| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/02/2007 02:09:17 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And this is the point that Ron is making; that in his eyes (and he's far from alone in this) the Holy Catholic Church has strayed so far from the teachings of Christ that its communicants can scarcely be called "Christian" at all.
It's a logical point, it's a valid distinction, it's up to you (as a Christian) to decide whether you agree with him or not — but he doesn't deserve to be sniped at like this as if he's somehow saying something ridiculous and off-the-wall.
IMO, of course.
R. |
I have not seen any evidence that other churches (Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Christian etc.) are any less removed from the teachings of Christ than the Catholic Church. Perhaps that was not the case in the days of Martin Luther, but sadly, I think they have all followed paths away from Christ.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 02:20:17 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I have not seen any evidence that other churches (Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Christian etc.) are any less removed from the teachings of Christ than the Catholic Church. Perhaps that was not the case in the days of Martin Luther, but sadly, I think they have all followed paths away from Christ. |
Really? How much theology have you studied? There are some radical fundamental differences between Catholicism and every other denomination you list. The concepts of purgatory, excommunication, the Virgin Mary being elevated to a quasi demi-god status, etc. There are major conceptual rifts between Catholicism and most every Protestant faith. Certainly of the three I just listed, Christ himself gave no teachings to support or deny these ideas.
It takes zero thought to offer the idea that 'all have followed paths away from Christ' because you base that on your interpretation of Christ's teachings. The exact thing that they have all done and the precise reason for each of them considering the rest to be heretical to varying degrees. |
|
|
|
12/02/2007 02:31:03 PM · #203 |
Respectfully sir, please get yourself a copy of a concordance. I believe you are mistaken on a few of your points. I do however think you are correct, if I read you right, one should not need another group's creed to follow, but should seek those of like mind who wish to follow the Bible's teaching, and gather together on the first day of the week to praise God and have communion and fellowship.
Originally posted by posthumous:
.....There is nothing in the Bible about how to run a church, how to structure a church service. There is nothing in there about the Trinity or communion. There are only a few vague statements about what happens after you die. There is nothing in the Bible about abortion, or homosexuals in committed relationships, or Middle East foreign policy. Just about everything Christians do, including their most basic tenets and rituals, is based on interpretation of the Bible. The Bible does not lay it out...... Some Christians will tell you they don't have to follow Kosher laws because Christ is the fulfillment of the law. That is an interpretation as well. Christianity has never been based on the strict literal reading of a sacred text, if only because their sacred text is too complex for that........ |
Message edited by author 2007-12-02 22:30:01.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 02:44:49 PM · #204 |
| Actually, this thread is really turning into a great example of what atheists must tolerate. No matter how amicably you voice your thoughts or what kind of help you're asking for, you'll be drowned by the majority view in no time at all. Watch as they eviscerate each other on the finer points of their various fictions. Marvel at how their hair-splitting divides them one from the other. |
|
|
|
12/02/2007 03:19:23 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
It's impossible to derive Christianity from merely reading the Bible. You must see it through the lens of interpretation. |
fwiw...
this very sentiment is the basis for my continued presentation that a red letter edition is helpful to beginners and long standing students alike. Just because someone says a thing is so (even a noted biblical scholar), is a thing necessarily so. If the words Christ is quoted as saying in scripture are in fact direct quotes of "his intent", AND if Christ is the direct son of God, then all scripture must conform in its meanings/interpretation to that presented in red letter verses. This is the crux (for me at least) to deciphering interpretation. Anytime an interpretation is given reagrding a Bible verse, then it must (to me) be compatible with Christ's actual words. If it is not compatible, then either the interpretation is in error, or some other explaination (as in perfery evidence - ie through archeology) must be sought before acceptance can be granted.
Again, just because someone says a thing is so, does not make it so. Regardless of who that someone might be.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 03:29:24 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Actually, this thread is really turning into a great example of what atheists must tolerate. No matter how amicably you voice your thoughts or what kind of help you're asking for, you'll be drowned by the majority view in no time at all. Watch as they eviscerate each other on the finer points of their various fictions. Marvel at how their hair-splitting divides them one from the other. |
Awwwww. I'm towwy. All de tings da poor wittle afiest must towewate. If you are being serious then you are delusional.
Amicable? If "amicable" is how you're defining your comments and actions here all one needs to do is read the last two sentences of your post to see different. Frankly, if the types of baiting and insults that are permitted in the religious discussions on this site were within any other topic it would most certainly be locked. The only difference is that one or two of the main participants in every single one of these arguments has the keys. |
|
|
|
12/02/2007 03:33:04 PM · #207 |
| By "amicable", I was referring to the very tolerant and likable jhonan. I don't pretend to be likable. If you are accusing anyone of baiting, I wouldn't toss that particular stone out of your glass house. And if you're accusing scalvert of something, have the courage to actually say it out loud. |
|
|
|
12/02/2007 03:37:03 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Again, just because someone says a thing is so, does not make it so. Regardless of who that someone might be. |
Prcisely the problem with accepting the literal word of the Bible as a direct and unambiguous expression of God's will ... show me one scrap a papyrus in Jesus' own writing and I might be more impressed (after I learn Aramaic, that is) than with who knows how many (mis-)translations and copying errors the version you subscribe to has experienced. |
|
|
|
12/02/2007 03:51:40 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Actually, this thread is really turning into a great example of what atheists must tolerate. No matter how amicably you voice your thoughts or what kind of help you're asking for, you'll be drowned by the majority view in no time at all. Watch as they eviscerate each other on the finer points of their various fictions. Marvel at how their hair-splitting divides them one from the other. |
The majority in this discussion are certainly those who are apparently against belivers of any faith. If this thread is an example of anything, it is the opposite of what you describe. |
|
|
|
12/02/2007 03:53:06 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
Again, just because someone says a thing is so, does not make it so. Regardless of who that someone might be. |
Prcisely the problem with accepting the literal word of the Bible as a direct and unambiguous expression of God's will ... show me one scrap a papyrus in Jesus' own writing and I might be more impressed (after I learn Aramaic, that is) than with who knows how many (mis-)translations and copying errors the version you subscribe to has experienced. |
GeneralE,
I concur that an initial reaction might be as you suggest - that the original text, having been bastardized multiple times through erroneous translations, might be quite off the mark of the original remarks. This is a position I myself challenged. After having read 3 Bibles (King James, New Jeruselum, and an NIV) side by side verse by verse for a few books, I concluded that for me, there was not enough difference bewteen them (regarding intent) for it to matter to me. I then choose the NIV to study from as its prose was easier for this English Literaure major to understand. A Strong's Concordance which allows translation of original greek/hebrew/aramaic was also purchased and used for any words/phrases whereby I challenged a particular translation or a more specific definition was needed to qualify an interpretation. Needless to say that after roughly 3 years of this intense analysis, I concluded - FOR ME, that an NIV (New International Version) Red Letter edition was all I needed to reference God's/Christ's intention. You may need another course. This path may not work for you at all. You may require an extensive assignment at the Vatican as a translator or even work on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Jeruselum. Your path is your choice. However, to discard/discredit all Biblical translations as erroneous is too broad a stroke. However it does make it easier to not believe.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 04:39:29 PM · #211 |
Here's a great example of what I'm talking about. It's this type of idea which needs to proliferate;
Sunday School for Atheists
An estimated 14% of Americans profess to have no religion, and among 18-to-25-year-olds, the proportion rises to 20%, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies. The lives of these young people would be much easier, adult nonbelievers say, if they learned at an early age how to respond to the God-fearing majority in the U.S. "It's important for kids not to look weird," says Peter Bishop, who leads the preteen class at the Humanist center in Palo Alto. Others say the weekly instruction supports their position that it's O.K. to not believe in God and gives them a place to reinforce the morals and values they want their children to have. |
|
|
|
12/02/2007 06:34:31 PM · #212 |
But the Muslims, on the other hand, start teaching their children their beliefs relentlessly at a very young age what they are to do in their life and what they are to do to non-believers of their faith. If us infidels don't wake up and quit squabbling over meaningless political crap and do what must be done to preserve our freedom we will be praising Alla or have our heads cut off. It is total insanity to let our enemies control our energy requirements while we refuse to
drill off shore in the very areas Mexico is drilling. No new refineries or nuclear power plants in how many years? Sorry for getting so far off topic.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 06:38:00 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
But the Muslims, on the other hand, start teaching their children their beliefs relentlessly at a very young age what they are to do in their life and what they are to do to non-believers of their faith. If us infidels don't wake up and quit squabbling over meaningless political crap and do what must be done to preserve our freedom we will be praising Alla or have our heads cut off. It is total insanity to let our enemies control our energy requirements while we refuse to drill off shore in the very areas Mexico is drilling. No new refineries or nuclear power plants in how many years? Sorry for getting so far off topic. |
Amazing - You posted approximately ten different rant topics all in one paragraph! |
|
|
|
12/02/2007 06:44:40 PM · #214 |
I could post more if you like.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 09:02:13 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I could post more if you like. |
Maybe you could just edit your link below so this thread isn't 17 miles wide. |
|
|
|
12/02/2007 09:07:08 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by David Ey:
I could post more if you like. |
Maybe you could just edit your link below so this thread isn't 17 miles wide. |
Right; go back to edit your post, copy/delete the url, click the 3rd icon from right (the little globe), paste in the URL, give it a name, and there ya go :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 09:33:53 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by Louis:
By "amicable", I was referring to the very tolerant and likable jhonan. I don't pretend to be likable. If you are accusing anyone of baiting, I wouldn't toss that particular stone out of your glass house. And if you're accusing scalvert of something, have the courage to actually say it out loud. |
First off, likable is hardly amicable. I can have many amicable discussions with people I dislike and vice-versa. That being said, I think we can throw your "good ol' amicable" argument out after this comment:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Thank you Kevin for re-affirming my decision to question my faith and moving me closer to embracing Atheism. If you can't even accept that we're all Christians, then you're welcome to it. |
Not saying he doesn't have the right to say what he wants, just stop trying to substitute his likability with the definition of being amicable. I wouldn't consider that reply a friendly one. Would you?
Secondly - as far as the rest of it goes, you question my "e-courage" (yes, I'm laughing) when I already said it as plain as I could? Once again, if these types of baiting and insults were thrown around on any other topic here that thread would be locked and/or posts would be hidden. You guys are allowed to generalize believers as unintelligent, uneducated, hardheaded fact ignorers but if I offer up an opinion then I should be stifled? Clear enough? Furthermore, I have answered every question you have asked of me. It would be nice to get the same in return.
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Phil:
Why not tell me if I'm wrong or right by assuming that you are saying that the majority of the EU (79% believe in something, remember?) are uneducated? |
Certainly not. I reported statistics, you may interpret them however you like. You are even free to mischaracterise everything I've said and put words in my mouth, although that will only ultimately discredit you. |
Why do I feel like I'm pulling teeth?
Do you or do you not believe that the majority of people who believe in something {spiritual} are uneducated?
Pretty simple question to answer don't you think? |
Message edited by author 2007-12-02 21:34:51. |
|
|
|
12/02/2007 09:36:53 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I have not seen any evidence that other churches (Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Christian etc.) are any less removed from the teachings of Christ than the Catholic Church. Perhaps that was not the case in the days of Martin Luther, but sadly, I think they have all followed paths away from Christ. |
Really? How much theology have you studied? There are some radical fundamental differences between Catholicism and every other denomination you list. The concepts of purgatory, excommunication, the Virgin Mary being elevated to a quasi demi-god status, etc. There are major conceptual rifts between Catholicism and most every Protestant faith. Certainly of the three I just listed, Christ himself gave no teachings to support or deny these ideas.
It takes zero thought to offer the idea that 'all have followed paths away from Christ' because you base that on your interpretation of Christ's teachings. The exact thing that they have all done and the precise reason for each of them considering the rest to be heretical to varying degrees. |
I was not referring to the specific dogma of any faith. I was referring to the actions of those that profess to be one faith or the other. (e.g. Conservative Christians, whom one would expect to follow Christ's central teaching of "Turn the other cheek", calling for retribution, war and execution in the same breath that they profess to follow Christ.)
Message edited by author 2007-12-02 21:37:57.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 10:43:30 PM · #219 |
OK, sorry. Didn't realize it made the thread wider....didn't for me.
anyway, tried the other way and it only added more junk to it so I trashed it.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by David Ey:
I could post more if you like. |
Maybe you could just edit your link below so this thread isn't 17 miles wide. |
Right; go back to edit your post, copy/delete the url, click the 3rd icon from right (the little globe), paste in the URL, give it a name, and there ya go :-)
R. |
|
|
|
|
12/03/2007 08:50:40 AM · #220 |
| In addition to the Sunday School idea, there is also Camp Quest, a secular summer camp which has a program here in Ontario as well as several states. |
|
|
|
12/03/2007 09:12:53 AM · #221 |
Originally posted by Phil:
First off, likable is hardly amicable. I can have many amicable discussions with people I dislike and vice-versa. That being said, I think we can throw your "good ol' amicable" argument out after this comment:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Thank you Kevin for re-affirming my decision to question my faith and moving me closer to embracing Atheism. If you can't even accept that we're all Christians, then you're welcome to it. |
Not saying he doesn't have the right to say what he wants, just stop trying to substitute his likability with the definition of being amicable. I wouldn't consider that reply a friendly one. Would you? |
I always thought that Amicable was a sub-set of Likable. |
|
|
|
12/03/2007 09:16:35 AM · #222 |
Originally posted by Louis:
In addition to the Sunday School idea, there is also Camp Quest, a secular summer camp which has a program here in Ontario as well as several states. |
I found the website of the Humanist Association of Ireland who have been working to introduce secular ceremonies (birth, marriage, death) as well as establishing Educate Together non-religious schools. I've emailed them to find out more. |
|
|
|
12/03/2007 09:20:13 AM · #223 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
I always thought that Amicable was a sub-set of Likable. |
"Amicable" is most properly used to characterize relationships between people, or between groups such as different religions; "While they did not agree on many theological issues, the two sects maintained amicable relations with each other."
"Likable" is a quality most properly appended to an individual.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2007 11:03:36 AM · #224 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Louis:
In addition to the Sunday School idea, there is also Camp Quest, a secular summer camp which has a program here in Ontario as well as several states. |
I found the website of the Humanist Association of Ireland who have been working to introduce secular ceremonies (birth, marriage, death) as well as establishing Educate Together non-religious schools. I've emailed them to find out more. |
There's a similar orgnisation in Toronto - complete with the same style of logo. It also promotes secular ceremonies and offers contacts for officiants. |
|
|
|
12/03/2007 11:12:20 AM · #225 |
| Of all the dumbest things, the Flying Spaghetti Monster people are the subject of harrasment. A couple of students at their university - who have been caught - posted a printed edit of a Wikipedia article on the dorm room of the president and vice-president of the Pastafarian Club. It read, in part, that "it has been proven that throughout all of history every pastafarian has been gay. Many believe they should be shot and hanged from the tallest redwood and then thrown to the raging sea." Asked about whether or not the group seeks to attack religion, the president's response was, "We just want to be groovy." |
|
