Burn the Vatican and the churches that follow it

[Xebsball]

Thats right, burn

The Vatican says that condoms dont work
"They dont work, dont use condoms, we against condoms"

They are fockin us up, they fockin up the fight against HIV
Burn them, burn

[Starchaser107]

hmnn,
xebbs , in all fairness , I believe the vatican's stance is against promiscuity, and fornication (sex before marriage), with that being said , they are against the use of condoms as a means of birth control , and much prefer the traditional method of gauging a womans (one's wife specifically) fertility based on her menstrual cycle.

to put it simply they only believe sex should take place within the confines of marriage. to me it is not a realistic stance , but , it would in fact deter alot of todays problems.

so to say that they are against condoms in the regard you posted , is much like propoganda.
there are far more greater atrocities that you can accuse the church of, but this is not one of them, it's actually a very moral stance that coincides with thier views on fidelity.

k.

[pazman]

this thread is really good because it has a lot to do with kung fu......or not.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Xebby.

The Vatican is anti-contraception. PERIOD.

[Starchaser107]

since kung fu means skill, and knowledge is empowerment, and therefore a factor in contributing to the influence of ones skill, then everything is about kung fu , is it not?

[KC Elbows]

If I had to fight the pope, I would go in close immediately, and try to switch up body blows and head shots until I could set him up for a takedown. Alternately, I might keep my distance and set him up with lots of low kicks. The end goal would be to make him fall and break his hip. Once that was achieved, I would make myself pope, and promote condoms and sex with people your own age, disgusting as that may sound. Oh, and fish on all fridays, not just during lent. And I mean good fish.

[Starchaser107]

the pope has a big staff that might pose a problem if u want to close distance and a pointy hat, and his robe and vestments might make studying his movements complicated.

oh and i'd just like to add contraception is in thier view murder.

[rogue]

Watch it man, the Pope fought against the Germans in the Polish underground.

Xebs, would you bonk someone with aids even while wearing a condom?

[KC Elbows]

Murder? I think you might be hard pressed to show that a majority of catholics believe something as extreme as that. It is seen as a shirking of the duty to procreate for god, but this is not the same as murder. And catholics are not universal in even that belief. In any case, if dead sperm are murder, then artificial insemination on a wide scale is the only way to minimize that, since billions of sperm die every day during unprotected sex(sally struthers "we can't let this happen!")

The pope's hat is merely decorative, and he's known to be terrible with the staff(like any other celibate would). However, you're right, his movements might be elusive. How would you get around this problem?

[ZIM]

Funny/doomed to be deleted thread...

might as well get in a dig! :D

My theory is that the Catholics are going about it all wrong. If they want everybody to procreate then they should promote contraception so that, in the space of a few generations, all those who DON'T have the urge to procreate will die off and the species will evolve towards the procreation-oriented.

But: they don't believe in evolution, either, so WTF?

[tnwingtsun]

Originally posted by Xebsball
Thats right, burn

The Vatican says that condoms dont work
"They dont work, dont use condoms, we against condoms"

They are fockin us up, they fockin up the fight against HIV
Burn them, burn

No Xebsball,you butt-slamming your buddies in the jungles of Brazil is "fockin" up the fight against HIV/AIDS

[rogue]

Our goal is to keep Xebs from breeding.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
But: they don't believe in evolution, either, so WTF?

Yeah they do.

Regarding the initial topic, the remark the Vatican made was that abtinence was the only perfect defense against STDs and that it was a preferable defense to condoms.

That might not be PC, and one could certainly argue about their intentions, and/or the potential results; but at very least, they're right.

[shaolin kungfu]

Our goal is to keep Xebs from breeding.

I thought our goal was to get xebby laid?

[FatherDog]

1) Use of birth control is a mortal sin according to the Catholic Cachetism. It has been declared such by several Popes, at least one of whom invoked the doctrine of infallibility when making the pronouncement.

2) The Pope has stated that the Church takes no position on the evolution debate, except to affirm that it is a valid theory and one that you can believe in and still be Catholic.

3) The Catholic Church in Africa has stated that condoms do not stop the HIV virus at all, due to the virus being 'small enough to fit through the porous latex'. This is flatly untrue, and to state such in a country where over 50% of the populace is infected in an epidemic raging out of control is ridiculously irresponsible.

4) This topic is well-reasoned, has much to do with kung fu, and will obviously not devolve into an acrimonious flamewar.

Quick, pick which numbered statement is not correct!

[KC Elbows]

Of course birth control is a mortal sin, but it's not murder.

And actually, I believe the catholic church of africa has declared number four to be true. So it can't be number four.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FatherDog
Quick, pick which numbered statement is not correct!

Most of them, actually.

Regarding the first, use of birth control is not necessarily a mortal sin. The distinction between mortal and venal sin is not in the act commited, so a statement like that is meaningless. It has certainly been declared a sin by many popes though; however, the doctrine of infallibility has not been applied to any such statements.

Regarding the second, the Pope has affirmed the premise that present species have descended from former species, including humans - which covers the two points that creationists typically object to concerning evolution (that species composition changes and that humans descended from non-human animals).

Regarding the third, the Catholic church stated that the AIDS virus can pass through the defense offered by condoms; and that abstinence is the recommended defense. Neither of these is a statement that condoms do nothing with regards to STD protection; although one may argue that people incorrectly surmising such a conclusion may have been unavoidable, given the way their position was presented.

The fourth point, of course, is bang on.

[bigdoing]

this is the pope doing the opening to ng lu ma in choy lee fut
notice the double chum kiu or mirror hands

[bigdoing]

he is also well versed in the are of iron palm

[ZIM]

Hey, CM! Long time no see..

Sure, but the evolution remark was a gag. ;) Anyway, I thought it was venial sin, not mortal... eh!

[Christopher M]

Heh, just making sure...

It is a fairly common misperception.

[Chang Style Novice]

I figure removing religions' tax-exempt status would solve most of the problems (at least here in the states.)

[Serpent]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our goal is to keep Xebs from breeding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought our goal was to get xebby laid?


Unless Xebby is a catholic, these are not mutually exclusive statements. ;)

Chris M - If the Pope accepts the evolutionary theory, how does he reconcile that with biblical history?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Serpent
If the Pope accepts the evolutionary theory, how does he reconcile that with biblical history?

The Catholic conception of religion is as a living cultural transmission, like philosophy. The Bible is a part of this cultural tradition, but it's not the only part; so Catholics do not make any claim to be following only, entirely, and/or solely scripture.

They also do not read the Bible literally; though this is largely just a logical extension of the above.

It's arguable whether or not this is at play in this particular example, but it's worth keeping in mind that Catholics also treat the Old and New Testaments considerably different - and the biblical history you refer to here is, I think, Old Testament writing.

[Serpent]

So what you are saying is that the Catholic church doesn't read the bible as the word of god any more? They've evolved beyond it as scientific evidence has been accumulated?

How do they choose what is correct and what is allegory or fable?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Serpent
So what you are saying is that the Catholic church doesn't read the bible as the word of god any more?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying they don't necessarily read the Bible literally; and I'm saying that Catholic beliefs are not derived entirely from the Bible, nor from the Bible considered in isolation from other things. Neither of this is new though.


They've evolved beyond it as scientific evidence has been accumulated?

They certainly consider scientific dialog. They don't believe this requires them to "evolve beyond" reading the Bible.


How do they choose what is correct and what is allegory or fable?

I don't understand the question. If the Bible was the only source of Catholic belief and was studied in isolation from everything else, then one might require a phrase-by-phrase absolute judgement concerning how to deal with each part. But that's not the way it's approached.

[shaolin kungfu]

I like pie.:)

[Starchaser107]

just to clarify what i said earlier, i was referring to the vatican specifically and not all roman catholics.

"So what you are saying is that the Catholic church doesn't read the bible as the word of god any more? They've evolved beyond it as scientific evidence has been accumulated?

How do they choose what is correct and what is allegory or fable?" ___________________________________________

Serp I sense that might be a bit incindiary, not to mention putting fonts into other peoples erm...keyboards.

Alot of the old testament is based on oral tradition and all things considered , recently written tradition based on the former. Much akin to the history of shaolin kung fu, and many asian martial arts.

If you wish to draw that parallell then perhaps think of what the situation might be like if there were a martial arts "bible" or kungfu bible for that matter.

you would expect to see in the beginnings for most styles mythological / allegorical tales such as 8 drunken immortals, bodhidharma floating across the river on a leaf , eyelids that become tea etc.

and as the written tradition progressess historically, a more accurate picture might be presented, more accurate lineages etc.

I'm sure wether this was inspired by buddha , lord kwan or the Holy Trinity one still would be called upon at times to use thier common sense to discen the facts from the fiction. and see the sense of purpouse of it all.

[Serpent]

OK, I'll try to be clearer.

The Bible says that God is almighty and all that. (Let's just look at the OT). There is history in there about Moses, the 10 commandments, the parting of the sea, etc. and before it all is Genesis and the creation of earth and Adam and Eve, right?

So, if they accept parts of this and not others (i.e. they accept the exodus as fact and the parting of the red sea, for example, but not the ceation of eve from adam) how do they decide which?

After all, if they have accepted evolutionary theory, then they obviously can't also accept the biblical account of Adam and Eve. So how do they choose which bits of the bible they will accept and which bits of science or alternative history they will accept if there is an obvious discrepancy between the two (such as evolution versus Adam and Eve)?

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Starchaser107
Serp I sense that might be a bit incindiary, not to mention putting fonts into other peoples erm...keyboards.


My apologies, it certainly wasn't intended to be.



I'm sure wether this was inspired by buddha , lord kwan or the Holy Trinity one still would be called upon at times to use thier common sense to discen the facts from the fiction. and see the sense of purpouse of it all.

Since when has religious dogma allowed common sense to over-ride the word of the bible? Again, not meaning to be incendiary, just calling my interpretation.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Hi Guys.

Before this goes any further I would recommend that all participants here read the following short book:

The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament (ftp://ftp.mirror.ac.uk/sites/metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext05/7vlot10.txt)

It is a very interesting read and explains a LOT about the old Testament and how it was formed.

Not a new Book though(1906).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Serpent
So, if they accept parts of this and not others; how do they decide which?

The question isn't what to accept; they accept all of it. The question is to ask what is being said, and how it relates to the religion.

They determine this within the context of a living cultural tradition that thinks and debates both internally and externally; the same way other intellectual traditions decide things.


they obviously can't also accept the biblical account of Adam and Eve.

Why not?


how do they choose which bits of the bible they will accept and which bits of science or alternative history they will accept if there is an obvious discrepancy between the two?

It seems to me like you're presuming science, history, and religion are three alternative explanations of the same thing. They're not. Scientific, historical, and religious knowledge are three different kinds of things. Religion's role isn't to create historical timelines any more than history's role is to find the best model of the atom.

[shaolin kungfu]

PORK CHOP SANDWICHES!

[Serpent]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they obviously can't also accept the biblical account of Adam and Eve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not?


Because if the bible says that Adam & Eve were created from nothing by god's hand and then they also claim to believe that humans evolved from non-human animals, one of them must be wrong.

[KC Elbows]

Serpent, they can believe in the creation myth as symbols, as opposed to actual events fixed in time.

For instance, if you look at the greek myths, they're not supportable, for the most part, as history. However, if you look at them as archetypes and such, they often are valid to apply to life. For instance, men of great power, like the god Zeus, often have sex with women despite token marriages, like the one to the greek goddess Hillary, and the women they have sex with often become cows.

See?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Serpent
Because if the bible says that Adam & Eve were created from nothing by god's hand and then they also claim to believe that humans evolved from non-human animals, one of them must be wrong.

Why's that? By "created from nothing by god's hand" do you take it that a giant human-looking hand reached down from the clouds, snapped it's fingers twice and some proto-human slime appeared out of thin air; then the hand molded the putty into us?

That's interesting. Probably not too plausible though. I'm sure it won't be hard to imagine some people disagree with you.

[KC Elbows]

But is it any more implausible than water becoming wine? Or do you interpret that to mean something less unlikely?

EDIT: reread your post. You never mentioned your interpretations. Really, my question is, when is it taken literally, and when is it not?

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Most of them, actually.

Regarding the first, use of birth control is not necessarily a mortal sin.


Reread the Cachetism.


Regarding the third, the Catholic church stated that the AIDS virus can pass through the defense offered by condoms;

Which is a lie.

Also, a non-trivial number of priests in Africa have been telling parishioners that condoms cause AIDS. Which is not just a lie, but a ****ed lie.



The fourth point, of course, is bang on.

And is why I don't usually comment on religious threads... I blame the vodka tonight.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
But is it any more implausible than water becoming wine? Or do you interpret that to mean something less unlikely?

Standard street performance trick of the time, well known in many other locations too.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Why's that? By "created from nothing by god's hand" do you take it that a giant human-looking hand reached down from the clouds, snapped it's fingers twice and some proto-human slime appeared out of thin air; then the hand molded the putty into us?

That's interesting. Probably not too plausible though. I'm sure it won't be hard to imagine some people disagree with you.

Of course it's absolute bunkum. But it's more in line with the bible than the theory of evolution. So how is it compatible. Like KC Elbows said:

Really, my question is, when is it taken literally, and when is it not?

And how can you make distinctions like that without hypocrisy?

[Serpent]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Serpent, they can believe in the creation myth as symbols, as opposed to actual events fixed in time.

For instance, if you look at the greek myths, they're not supportable, for the most part, as history. However, if you look at them as archetypes and such, they often are valid to apply to life. For instance, men of great power, like the god Zeus, often have sex with women despite token marriages, like the one to the greek goddess Hillary, and the women they have sex with often become cows.

See?

BTW - this is possibly the greatest post this week! ;)

LOL.

:)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Serpent
Of course it's absolute bunkum. But it's more in line with the bible than the theory of evolution.

What you mean is "it's more in line with my interpretation of the Bible." That's ok, but we're not talking about your beliefs, right?


Really, my question is, when is it taken literally, and when is it not?

Something can have multiple levels of meaning. The search for that meaning, as I mentioned, is understood as being part of the living tradition of the church. How do philosophers in metaphysics determine what the nature of an object is? They think about it and discuss, right?


And how can you make distinctions like that without hypocrisy?

I don't understand the question, sorry.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FatherDog
Reread the Cachetism.

Ok, I'll put that on my to-do list. That's not a substantial reply, right?


Which is a lie.

It's a lie that AIDS can be transmitted through a condom?


Also, a non-trivial number of priests in Africa have been telling parishioners that condoms cause AIDS.

If you did not infer it, I'll make it explicit: I mean the content of my replies to be limited to the formal theological positions of the church. This is in absolutely no sense a defense, let alone support, of everything any Catholic has ever done. Actually, it's not even support of the formal theological positions; but only a clarification thereof.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Really, my question is, when is it taken literally, and when is it not?

It's taken literally, or not, in the context of the living tradition of the church. In addition to the Bible, for instance, this includes the ecumenical councils, the church fathers, the theologians, and so on.

Catholics take transubtantiation, for example, literally. This isn't a matter of applying some particular rule to the Bible, such that you could sit alone in your room, armed with this rule, and accurately interpret scripture. It's a matter of the ongoing culture of the ecumenical councils, church fathers, theologians, and so on.

[KC Elbows]

[looking all those things up as you reread the catechism]

[Kristoffer]

You can't win against the pope! He's got that all mighty bouncer of his

[KC Elbows]

It's okay, I figured out how to get out of the all mighty bouncer's rear naked choke from that other thread. Got it covered. Move away from the elbow.

[Xebsball]

YOU GUYS, LISTEN

i made this thread cos i read on the news the Vatican IS INDEED SAYING CONDOMS DONT WORK
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/7775.htm

i hadnt posted a link to any news site before cos the one i had read was in portuguese, but now i found this one in english so u can read too. There are others from other news sites if you search too.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE VATICAN SAYING CONDOMS DONT WORK
Is that YOU CANT STOP PEOPLE FROM HUMPING
People will continue to humping ALWAYS, no matter if you tell them its a sin or if you tell them theres no protection against HIV (wich of course, THERE IS).
People will continue humping, but now the great masses of catholic people with no so much information (people that never finished highschool, never had decent education - poor uninformed people) WILL ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT CONDOMS DONT PROTECT AND WILL STOP USING CONDOMS - SPREADING EVEN MORE THE HIV VIRUS.
YES, i know a lot of people wont be influence by the Vaticans and the Popes stupid statement, BUT STILL there are lots dumb or uninformed people who will fall for it and GET A BUCKET O AIDS.

Thank u for listening :)
BTW, your mission is indeed getting me laid and im not catholic since i was 16.

[MasterKiller]

Our goal is to keep Xebs from breeding. Twinkies and Big Macs are making sure that doesn't happen.

[yenhoi]

"fight the real fight!"

:eek:

[Starchaser107]

I suppose the real fight would be telling the massess that they should practice safe sex, since sex is a reality.?
One could argue that the real fight would be telling the massess to practice monogomy, and have more values.?

For the record I think neither of these options will work on a universal scale. however , both arguements are valid.

[Mr Punch]

Yeah, the mean suuvabietch. As I hope you all know, one of the best counters to the ancient Chinese noogie technique, is the reach-up reverse wedgie... but the cunning ******* not only has continued the tradition of manipulating ****wits throughout the western world but he also wears heavy protective frocks, thus blending east and west world domination techniques with devilish ill effect. And he thinks that just because he shaved off that Fu Manchu moustache, nobody would notice his plan...!

I shall return to r-weak my re-wengie...original BWUHAHAHA! ... and fade...

[fa_jing]

The bible says that the stars will fall from the sky to the earth like figs from a fig tree.

Obviously you can't take everything literally, so some is literal and some is allegory, to all believers that I know of.

So who decides what's what? Serpent brought up a good point.

Answer:

Catholics: Upper-level Church Heirarchy, Pope.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Governing body in Brooklyn, NY.

Independant Protestant: Pastor Pete and his prize-winning chickens :)


Depending on one's sub-sect, people are given or not given the right to interpret the Bible on their own. Additionally, some Protestant groups offer guidelines, but present possibilities and don't insist that one is right over the others.

As CM was saying, many groups do apply a shared logic to the Bible and come out with reasonable agreement on the interpretation. We find that within major divisions of Christianity, they tend to find agreement, however between the major divisions, there tends to be disagreement on important issues.

For instance I own a copy of the NIV study bible. A group composed of Protestant Bible scholars from different denominations worked together on the commentary. They were able to reach agreement to a large extent on the meaning of most of the passages in the Bible. Some passages get multiple possibilities assigned to them for meaning, some do not. Some of them I think they conveniently leave unexplained, that's just my opinion.

The point of this long-winded post is that it is possible to apply logic to interpreting the Bible in a religious sense.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Ok, I'll put that on my to-do list. That's not a substantial reply, right?


If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find that it declares that contraception is 'intrinsically evil' and gravely sinful, and thus a mortal sin if done 'with full knowledge and deliberate consent'. Also, Vademecum for Confessors (Feb. 12, 1997) makes clear that the Church's position on contraception is infallible doctrine. Your contentions that it is a venal sin and that the doctrine of infallibility was not invoked in regards to it are incorrect.




It's a lie that AIDS can be transmitted through a condom?

Yes. Read the WHO literature on the subject.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FatherDog
Yes. Read the WHO literature on the subject.

The 2003 Cochrane review (http://www.update-software.com/abstracts/AB003255.htm) on the matter concludes "Overall effectiveness, the proportionate reduction in HIV seroconversion with condom use, is approximately 80%."

If you've got more recent or more highly regarded data, please share it.

I'll reply to the other points when I have time.

[Former castleva]

Brave thread Xebs.
Yes,those are absolutely criminal statements,at least that´s how they should be treated as.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Christopher M


The 2003 Cochrane review (http://www.update-software.com/abstracts/AB003255.htm) on the matter concludes "Overall effectiveness, the proportionate reduction in HIV seroconversion with condom use, is approximately 80%."

'Overall effectiveness', which includes cases where condoms tear, slip, or are not applied effectively.

The Catholic church is stating that the HIV virus can pass through an untorn condom, which is an absolute and blatant falsehood.

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Serpent
Because if the bible says that Adam & Eve were created from nothing by god's hand and then they also claim to believe that humans evolved from non-human animals, one of them must be wrong.
*Smile* Here I have an athiest making the same argument I've made. This is a strange day, indeed.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by themeecer

*Smile* Here I have an athiest making the same argument I've made. This is a strange day, indeed.

Well, you call me an athiest, so you still don't get me completely. And the stranger thing is that you believe the "people made of god putty" argument. Please, go back to your delusions and leave this thread to those with analytical thought processes.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Chris M:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Serpent
Of course it's absolute bunkum. But it's more in line with the bible than the theory of evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you mean is "it's more in line with my interpretation of the Bible." That's ok, but we're not talking about your beliefs, right?


Well, no. It's the "commonly accepted interpretation if you choose to take the bible literally". People like meecer, for example. I think the bible is a great work of fiction, so "my interpretation" is not really relevant. I'm talking from the general interpretations of the greater populace.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really, my question is, when is it taken literally, and when is it not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Something can have multiple levels of meaning. The search for that meaning, as I mentioned, is understood as being part of the living tradition of the church. How do philosophers in metaphysics determine what the nature of an object is? They think about it and discuss, right?


OK, so the living tradition of the church is constantly playing catch-up, trying to keep the bible relevant in a world of thought that has far surpassed it?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how can you make distinctions like that without hypocrisy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand the question, sorry.


And here I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or so far up your own devil's advocate/master debater attitude in arguing that you really don't get it. Either way it's obviously not worth really discussing it with you any more as you always end up picking apart the discussion rather than the subject being discussed and then claiming not to understand the most simple of questions or premises.

Oh well.

[Serpent]

That would be a good training technique. The next step after the "Rocky Chase The Chicken" training program!

[David Jamieson]

this:


Reviewers' conclusions: This review indicates that consistent use of condoms results in 80% reduction in HIV incidence. Consistent use is defined as using a condom for all acts of penetrative vaginal intercourse. Because the studies used in this review did not report on the "correctness" of use, namely whether condoms were used correctly and perfectly for each and every act of intercourse, effectiveness and not efficacy is estimated. Also, this estimate refers in general to the male condom and not specifically to the latex condom, since studies also tended not to specify the type of condom that was used. Thus, condom effectiveness is similar to, although lower than, that for contraception.

outweighs:



Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, told the program that condoms, which cannot be absolutely guaranteed to block sperm, stand even less chance of stopping the much smaller virus.

"The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom," he said.


in the area of logic. But it is clear that the vatican spokesman may not have interpreted the data correctly or with enough depth of understanding to actually make a statement based on science :D

What's more important to ask is how are we gonna stop aids.

[and now, personal opinion and specualtion about conspiracy to use genetic or chemical methods to destroy undesirable elements to the wealthy nations, keeping in mind that it has been done before on several occasions to other populations of the world and has been ongoing in usage since the inception of genetic or chemical warfare as far back as the spreading of small pox infected blankets to the natives by the British in the 1700's in Canada.] (frankly speaking, you don't think people are thinking much differently these days than they were then when it came to dirty deeds do you?)

Begin small rant..........now!

It's even more important than the question of where it comes from, why is it killing so many blacks, ****sexuals and drug addicts and has only recently begun to move into the heterosexual population following 10 solid years of strictly blacks, ****sexuals and intravenous drug users with the rare blood transfusion patient tossed into the mix.

Even more important than pointing at the catholic church itself.

well, back to kungfu chit chat guys
cheers

royce would choke the pope out.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Serpent
Well, no. It's the "commonly accepted interpretation if you choose to take the bible literally". People like meecer, for example.

That's fair. But my point wasn't to dog on your interpretation or anyone else's, but only to make it clear that interpretation is an issue. You or meecer or anyone else might interpret something from scripture, but that doesn't mean that that "is what it says", let alone that that is the only thing anyone studying scripture can legitimately conclude.

Following from that point, since the issue was Catholicism: Catholicism has some distinctive conclusions it makes from scripture, and these differ from the conclusions you were put forward.

This is not to say they are "right" or more legitimate or anything else; but only that assessments of Catholicism must be made with their interpretations in mind, and not someone else's.

In that light, it should be kept in mind that meecer isn't Catholic.


OK, so the living tradition of the church is constantly playing catch-up, trying to keep the bible relevant in a world of thought that has far surpassed it?

I think that's a pretty judgement-laden description of their activity; but that opinion is certainly your entitlement. To answer your question, that's certainly a more accurate description than what you offered previously. It should be noted simply that, obviously, some people still think it's relevant.


And here I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or so far up your own devil's advocate/master debater attitude in arguing that you really don't get it.

I really have no idea what you're referring to by "distinctions" and "hypocrisy." I'm sorry that offends you; I'm trying my best to answer your questions here.

[CaptinPickAxe]

I missed Temple this weekend:(

[Shaolin-Do]

"You or meecer or anyone else might interpret something from scripture, but that doesn't mean that that "is what it says", let alone that that is the only thing anyone studying scripture can legitimately conclude."

So one could state that the bible is an informal collection of fables and narratives designed to teach morals and ethical values to a largely ignorant society?

[Christopher M]

Kung Lek/FatherDog:

The Cochrane review does not state that the 20% non-effectiveness rate is entirely due to tears; it says it cannot account for tears, and certainly includes them.

Since the tears in question are unavoidable and unobservable, I don't see any meaningfull difference between the two statements. Although I grant you there is certainly a semantic hair one can split if one wants.

I want to re-clarify, since it doesn't seem to be clear, that I am by no means whatsoever endorsing nor supporting the Vatican's statement. In fact, I personally vehemently oppose it and their longstanding stance on the issue. But supporting it or opposing it is every individual's right to their opinion; so long as they're doing it with an honest understanding of the situation. That is the only thing I'm interested in here.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
So one could state that the bible is an informal collection of fables and narratives designed to teach morals and ethical values to a largely ignorant society?

What one concludes from the Bible is obviously dependant on one's religious beliefs. Jews probably take the Old Testament quite differently than anyone else does. Christians with a weak stance on the New Covenant probably have a similar position. Christians with a strong stance on the New Covenant have a very different conception of the Old Testament; and people who don't give a **** about Judaism or Christianity probably have another one all together.

I'm sure your statement could be consistent with that latter group.

[Shaolin-Do]

What about use of religion and popular culture by government officials to more or less redirect and control moral beliefs of a nation?
Most everyone I know passes the bible off as concrete fact.
(Protocols of the wise men of Zion, very interesting read)

[Christopher M]

Fatherdog - Regarding infallibility, I assume you're noting this statement from the Vademecum: "This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable."

If this is the case, I understand your conclusion; however, feel it's an honest mistake. To my understanding, infallibility is more than any assertions of confidence in a teaching, but rather refers to a very specific doctrine with specific requirements. A rule of thumb is that infallibility results from either statements made ex cathedra or made as products of ecumenical councils. Neither the Vadecum for Confessors, nor the Humanae Vitae which is it's primary source on this topic, fall under these standards. So, regardless of any statements made therein, they do not fall under the doctrine of infallibility, by its very definition. One is surely able to argue, reasonably, that the whole issue has been handled ineptly; for instance, with respect to clarify (I would certainly hold this position), but that also does not mean the doctrine is infallible. One may also argue that the issue is in dispute; but this similarly does not allow us to conclude the doctrine is infallible.

One can verify this for themselves by looking up any of the many commentaries on the Humanae Vitae. There is a discussion on this topic here (http://revising.tripod.com/archives/twentyone.html), for instance. Even theologians who argue that the Vitae is infallible admit that their opinion is in a small minority, as here (http://www.catholic-pages.com/morality/hvinfallible.asp): "Certainly, Lio's thesis goes against the common view of theologians (both those who assent to 'Humanae Vitae' and those who dissent from it), who have usually described the encyclical as being, in itself, a 'non-infallible' document."


Your contentions that it is a venal sin... [is] incorrect.

I apologize for the confusion: I never contended it was a venal sin. I contended that the difference between mortal and venal sins does not depend on the action, so thus it is impossible to make a definitive list of mortal sins. Therefore, the question of whether or not use of contraception is on such a list is absurd, regardless of the answer proposed. Therefore the statement "use of contraception is a mortal sin" is incorrect.

There is a short article on this here (http://members.aol.com/revising/sin.html). You may argue, as they do (and I would agree), that the church has, seemingly deliberately, abused the subtlety of these distinctions to mislead people.

Again, one can verify this distinction, that is - one which is necessarily relative, between moral and venal sins on any of the many commentaries on the subject. We see here (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007s9n), "A sin may be mortal for some and venial for others. It depends on the teaching that they recieve, culture they live in and the knowledge they have... What I may percieve as a Mortal sin may not be a sin at all to someone else."

Again, one may argue that the issue has been handled ineptly, and that the issue is in dispute. But neither of these arguments is the same as concluding the issue is a mortal sin.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
What about use of religion and popular culture by government officials to more or less redirect and control moral beliefs of a nation?
Most everyone I know passes the bible off as concrete fact.

I'm sorry: what about it?

[Shaolin-Do]

Do you feel that any of the documents that form the protocols of the wise men of zion are relevant to the current national standings on religion?
That quite possibly the main reason for a push towards christianity by the government was to more easily control an ignorant crowd?(Christianity and christian subgroups inparticular)

[Christopher M]

I don't think politics and religion should mix at all, and I think it only leads to trouble when they do. Moreover, I think this is a necessary conclusion from Christian teachings; albeit one rarely attended to.

I have no idea what the intentions of the American government are wrt their use of Christianity. It seems to me that Bush Jr, as an individual, is sincerely religious; but I don't think that is true of his administration as a whole.

[shaolinarab]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Do you feel that any of the documents that form the protocols of the wise men of zion are relevant to the current national standings on religion?
That quite possibly the main reason for a push towards christianity by the government was to more easily control an ignorant crowd?(Christianity and christian subgroups inparticular)

SD, the protocols of the elders of zion have long been dismissed as contrived antisemitic propoganda. however, there is no doubt that many in the administration are practicing a fundamentalist-inspired agenda in foreign policy.

i think the invocation of christianity by the administration is to counter what they perceive as lost values and morals in today's generation due to modern culture and secularism.
i just heard o'reilly yesterday in an npr interview criticising the new york times for its 'liberal, secular agenda.' go figure..

[Former castleva]

http://www.ffrf.org/

[Volcano Admim]

the Lord of the Rings is sooooo more fun than the Bible

[KC Elbows]

Maybe no one has really noticed, but there has been no "bible thumpers" on this thread, except maybe one person on the first page. I wouldn't consider CM a "bible thumper", as I've read a bit of his religious stances, and I've never gotten the impression that they include proselytizing or anything like that. In fact, he's only been clarifying catholic positions and debating the infallibility thing, not his own positions.

The bible thumper statement can work against those who don't care for christianity as well. Oftentimes, people complain about problems that don't exist, instead of the ones that do, if that makes any sense. It becomes "I don't like this org, and so I will find fault with them no matter what", not "I will educate myself on them and see what the problem really is".

To the credit of the catholic church, they've done what the US has never managed to do: put someone in charge who doesn't roughly match the ethnicity of those in power.

[David Jamieson]

To the credit of the catholic church, they've done what the US has never managed to do: put someone in charge who doesn't roughly match the ethnicity of those in power.

what are you talking about?

I've never heard of an african, asian or indian pope but I'm pretty sure all those ethnicities have catholic bishops in their midst. I think Poland was the biggest stretch they took so far I'll grant them that.

but... the popes from the start have been pretty "white" shall we say?

I do agree on your statement in regards to the presidents. :D

[Serpent]

Yeah, KL beats a lot I hear.

:eek:

:)

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Kung Lek


what are you talking about?

I've never heard of an african, asian or indian pope but I'm pretty sure all those ethnicities have catholic bishops in their midst. I think Poland was the biggest stretch they took so far I'll grant them that.

but... the popes from the start have been pretty "white" shall we say?

I do agree on your statement in regards to the presidents. :D

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't JPII the first non-Italian Pope?

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by joedoe


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't JPII the first non-Italian Pope?

I think there were some non-italian popes, and a few disputed french ones.
:D
John Paul II is the first non-italian pope in 455 years (the previous was Hadrian VI in 1563, a Dutchman).

I think at at one time there were even 3 popes. :D

[joedoe]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey


I think there were some non-italian popes, and a few disputed french ones.
:D
John Paul II is the first non-italian pope in 455 years.

I think at at one time there were even 3 popes. :D

Certainly no non-European Popes though.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by joedoe

Certainly no non-European Popes though.

Not to my knowledge atleast, but than I am not catholic and all the info I posted I got via google. ;)

[KC Elbows]

DISCLAIMER: KC ELBOWS IN NO WAY VERIFIES HIS OFF TOPIC POSTS BEFORE POSTING. AS SUCH, KC ELBOWS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANYONE TRUSTING TO ANY INFORMATION PRODUCED BY KC ELBOWS RELATED TO RELIGION, HISTORY, AND THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ETHNICITY AND NATIONALITY. IN ADDITION, IT IS THE READER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN WHAT KC ELBOWS SAYS AND WHAT KC ELBOWS MEANS, ESPECIALLY IN RELATION WITH, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE AFOREMENTIONED TOPICS. KC ELBOWS HAS BEEN KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER IN LAB RATS. KC ELBOWS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN LAB STUDIES TO REACT POORLY WITH ALCOHOL. THOSE USING KC ELBOWS SHOULD NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINARY OR RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.

[Serpent]

You should make that your sig with [size=1], then it really would be fine print! ;)

[Starchaser107]

oh yeah, as the token yardie i gotta say in response to this thread:

"More fire,
More Fire,
Blaze it up

Redder"

[David Jamieson]

yes, let us all light our @sses on fire, forthwith.

yeah, dem popes is as white as dem presidents.

But there is supposedly a "black" pope, only not like "black" like in african, but "black" like in evil. rumour has it, the black pope heads the jesuits and rules the vatican from within as far as political mechanics, power, money, etc etc.

anyway, jp2 will be the last pope according to all the leading psychics and 4 out of 5 dentists.

yes, there will be another one elected, but he won't have a throne to sit on.

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Serpent
Well, you call me an athiest, so you still don't get me completely. And the stranger thing is that you believe the "people made of god putty" argument. Please, go back to your delusions and leave this thread to those with analytical thought processes.
You think we came from putty as well. Your important ingredient is millions of years, mine is a higher power. Your argument of a belief in God equates low intelligence is getting old. All it means is a different opinion. I look at the info and see one thing, you see another. Sadly, your stakes in this are a heck of a lot higher than mine.

[Serpent]

Oh man, I'd forgotten all about this! You're like a terrier with a rag.



I look at the info and see one thing, you see another. Sadly, your stakes in this are a heck of a lot higher than mine.


You keep telling yourself that, buddy. You're living your life in fear.

[KC Elbows]

I wouldn't relate primordial slime with putty. Totally different ingredients. Primordial slime is very difficult to make an ash tray out of, especially at the grade school level, whereas putty is completely the opposite. In addition, I believe they've had a lot more success creating a primordial sludge that might yield life, yet no one has produced a putty that yields more than Wallace and Grommit.

As for the last sentence, about stakes, are you referring to the struggle for his immortal soul and all? I'm just not sure if I'm reading it right, it seems to be that you're saying that you are going to heaven, and thus don't have the same stakes as Serpent, who could go to hell. You're not saying that, are you? I just can't imagine a christian judging in place of God like that. Please tell me I misread that.

[themeecer]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
I wouldn't relate primordial slime with putty. Totally different ingredients.
Where did the primordial slime come from though? Ultimately, from this rock we call Earth. (Yes I know the evolutionists arguments go through more convulations, but at its heart it comes down to this)


Originally posted by KC Elbows
As for the last sentence, about stakes, are you referring to the struggle for his immortal soul and all? I'm just not sure if I'm reading it right, it seems to be that you're saying that you are going to heaven, and thus don't have the same stakes as Serpent, who could go to hell. You're not saying that, are you? I just can't imagine a christian judging in place of God like that. Please tell me I misread that.
What I was saying was simply... if I he is right then no harm, we both die and that is it. If I am right he dies and goes to hell. He goes to Hell because a nonbeliever can not enter Heaven. This is not my judgement but God's. Big stakes for him. I really don't loose anything, personally, either way. Note: this is not why I choose to believe and I am not playing an odds game.


Originally posted by Serpent You keep telling yourself that, buddy. You're living your life in fear.
Ha, I have nothing to be afraid of. I am tickled pink. I am only worried for those that do not have this peace in their heart.

[Serpent]

OK, I'll edit this post given that meecer answered while I typed.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by themeecer
Where did the primordial slime come from though? Ultimately, from this rock we call Earth. (Yes I know the evolutionists arguments go through more convulations, but at its heart it comes down to this)


But you belive in Creationism. You believe that your god actually fashioned two complete humans directly with no evolution. Don't try to play both sides here to make yourself seem more reasonable.



What I was saying was simply... if I he is right then no harm, we both die and that is it. If I am right he dies and goes to hell. He goes to Hell because a nonbeliever can not enter there. This is not my judgement but God's. Big stakes for him.


Your arrogance and superiority are really ugly. Sadly, this is only too common among religious fundamentalists.



I really don't loose anything, personally, either way. Note: this is not why I choose to believe and I am not playing an odds game.


Are you absolutely sure about that?



Ha, I have nothing to be afraid of. I am tickled pink. I am only worried for those that do not have this peace in their heart.

Oh, that arrogance again. Yeah, only you and people like you have any peace in their hearts.

:rolleyes:

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by themeecer

Where did the primordial slime come from though? Ultimately, from this rock we call Earth. (Yes I know the evolutionists arguments go through more convulations, but at its heart it comes down to this)

what does this have to do with the difference between primordial slime and putty that turns to people?



What I was saying was simply... if I he is right then no harm, we both die and that is it. If I am right he dies and goes to hell. He goes to Hell because a nonbeliever can not enter there. This is not my judgement but God's. Big stakes for him. I really don't loose anything, personally, either way. Note: this is not why I choose to believe and I am not playing an odds game.

Nonbelievers are not the only ones forbidden entry. By presuming the judgement of God not only on Serpent, but for yourself, don't you think you're on a bit of a slippery slope as far as going to heaven goes? For the stakes to be greater for him, you MUST be going to heaven. Yet you aren't God, and cannot say this without sullying yourself by your own pride in assuming His judgement, correct?

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Serpent
But you belive in Creationism. You believe that your god actually fashioned two complete humans directly with no evolution. Don't try to play both sides here to make yourself seem more reasonable.

I am not playing both sides of the fence, I am saying we both see us coming from dirt. I believe God created Adam from the dirt. (Not two complete humans .. Eve was made later from Adam) You believe after millions of years life sprung up from the dirt via primordial ooze stimulated by lightening.


Originally posted by Serpent
Your arrogance and superiority are really ugly. Sadly, this is only too common among religious fundamentalists.

Oh, that arrogance again. Yeah, only you and people like you have any peace in their hearts.
:rolleyes:
Not being arrogant. I am not claiming my entrance into heaven has anything to do with my own works. I am not 'good' enough to get into heaven. It is all a gift.... all I did was accept the gift. I find it strange that you find me being happy about this and the wonderful peace in my heart as arrogance. Can a person be that angry that they view other's happiness in this way?

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Hmmm.

From what I heard at the day of judgement ALL people are judged, they ones found to be worthy enter heaven.

The ones found unworthy enter the purifying fires in hell till heir sins are burned off and than they enter heaven.
It is said that being in the flames and being purified FEELS like eternity.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by themeecer


I am not playing both sides of the fence, I am saying we both see us coming from dirt. I believe God created Adam from the dirt. (Not two complete humans .. Eve was made later from Adam) You believe after millions of years life sprung up from the dirt via primordial ooze stimulated by lightening.


Not being arrogant. I am not claiming my entrance into heaven has anything to do with my own works. I am not 'good' enough to get into heaven. It is all a gift.... all I did was accept the gift. I find it strange that you find me being happy about this and the wonderful peace in my heart as arrogance. Can a person be that angry that they view other's happiness in this way?

So it is your belief that you were given a gift when you were baptised, and that gift means you have a place in Heaven? Or that by believing the Word you are assured a place in Heaven? Not being confrontational, just trying to clarify in my mind what your beliefs are so I can try to understand where you are coming from better.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
Hmmm.

From what I heard at the day of judgement ALL people are judged, they ones found to be worthy enter heaven.

The ones found unworthy enter the purifying fires in hell till heir sins are burned off and than they enter heaven.
It is said that being in the flames and being purified FEELS like eternity.

I thought those found wholly unworthy went to Hell for eternity, and those that were just a little bad went to another place where they atoned for their sins? :)

[KC Elbows]

By presenting an argument in which your place in heaven is assured, and someone else's is not, you presume the place of God, ruling out all eventualities that could lead you to hell and that person to heaven. You accepted, if for a moment, a world where, if you died without christ in your heart at that one moment, you still would go to heaven. And that was presumption. Until you die, you know nothing of your fate in the afterlife EVEN in christianity, because until you die, you are but a man, prone to sin, and struggling to stay the path. To presume otherwise is to put yourself in the place of God, and that is not the way to heaven in the christianity I am familiar with.

Heck, until you face dying, not near death, but the act of dying, of wathcing your life bleed away, that very act could be exactly how far away from losing your faith you are. You cannot know until you are there.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by joedoe

I thought those found wholly unworthy went to Hell for eternity, and those that were just a little bad went to another place where they atoned for their sins? :)

Either way I wanna be in hell, all the interesting people and good musicians will be there.
;)

[KC Elbows]

Those just a little bad end up in the ORA forum.

[joedoe]

LOL. Nice one KC

[KC Elbows]

Don't laugh. You're gonna be there a looooong time.;)

[Serpent]

Originally posted by themeecer
Not being arrogant. I am not claiming my entrance into heaven has anything to do with my own works. I am not 'good' enough to get into heaven. It is all a gift.... all I did was accept the gift. I find it strange that you find me being happy about this and the wonderful peace in my heart as arrogance. Can a person be that angry that they view other's happiness in this way?

You just don't get it, do you. I think that's often the problem. Whether it's bloody mindedness or pure ignorance I don't know, but either way it's pretty ugly. In some ways I feel sorry for you, but you're really not worth any pity.

You should read KC Elbow's posts very carefully.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Don't laugh. You're gonna be there a looooong time.;)

No I'm not - I am baptised and while I don't believe all the dogma I do believe in a God, so I have booked a place in Heaven :D

[KC Elbows]

Well, you shoulda said that in the first place.:D

[Serpent]

Nice sig, KC. Could be read a number of different ways! ;)

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by joedoe


No I'm not - I am baptised and while I don't believe all the dogma I do believe in a God, so I have booked a place in Heaven :D

Which one of the 5000 that booked a place in heaven are you??
:D

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Serpent
Nice sig, KC. Could be read a number of different ways! ;)

I can't read.:(

[joedoe]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Well, you shoulda said that in the first place.:D

You should have know that by my halo and the ethereal glow surrounding me :D

[joedoe]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey


Which one of the 5000 that booked a place in heaven are you??
:D

Sorry, I was baptised Roman Catholic, not Jehovah's Witness :D

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by joedoe


You should have know that by my halo and the ethereal glow surrounding me :D

The giveaway was the lepers.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by KC Elbows


The giveaway was the lepers.

What, the ones I have healed or the ones that hang around me? :D

[themeecer]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Until you die, you know nothing of your fate in the afterlife EVEN in christianity, because until you die, you are but a man, prone to sin, and struggling to stay the path. To presume otherwise is to put yourself in the place of God, and that is not the way to heaven in the christianity I am familiar with.
I do know my fate in the afterlife. It is not a gamble where you try to be good and hope you can make it into heaven. It is simply a gift, if I accept it, I'm going to heaven, period. I can't just work my way in there. If that was the case I can guarantee you I wouldn't be making it in, because I'm not perfect.

I am not assuming the place of God .. I am following what he told us. If God says in his word "X" and I go out and repeat "X" I am not assuming his place, I am only sharing what he has said. If he says if you do "Y" then you will go to heaven, and I do "Y" then I'm going to heaven. If he says if you don't do "Y" you will go to Hell, my warning people that they need to do "Y" is not me trying to be God. God charged his believers to go out and do that very thing, tell people they need to do "Y." Sorry to talk so simplistic here, but I think something is getting lost in the translation.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by themeecer
If God says in his word "X" and I go out and repeat "X" I am not assuming his place, I am only sharing what he has said.

You're assuming, at least, that your understanding of that X was perfect; and furthermore, that your repetition of that X was perfect. Moreover, that what God meant to be important about X is the same as what you take to be important about it, such that your perfect comprehension and perfect repetition are perfectly applied.

[Serpent]

And you don't even know what he said, assuming he even exists. The best you could possibly have, even with an original copy of some scripture, is a human interpretation of what he is alledged to have said.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by themeecer

I do know my fate in the afterlife. It is not a gamble where you try to be good and hope you can make it into heaven. It is simply a gift, if I accept it, I'm going to heaven, period. I can't just work my way in there. If that was the case I can guarantee you I wouldn't be making it in, because I'm not perfect.

Are you saying you cannot revoke the gift? That no matter what you do or what kind of terrible person you might become, you cannot be excluded from the hosts of heaven? Of course not. Your place is dependent on your continued acceptance of the gift, and your state in the moment of death is beyond what you know now. You may lose your faith next year. Or tomorrow. You cannot know this, because you are not God.


I am not assuming the place of God .. I am following what he told us. If God says in his word "X" and I go out and repeat "X" I am not assuming his place, I am only sharing what he has said. If he says if you do "Y" then you will go to heaven, and I do "Y" then I'm going to heaven. If he says if you don't do "Y" you will go to Hell, my warning people that they need to do "Y" is not me trying to be God. God charged his believers to go out and do that very thing, tell people they need to do "Y." Sorry to talk so simplistic here, but I think something is getting lost in the translation.

God did not say "the meecer will believe on the day of his death" anywhere that I've read. But you HAVE to assume that when you say the risks are higher for Serpent in this, and that's when you take the place of God.

Whether you believe or not by the time of your death is a test you have not faced yet. I am not criticizing your proselytizing, merely your presumption that you are in no danger of going to hell by the criterion already stated, belief at the time of death.

[KC Elbows]

To be fair, I'm gonna just read this argument for a bit so that themeecer doesn't get too ganged up on with everybody responding to him.

[David Jamieson]

here we go :rolleyes:

you can have all the peace in you heart that your heart can hold, you can charitable and spend much time helping others, you can feed the poor and help the lame and you can pray or meditate everyday, you can preach, you can be quiet, you can do all this, but when your last spark of life leaves your flesh, no one, and I mean no one "knows" what happens then.

Heaven and Hell are all around us as far as I'm concerned and I'm quite comfortable with that idea.

Let's not forget that every single book every written was penned by a human being. Bar none. So, speculation and conjecture can be nothing but a monumental waste of time.

Spend you time "doing" what it is you think you should "be".

cheers

[themeecer]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Are you saying you cannot revoke the gift? That no matter what you do or what kind of terrible person you might become, you cannot be excluded from the hosts of heaven? Of course not.
That's exactly what I am saying.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by themeecer

That's exactly what I am saying.

So conceivably, if Hitler had accepted the gift then he could be in Heaven?

[KC Elbows]

That no matter what you do, you're going to heaven, and that no act or belief you take up could interfere with that? Even devil worship? What if you took up devil worhip and died, you'd still go to heaven?

And Kung Lek, everyone knows that Dr. Seuss was not a human being, so you're clearly wrong there.

edit- sorry, just had to ask one more question even though I said I wouldn't, as your last post was not an answer I was familiar with

[Serpent]

I'm beginning to think that themeecer could be the all time greatest troll. Surely a real person could not possibly believe all the things that meecer believes?

I wonder if this is Gene Ching's totally owning us all troll epic?

[Christopher M]

Nah, this is just one topic... I mean, if he started trolling you guys about something else in addition, like Shaolin-Do or something...

[David Jamieson]

joedoe-

christians believe that so long as you ask for forgiveness before you die and accept that jesus is the saviour of mankind, then you get to go to heaven.

on the polar opposite side:

osama bin laden believes that if you kill as many infidels as possible the you get to go to heaven and you get 72 virgins.

Hopefully, they are not of the Philbert variety.

nevertheless, these strong stances in terms of religious belief are what is fueling the new crusades.

bit of sticky wicket that is eh?
:rolleyes:

[Christopher M]

We should be careful not to use the word Christians where we should be using, at least, Protestants.

The previous post is one example.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
osama bin laden believes that if you kill as many infidels as possible the you get to go to heaven and you get 72 virgins.

Shoddy deal I say, do they get replaced or does he have to live with 72 non-virgins all eternity.

:confused:

[themeecer]

Originally posted by joedoe
So conceivably, if Hitler had accepted the gift then he could be in Heaven?
Good point. Lets use a more recent example, Osama bin Ladin. Do I believe that he can be 'saved' and go to heaven? Absolutely. Do I believe that a person already a Christian that does these atrocities can still enter heaven? I believe that a) the person was never really a Chrisitian in the first place or b) has 'backslidden' so far that they have totally forgot their purpose and their tie to Christ. Do I believe that b) can still go to heaven? Yes because of Christ's promise that those of his can never be snatched out of his hand. I do believe there will be some sort of punishment for what they did, though.

I seriously, seriously doubt a person that has done this could have had true ties to Christ.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
joedoe-

christians believe that so long as you ask for forgiveness before you die and accept that jesus is the saviour of mankind, then you get to go to heaven.

on the polar opposite side:

osama bin laden believes that if you kill as many infidels as possible the you get to go to heaven and you get 72 virgins.

Hopefully, they are not of the Philbert variety.

nevertheless, these strong stances in terms of religious belief are what is fueling the new crusades.

bit of sticky wicket that is eh?
:rolleyes:

I was brought up Roman Catholic, and I was always taught that yes you had to ask for forgiveness and repent etc. before death, but I was always taught to try and live a virtuous life as well. Now to me it seems that living a virtuous life is more important than living a terrible life and saying sorry for it at the end.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by themeecer

Good point. Lets use a more recent example, Osama bin Ladin. Do I believe that he can be 'saved' and go to heaven? Absolutely. Do I believe that a person already a Christian that does these atrocities can still enter heaven? I believe that a) the person was never really a Chrisitian in the first place or b) has 'backslidden' so far that they have totally forgot their purpose and their tie to Christ. Do I believe that b) can still go to heaven? Yes because of Christ's promise that those of his can never be snatched out of his hand. I do believe there will be some sort of punishment for what they did, though.

I seriously, seriously doubt a person that has done this could have had true ties to Christ.

How do you define ties to Chirst? Being baptised? Believing in God and his Word?

Just remember Hitler was Roman Catholic.

[KC Elbows]

Christopher M, why is 'protestants' the correct term?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by themeecer
I do believe there will be some sort of punishment for what they did, though.

Do you believe in Purgatory?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Christopher M, why is 'protestants' the correct term?

Because non-Protestant Christianity, at least, does not assert: "that so long as you ask for forgiveness before you die and accept that jesus is the saviour of mankind, then you get to go to heaven." Nor does it assert some of the other views being discussed here.

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
osama bin laden believes that if you kill as many infidels as possible the you get to go to heaven and you get 72 virgins.

Great book I am currently reading on this subject. Once I finish it I will post more on the subject. Getting more insight into the different types of Muslims. One interesting point is that the fundamentalist hardcore Muslims view the only way to be assured a place in heaven is to die in jihad. All other ways will have to go through a judgment of your deeds. Pretty scary stuff. Very unlike the Muslim friends I had in college. These guys are looking for a way to die, killing us infidels. How can you stop someone that determined?

[Serpent]

Oh, I'm just laughing at the thought of Osama Bin Laden going out in his own fiery glory only to be faced with 72 Philbert's in the afterlife!

What a classic picture!

With that, I'm off home. I wonder where this thread will have gone to by the time I return to it.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Because non-Protestant Christianity, at least, does not assert: "that so long as you ask for forgiveness before you die and accept that jesus is the saviour of mankind, then you get to go to heaven." Nor does it assert some of the other views being discussed here.

Care to elaborate? Anything I have said that is incorrect re. Catholic doctorine? I have to admit that I have strayed from the Church but I still believe in God etc.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Serpent
Oh, I'm just laughing at the thought of Osama Bin Laden going out in his own fiery glory only to be faced with 72 Philbert's in the afterlife!

Correction 71 Philbert's + 1 Xebsball.

:p

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Do you believe in Purgatory?
I believe in a holding place between now and the 'great white judgement.' I don't know if you call that purgatory.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by joedoe
Anything I have said that is incorrect re. Catholic doctorine?

Not that I noticed, that I could tell. When you said "but I was always taught to try and live a virtuous life as well," I assumed you were getting at that distinction yourself:

That of the Catholic "faith and works" versus the Protestant "faith and scripture."

[KC Elbows]

For the muslim thing, and this is just my opinion, but I think in most cases, extreme circumstances make extreme beliefs more acceptible, and only extreme people hold extreme beliefs in moderate circumstances. I think the number of extremist muslims around in certain areas is due to exploitation of those in extreme poverty/tyranny, and if you took those things away, you would reduce the number of extremists to numbers similar to places that have better taken care of poverty and tyranny, like the US. In otherwords, a statisticaly unimportant group.

Just my take, no supporting evidence to back that up.

Thanks CM, I'm not that familiar with protestantism. Having grown up catholic, I've only recently realized that all christians did not believe in "works" in the same way.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by themeecer
I believe in a holding place between now and the 'great white judgement.' I don't know if you call that purgatory.

A thing (can't confidently call it a place, can we?) between death and Heaven which is associated with a change from the imperfect spiritual state at death to the state required to enter heaven is, so far as I can tell, what is meant by "Purgatory."

This is one of the things Protestants explicitly rejected of Catholic doctrine; which is why I ask.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Not that I noticed, that I could tell. When you said "but I was always taught to try and live a virtuous life as well," I assumed you were getting at that distinction yourself:

That of the Catholic "faith and works" versus the Protestant "faith and scripture."

Cool, so all those years of catechism weren't wasted :D

I always found the concept of Catholic works and the Buddhist concept of Karma and interesting sort of parallel (in a very loose way).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
I've only recently realized that all christians did not believe in "works" in the same way.

Yeah, for sure... I think the politics of it were that the Catholic church was accepting payment from people in place of the stipulation of works, perhaps under the logic that most people in feudal society had neither time, nor resources, nor opportunity to dedicate to works. So this was one of the reformational issues that was popular among the Protestant thinkers. As with other issues though, they went further than changing the troublesome politics, and went for a revision of the underlying theology. So what began as opposition to indulgences ended with a rejection of the concepts of works and Purgatory; which, arguably, drastically changes the implied relationship between man and God; and certainly changes the concept of salvation.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by joedoe
I always found the concept of Catholic works and the Buddhist concept of Karma and interesting sort of parallel.

Yeah; both probably wrestling with the same issues. I'd say that the main difference is that writing on karma tends to assume a lawful universe: there is a reason and logic underlying the content of experience, and thus a process for affecting it. The Christian universe is like that of the existentialists; the content of experience is essentially meaningless. Sin and suffering are not taken to be transgressions of any law, but are the result of being things which are divorced from our fundamental nature, which is itself lawful; and thus being cast into a lawless world.

[fa_jing]

My wife's with the Jehova's Witnesses (converted after we married), so I know something about their beliefs. Similar to what KC was saying, they believe that anyone can lose their place in the Kingdom of God. I always thought that the moment before death was a terrible time to be demanding things of people, anyway. Much less adherence to a complex belief system. Right before my grandfather died he was cursing gibberish. For a year or two before that he was severely disabled as a result of multiple strokes.

Question to the believers among us: where is Heaven??

Does it enclose the Universe from the outside? Kind of like a giant avocado and the Universe is the pit?

It is extra-dimensional?

Is it that it is all around us, but takes certain senses or faculties to percieve that we lack?

Or is it in our hearts and minds?

????

[KC Elbows]

Actually, I think the moment of death thing is not as bad as it sounds. I only know from my grandparents dying, but each of them had tough times leading up to their death(old age, illness related to), but that last moment seemed like a release to them, they were very peaceful. So, perhaps that's the best moment to be judged by?

[KC Elbows]

As for where heaven and hell are, I was raised catholic, but I'm a big believer in the minds and hearts thing.

Hey, if someone could post all those cool links to gnostic stuff for the eight millionth time for me, I'll make sure to add them to my favorites this time.;)

[fa_jing]

Could be, KC. I wasn't there when he passed, rather some hours beforehand.

Interestingly Sartre, the existentialist, thought that people's lives should be judged as a whole after they died. He seemed to have been heavily influenced by the Catholicism of his youth and often couched his philosophy in religious-like terms and illustrations from Scripture. It's kind of like the Martial Arts schools "we have that too" mentality. :D

[fa_jing]

If anyone's ever read Betrand Russells' "Why I am not a Christian" it is totally like, "We have that too." :) In fact there is a big "We have that too" epidemic between Martial Arts schools, Philosophy vs. Religion vs. the Law vs. Society, etc.

Hey maybe our needs as human beings are pretty universal and these needs can be fulfilled in a variety of ways, although not just any way?

Nah, that'd be too easy.

:p

[MasterKiller]

My wife's with the Jehova's Witnesses (converted after we married), so I know something about their beliefs. How long do you have to be a Jehova's Witness before my dog will start doing my dishes? Also, I'd like to be able to tell a panda bear to wash my pickup.

[fa_jing]

Actually, in the coming New World, humans will no longer be at odds with the animals, in fact they will walk alongside Tigers and Bears and communicate with them, I think. So your request will be granted. I've recalculated the end dates from Scripture and I'm pretty sure that the world will come to an end in 1974. Don't hold me to that, though, I am only human and may be wrong.

[themeecer]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
How long do you have to be a Jehova's Witness before my dog will start doing my dishes? Also, I'd like to be able to tell a panda bear to wash my pickup.
Hehe .. what the heck are you talking about?

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by fa_jing
Actually, in the coming New World, humans will no longer be at odds with the animals, in fact they will walk alongside Tigers and Bears and communicate with them, I think. So your request will be granted. I've recalculated the end dates from Scripture and I'm pretty sure that the world will come to an end in 1974. Don't hold me to that, though, I am only human and may be wrong.

Classic!

Ironically, that's exactly the same year my first wife left me and bought a dog.

[MasterKiller]

Hehe .. what the heck are you talking about? Talk to a Jehova's witness sometime, themeecer. They'll tell you all about it. ;)

Or, read fa_jing's post.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by fa_jing
where is Heaven?

I've never heard any satisfying account of it being corporeal at all. Although, a sound argument can be made that corporeal Heaven is a reasonable Christian position... "ressurection of the body" and all that. Personally, I don't see why that has to be taken literally when so much else is taken figuratively; especially when taking it literally causes so many problems.

[joedoe]

I believe Belinda Carlisle postulated the teory that Heaven is a place on earth :D

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by joedoe
I believe Belinda Carlisle postulated the teory that Heaven is a place on earth :D

I once heard a theory that our CURRENT existence is in actuality HELL.

[joedoe]

I have heard that one too.

[Vash]

Didn't Dennis Leary have a theory about those things which bring happiness?

[Christopher M]

Yeah, but Belinda was clearly a pagan... all that circle in the sand nonsense.

[Ben Gash]

Basic principle of scientific evidence : repeatable empirical data from controlled experimentation is the only way to prove or disprove a theorem.

[Former castleva]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/13/1065917344295.html

[Christopher M]

How sad that those opinions are taken as controversial, or even new. Almost all of them are beliefs the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental churchs have held all along (and hence, all of Christianity held for the first 1600 years; and hence, the bulk of Christians still hold).

[Volcano Admim]

You're such an inspiration for the ways
That I'll never ever choose to be
Oh so many ways for me to show you
How the savior has abandoned you
**** your God
Your Lord and your Christ
He did this
Took all you had and
Left you this way
Still you pray, you never stray
Never taste of the fruit
You never thought to question why

It's not like you killed someone
It's not like you drove a hateful spear into his side
Praise the one who left you
Broken down and paralyzed
He did it all for you
He did it all for you

Oh so many many ways for me to show you
How your dogma has abandoned you
Pray to your Christ, to your god
Never taste of the fruit
Never stray, never break
Never - choke on a lie
Even though he's the one who did this to you
You never thought to question why

Not like you killed someone
It's Not like you drove a spiteful spear into his side
Talk to Jesus Christ
As if he knows the reasons why
He did it all for you
Did it all for you
He did it all for you...

[Christopher M]

So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical,
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Just let the light touch you
And let the words spill through
And let them pass right through
Bringing out our hope and reason
before we pine away.

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Christopher M
How sad that those opinions are taken as controversial, or even new. Almost all of them are beliefs the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental churchs have held all along (and hence, all of Christianity held for the first 1600 years; and hence, the bulk of Christians still hold).
Little confused on what you are referring to here. Are you agreeing with the bishop in question in this article? Do you agree with Spong that the following 5 doctrines are false?

Fundamentalists were so named in the early 20th century for defending a set of five doctrines they regarded as fundamental: the inspiration of Scripture as the revealed word of God; the virgin birth as guarantee of Christ’s divine nature; salvation through his death; his physical resurrection; and his eventual second coming. To Spong, these are not just naive but eminently rejectable.
Speaking of these 5 doctrines that are attributed to fundamentalists, I thought all 5 of these were contained in the Catholic faith as well. My last roommate who was devoutly Catholic hung onto these 5 doctrines.

[Christopher M]

Actually, I was referring to the points they discussed; his beliefs on most of those five points were never explained.


the inspiration of Scripture as the revealed word of God

They do explain this point somewhat. And he makes clear that Scripture must be interpreted (it doesn't itself say anything), that it must be interpreted within it's cultural context, and that it's not the primary source for divine revelation (that's right, the holy Church is, to Catholics/Orthodox).

The other points are never explained, so we can only guess at his intentions.


salvation through his death

Following the usual disagreements here accorded to "fundamentalists," we would be lead to assume he is making the aforementioned distinction between faith-and-works and faith-and-scripture.


his eventual second coming

See preterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism).


the virgin birth as guarantee of Christ’s divine nature...his physical resurrection

These two I don't know what he's on about. I'd have to read his book.

[themeecer]

--------------------------------------
salvation through his death
---------------------------------------

Following the usual disagreements here accorded to "fundamentalists," we would be lead to assume he is making the aforementioned distinction between faith-and-works and faith-and-scripture.

But would you agree that without Christ's coming to Earth and sacrifice that even through faith and works one couldn't make it to Heaven?

This isn't disregarding the OT Jews. Their salvation came from looking towards the coming of the messiah.


quote:
--------------------------------------
the virgin birth as guarantee of Christ’s divine nature...his physical resurrection
--------------------------------------

These two I don't know what he's on about. I'd have to read his book.
Well you have read God's book. What are your thoughts on these two issues, omitting any points of aggreance with the 'bishop.' (I am loath to call him a bishop because of his nonbelief in God.)

[David Jamieson]

One interesting point is that the fundamentalist hardcore Muslims view the only way to be assured a place in heaven is to die in jihad.

jihad, transliterated means "struggle".
in regards to Islam it is a more esoteric line of thinking and representative of our struggle with ethics, morality,belief, virtue, etc etc.

Only lately has it been used in reference to actual physical action and related in context to physical "holy war".

In actuality, Jihad occurs in the heart and mind and not on a physical battlefiled. I personally think this is a corruption of the intent of the idea and jihad is probably not the best term to use.

perpetuation in western media of this term and the focus on the islamic law vs quranic teaching is more than slightly skewed both in teh west and by those who seek to lead muslims into war with the outside world.

One thing that is not emphasized enough in my opinion is the fundamental difference beyween "islam" and "muslim".

Islam is the faith and muslims are the faithful.

muslims are as prone to skewed perspective as any other brand of faithful and are subject to misinterpretation of the Qurtan or re-interpretation of the Quran. Not unlike a great deal of Christian faithful who skew their interpretation of scripture and gospel to suit their agendas.

the result is schism amongst the faithful, though the documents remain virtually same/same in regards to the faith.

So, while someone may be a "catholic" they may not necessarily be a good christian.

While someone may be considered a muslim, they may not necessarily be adhereing to Islam.

This is often the case, particularly when it comes to taking lives for the sake of political ideologies.

this is my own perspective on the matter.
cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by themeecer
But would you agree that without Christ's coming to Earth and sacrifice that even through faith and works one couldn't make it to Heaven?

I think the Christian understanding is fundamentally rooted in Christ's sacrifice (which I take to be His personification, btw; not His death). I think it could not have been the case that this did not happen. Any speculation about a hypothetical where this did not happen requires us to have a new conception of God and man, in addition to Christ and salvation. In other words, it's completely beyond the paradigm of Christianity: what would Christianity say if there was no Christ, and God was totally different? Who knows; I don't see any meaning in such speculation.


What are your thoughts on these two issues

I think the former is equivalent to stating that Jesus was exempt from original sin, which is necessary. I think the latter completes the sacrifice and promise - not only can God, like us, personify; but it does not kill Him to do so. What then of us - right?


I am loath to call him a bishop because of his nonbelief in God.

My understanding is that he believes in God, the title of the article notwithstanding, he just believes God to be ineffible, and moreover, the Father to be non-personified. Both of these are longheld Christian beliefs.

They make an allusion to Paul Tillich (http://www.theology.ie/theologians/tillich.htm) in the article, who I suspect would be a much finer source on the topic.

Do non-Episcopalian Protestants have bishops at all?

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Christopher M
I think the Christian understanding is fundamentally rooted in Christ's sacrifice (which I take to be His personification, btw; not His death). I think it could not have been the case that this did not happen.

Ok, we're on the same page.



Originally posted by Christopher M
My understanding is that he believes in God, the title of the article notwithstanding, he just believes God to be ineffible, and moreover, the Father to be non-personified. Both of these are longheld Christian beliefs.
I felt he took it further than that, much further. But on the note of God being non-personified this has been a point of much discussion of mine in the past year. I won't bore the others with the details here, but I do believe he has a body, but isn't limited by that body.


Originally posted by Christopher M
Do non-Episcopalian Protestants have bishops at all? No we do not. I was loath to call him a bishop in honor of my catholic brothers.

[themeecer]

Cerebus, trust me it is a lot harder standing up for ones belief in God than it is 'standing on your own two feet," in the moral decay we have seen of the past couple of decades. However we have it easy compared to the countless Christians that have been killed for their beliefs over the centuries, and the ones that are being killed today in non-Christian friendly countries. Respectfully, you can take your disdain for us that don't "outgrow the need for a psychological/ emotional "teddybear" or "comfort blanket", and shove it. It takes much more of a man to stand like this than to follow the whims of the world.

[David Jamieson]

I agree with cerberus to some extent.

The meecer-
I don't think that cerberus' statement was directed at christians in particular, but at anyone or any faith that practices the actions of what he's talking about.

Having said that, I say I agree to an "extent" because at a deep level, in fact the level that effects your entire core belief system in regards to good and evil is for the most part shaped by the moral structure delivered through the very religions that you are railing against.

Morality, ideals of virtue, concepts of what is good and evil are not something we are born with. If we followed our natural way and our natural urges, then a whole lot fo what you and I regard as either "good" or "evil" would be completely done away with.

Think of it in terms of completely deleting all the logic that you have come to use as a tool of reason.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that we will all of sudden become frothing at the mouth barbarians, but it definitely means we would possess a complete disregard of many of the ideal axioms we seek to fit in when we do good, or do evil acts.

Those same ideals are drawn from religious thought and religio-philosophical thought that has been gradually adopted more and more into the core belief systems of entire societies over thousands of years.

we must have rules for living together or our natural instincts take over. Those of territorialism and survival and procreation of our own individual selves. We contain these drives on an individual level through what is taught to us collectively and generationally in my opinion.

even thos who step outside of society are still effected by it on many levels. It is inescapable. THose who are overtly religious are completely and utterly making the decision to aspire to the higher ideals of that construct. those who are overtly un-religious will aspire to a more philosophical bent.

Both have faith, neither have absolute answers, but only a perspective that they are either able to persuade others into seeing, or not.

There is after all your perspective, then there is my perspective and then there is truth. Each of us can get closer to the truth by trying to understand reality. In order to understand reality though, sometimes you need to lose perspective. :D

ah, what a rich tapestry life is. Think of the cosmological odds that allow you to even exist and live and breath!!! Amazing, that we can't even comprehend that. Hence -faith-, so that we can move on and get to processing the more mundane, IE: our own perspectives that govern our instinctual needs against our social mores.

cheers

[themeecer]

Originally posted by cerebus
Heh, heh. Well Themeecer, I thank you for your respectfulness in telling me to "shove it" (in my experience, this is a common Christian expression of respectfulness).
Honestly, that was the nicest way I could word it. Kind of like .. I love ya man ... but shut your trap, kind of thing.


Originally posted by cerebus
I once made the mistake of trying to argue with a member of the "Flat Earth Society" (who, coincidentally, was a devout Christian) and tried to prove to him that the earth was round, but that didn't work either.
Interesting, he must have not been to well read of a Christian. If he had read his bible he would have known the Earth is round. Its in there.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
Hmmm. Tooth Fairy, Easterbunny, Santa Claus, God...some people just don't outgrow the need for a psychological/ emotional "teddybear" or "comfort blanket".

This belief system requires you to assume your own superiority over others; and requires you to assume your wisdom is so great that you inherently understand the deepest motivations of people you haver never met (and, I presume, the deepest meanings of branches of academia you have never studied).

Since I can't accept these assumptions for myself, you'll understand that I find your belief system lacking.

It's unavoidable, and always will be, that we encounter people who are different than ourselves. I've always found this curious: rather than find meaning from these novel stimuli, a vast many people attribute them simply to everyone else's inferiority. If anything, this rejection of novel ideas is an excellent defense mechanism for own's own belief system: by rejecting, ad hoc, anything which differs from it, it is never called into question. Sadly, then, it can also never grow.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
To Christopher M, which "branches of academia" are you referring to?

Specifically, the one which you are casting aspersions on: theology.


As for you finding my belief system 'lacking', I've not stated my belief system so I'm not sure how you could find it lacking

I said this belief system, referring to the quote. If you would like to retract it or claim you do not hold it, that would be more than amenable.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
Faith is believing in something for which there is insufficient proof, and I'm not one for "believing" something without proof.

What standard of proof are you using?

Certainly you're not being literal, unless the skeptic's problem has been solved without me knowing. Certainly not the scientific standard, unless everything you do is either meaningless or based on a peer-reviewed study. What, then, is your standard for proof that establishes your critique?

Returning to my initial critique, what proof do you have of your superiority and of your ability to know the deepest motivations of people you don't know? Both of these are required beliefs of the stance you put forth.


Also, since I was commenting on the psychology of peoples' needs for such beliefs, I certainly don't need to have studied theology at all, just psychology

The psychology of X requires knowledge of X, regardless of what X is, and regardless of one's knowledge of psychology.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
what standard of proof I'm 'requiring' for a belief in God. To which I say: Any rational, logical proof at all, since there is none.

Are we talking about a universal ethic here, or are we talking about theology?

What's the difference? A universal ethic gives us the standard to make decisions about everything. A theology uses the modes of discourse present in theology.

I've argued, and you offered no reply, that neither logic nor science can supply the standard of proof for a universal ethic. Since you offered nothing in it's place (an example of such a standard would be "relevance to modern life", so you could pose your proof as "belief on God offers nothing relevant for modern living"), I conclude you're putting forth a theology and not a universal ethic.

In that case, I'd like to hear your refutation of the notion that "God is One" as put forth by the Platonists from Anaxagoras to Plotinus. To my knowledge, this hasn't been refuted.

So, you can either refute, within the realm of theology, all logical formulations of God. Or you escape the limits of theology and propose a standard for a universal ethic. Until you do one of these, I don't see how your argument stands.


I never claimed to be superior, only you made that claim

Our discussing concerns the variable "belief in God." I assume you do not hold that belief. Your argument clearly asserts that people who hold this belief are inferior (hence, inferior to you; hence, you are superior). You've yet to offer any reason for this assertion. (I'm assuming you're assigning a value of inferiority to your proposed observation of 'developmentally repressed' - 'yet to outgrow a psychological emotional blanket/can't stand on own two feet')


Aaaah, I see. God exists, just because people have faith that he does, but General Principles of Psychology cannot because CM says so.

No, I'll be quite happy to cede the possibility that God does not exist. All I ask is that someone wishing to argue for that possibility put forth arguments addressing the formal formulations of God's existence (theology). You can't do that if you don't know what they are.


By Cm's own theorem, if X=psychology, then "The psychology of pyschology requires a knowledge of psychology, regardless of one's knowledge of psychology."

Absolutely. Psychology of X requires knowledge of psychology, regardless of what X is (regardless of whether or not, per your hypothetical, it is psychology). Since we assume anyone thinking of doing a Psychology of X has knowledge of, at least, psychology, then they're allready well equipped to do a psychology of psychology. My theorem works fine.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
It's simple really: God is a mythological creation of humankind and has no objective existence.

You recognize that this is an assertion, not an argument, right? I'm trying to get you to make an argument.


And I have argued, and you offered no reply, that God is a myth, if you can prove otherwise, then do so.

No you haven't, you've asserted it. But to play nice I'll offer an argument to the contrary: the divine exists because we have neural machinery (in the temporal lobes) to percieve it and neural machinery doesn't evolve to percieve things which don't exist. I don't contend this is a complete argument, but it certainly puts the onus on you to put an argument behind your assertion which defeats this one.


First of all, how would what you offer as a "proof" be proof of ANYTHING?

Proof is an objective standard different people can look at to agree that something is the case. So scientific proof follows the scientific method and peer-review process. Philosophical proof follows the standards of logic. So there's no such thing as "proof", but rather kinds of proof. I'm asking you what kind you're using. One kind of proof people use is "relevance for modern life." It's an important kind of proof for universal ethics because "modern life" is the thing we all do every day. If we can look at "modern life" and find that thing X says nothing useful about it, then we can offer that forth as proof that thing X doesn't exist. You see in each case that the attribute "doesn't exist" is dependant upon the type of proof one is using, which is why it's so important that you establish your argument.


My assertion is that theology is mythology, research into human psychology and anthropology shows this rather clearly.

Ok; here is an argument. I contest "research into human psychology and anthropology shows this rather clearly". Now you can defend your argument by citing some of this research, so that the above premise rests on something other than your authority, which I do not grant.


"I conclude you're putting forth a theology..." Well then, you conclude wrong.

If you mean you're putting forth a universal ethic, then we return to the problem, addressed above, of determining what proof you're using. I offered up refutations of the basic proofs which you did not reply to, and a suggestion for one you could use, which you rejected. So this argument, at this point, is pretty empty (which is to say, currently refuted).


God's a myth.

In what way is this a refutation of the Platonic conception I asked about? This isn't an argument at all, but an assertion.


I never called anyone "inferior".

Just so we make this clear: you're contending that it's just as good to 'not be able to stand on your own two feet' as to be able to, and it's just as good to 'not outgrow a need for an emotional safety blanket' as to outgrow it?

Then, since these points are your criticisms of religion, it's just as good to be religious as not to be religious. Isn't that a refutation of your own position?


So you at least agree that I know what I'm talking about when discussing human psychology.

No, I do not grant that (although I have no interest in refuting it either).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
heh, heh, hey! How many of you out there are seeing or hearing (or any of the other 5 senses) God? I guess CM's one of the "chosen few".

I have no idea what you're referring to by "chosen few" and don't recall making such a claim. I assumed you would be familiar with the activity of the temporal lobes, as you said you had studied psychology (and particularly, what psychology might have to say about religion; of which this is fairly standard game).

For an introduction to this topic, see here (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Eguae.html) and here (http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/Heretic/religion.htm) (particularly, scroll down to "Producing Visions" to read about Dr. Persinger's work).


Hmmm, I guess you've never heard of drugs, delusions, insanity

Yes, I've heard of them. I'm not talking about the content of various senses (sane or insane), I'm talking about the presence of a certain sense whose job it is to create sensations of the divine. It's not, in any way, comparable to premutations in visual activity (or somatosensory activity, etc).


Well, if you don't want to check it yourself, I can't help that

If this is a legitimate argument, then I can say "God exists, you just don't want to check for yourself; I can't help that" and disprove your entire position. I contend this isn't a legitimate argument though, so how about we reject both of those statements? By the way, I've checked for myself, which is how I knew about the role of the temporal lobes.


Heh, heh, I figured you would realize that I see it as pointless to refute that a nonexistent entity is "One"

That's ok. Just don't, then, claim that you have refuted it. You're the one who said there is no "rational, logical proof at all." I'm glad to see you're retracting that comment now.


What's that have to do with whether or not God exists? If you're happy being a believer, go for it. If it makes you feel "good", then do it.

Just to be clear, you're contending precisely: "it's just as good to believe in God as not to believe in God," right?

You didn't answer my previous question: are you contending that it's just as good to 'not be able to stand on your own two feet' as to be able to, and it's just as good to 'not outgrow a need for an emotional safety blanket' as to outgrow it?

[Vash]

Faith doesn't require proof beyond itself. By definition, it demands there be no other proof, or it is no longer faith. It's possibility.

Also, faith, as I've seen it, is supposed to make as little sense as possible to those who are not sharing in the particular faith.

You are indeed asserting, cerebus, that this "outgrowing" the need for theology denotes a certain advancement from a specific point. That which you've yet to cover are the point from which we are advancing and the advantages of non-theological belief.
And please, do not say that you didn't say there was a superiority/inferiority issue in your argument. Use of the ideas of advancement and growth denote the s/i argument.

Oh, you might want to cover the functions of faith in the human psyche.

One more thing . . . your coming off as smug. This really doesn't do anything for an intelligent argument, as this thing between CM and yourself is. If you tone that bit down, it'll help your whole credibility issue.

Neitzche: "God is dead."

God (some time later): "Neitzche's dead."

[Xebsball]

"And then...

You die."

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
Well at least he's TRYING to dodge the real issues in true Christian fashion.

What am I dodging? I'll be happy to offer my best answer to any question you pose.


You claim "The divine exists because we have neural machinery to perceive it" (kinda like 'bigfoot exists 'cause I have neural machinery to perceive him').

First of all, your analogy is wrong. We don't have a "bigfoot sense." Second of all, I'm not claiming anything; I'm putting forth an argument and seeing if you can offer any response to it.


Now your statement either means that you have "perceived" God or you're just guessing that this is what the "neural machinery" you mention is for

No, my statement is a reference to scientific literature. I offered resources for you to verify what I'm saying. If you would like formal scientific citations, I can provide them on monday when I'm in the library.


Most people don't "perceive" God with any of their "neural machinery"

If you wish to respond to my argument, please read the research I am citing so that you can respond to it's contents, rather than trying to construe it's contents for yourself, and replying to that construction.


Actually, no, you can't, because I've been checking for myself for the past 25 years.

Ok, and I've been checking the psychological literature in question for myself as well. So we're back to being unable to assert at one another "Just look and you'll find I am right," which is where I wanted to be in the first place, right?


CM thinks that an "argument" and a "proof" are the same thing

With the exception of your allusion to scientific literature, as of yet unsupported, I've yet to see either an argument or a proof from you; so my ability or inability to distinguish the two are, so far, of little consequence.


"Just to be clear, you're contending precisely: "it's just as good to believe in God as not to believe in God," right?"
Which one of my posts are YOU contending that quote came from?

The one I'm replying to, on 10-17-2003 06:18 PM. It follows from the dialog where I allege your position requires you to believe you are superior, and you claim it does not. If you're unclear on this, please return to the second last paragraph of my post on 10-17-2003 05:53 PM.


"are you contending that it's just as good to 'not be able to stand on your own two feet' as to be able to"
I'm sorry, little buddy, but I'm grinning so hard my smile muscles are hurting :D LOL! You actually HAVEN'T read my posts, have you?

Again, this applies to the same dialog just mentioned. If you are sincerely confused, please see that same post (10-17-2003 05:53 PM) where I explicitly ask you that question (second last paragraph), and your reply in the post immediately following (your second last paragraph).

Also, please note I am asking for clarification, not attributing a quote to you.


So, to pander to your lack of post-reading ability, no, it's not "just as good" to NOT be able to stand on your own to feet.

Thank you for clarifying. Then I return to my original position: your original criticism of religion clearly states your own superiority. If you're not following this logic: your original position was that religious beliefs result from being unable to stand on your own feet, and here you clarify clearly that you mean to imply this is a state of inferiority. Then, provided my assumption that you do not have religious beliefs (and I think that's a fair assumption at this point) your position clearly asserts your own superiority. Again, I return to my original position (explicitly asked on 10-17-2003 04:10 PM): what proof do you have of your superiority? Since this is a necessary postulate of your position, if you can't defend it, your position is refuted.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by cerebus
CM just makes me laugh because my whole basic proposition is very simple but because he doesn't want to confront it head-on he takes refuge in going off on tangents and chastises me for not writing things out according to the "directions" he tries to give me on how I must present my discussion to him (fixating on the "form" the discussion takes rather than the actual points of the discussion itself).

Yeah, he always does that. It's why I gave up trying to discuss things with him too.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
Besides, who am I to point out to someone that their "neural machinery" is firmly lodged within their "excretory machinery"?

Ok, that's fine. As I have no interest in this kind of discussion, I'll withdraw now. It's been nice speaking with you. If anyone else would like to take me up on any of these points, I'll be happy to oblige them.

Cerebus - if you would like a response from me on something from my last post, please take it up with me privately.

[Xebsball]

Set the controls for
the heart of the sun

the heart of the sun

the heart of the sun

[Starchaser107]

http://www.theonion.com/3942/top_story.html


:D