Religion — Page 66

moviefreakedmind said:

Again, the main difference between Catholicism and Christianity is that Catholicism revolves around a Church that operates no differently than a secular government. Church and state are merged in Catholicism. Christianity, according to the Bible, is incredibly submissive and is inherently passive. Given the contradictions between Hitler’s own speech, it’d be unwise to call him a “Christian”, in fact, he’s often inaccurately referred to as an atheist.

I find it interesting that you declare the Catholic Church to be not Christian based on the New Testament, which was, as it happens, assembled and defined by synods and councils of the Church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397

Note how the Council of Carthage, in addition to listing the agreed-upon books of the Bible, recommends that the martyrs be honoured on their feast days, and clearly mentions priests. In other words, when the New Testament was assembled, certain Catholic teachings were the norm throughout the majority of Christendom.

Granted, Protestants reject the Deuterocanon because the Jews didn’t include it (well, not all Jews, anyway), despite retaining all the New Testament books, neither adding nor removing any.

To reject the Church as having strayed from the truth is one thing, but to say that it is not Christain because its base structure is misaligned with the Bible doesn’t seem to be a very tenable position, considering that the New Testament canon was defined within that structure (the canon was assembled by a council of bishops, and had to be ratified by Rome, etc.).

moviefreakedmind said:

Sure, but I was thinking of Hitler himself, who was raised Catholic. I don’t really consider the individual soldiers in the German Army; I’m sure most of them weren’t aware of what they were fighting for. As for most of Hitler’s SS thugs, I don’t know what their religious identities were. The problem I have with your definition of Christianity is that there are sects that elevate the Pope or Joseph Smith, for example, (I hope Ender can elaborate on his views) to the level of near-divinity. The Pope takes the title of “Holy Father”, which is only used in the Bible to refer to God himself.

Joseph Smith is certainly not elevated above humanity in Mormon teaching.

moviefreakedmind said:

Hitler was not a Christian. That is an absolute lie of epic proportions.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay buddy

Plus even if he wasn’t the Nazi soldiers…you know the ones that were actually killing everyone were as Christian as anyone in Europe at the time. So at best Hitler used Christianity to justify their actions. Still isn’t looking good hermano.

The strongest pieces of evidence comes from the Table Talk which is not really a reliable source considering that it is is a book of transcribed conversations that Hitler had with people in his circle. Some versions of this book that were translated from German to other languages contained fabricated statements not found in the original German manuscript. Sounds fishy to me. But that’s almost beside the point. Let’s say he was not a Christian for the sake of argument he still was able to use it to win over the German people who were predominately Christian and used it to justify the persecution of the Jews. It doesn’t really even matter what he felt on the inside.

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Again, the main difference between Catholicism and Christianity is that Catholicism revolves around a Church that operates no differently than a secular government. Church and state are merged in Catholicism. Christianity, according to the Bible, is incredibly submissive and is inherently passive. Given the contradictions between Hitler’s own speech, it’d be unwise to call him a “Christian”, in fact, he’s often inaccurately referred to as an atheist.

I find it interesting that you declare the Catholic Church to be not Christian based on the New Testament, which was, as it happens, assembled and defined by synods and councils of the Church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397

Note how the Council of Carthage, in addition to listing the agreed-upon books of the Bible, recommends that the martyrs be honoured on their feast days, and clearly mentions priests. In other words, when the New Testament was assembled, certain Catholic teachings were the norm throughout the majority of Christendom.

Those were ecumenical to a degree, not exclusively Catholic, and were before the Catholic Church had its monopoly on biblical interpretation. Ironically, the Catholic Church throughout European history was the greatest enemy to those who actually wanted to read the Bible.

What do you mean by “not exclusively Catholic”? I could do my research, I suppose, but I don’t really have the time at the moment.

Just to be clear, I was always against Lutheranism and Calvinism as well. Lol.

Fair enough.

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Again, the main difference between Catholicism and Christianity is that Catholicism revolves around a Church that operates no differently than a secular government. Church and state are merged in Catholicism. Christianity, according to the Bible, is incredibly submissive and is inherently passive. Given the contradictions between Hitler’s own speech, it’d be unwise to call him a “Christian”, in fact, he’s often inaccurately referred to as an atheist.

I find it interesting that you declare the Catholic Church to be not Christian based on the New Testament, which was, as it happens, assembled and defined by synods and councils of the Church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397

Note how the Council of Carthage, in addition to listing the agreed-upon books of the Bible, recommends that the martyrs be honoured on their feast days, and clearly mentions priests. In other words, when the New Testament was assembled, certain Catholic teachings were the norm throughout the majority of Christendom.

Those were ecumenical to a degree, not exclusively Catholic, and were before the Catholic Church had its monopoly on biblical interpretation. Ironically, the Catholic Church throughout European history was the greatest enemy to those who actually wanted to read the Bible.

What do you mean by “not exclusively Catholic”? I could do my research, I suppose, but I don’t really have the time at the moment.

Just to be clear, I was always against Lutheranism and Calvinism as well. Lol.

Fair enough.

At the time of the assimilation, There were still many leaders of the congregations who were sincerely trying to interpret inspired Scripture, rather than twist it to suit the needs of the political elite.

The Canon existed for hundreds of years before the final compilation. The Epistles and Gospels were lovingly kept, carefully copied and shared with the other bishoprics throughout the empire. Doubtless one of the criteria for selection was the existence of multiple copies long held in great esteem. For the snakes to do otherwise would invite a furious uproar and rejection of their supposed right to lead.

But these mystery cult Luciferians had other reasons for DISIRING the True Canon. That type of character is a psychopathic liar always seeking a sick thrill from the ability to twist and deceive. The more powerful and True, the greater the depraved satisfaction from destroying it and the people who yearn for it. Also, they know that the more attractive and right, the more adherents they can ensnare.

Jeebus said:

I think it’s funny when two people go at each other calling each other mad.

“Why are you so mad, dude, calm down.”

“I’m not mad, you’re obviously mad and projecting your madness onto me, just calm down dude.”

“Woah dude, calm down, no need to get so mad.”

Seriously man, look at our two ends of the conversation. I admit I am deliberately insulting, but I also fail to use strong language. I don’t swear, don’t berate, don’t resort to simple attack. I insult him a bit, then I debate him. I read his posts and I sense a great deal of anger in the words he puts up there.

That said, it is a poor example of me to be so insulting. I really don’t like his attitude. He simply has this, “I’m right, so there,” kind of approach. But I should still strive to be the bigger person. But you on the other hand are a much more enjoyable debating opponent, and I hope you’ll continue to contribute.

Let’s not forget my attitude was a direct result of your initial belittling and accusations. You have no one to blame but yourself

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:
I appreciate you at least starting to use that noodle of yours, since you’re obviously so much more intelligent than the ignorant morons who profess a belief in the divine.

Unwarranted assumption is unwarranted. I have never said or even fucking alluded to any of that so you are once again pulling things from ass.

You’ve clearly assumed it, but whatever, I’m too busy to find examples right now, so let’s just assume you really are giving religious people, myself included, fair consideration as intelligent human beings.

However, are you obstinately devoted to your view?

Nope. Like everything my view is subject to change. In this case it is very very unlikely that someone could convince me that a book the calls for the death of everyone who is not a straight believer of Yahweh, demeans women, is a perversion of reality as Science has so clearly pointed out etc. is anything worth while in this day and age.

I am not referring to your ignorant generalizations of the Bible, I am referring to the fact that you literally said, “I hate Christianity.”

Are you intolerant of religion (and by extension, its adherents)?

This is the part where I say I hate Religion and not it’s people due to the fact I have had a multitude of friends and former girlfriends who are religious and my family members who I love dearly are nearly all religious. And then you’ll pull out that “so you hate sin and not the sinner” and to that weak argument I have only this to say.

“Its” should have no apostrophe here.

I don’t have time for a youtube video. I will simply say that if it was racist of me to say I hate black culture, it is equally hateful of you to hate religion. That was why I used my dramatic example. I have little time to post here, so I wanted to get some attention and draw the parallel that if you hate the chosen culture of a people, you in many ways are hating on the people themselves. Sorry youtube video, and sorry Lord Haseo.

That’s like me saying that someone who hates GoT must hate all of it’s fans by proxy which is shows you have the inability to accept other people’s opinions regarding what you’re fond of. Something like that is akin to a mindset of a child which is rather sad because there’s a good chance you are far older than I am.

Boy, you sure know a lot about me for having interacted with me so little and really not understanding my posting history. Nice assumptions.

Furthermore, that baffling argument is not even comparable to something like murder, rape or thievery which are truly detestable acts and simply being religious is not even close.

Not even sure why you bring this up, honestly. I am calling your hatred of Christianity bigotry. Why did you even say this?

Are you expressing prejudice based on your perspective and a limited sample?

If I hadn’t of said that there were good things about the Bible and just fixated on the negative then yes. But on the other hand I have also said those things can be found in other mediums.

I’m naturally an English perfectionist, but I’m trying not to even come off snarky. I had to delete some corrections here. My apologies.

But here I want to reassure you that I didn’t call you a bigot for hating the Bible. I am calling you a bigot for literally stating, “I hate Christianity.”

Are you singling out a particular group?

A book is a group. Since when?

Christians are a group (which happen to fall under that umbrella of Christianity, which you hate).

Have you expressed hatred towards that group?

^

The answer to each question is yes. And then you have the audacity to say that the definition doesn’t support my accusations.

Most humorously, however, is your insistence on my sensitivity. While at times I’ve become quite upset on these very boards for what some have written, I have not even had my pulse quicken. I may have been harsh in my wording, but such was not out of anger. I actually can see decent conversations with an atheist like Jeebus. I have enjoyed many conversations with CP3S in the past, a very adamant atheist. But you literally offer nothing useful in your debates thus far. And you literally, in very definition, are a bigot. I’m sorry, but this you have demonstrated quite vividly, and your sensitivity to my use of the term only further highlights the reality of that bigotry in your heart.

Sensitive ass lol

Citation please? Just because I call it like I see it doesn’t mean I’m being overly sensitive. I have far harder discussions in real life with atheists. Why would I be too sensitive to handle featherweight arguments on an Internet board with people I will never meet in real life?

That said, it would be a lie to say I never get upset on these boards about this topic. In the past I have. But here I truly have not. In the past, I partly attribute it to my over-involvement with the site. But as my life has steered me so much away from here, I find myself caring less and less about others’ opinions here.

EDIT:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

True that. I would prefer intolerance over violence any day.

Yes, you’ve well established your preference for intolerance many times.

^

I guess Star Wars isn’t the only subject that reverts the minds of seemingly mature people into that of entitled, sensitive, pompous and irrational children.

No, I think any firmly held belief can do that. Including atheism.

See: Lord Haseo 😉

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

moviefreakedmind said:
Until a group of insane Christians occupy territory the size of small countries and start flying planes into buildings, let’s stop with the ISIS comparisons.

Yes, because the Crusades…never happened

This is the mindset that irritates me. You can’t take historical documents and evaluate them based on today’s moral standards and then wonder why they aren’t as pretty as John Lennon’s Imagine.

I’m pretty sure the merit of a deity’s moral code should be immune to the passing of time. Pretty much if his morals were right then they should be right now because he’s God.

EDIT:

Also I’m sure it was Al-Qaeda that brought down the WTC

Let me pose a separate set of questions here.

These questions weren’t directed at me, but what the heck.

I don’t know your family situation, but let’s assume you have young children. What do you teach them about lying? Stealing? Modesty? Strangers? I’m guessing you lay down some pretty concrete rules for your kids. All these things are always wrong.

Now let me ask you, are there times when lying is not only acceptable, but in fact the higher law? What about stealing? Is nudity acceptable at times that your kids are unaware of, especially as an adult? Do you talk to strangers?

Yes, there are times when these things are better than the other options. In an ideal world, there would always be another way, but it’s not an ideal world, so you might have too do thee things.

So why the difference in the rules? Perhaps your children don’t have the understanding of complex situations that adults do.

True.

Now you are right, God must have a universal set of morals, his highest existing laws. But throughout the past, and even today, is it possible that mankind has not been, and even now is not, ready for his ultimate highest set of laws? Is it possible, assuming God exists, that he works within a moral framework that his mortal followers, who really are like uncomprehending children to him, can understand?

Well, humanity has screwed up a lot of things over the years, so I think if God did exist, we have never been and will never be able to understand his ultimate moral compass.

I am happy to see we agree on this. Assuming God is real, we will never understand his ultimate moral set. But he gives us what we can handle. The ancient Hebrews could not comprehend what we, as older children, but still exceedingly young and immature children (per my analogy), can today.

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

Let me ask you an honest pair of questions. Yes, of course there will be follow-up, though it may be several days before I can spare a few minutes to return to this. Here they are:

Has religion contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Evil things are done in the name of religion, but that does not make them speak for all religion. Nor do all religious or religious people bear the sins of those who have committed evil in their name.

Also, just because crimes are committed by people who are religious does not mean you can ascribe their crime to being religious.

So ultimately, while evil has contributed evil to this world, I caution you not to paint all of religion as evil based on what some have done with it.

Has atheism contributed any evil to this world? Please cite examples, and be fair.

Not that I know of, but I assume you’re gonna refer to the Communist regime of Stalin. As far as I know, the actions of Stalin were not committed in the name of atheism, he did it because he wanted power. Stripping people’s religion from them was an effective demoralization tactic, so that’s what he did. And it’s not like communist Russia was a godless society, their god was the state. Bear in mind, I don’t know a whole lot about communist Russia.

Now there are points where I would bring up Communist regimes like the USSR, but I wasn’t planning on doing so yet. Since you brought it up, however, let’s go ahead and address it.

First, it’s always easiest to state that the Soviet Union exercised a religion wherein the state was the object of worship. Really that would be more accurate of Fascism/Nazism, whereas there was more of a personality cult surrounding Lenin and Stalin, and there was an ideology that demanded exclusive devotion. One could not be a member of any political party except the Communist Party, and anything else was seen as disloyal. But such excuses do not pardon the fact that this was a nation that actively fought against belief in God or other organized “traditional” religion. There were no rites, holy books, or prayers. What existed was propaganda, suppression of dissension, and cover-ups of the crimes of the leaders and the Union as a whole. But the nation was, for all intents and purposes, actively atheist.

Which leads to my second point: any ideology can be used for evil. How many atheists have called for the destruction of religion. Look at the likes of Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and others. They cling not only to an ideology, but in fact are so firm in their conviction, so aggressive in their stance, so negative in their rhetoric, so once-sided in their arguments that…one could almost consider them a religion! Sure, they are not as severe as the USSR, but really the same ideological purity exists on a lighter level there. But how tolerant are they of other viewpoints? Do you think they put up with atheist fortune tellers? Atheist Jains, Buddhists, or Confucianists? Atheist conspiracy theorists? No, they demand that their viewpoint is correct, and others are, for lack of a better term, heretical. Really, in a world where their viewpoint took hold, I don’t believe it’s too slippery a slope to anticipate a slide towards Soviet levels of atheist purity. Either join with our ideology, or be persecuted!

Such are the dangers of ideological purity, and thus the flaw in thinking that atheism is somehow immune to this by virtue of not being a religion.

But to return to my original reason for asking these questions, let’s recap:

Yes, there is evil committed because of religion.

However, as atheism is not an ideology (supposedly), there cannot be any evil because of it.

But then it begs the questions:

What good has religion contributed to the world?

And if atheism is not an ideology and cannot contribute evil, then how can atheism contribute any good?

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

I’m just saying that I believe the Bible is the word of God as conveyed by mortals, and thus may be subject to human error.

I’m not sure that you got my T. Rex reference, but it’s all good, get it on (bang a gong). In all seriousness though, how can the Bible be the word of God if it’s corrupted by mortals? You have no idea what is and isn’t properly preserved.

Did God write the Bible with his own hands?

No, mortals did. I believe it to be true, but I also believe it to be the work of his flawed creations. Clearly you cannot believe it to be literal and flawless in every way.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

joefavs said:

This God guy sounds like a real asshole.

Thanks for your useful contribution. A lot of people sound that way till we get to know them better. And perhaps you’re getting to know God through someone else’s interpretation.

So how would you portray God? Do you take issue with other people’s interpretations?

Yes, but do I hate them for it? I know you do.

Woah, where did I say that?

This is really my trying to drive my point that those who think, “I have many religious friends, I just hate religion,” is not bigoted. You said you hate religion. I say that such is bigotry.

It’s like saying, “I have many black friends, I just hate their culture.”

This has been my analogy from the get go.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

joefavs said:

This God guy sounds like a real asshole.

Thanks for your useful contribution. A lot of people sound that way till we get to know them better. And perhaps you’re getting to know God through someone else’s interpretation.

So how would you portray God? Do you take issue with other people’s interpretations?

Yes, but do I hate them for it? I know you do.

I only hate them for it when their interpretation promotes hate.

I’m sure you can at least agree with Jesus when he said, “Love thine enemies.” You don’t have to hate them just because you disagree with them. You don’t have to hate them, even when they hate you, or hate gays, or anyone else who doesn’t deserve their hate.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

Now consider the nature of much older societies. They found stability in their societies in different ways than today. Some found homosexuality to be wrong and sex with fourteen year-old females to be acceptable (and in fact preferable, when the life expectancy was much shorter). Who are you to tell an ancient society what is right or wrong?

Well, it’s kind of our job to see what was right and wrong in ancient civilizations.

It was not always wrong. It was in fact the better thing at the time. Where is the universal law that says pedophilia is wrong? There is none. It is wrong because we believe that sex should be consensual between those capable of making intelligent decisions (adults). But in ancient times, fully (or even mostly) developed frontal lobes were of secondary consequence, and survival of humanity took a front seat. Hence, marriage to young females was okay. My point here is that we cannot judge ancient societies by modern standards, and that they were within their right, as a society, to define what was sexually acceptable and what was not. We have changed in our modern interpretation, and that interpretation will likely change more over the centuries, where you may one day look like a backwards barbarian, but the fact remains that societies can define sexuality as they define all other rights and wrongs, and you should not measure them by your yardstick.

I think it’s OK to judge the actions of a previous generation based on our modern yardstick. Isn’t that the whole point of history?

Then there has not been a good human alive till the early 20th century.

No, man! You can’t judge them by your standards. If I owned a black slave, you could rightly call me an evil man. But if you call Thomas Jefferson an evil man, I’ll slap you silly! Different products of different times.

People 100 years from now will call you evil because your morals will differ from theirs. Do you think they will be right?