is a requirement to get into heaven.
I believe the human factor you quote is also in the bible. I try
to live my life as Jesus did, with the most direct laws being, "the
only way into the kingdom of heaven is through me" and "do
unto others". The rest is up to interpretation.

Kirk

01-24-2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by nightingale8472
Rising from the dead defies science.
There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.
The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.

If it didn't defy science, then it wouldn't be a miracle, which was
proof of God's power.

Originally posted by nightingale8472
There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.

There's boat loads of proof. Most sources are found in spiritual
book stores and what not. Some even put science into it, they're
pretty interesting, even if you're not a christian. The put logical
sense into various odd miracles, not just Jesus'. You can't now,
prove healing the sick, or parting the clouds and hearing God's
voice, or feeding the masses, etc.

Originally posted by nightingale8472
The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.

Amen to that! Which is the main reason I believe the "human
factor" is in the Bible's writings.

Originally posted by nightingale8472
My problem with christianity is that there is no source other than the bible that gives credit to the bible as truth. The bible says it is the word of god. however, anybody can say that, and people who are trying to become religious leaders often do. I need some other sources here, historical records that don't have a vested interest in promoting christianity.

Well let me ask you this. If I took all the writings of George
Washington, and writings about him (during his time) and put
it into one book, would that make you doubt his existance and
work?

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Kirk

I never rejected Jesus' teachings. I reject organized religion, and
the human law that church is a requirement to get into heaven.
I believe the human factor you quote is also in the bible. I try
to live my life as Jesus did, with the most direct laws being, "the
only way into the kingdom of heaven is through me" and "do
unto others". The rest is up to interpretation.

I can respect that. I don't believe church is a reguirement to get into heavan. I don't even believe you have to be a Christian to get into heavan. There is no way the ever loving Father is that petty as to reject His children who have lived a decent and honorable life. What kind of God would that be? Besides, heavan is the end effect of a life on earth. The objective is to live a life to,".... in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness...." and to be" his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children...." Ezekiel 25:17 A life of service. (I begin to sound like Sean Connery in First Knight :rolleyes: )

It is like in martial art. You practice NOT b/c of aiming to attaining mastery at the end. The journay is the reward. Everything else is icing on the cake.

Rich Parsons

01-24-2003, 11:06 AM

When is Now?

Now is the moment you are living in and it extends through you and through out the universe.

McDojo comparison.

The comparison of being a follower of non sustenance is like belonging to a McDojo. Now on here has a problem with issue of the McDojo's being laughed at or being talked about, but everyone get upset when people talk about religion. If it is a McDojo 'thing' then join us in the laugh and say I concede that point for this issues, yet I would like to state that I and others do not act like this, . . . ,.

As for the separation of Church and person and Instructor and Art. If I as an American go over-seas and kill some one I am a representative of the my country. And even if my country admits I am wrong, they still have to deal with the negative backlash of my actions. If the US Government send troops in and 'Collateral Damage' occurs and innocent people are killed, is not the US Government and the troops at hand held accountable for their actions. Yet is was sad, and yes it was wrong, yet we are required to accept our failures and to not deny them and blame them on the individual. So, why should the Church, any church or any religion not be held accountable for their actions. I am held accountable for my actions by laws of man. By the laws of my nation. Why are not the religions held accountable? Oh everyone will stand up and say they are not a part of us and that they are not welcome among us, yet many of the people of the crowd associate with these radicals on a daily basis. This is approval even if it is the form of doing nothing.

As for the Human Factor or the Age of a person being an issue, we all have to deal with the Human factor and the age of people. So, why excuse an 80 year old pope, when my grandfather at 80 was mentally acute and could walk without a cane. Oh this is just one case. Well as Paul pointed out, it is the one in a billion that should be praised for their accomplishments. Almost like everyone should strive for this. And if the 80 year was not all with it, he should have not been given the job. Oh it was the politics or human factor the made him the Pope because of compromise amongst the Cardinals of vote. Hmmm sounds like the whole issue is full of human influence and failures. I see no way to ever remove them, therefore either accept the issue and accept that there will be failings and let us all realize that is will be there. So, it is not just the individual it is also the organization it self.

I agree in general the bases of most religions are nice and support the general welfare of people.

I hope to hear more

TLH3rdDan

01-24-2003, 11:13 AM

ok back to this religion is ok its the people running it that are bad... granted people are no perfect... how does one get put in charge of an organized religion?

since anyone can go out and start a church to preach a doctrine from a paticular religion with out any need of regulation or formal training. what makes these people qualified to do this?

another thing that i noticed everyone seemed to skip right over without even a mention was a post about the satanic commandments... what are your thoughts on them?

Cruentus

01-24-2003, 11:18 AM

Rich:

This will hopefully answer some of your questions.

Galileo: I read a little about his situation. Although modern contemporaries know Galileo for his works in astronomy, he had actually made more contributions to the field of mechanics and other sciences. In his day, he most noted for the discovery of the telescope. That is just a side note, however on top of being a genius, what a lot of people don’t know about him (and that I didn’t know either until I checked a few sources) was that he was a fierce controversialist. He would often unsparingly ridicule those who had different views then he; and many of these views where the widely excepted ones of his time period. He wouldn’t just ridicule verbally either, he did so in writing, and often without demonstrating logical proof to his arguments (even if he had the logical proof available). Basically, although Galileo was a genius, he had a habit of pissing everyone off; his peers, the government, etc., not just church authority. If Galileo was on MartialTalk today, from what I read it sounds as if he would have been banned by the moderators.

Most of his astronomical discoveries where very basic, and came along with the discovery of the telescope (for instance, discovering that the moon had texture, and wasn’t a perfectly round and smooth sphere as was thought previously back then). He was noted for abandoning the old Ptolemaic astronomy for the Copernican, but it is important to note that in 1597 he confessed in a letter to Kepler that he refrained from making himself an advocate for Copernican astronomy because “ lest Copernicus himself should be overwhelmed with ridicule.” Galileo, although genius, was also very ego driven in that regard. Yet, His astronomical discoveries are virtually summed up with his telescopic discoveries. Although these are brilliant and important, he did little in terms of scientific proofs. He didn’t give much regards to his contemporary Kepler, who had discovered his famous scientific laws. More importantly his proofs in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus against the geocentric system of Ptolemy were far from conclusive. Galileo failed to convince such men as Tycho Brahe`, Lord Bacon, and Milton of his discoveries. Galileo’s proof of the phenomenon of tides and earth rotation is also known today as being completely false; yet Galileo treated Keplers suggestions with scorn, the same suggestions that led to Newton’s establishment of the true scientific doctrine. Galileo also scorned Tycho’s theory on comets, which had in hindsight had turned out to be more correct then his. Galileo was a genius and a great scientist, but he was also arrogant and angered his contemporaries. This greatly contributed to the cause of his troubles later in life.

Another important point to mention is that although the Catholic Church of the middle ages is currently viewed as having a hatred towards science to keep the minds of the people ignorant, there are many important facts that point to this not being the case. The Church, before Galileo, had been not only a great advocate for science, but the only advocate for it. What is not widely known is that Nicolaus Copernicus' entire family had belonged to the “3rd order of St. Dominic,” and his sister was a nun. Copernicus had furthered his education in astronomy at the University of Bologna which was a Church sponsored university. In his day Copernicus had given lectures to many church Bishops, clergy, and other figures, and even served as temporary administrator of his Diocese when his Bishop unexpectedly died. I can list many other examples, but for a long time the church was in fact the only advocate for science, medicine, and universities, and many scientests (such as Copernicus in this example) had a good relationship with the church. Back then, there was no government funding for education. There were no difficulty on the Catholic side to Copernicus’s work (neither Paul III nor any of the nine Popes after him raised alarm), but his work was in fact condemned by other Denomination figures such as Luther and Melanchthon.

In letters when Galileo had spoke of his risks of advocating some of his ideas, he mentioned "ridicule" by his peers, not persecution. In 1611, Galileo received triumph by clerigy in his visit to Rome, and Cardinal Bandim had others had flocked to look through the telescope that he had set up in the Quirinal Garden.

His trouble occurred 4 years later when he began forcefully advocating his views, many of which he had failed to prove. More trouble insued when his partner, Foscarini, who was a Carmilite Friar, began spreading false doctrine based on Galileo’s Theories. Galileo and Foscarini received great support from groups in Italy which saught to overthrow the church. Both of these men found themselves in front of the Inquisition due to this. Without proof or support from the rest of the scientific community of whom Galileo ridiculed, and a refusal to stop spreading faulty religious doctrine, they were both deemed heretics. From this controversy, some of the ecclesiastical authority did try to later ban the ideas of Copernicus. Galileo did make the compelling point that “The Bible is intended to teach men how to get to heaven, not where the heavens go,” but due to his lack of willingness to compromise he failed to make the point that his astronomy is not meant to go against or refute scripture. He still had many friends in the church, however. Men like Cardinal Bellermine and Cardinal Barberini, who had urged Galileo to make the argument that his science is not intended to refute scripture. Nevertheless, Galileo was still alowed to return home after being deemed a heretic, and was able to continue his studies. Despite the controversy, Galileo returned to Rome in 1624 and received a generous reception by Pope Urban VIII (former Cardinal Barberini, one of Galileo’s supporters). Pope Urban III was disappointed to find that Galileo had come to demand a pension from the church for his pursuit of science. He was sent home, of course, empty handed.

Galileo revised all of his former animosities towards the church, and published them in 1632. Roman authorities saw this as a direct challenge, so they brought him in for another Inquisition. Galileo once again failed to display the logic behind his opinions. It is important to note here that at this point the man was 68 years old, broke, and in need of a pension. The Inquisition decided that it would be in the best interest of everyone to sentence him to imprisonment. Here are some of the details of his imprisonment, according to his PROTESTANT biographer, Von Geblar:

“One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether 22 days in the buildings of the Holy Office, and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition. For the rest, he was allowed to use as his place of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and luxurious.”

The torture of Galileo, or blinding by persecutors is historically untrue (although he did lose his eyesight through natural means 5 years before his death). He was even allowed to be buried on consecrated ground within the church of Santa Croce, and was given blessing by Pope Urban VIII, although a monument was erected over his tomb. His famous “E pur si muove,” which he supposedly uttered after persecution renouncing the motion of the earth, is acknowledged as fiction, for no mentioning of it occurs until a century later. As for being slipped a hemlock in a jail cell, sorry, no jail cell. As for the Hemlock, I do not know, but none of the encyclopedias I checked even mention it. The fact remains, the man died in 1642, at 78 years of age.

This is a little brief history of Galileo, and his experience with the Church of his day. He wasn’t this “great and humble scientest who was persecuted for his beliefs.” The situation just wasn’t that black in white, and Galileo’s case wasn’t even one of persecution. Now, do other cases of persecution by church authority exist, yes they do. I have said before that no one is perfect; there are cases where yes, just like Jesus, people where martyred with the help of Church authority. Did the entire Church as an institution advocate this, or did the doctrine ever facilitate this? No, it never did.

Church and Science: The church is in search of truth, plain and simple. The church doesn’t try to explain what science tries to, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church recognizes that science is trying to explain “how” while the church is trying to explain “why.” When Science tries to explain the “Why’s,” the church doesn’t agree, because it is not the job of Science to try to explain “why” in terms of morality, God, etc. Nor is it the Churches job to try to explain “how” the universe works. I will say that if there is something in science that changes the way we think about religion, the church takes careful measures on how to except the theory, and how it “fits” with Christianity. We have never had a case where it has changed Catholic Church doctrine. One thing that is for sure, though, and this stands today as strong as it has in the past, is that the Church won’t blindly accept a scientific hypothesis without proof. In Galileo’s case, many of the proof’s that he presented where insuficient; not just by the churches standards, but by the standards of other contemporary scientists.

Rich Wrote: “As Abraham and Moses and the rest are to the Jews and Christ and the Apostles to the Christians, and Mohammed to the Muslims, could not Buddha have been sent a divine message? Could not Odin be the Father figure of the Norse and Dagda the Michael figure for the Norse as well?”

Yes, yes, and yes. There are truths everywhere, and truth is truth. If we believe that murder is a sin in Christianity, and the Buddhists believe the same, then we would say that the Buddhists are teaching a truth. As a Catholic, I realize that the Holy Spirit works in many ways. This is why I say that people have their own journey. In my belief there are many who will be allowed to enter heaven, not just the ones with the Christian label. There are also many who won’t be allowed, and some of these may also have the Christian label. It is not up to me to judge, I just need to constantly search for the truth myself. I wouldn’t say that all these other ways of thought are WRONG, but I would say that in my opinion, Catholicism is the MOST CORRECT. I fully acknowledge, though, that I don’t have all the answers, and I believe that I will find out at my death which points I have missed.

I do want to stress, however, that I am not being wishy washy on the matter of truth. Truth is truth, no matter what religion or thought it comes from. But, I can’t placidly sit here and say “all religions are correct” in completeness, even though they contain some or many universal ideas and truths. If one person believes in reincarnation, and the other doesn’t, one will be correct and one won’t. It is just important that we are constantly finding the truth for ourselves.

Rich also said: “So, All I am asking is that if everyone agreed that it was ok to be different and to live with it and not try to change the other people then I believe that life would be a better place.”

Amen, Rich, I totally agree.

In reference to the celibacy vow, I don’t agree. People have been taking Celibacy vows since before Jesus with records of Jewish Desert Hermits. It is Believed that Jesus was celibate (I don’t want anyone to even TRY to tell me that he had a thing with Mary Magdiline when there is no evidence out there to support that theory). Many of the apostles, in theory, took a vow of celibacy when they chose to follow Jesus. There are historical references to people of Christianianity (of religious order as well as lay people) taking this vow also well before the 800’s or so. St. Augustine writes explicitly about his excursions with many women, which he gave up to do God’s work. It is just that it wasn’t made official cannon law until later. The law was man-made, but had been around since Jesus, and was a result (from a Catholic view-point) from his teachings. This doesn't mean that we believe that sex is evil, or something silly like that, but we do respect what sex is for, the morality behind it, and we do respect the dicipline of taking a vow such as celibacy.

Well, this is the way I see it, anyways.

In another post….I’ll address Indulgances! (yay!)
:boing2:

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 11:20 AM

@ ric

You are still missing the point. In the McDojo comparison, you don't reject the martial art. Are you laughing at Karate there? I don't think so. See my point?

If you go oversea and commit a crime, the US consular will give you a list of the local lawyer and that is it!! Don't expect anything more. Seriously!! Unless you are in the military or some capacity that represent the US government.

If you are wrongly imprisoned by a rogue regime, that is a different story. Ordinary running foul of the local penal codes, your American citizenship is worth a xeroxed list of the local attorneys.

Cruentus

01-24-2003, 11:49 AM

Nightengale:

You wrote:

“I was raised catholic. A close family member of mine was a catholic priest for ten years. He told me many things that went on behind closed doors of the rectory, and these things weren't just happening with a few priests, but the majority (and he was a world lecturer and traveled quite a bit, so he did see a large portion of the catholic church, not just in the USA, but rome and south america and europe and asia as well). I find it hard to sit and listen to a priest giving "moral guidence" when I'm wondering if he's touching the altar boys or f-ing the pastor. To be a moral leader, you must first have morals yourself, and that doesn't seem to be a criteria for a lot of churches, and its very difficult to tell the bad from the good until its too late, so I've decided to muddle through on my own with the help of a few good friends and my own conscience.”

I can respect your decision to not want to be a Catholic, but don’t take expect everyone here to take 3rd hand information from you about some obscure x-priest who apparently told you all the secrets about the Catholic Churches behind-the-scenes homo-erotica as gospel. Your post makes the Catholic Church sound like a gay porn film festival once the families leave the pews. Your assessment isn’t fair, and is very narrow in my opinion. I know countless parishioners, priests, nuns, and ex-priests who do not relay the same experiences. And guess what…..I’ve accomplished the unthinkable, I’ve been in a room with a priest alone before….and guess what? He didn’t try to have sex with me! Hmmmm, imagine that? I must not be very attractive. :rolleyes:

You also wrote….

“my theories are:
1. he wasn't actually dead, only in a coma, which kinda tosses the whole "rising from the dead" thing out the window.

2. reports of the rising were greatly exaggerated.

The problem is in the burden of proof. Although there were many historical records that say that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, there are none (save the bible) that record any of his activities after his crucifixion (someone tell me if I spelled that right, please). This doesn't make sense, because if he was someone who was seen by thousands of people, it would have been recorded somewhere other than in the gospels.”

O.K….this post was a bit more fair. Thank you for presenting your beliefs. There is a book, if you desire to do some reading, called “The Book of Christian Apoligetics” by Peter Kreeft and some other guy. Try your Christian or Catholic bookstore, but if you can’t find it and need help let me know.

Basically the book successfully refutes the conjectures and theories you posted. Given the time and limits of a talk forum, I am not going to do that here. My only intention on this thread is to clarify Catholic misconceptions and express my beliefs; I have no intention of refuting others beliefs unless I feel that they are hostile towards mine.

A note on the Gospels: 1. There were other plenty historical refrences and writings of a “Jesus” in scrolls and Roman records outside of a Bible. 2. The gospels where not intended to be put into a Bible to be read as “God’s Word” when the writers first wrote them. They where in fact written down and intended as historical references as the authors “saw it.”

If you don’t want to believe in Jesus raising from the dead, that is your perogative, and I respect your belief. There a ton of very references written by accomplished and logical scholars (such as the book I mentioned) that explain differently, and expresses logical and historical points.

:asian:

Kiath: Don't worry.....I'm getting to the Indulgances! Whew:D

Cruentus

01-24-2003, 12:12 PM

Indulgances:

What they aren’t:

“It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.”

- New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

Now I’ll explain in brief what they are….all they are is certain good works that the church has defined as extra-sacremental remishion of a punishment from a sin. It stems from the notion that in life every action is either for good or for bad, to a certain degree. An Indulgence is just one of those “good” things, specifically defined, and may help balance some of the “bad” things that you may have done. It has been abused in the past, but the Church has always condemned it’s abuses.

In terms of paying for an indulgence, in most cases this occurred when a donation was asked after or before the granting of an indulgance. The donation was “asked,” but anything beyond that would have been an abuse.

I personally don't pay much attention to indulgances. Most Catholics, through my experience, really don't. This is evident in that most lay-people can't really explain them, when really the concept is pretty simple. I just try to live everyday to the fullest, and I try to make my good actions outweigh the bad.

:cool:

fist of fury

01-24-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
The 10 commandments?

Good lord. What kind of question is this? Sunday school?

No it was a simple and straight forward question I didn't ask for a doctrinal thesis smart ass. I just was curious as to what you thought the 10 commandments purpose was.

fist of fury

01-24-2003, 12:27 PM

Cruentus

01-24-2003, 12:42 PM

Money issues regarding the Catholic Church have been mentioned, so I thought I would address them.

I find it odd where our society sometimes puts value. We are willing to pay $8 for a movie, and $10 or more for candy and pop corn and pop, yet many of the non-religious don't complain about movie prices and over-priced candy with the same zeal that they complain about OTHER people putting 5 or even (holy-cow) 10 dollars in a collection basket at a church that they don't even go to. Ironic, don't you think.

The fact is, the church needs money to survive; any institution does. And, when you don't charge for your services, you have to ask for donations. It's just that simple.

Now I often hear other whining about the Catholic Church and the way it spends money on buildings, art, etc.

Well guess what, most of the donators, like myself, find these things of value. We like it. And it should be of no suprise that most of the complainers aren't even a part of that church, and don't donate to it anyways.

Some important things to note: Catholic Clergy takes a vow of poverty. Priests make what is considered poverty level income, with no hopes for getting a raise. Priests are not in the same category as these televangalists who drive around in Merceded-Benz Limo's.

Another point: I've been to mass before where I didn't like the homily. I went to one recently, at a different church where the priest had said that volunteer work is something of great value. Then he did something of little value, which was he proceeded to read all of the positions open for volunteer work at the parish, and their discriptions. That was the homily....I had to listen to 20 minutes of THAT!

But, guess what? That was only 1 Sunday folks. And that was only 1 priest. That should hardly be used as a method to judge an entire organization or way of thinking.

So, if you were at 1 or 2 homilies where you disagreed, join the club with every other Catholic out there. If you didn't like how one priest presented the idea of "donating," then you could have gone to another parish, or just come back to the same parish the next Sunday, where the subject would have changed. Now, if your trying to purpose that you have been to countless Catholic Masses, and the entire subject of "almost" every one was "donate, donate, donate," then I would purpose that not only are you wrong in your perception, but that this is your narrow view, and your narrow opinion that your trying to pass off to this thread as fact. Sorry to be so harsh, and I don't know for sure if that is what some of you are saying. I can only make this conclusion, however, based on the fact that the experience of being asked for excessive donations doesn't coincide with that of countless other Catholics I know.

One final thing....Being generous is a Catholic value, but requiring donations of exessive value, or hoaxing people into giving, of donating beyond ones means is NOT a Catholic value. That is another thing that you won't find in the Churches teachings.

:asian:

I must get back to work now. A lot of good points on this thread, and I unfortunatily do not have the time to address every single one. If you have a question for me, however, please post it and I will try to get back to it as soon as I can.

:)

Shinobi

01-24-2003, 12:48 PM

Someone mentioned the 9 Satanic Statements(NOT Commandments) and to that I give you a thumbs up. I like them.

fist of fury

01-24-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by TLH3rdDan
ok back another thing that i noticed everyone seemed to skip right over without even a mention was a post about the satanic commandments... what are your thoughts on them?

Yeah I noticed that too my guess is many people are afriad they agree with them lololol

qizmoduis

01-24-2003, 01:47 PM

Tithing: Tithing is not a Catholic church practice, as tithing has a very specific definition that is not satisfied by regular churchgoer donations. Tithing is an absolute requirement that 10% of your income be given to your church. There are other religions that have this requirement, but RC isn't one of them. I think, and I'm sure others could verify this, that the Mormon church does this, as does the Jehovah's Witness sect. There are others, I'm sure.

Cult vs. Religion: A cult is just a religion that hasn't grown up yet. The only difference is really one of scale.

Historical references to Jesus: There are none that are independent of scripture. There is one reference in a set of writings by the ancient historian, Josephus, but most scholars agree that the reference was most likely inserted by "pious" monks. Obviously, the subject is still debated. Other than that, only the bible exists. Thus, it isn't historically supported that Jesus existed and performed miracles as described in the Bible.

Personally, I'm sure that SOMEONE started it all, but the mythology surrounding him basically grew in the telling. One thing I find very interesting, and telling, is that the myth of Jesus basically mirrors similar messianic cults of the time and earlier. Mythraism is a good example, where the lead figure of Mythra was born of a virgin, sacrificed, and rose from the dead. Mythraism had it's heyday a century or two prior to the inception of Christianity, and was popular among the Roman legions. There are others, as well, and some of them were quite well-known.

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 01:55 PM

I read in another forum where someone mentioned that Jesus was the first clone baby. lol

Kind of funny, if you think about it. Virgin birth = implanted embryo. "The Father and I are One" = clone!

fist of fury

01-24-2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Shinobi
Someone mentioned the 9 Satanic Statements(NOT Commandments) and to that I give you a thumbs up. I like them.

Then you'l really like these

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

by Anton Szandor LaVey

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by nightingale8472
Tithing is absolutely a catholic practice. they call it "sacrificial giving" now. I remember sitting in church and hearing the deacon or person reading the announcements ask people to donate twenty percent of their income to the church. I've heard it at several different catholic parishes.

20%? No chance in hell in getting that! Good luck I say! :D Unless you are the Scientologists :mad: That is a cult and it milks its innocent members dry!

and to answer someone else's question:

I rejected christianity because every denomination of christianity puts a priest or minister up on a stage preaching, telling me what to do and how to do it as if he has some kind of direct telephone to heaven that I don't have. These people are just as clueless as I am.

Some preachers are worthless. But not all. You know what they say about overgeneralization.

I rejected christianity because it is based on something that is scientifically impossible: rising from the dead. you just flat out can't do that...and since god created the laws of science and physics and chemistry, it doesn't make any sense to me that he would wave a magic wand and make an exception just this once.

How does that compare to Wiccam (sp?)? Is Wiccam (sp) scientifically proven? BTW, don't you think your practice might jeopadize your plan to be a teacher, if I remember correctly reading somewhere that you want to teach?

my theories are:
1. he wasn't actually dead, only in a coma, which kinda tosses the whole "rising from the dead" thing out the window.

2. reports of the rising were greatly exaggerated.

The problem is in the burden of proof. Although there were many historical records that say that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, there are none (save the bible) that record any of his activities after his crucifixion (someone tell me if I spelled that right, please). This doesn't make sense, because if he was someone who was seen by thousands of people, it would have been recorded somewhere other than in the gospels.

Paul mentioned a book that discuss that.

The bible is an interesting book, and it has many good lessons. However, I have doubts of its historical accuracy...with regards to the old testament: you had thousands of years of oral tradition before anything was written down...ever played a game of telephone? and the new testament: the gospels weren't written as chronicles as things happened...they were written many years after the death of Jesus. All our memories get a little fuzzy when we look back on something that happened more than ten years ago... and the story of the birth of Jesus and the conception and all that (in one of the gospels, don't remember which one)...this was written by one of the apostles, but according to the story itself, the writer wasn't there. He must have heard it from someone else (not denying the possiblilty that it could be accurate, just bringing up the possibility that it may not be).

I value the New T for its teaching on values and ideas such as fraternal love and unconditional forgiveness. I don't see how anyone can object to the teaching of kindness, compassionate, universal love and stewardship of the earth and its beings.

The points I see for christianity:

when taken as it is meant to be, it has a good moral code, and many of the followers mean well.

That is fine.

history says Jesus existed.

The points I see against christianity:

Rising from the dead defies science.
There is records of Jesus' existance, but not his miracles.
The gospels contradict each other in more than one area.

My problem with christianity is that there is no source other than the bible that gives credit to the bible as truth. The bible says it is the word of god. however, anybody can say that, and people who are trying to become religious leaders often do. I need some other sources here, historical records that don't have a vested interest in promoting christianity.

Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it correct...remember, lots of people believed the world was flat. [/B]
No one will deny the contradictions in the Bible. The Old Testament is little more than a recorded history of the Jews as told by the elders then.

I think you can go only as far to assert that what is in the Bible is inspired by God, although I admit that cut a loop hole just as big for other charlatans to claim the same.

To borrow Jeet Kune Do concept of getting rid off the useless stuff but retaining the useful stuff, we can cast aside the ambiguity and contradiction and still retain the good teaching of Jesus, ie to be a good and decent human being, to be kind to each other, to "shepherd the weak through the valley of the darkness", to be "truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.."

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by fist of fury
Then you'l really like these

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

by Anton Szandor LaVey

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Kind of like the same stuff your neighborhood bowling team dreams up. :D :D

Cruentus

01-24-2003, 02:37 PM

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

"Octumus Prime.....Deeeeeeeeestroy!":stoplurk:

:rofl: :lol:

Or for those of you who don't remember transformers, and would prefer Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles instead.....

"Bebop! Rocksteady! Destroy those tuuuuurtles!

:bazook: :ninja:

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. I'm such a geek. :p

By the way...read the Satanic Bible when I was young, it was to self-serving for me then, as I would imagine it would still be now.

Shinobi

01-24-2003, 02:43 PM

You are right, I do enjoy those as well. I enjoy the writings of Mr. LaVey very much indeed.

Cruentus

01-24-2003, 02:45 PM

For the record, one of my favorite holidays outside of Christmas is Samhain.

And...if your celibrating Imbolc in 9 days (Feb. 2nd), think of me....that's the day of my Birthday!:cheers:

white belt

01-24-2003, 02:46 PM

white belt

Cruentus

01-24-2003, 02:49 PM

You are right, I do enjoy those as well. I enjoy the writings of Mr. LaVey very much indeed.

I'm sure you would, Shinobi.

Oooooo, I got to get back to market analysis. I'm just excited that I got my purple belt.

Peace out....:ubercool:

Bob Hubbard

01-24-2003, 03:56 PM

Johnathan - Its 'Wicca' or 'Wiccan' with an N.

Regarding Mr. Lavey....interesting read...I've been thru his many books many times when I was a teen. His background was he was a carny-barker who worked the sunday mass in the tents. Every sunday he'd see these upstanding folks crying about how sorry they were for sinning, and be right back at it on monday full speed. he decided that mainstream religions were based on hypocracy and so wrtoe out what he thought was common sence stuff, combined with his flair for the circus. Hense the elaborite rituals with naked women, and upside down crosses, etc. There is a difference between being a 'Satan Worshiper' and a Lavey 'Satanist'.

For interesting issues on religious descrimination see Wrens Nest. Its unbiased in looking at how all groups are mistreated.
http://www.witchvox.com/xwrensnest.html
Its also got a number of other interesting news bits, most of which you wont see in the mainstream controled media.

Bob Hubbard

01-24-2003, 04:48 PM

Another point to be mentioned is the complete lack of intelegence in certain members of our appointed government.

"I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the US military to promote it," President George W. Bush said in October 2000 when campaigning in the US presidential election.

Someone needs to tell DerFurer Adolph Shrub here that Wicca has been reconized by the US Military as a 'real' religion since 1978, and the now obsolete Army Chaplains Handbook has had sections concerning it since at least 1984.

In addition, the IRS has been granting 501(c)(3) IRS tax exempt status to wiccan and pagan churches since 1972.

Very interesting read here : http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=5558
though the original article appears to be offline.

The problem with -any- religion is understanding and tollerence. We have very little for the different, and as I said before, 'religion' is used as an excuse for too many things. The violence in N. Ireland, the Israiel / Arab issues, the US 'war on terrorism', bosnia, etc.

Master of Blades

01-24-2003, 04:55 PM

Ok heres a differant question........

"If God is everywhere then why must we travel to church?"

AND

"If God is all merciful and there is a God then shouldnt he forgive you for whatever sin anyway?"

I dunno I just saw them on Tv and thought I might as well get your ideas on those......:o

TLH3rdDan

01-24-2003, 04:56 PM

Kind of like the same stuff your neighborhood bowling team dreams up.

wow now there is some wonderful judgement of someone elses beliefs... with out knowing anything about them... gee surprise surprise... of course i could say that the 10 commandments were made up the same way... but i dont... because they are in nature a nice set of basic laws just as the satanic statements are and as are the satanic rules on earth...

ps its optimus prime not octumus prime... i love the transformers... great series... im trying to collect all the figures from it but thats another thread all together lol

Master of Blades

01-24-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by TLH3rdDan
wow now there is some wonderful judgement of someone elses beliefs... with out knowing anything about them... gee surprise surprise... of course i could say that the 10 commandments were made up the same way... but i dont... because they are in nature a nice set of basic laws just as the satanic statements are and as are the satanic rules on earth...

ps its optimus prime not octumus prime... i love the transformers... great series... im trying to collect all the figures from it but thats another thread all together lol

Temper Temper.........and the Dinosaur Transformers were the best! :rolleyes:

TLH3rdDan

01-24-2003, 05:06 PM

yeah grimlock was cool... i never did like them after they brought in the new one around the time the movie came out... and they killed optimus and megatron and all the orignal transformers... the new series armada is cool i hate the beast wars series....

Master of Blades

01-24-2003, 05:22 PM

Anyway......back onto God :shrug:

qizmoduis

01-24-2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Kind of like the same stuff your neighborhood bowling team dreams up. :D :D

A saying about glass houses and their residents comes to mind here.

It should be noted that LaVey created his particular vision as a giant honking middle finger pointed directly at mainstream christianity, which he viewed as a horrific cesspit of pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

It ALSO should be noted very clearly that LaVey Satanists do not worship Satan. In fact, they don't worship anything, as far as I can recall.

Abbax8

01-24-2003, 05:31 PM

"My problem with christianity is that there is no source other than the bible that gives credit to the bible as truth. The bible says it is the word of god. however, anybody can say that, and people who are trying to become religious leaders often do. I need some other sources here, historical records that don't have a vested interest in promoting christianity."

Have you ever read any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers- also known as Patristic Writings. They cooroborate many of the Churches teaching and give evidence as to what the Church believed in the the earliest times. They cover much of the Tradition part of Catholic teaching.

Peace
Dennis

Master of Blades

01-24-2003, 05:32 PM

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by TLH3rdDan
wow now there is some wonderful judgement of someone elses beliefs... with out knowing anything about them... gee surprise surprise... of course i could say that the 10 commandments were made up the same way... but i dont... because they are in nature a nice set of basic laws just as the satanic statements are and as are the satanic rules on earth...

ps its optimus prime not octumus prime... i love the transformers... great series... im trying to collect all the figures from it but thats another thread all together lol

I can remember clearly when we were kids, we made up rules more or less just like those for our tree house.

qizmoduis

01-24-2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
I can remember clearly when we were kids, we made up rules more or less just like those for our tree house.

You are extraordinarily disrepectful of others' beliefs, whereas you insist that others respect yours. I declare you to be a hypocrite.

I make no pretense of respecting beliefs I have no respect for, nor do I require that of others. You, however, do not follow your own rules.

Can a hypocrite be a True Christian? :rtfm:

Master of Blades

01-24-2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by qizmoduis

Can a hypocrite be a True Christian? :rtfm:

Hasnt stopped people in the past......:shrug:

TLH3rdDan

01-24-2003, 05:47 PM

i agree with you qiz this guy seems to have one agenda and he has yet to answer some of the real questions that have been asked of him... such as the ones about faith postes way way way back at the begining of this and the one master of blades has on this page... i have a feeling he wont answer them...

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Master of Blades
Ok heres a differant question........

"If God is everywhere then why must we travel to church?"

AND

"If God is all merciful and there is a God then shouldnt he forgive you for whatever sin anyway?"

I dunno I just saw them on Tv and thought I might as well get your ideas on those......:o

1. No, you don't NEED to go to church to be a good christian. How you live your life determines what you are. I have met many non-christians who live a more christian life than many who call themselves christians.

Going to church is like going to a dojo. It is just a facility. You can train anywhere, in any gym or any room. Granted, you may need the equipment. And Church is in a way, with the "equipment" in a sense, but going to church is not an absolute must. I must emphasize that this is just my view.

2. God is merciful. But are you absolutely truly sincere in your remorse and your quest for redemption for whatever deed you have done? Would you have the slightest doubt? You can't fool anyone. Because you are facing no one, except your own heart, when you seek redemption. You can't pretend. If you think you are pulling a fast one, then you are doomed. ;) It is like Clint Eastwood said " You have to ask yourself. Do I feel lucky today?" So, "do you feel lucky, punk?" :D God is merciful but you don't get a free past. You can't say you are going to pull this and that and later just ask for forgiveness. Do you think you are going to fool GOD? Wanna bet? So, "Do you feel lucky, punk?" ;)

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by TLH3rdDan
i agree with you qiz this guy seems to have one agenda and he has yet to answer some of the real questions that have been asked of him... such as the ones about faith postes way way way back at the begining of this and the one master of blades has on this page... i have a feeling he wont answer them...

if you want to talk about me, have the guts to address me directly.

Rich Parsons

01-24-2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
@ ric

You are still missing the point. In the McDojo comparison, you don't reject the martial art. Are you laughing at Karate there? I don't think so. See my point?

If you go oversea and commit a crime, the US consular will give you a list of the local lawyer and that is it!! Don't expect anything more. Seriously!! Unless you are in the military or some capacity that represent the US government.

If you are wrongly imprisoned by a rogue regime, that is a different story. Ordinary running foul of the local penal codes, your American citizenship is worth a xeroxed list of the local attorneys.

Napalm,

I might be missing the boat or point.

Master of Blades

01-24-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
1. No, you don't NEED to go to church to be a good christian. How you live your life determines what you are. I have met many non-christians who live a more christian life than many who call themselves christians.

Going to church is like going to a dojo. It is just a facility. You can train anywhere, in any gym or any room. Granted, you may need the equipment. And Church is in a way, with the "equipment" in a sense, but going to church is not an absolute must. I must emphasize that this is just my view.

2. God is merciful. But are you absolutely truly sincere in your remorse and your quest for redemption for whatever deed you have done? Would you have the slightest doubt? You can't fool anyone. Because you are facing no one, except your own heart, when you seek redemption. You can't pretend. If you think you are pulling a fast one, then you are doomed. ;) It is like Clint Eastwood said " You have to ask yourself. Do I feel lucky today?" So, "do you feel lucky, punk?" :D God is merciful but you don't get a free past. You can't say you are going to pull this and that and later just ask for forgiveness. Do you think you are going to fool GOD? Wanna bet? So, "Do you feel lucky, punk?" ;)

Took a while but those were some good answers.

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
You are extraordinarily disrepectful of others' beliefs, whereas you insist that others respect yours. I declare you to be a hypocrite.

I make no pretense of respecting beliefs I have no respect for, nor do I require that of others. You, however, do not follow your own rules.

Can a hypocrite be a True Christian? :rtfm:

There are forum rules. If I were to answer this, the thread would be locked. I suggest you follow the forum rules too.

TLH3rdDan

01-24-2003, 05:58 PM

i can do that also... you are a jerk and seem to have other motives for your actions... you are always using a condesending tone to anyone who raises a question you dont like... :D well as ive said my part in this and see no reason to continue this discussion... im sure you will come back with some snide comment and i wish you luck in your endeavors to justify your narrowminded views of other peoples beliefs...

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Napalm,

I might be missing the boat or point.

You were saying that if you went oversea and committed a crime, you represented America. I just pointed out that in fact America would disown you the second you ran afoul of the local penal codes. That is a fact. So, no, you don't represent America.

qizmoduis

01-24-2003, 05:58 PM

I'm reminded of an exchange that took place a few years ago on the rather lively newsgroup, alt.atheism, where I used to be one of the denizens. There was a regular firebreather who was on a constant campaign to convince the heathen residents that they should repent and convert, etc. He once got into an argument regarding divorce rates among various religious groups, and somehow came up with the rather outrageous claim that the divorce rate among christian (<-- note the small 'c') couples was in the neighborhood of 0.1%. In other words, only 1 in 1000 christian couples ever divorced.

Now, of course, that flew in the face of published statistics, that actually show that divorce rates among non-religious couples is ever so insignificantly lower than among religious couples.

It took a while, but he was finally backed into a corner, and had to explain that, his definition of christian explicitly excluded any couple that got divorced, with rare exceptions for people he personally admired.

Since True Christians never get divorced, then obviously someone who got divorced isn't a True Christian. We found that somewhat amusing, and the less restrained expended considerable bandwidth in telling him so, in great detail. Even the religous participants of alt.atheism found this guy to be an embarrassment.

BTW, this style of argument is also know as the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Master of Blades

01-24-2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
There are forum rules. If I were to answer this, the thread will be locked. I suggest you follow the forum rules too.

Everybody do everybody a favour here and try not to get the thread locked. I'm enjoying reading these posts and hearing all your views BUT if this thread does get locked........You will have to answer to ME! :o

lol, did that sound scary or what? :p

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by TLH3rdDan
i can do that also... you are a jerk and seem to have other motives for your actions... you are always using a condesending tone to anyone who raises a question you dont like... :D well as ive said my part in this and see no reason to continue this discussion... im sure you will come back with some snide comment and i wish you luck in your endeavors to justify your narrowminded views of other peoples beliefs...

If I have a hidden motive, I like to know what it is too. :rolleyes:

The thing is, others have posted extensive materials and proofs. And guess what? People keep going back to square one, running in circle. Why don't you read Paul's and Abbax's posts? Those are extensive and concrete. Yet, people don't seem to bother to read them. And we have the same old things being asked in just another way. Going round and round. So?

Master of Blades

01-24-2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Master of Blades

P.s Can we have no religeon bashing here.....I just want to here views etc :shrug:

I should also add belief bashing as a big no no. :shrug:

qizmoduis

01-24-2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Master of Blades
I should also add belief bashing as a big no no. :shrug:

Bashing, no. Well constructed criticism should be welcome, however.

Master of Blades

01-24-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by qizmoduis
Bashing, no. Well constructed criticism should be welcome, however.

Well you got me there.......

qizmoduis

01-24-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
If I have a hidden motive, I like to know what it is too. :rolleyes:

The thing is, others have posted extensive materials and proofs. And guess what? People keep going back to square one, running in circle. Why don't you read Paul's and Abbax's posts? Those are extensive and concrete. Yet, people don't seem to bother to read them. And we have the same old things being asked in just another way. Going round and round. So?

I agree. I don't think you're hiding anything. Everybody has an agenda, whether they wish to admit it or not. Telling someone they have "an agenda" is pretty much the same as telling them they are using a computer to participate in this discussion.

Hidden agendas, on the other hand, are annoying. JN isn't hiding. I don't think anyone here is hiding anything, really.

Rich Parsons

01-24-2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
You were saying that if you went oversea and committed a crime, you represented America. I just pointed out that in fact America would disown you the second you ran afoul of the local penal codes. That is a fact. So, no, you don't represent America.

Sir

I tried to just agree and say yes I missed the BOAT!

It is this attitude as an individual or as a member of a group Ifind to be my problem with people.

Have a nice day

Johnathan Napalm

01-24-2003, 06:42 PM

I simply pointed out a legal fact. US citizens committing crime in foreign countries do not get help from Uncle Sam. That is a fact. And you have a problem with that? That's just too bad.

Bob Hubbard

01-24-2003, 06:53 PM

Moderator Note:

Originally posted by Master of Blades
Everybody do everybody a favour here and try not to get the thread locked. I'm enjoying reading these posts and hearing all your views BUT if this thread does get locked........You will have to answer to ME! :o

THis thread is hot, but for the most part has been alot less 'in your face' than many. Its been more civil than I expected. There have been some 'ruffled feathers' and such but the majority has been ok, IMO.

Keep within forum guidelines, leave the 'personal attacks' out of it and keep it 'friendly' and we won't have reason to lock it.

With that said...please understand that neither I not the rest of the moderator team can read everything in this thread. If you see a personal attack, if it gets -flameish- please use the -report to moderator- feature. If you have a personal issue with someone, either let it go, or take it private. We will not hesitate to suspend or ban someone who gets out of control.

Thank you.

Rich Parsons

01-24-2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
I simply pointed out a legal fact. US citizens committing crime in foreign countries do not get help from Uncle Sam. That is a fact. And you have a problem with that? That's just too bad.

Johnny Boy,

I have nothing wrong with what you said.

Paul goes out and gets facts and answers questions.

Nightingale does the same.

In my opinion, you do nothing but be contrary to a single point within a larger post.

The fact is I did not wish to get all 'bent' or to seem to be 'bent'.
so I replied I am missing the boat or point as you said, so that the matter could drop.

I have pages of un-submitted yet type replies, that I thought better of or to sleep on first. I have not gone back to them for in most people were being civil and polite and either being a constructive member to this discussion or being an informative member of this discussion. I understood your point. You were stand on the letter of the law and the written word here and else where. That is fine. I happen to disagree that it would affect the rest of the USA when an America goes abroad and commits a crime. Legally the US Government washed there hands. Yes, but does the press or the citizens or subjects of other countries? Nope!

So either add something constructive, ask a question, or be informative. And when someone tries to walk away Let them. For they either do not wish to spend all their time writing thousands of words so you can step in pick on one or two and be contrary only to make yourself sound superior and therefore right in this point and in all of your points.

If you want to stand and yell at each other. No problem. If you want to be constructive then fine. You made a point. I said yes I might be missing the point. You could not let it drop. Fine. I lost. Yet, not on one point have I heard you reply to any of my questions to admit that anyone else might be right, if they disagree with you.

Just my opinion that you are not being constructive to this issue.
Constructive criticism is fine.

You might say:
"Hey Rich, you do know that if you did something over seas the Us Consulate would give you a list of Lawyers only and walk away"

Not the following:
"Hey Rich You missed the Boat (* AGAIN *), you just don't get it (* You ignorant XYZ *)"

You see the tone of your written word is aggressive and condescending and sometimes down right insulting. Hence my Johnny Boy comment.

As for the problem there is no problem with me. I know who I am and where I stand. To find out more about me e-mail me or call me. 248-467-9454. I have no problems discussing this is over the phone or in person, with or without a beer. You see this is a discussion to me. Oh Yes I challenged my Friend Paul by asking my questions, I baited him knowing his personality. Yet, he is not mad for having to learn more, he went out and did it for himself and to educate others. He can disagree with anything I say, for you see he has said he states these are his preferences and recognizes these are the best choices and answers for himself. In My opinion, you have not and seemed to be trying to get a conflict going. To me this is No big deal.

E-mail or call me if you wish to continue this, for I believe that no one else is interested.

Just my opinion.

Now back to your regularly schedule thread.