|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2007 12:38:30 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Louis:
You spoke earlier of how self-righteous atheists are. What is not self-righteous about what you say?
|
I don't see it. What exactly is self-righteous about what he is saying? |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:39:52 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
I'm sorry Louis. I thought we weren't making assumptions here. Maybe your interpretation of Catholicism says that but my interpretation of Christianity doesn't say that you have to belong to the club for me to have pity. |
Actually, if you read my post carefully, you would have seen that my observance of Catholics is that they do consider themselves to be acting on behalf of the whole of humanity, and not the insider's club.
Originally posted by dudephil:
Christianity is certainly concerned with humanity but we must start with ourselves. I am certainly not a devout, religious person but I am a Christian. I need work. However, if I can make an attempt to do a little something for someone everyday then I think I'm on the right path. If you don't believe then that is up to you. |
This seems to be saying that in order for you to do a good deed, you must first be Christian, which I take exception to. I pre-accept your apology if this is what you said, but didn't mean.
Originally posted by dudephil:
I just don't see the need in routinely dragging up a topic that only drags the same participants into a 4 day argument. |
Who was the bum who forced you to participate in this one? I'll fix him good! |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:43:18 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Belief in God and knowledge of the necessity of your salvation does not mean you just got a magic pill to heath, wealth, and happiness with zero life troubles. That's not what it was about from the beginning. It was about the knowledge that you're a sinner, I'm a sinner, I have a debt owed by the nature of God... |
etc. I don't know how else you'd do it, but the statements you make in your description of what Christianity means to you are the kinds of statements that really bother me, because you appear to be making incontrovertible assertions. In any other context, you would seem to be stating facts, but there is nothing factual in anything you are saying.
As I said, I have no idea how else you would express your belief except to assert that it's true. The inclusion of everyone else in your description ("you are a sinner" and so on) is particularly troubling to me however. Even the added caveat "I hold that" would have alleviated some of this.
You spoke earlier of how self-righteous atheists are. What is not self-righteous about what you say?
I mention all of this not to single you out individually, but because yours are a few of those universal default assumptions people make that have no context outside of their personal system of belief. But when I assert that the church should be doing better things with its collosal pile of money than building gigantic churches with it, I am "ranting and raving" according to Sher, being hypocritical according to you, and being disingenuous in not allowing donated university wings to enter into the discussion according to RonB. I don't get it.
edit: added "it" to "i don't get" (might have been "any", and I wouldn't want anyone to make that mistake :P) |
What's self-righteous in saying that I'm so pathetically sinful that I need another's sacrifice to save me?
God is universal, or he's non-existent. That my statements ARE bothersome by nature is true, and yes, I did apply it to everyone. If my statements weren't bothersome, they would have no meaning.
Even if you don't go by the Christian faith, I doubt that everyone has even held to secular humanism to perfection, so in that sense yes, everyone has sinned by any moral system you want to throw out there. Probably even satanism.
It's not my personal system of belief, it's God's revelation to mankind, take it or leave it. I don't think he put it in any different terms to me than I put forth to you. If I were to say anything less, I would be a hypocrite, believing one thing and saying what I think not to be true. You being uncomfortable has no point. It makes me uncomfortable when you say things like "there is no God", does that make them any less true all of the sudden? Truth does not hinge on comfort.
Besides, that, if you take the "personal belief" system to it's logical conclusion, I am right to say anything I please because I personally believe it. By your system, I'd see you as a hypocrite for questioning my right to have a personal belief even if it does include statements about my fellow humans. I mean, if everyone is right, how can you seriously call me wrong?
The reaction about the 60mil was defensive, I have to admit. But on the flip-side, I kind of doubt you had any altruistic purpose of converting Christians to good with this post. Goading people and getting the respected response should not be a surprising thing.
ewdit- clarity,punctuation ::sigh::
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 00:46:10.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:54:36 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Actually, if you read my post carefully, you would have seen that my observance of Catholics is that they do consider themselves to be acting on behalf of the whole of humanity, and not the insider's club. |
You aren't a believer. I do not act on your behalf. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't help you out if you weren't in need. See how I can help you even if you aren't "in the club"? If I do help you out then I'm acting on your behalf? Seriously?
Originally posted by Louis:
This seems to be saying that in order for you to do a good deed, you must first be Christian, which I take exception to. I pre-accept your apology if this is what you said, but didn't mean. |
Not what I said and not what I meant. I offer up no apology for the assumptions that you consistantly preach against. Many people who aren't Christians do good deeds. Many people who are Christians do not do good deeds. I am not generalizing. I am only speaking for myself, my beliefs and my actions.
I'll make this quote then I'm done. Although they are the words of an atheist, I find them uplifting.
"Unless you assume a god, the question of life's purpose is meaningless." |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:55:01 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Belief in God and knowledge of the necessity of your salvation does not mean you just got a magic pill to heath, wealth, and happiness with zero life troubles. That's not what it was about from the beginning. It was about the knowledge that you're a sinner, I'm a sinner, I have a debt owed by the nature of God... |
And you know this how exactly? Because you were told and/or read it somewhere? Talk about making assumptions! I have a real hard time listening to a preacher tell toddlers that they're all sinners. That's basically asserting that all humans are defective at time of manufacture. I demand a refund. ;-P |
I could ask you the same about God. You know he doesn't exist how, exactly? (I'm thinking I remember you as an atheist here, sorry if I'm wrong) Can you prove it? Even my stepfather, a Chemistry PhD, has a 160 or so IQ doesn't argue with me on that one. Worked as a scientist for over 40 years, so he knows the scientific process. You simple cannot prove that something doesn't exist, you can only prove what does exist.
What's the point of being saved if you're not a sinner? Even the best of people still fall short of God. (if he's not a perfect God, it's kind of pointless, isn't it?) I think the nature of mankind in general pretty much proves the case. We all have our fallen moments, some more, some less. Just because you're better does not make you perfect. Since perfection is the law, then we need to either pay for our imperfections and law-breaking, or we need someone to pay for them for us.
I'd demand a refund, but I'd have to ask Adam and Eve about that. Jerks.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:09:09 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
(I'm thinking I remember you as an atheist here, sorry if I'm wrong) |
I've never actually said, but I do enjoy a good debate. ;-)
Originally posted by wavelength:
You simple cannot prove that something doesn't exist, you can only prove what does exist. |
Excellent! Then proving God does exist should be a much easier task. Go for it!
Originally posted by wavelength:
We all have our fallen moments... Since perfection is the law... |
Assumptions. A baby hasn't been around long enough to have a fallen moment, but the church declares that the poor kid has already screwed up so badly that payment is required. Interesting that we must "pay" rather than offer service or correct the offense. That's sort of where this thread started, huh? ;-) |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:11:00 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
What's self-righteous in saying that I'm so pathetically sinful that I need another's sacrifice to save me? |
Right about here:
Originally posted by wavelength:
It's not my personal system of belief, it's God's revelation to mankind, take it or leave it. |
I have no choice but to point out that you are talking in absolutes that have nothing to do with reality.
Originally posted by wavelength:
Besides, that, if you take the "personal belief" system to it's logical conclusion, I am right to say anything I please because I personally believe it. By your system, I'd see you as a hypocrite for questioning my right to have a personal belief even if it does include statements about my fellow humans. I mean, if everyone is right, how can you seriously call me wrong? |
I don't fully understand this paragraph, but 1. you can certainly say anything you please, 2., I didn't question your right to have a personal belief system, and 3., I don't remember calling you "wrong". I took exception to certain universal absolutes you mentioned that were neither.
Originally posted by wavelength:
But on the flip-side, I kind of doubt you had any altruistic purpose of converting Christians to good with this post. Goading people and getting the respected response should not be a surprising thing. |
Again, if you think I'm goading, nobody's pointing a gun at your head to participate. If you genuinely think the discourse in this discussion is that low, you shouldn't take part. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:24:42 AM · #108 |
It really is amazing how the same arguments run around in many a thread here at DPC and pretty much any other forum on the internet that allows discussions about religion.
The bottom line in all of those is: you cannot prove existence of a god, GOd, or gods, and neither you can disprove it.
However, the way I see the original post is wastefulness. The pathetic thing is, it came from the very institution that should not be wasteful by the principles it was built on.
There aren't many threads about Bank of America's new building (just picked BofA because I drove past it the other day, building a new office somewhere, not that they are the worst in any way) - and yet they have spent probably more money than the church. It also came out of our pockets, our voluntary 'donations' to banks.
The issue here is with the double-standards... and I will not try to single out Catholic church for it, as someone already noted - you pick a religion and you will find grand monuments to the wrongdoings of the spiritual leadership that crossed into material world.
On the other hand, why spend money helping the poor. This planet is running out of resources anyway, why support something that will better those 3rd world countries. They are better off just barely living, keep their natality to ~0%, have them manufacture something for us, but don't give high technology to them. Darn Chinese, should have stayed on bicycles, now with all those high tech companies outsourcing there, they showed them that driving is nicer than riding, and now Chinese need billions of barrels of oil a day. A mistake.
I'm sure that for every Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, there are 4 unnamed individuals that are worried about the economic growth in the 3rd world countries, and act to either stop or even better, reverse the progress there.
This may be pure fantasy on my part, but as someone here in this thread mentioned, if such acts will make John Doe's family happy because he will have gas for his guzzler 5 more years if the people of Sudan just continue to walk barefoot, then it is a good deed.
Sheesh.
I only wish that people that swear by the bible/kur'an/whatnot would act according to the spirit of those books, as intended by the original authors of the documents, and not according to the derived views. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:26:28 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Besides, that, if you take the "personal belief" system to it's logical conclusion, I am right to say anything I please because I personally believe it. By your system, I'd see you as a hypocrite for questioning my right to have a personal belief even if it does include statements about my fellow humans. I mean, if everyone is right, how can you seriously call me wrong? |
I don't fully understand this paragraph, but 1. you can certainly say anything you please, 2., I didn't question your right to have a personal belief system, and 3., I don't remember calling you "wrong". I took exception to certain universal absolutes you mentioned that were neither. |
Okay, but why take exception if I have a perfect right to say what I think is right, even that being a universal absolute? Is it a universal abolute that I'm not allowed to make universal absolutes? Kind of a self-negating position. On one hand I can't make one, then you're putting a different one on me.
Take exception means to challenge, if I've said nothing wrong in your eyes it's pointless to challenge me.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:32:17 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
I'm sure that for every Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, there are 4 unnamed individuals that are worried about the economic growth in the 3rd world countries, and act to either stop or even better, reverse the progress there. |
You make some pretty good points but, maybe not best to use Bill Gates as an example vs. the third world //www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
Originally posted by srdanz:
I only wish that people that swear by the bible/kur'an/whatnot would act according to the spirit of those books, as intended by the original authors of the documents, and not according to the derived views. |
AMEN.
What was intended by the original authors again? :P
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:34:48 AM · #111 |
hey, goodnight all. good, lively discussion.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:35:21 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Besides, that, if you take the "personal belief" system to it's logical conclusion, I am right to say anything I please because I personally believe it. By your system, I'd see you as a hypocrite for questioning my right to have a personal belief even if it does include statements about my fellow humans. I mean, if everyone is right, how can you seriously call me wrong? |
I don't fully understand this paragraph, but 1. you can certainly say anything you please, 2., I didn't question your right to have a personal belief system, and 3., I don't remember calling you "wrong". I took exception to certain universal absolutes you mentioned that were neither. |
Okay, but why take exception if I have a perfect right to say what I think is right, even that being a universal absolute? Is it a universal abolute that I'm not allowed to make universal absolutes? Kind of a self-negating position. On one hand I can't make one, then you're putting a different one on me.
Take exception means to challenge, if I've said nothing wrong in your eyes it's pointless to challenge me. |
Just because I acknowledge your right to say anything you like doesn't mean I'll sit idly by and let you get away with whatever you want to say. ;) In any kind of conversation like this, any universal absolute you put forward ("god exists whether you like it or not" and so on) is going to be challenged - like it or not. It's a position so untenable as to be begging for a challenge. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 01:51:13 AM · #113 |
I wanted to compare the good deeds of Bill and Warren to the counteracting influences from the machinery of the 1st and 2nd world.
Originally posted by wavelength:
AMEN.
What was intended by the original authors again? :P |
My personal view, derived from what little I know about the history of the world:
At all times, humans were attracted to natural events that affected their lives and learned to attribute those to supernatural forces. Before the advent of states and organized government structures, a couple of smart people that were well ahead of their contemporaries, figured out how to use natural/supernatural to prescribe certain rules to the rest of the populus under a threat of physical pain in the case of insubordination.
The books of rules evolved over time, and the content was mostly based on specific events and conditions in the parts of the world where they originated. Those books were very good in teaching people what to do and what not to do in order to lead better life. Some of the things were a bit extreme, (kind of like the evolution of basic/advanced editing rulesets here at DPC) but were necessary since it was not possible to trust the humans with ability to recognize the important points.
Therefore, we were left with different versions of the Talmud, Bible, Kur'an...
In the meantime, humans learned to organize around governments that initially used the church/mosque to establish their rule, but over the centuries learned to write their own sets of rules (called constitutions and laws) and marginalize the religious institutions. The latter felt endangered by the moves, but learned the tricks and are attempting to fight back. Look at the Iranian revolution, look at the evangelical uprising in the States, look at the shifts in the ex-communist countries where the religious organizations jumped in to fill the void left by the removal of the secular constitutional governments... even look at Iraq that was as close to a secular state as it was possible...
The books I mentioned and their authors had intentions to help the humans live in this world. The world has changed, and so did the manuscripts, and their interpretation.
Lively discussion indeed. Just remember y'all, to have a discussion you have to be ready to present arguments, theories, and facts, and try to explain/defend your thoughts. Presenting something unilaterally seen as a fact and refusing to discuss its validity does not yield a good discussion. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:24:21 AM · #114 |
| Whoo! My internet was out for a bit and I haven't read the recent posts. Not sure at this point I'll be catching up on them, but I did want to say that I read the response to my question and I appreciate it. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:27:14 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I suffer. 60 mil would end it, I assure you. Gimme. |
Me too, and I'd be nice and share with the disadvantaged whatever is leftover after I am no longer on this earth.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 02:50:52 AM · #116 |
| But the really important question - is the new building photogenic? Would it make a good challenge entry at some point? |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:17:39 AM · #117 |
For what it's worth:
DOES FATIMA NEED THIS CHURCH
Some have argued that Fatima does not even need a new church, but those people do not live here. There have been many times when I have had to go to Mass twice simply because I could not get through the crowds to go to communion and I am not talking about feast days, but on regular Sundays. The Basilica of Fatima holds 900 people seated but at almost every Sunday Mass there are more than 1,500 people, some outside hearing the Mass from speakers. The Church is beautiful but in the winter you are freezing to death inside. Because of the high ceiling there is no way to heat it and unless you stand next to the heaters you are going to be very cold. This is not a problem on the feast days of Fatima from May 13 through October 13 because these are the warm months and these Masses are always outside in the large square. As someone who lives here and who goes to Mass everyday at the Shrine, I know we need a new church. Almost everyday of the week there are at least 10 Masses in 5 locations at the Shrine and these are getting harder and harder to attend because of the crowds. On some days there are as many as 20 Masses.
Source: //www.unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/FatimaBasilica.htm
Includes some shots of the architect's model, describes the design criteria, discusses the entire project (it's a LOT more than just a building) etc.
I haven't been able to dig up any exterior photos of the finished project yet...
R.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 12:33:39 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I haven't been able to dig up any exterior photos of the finished project yet... |
Picture
and
another one |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 12:42:19 PM · #119 |
God is dead. Digital killed him.
Or is that film is dead? I dont remember. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:05:54 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I haven't been able to dig up any exterior photos of the finished project yet... |
Picture
and
another one |
I like the quote near the end of the second link. Pretty much sums it up.
TimesOnline quote
One can echo Franz Werfel's words about Lourdes. "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible".
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:10:09 PM · #121 |
That story ups the pricetag to €80M. And now my main objection is its general ugliness. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 04:06:53 PM · #122 |
| Nice to see Fatima now has it's own dedicated nuclear bunker. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 05/23/2024 02:12:48 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/23/2024 02:12:48 PM EDT.
|
