|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 28th, 2003 03:27 PM | |||||||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
|
||||||||
| Jul 27th, 2003 10:04 PM | |||||||||
| Zero Signal | I have no proof that YOU exist, so why should I listen to anything that YOU say? | ||||||||
| Jul 27th, 2003 07:34 PM | |||||||||
| The Retro Kat | I hate Catholisism. All the rules, belief in a higher power and his son that we have no proof of. That's why I'm an atheist.[/list] | ||||||||
| Jul 26th, 2003 08:44 PM | |||||||||
| Sethomas |
I just thought I'd dig this back up because I was reminded of something. As far as choosing a faction of Christianity goes, you have the orthodox group (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Eastern/Russian Orthodox, Eastern Rite Catholicism, & cetera), the Protestant factions (Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, & cetera), and sola scriptura Christianity (non-denominational). Of these, all but Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and sola scriptura were born of the ideas of specific figureheads in a confined historical context. It hardly seems providentially likely God would intend his message to be "discovered" in such a narrow manner. Eastern Orthodoxy has simply lacked the integrity to hold up well against the forces of time, and has far too often made logical errors and shaped itself into a tool of politics. The main issue that can be made against Roman Catholicism is the amount of corruption it has endured, especially in the middle ages. But it has a self-sustaining rationalization of this, which is that to prevail through time it must be dynamic. To be dynamic it must incorporate a body of human intellect, and it is therefore subject to human error. The Church has often violated its own principles, but it has maintained its integrity by having never incorporated such corruption into its doctrine. What most people have concluded is that sola scriptura is the most logically sound flavor of Christianity, which irks me to no end because this idea is inherently flawed. These people worship the bible without any sounds logic for doing so whatsoever. The books that comprise the New Testament were not made official until they were translated by St. Jerome in the 380s. By that time in history, Christianity was irrevocably catholic in nature. Sola scriptura has no sound explanation whatsoever for why it considers some books canon and not others, except for the fact that they stole the Bible from the Catholics. If this weren't so, then why haven't they introduced a single new work into the bible out of the shitloads of apocryphal literature that abounded in the early centuries? A favorite game of sola scripturists is to point at the passage in Revelations that curses those who would modify "this book". Guess what, THE BIBLE WAS NEVER CONSIDERED A SINGLE BOOK UNTIL THE NINTH CENTURY, so that quote by John of Patmos is quite irrelevant. Furthermore, in idolization of Martin Luther and the translators under King James, almost all sola scripturists neglect to use seven books of the Old Testament that contradict teachings against the importance of good works and the existance of purgatory. The rationale is that Jews don't consider them sacred books anymore. The truth is, they DID consider them sacred in the time of Christ, Christ NEVER refuted them, Christ USED THEM himself, and they weren't removed from Jewish canon until FORTY YEARS AFTER HE WAS DEAD. The blind hypocrisy is quite frustrating.[/i] |
||||||||
| Jul 4th, 2003 11:25 AM | |||||||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
Being Catholic is about the community. We believe that one's relationship with God is important, but so is the relationship with thwe community. |
||||||||
| Jul 4th, 2003 03:14 AM | |||||||||
| Sethomas | So? | ||||||||
| Jul 4th, 2003 03:03 AM | |||||||||
| ziggytrix | Spritiuality is about a personal connection to the divine. It has nothing to do with the opinion of one's priest, community, or family. | ||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 10:55 PM | |||||||||
| AChimp |
Quote:
 You don't have to believe in it or practice it to know what it is about. |
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 09:08 PM | |||||||||
| Helm |
Well... God cannot be argued to either exist because 'existing' is a term which applies to logically quantifiable subjects. Thusly, anything that cannot be argued to exist or not is filed under 'irrelevant' which is very very close to "nonexistent" but not exactly. My belief in this however (or Ziggys, I'd guess), does not stop me from furthering the argument along a line I do not strictly follow myself. Besides, this matter we're discussing here does not tie in with the onotological argument and/or anyone's belief in god; It ties in with one's belief in Jesus' sayings, and apparently one's capacity for hypocritical behaviour. It is a moral issue, a social issuem ultimately not an ontological philosophical issue so I do not see the harm in persuing it regardless of my heathen nature. I would appreciate it if you would not question the first argument of this post in this thread. If you insist on more information on what I am saying, or (more likely) fervently desire to oppose it, start a new thread. Quote:
And thank you for insulting me. It's always nice to be reminded where you are. |
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 09:07 PM | |||||||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 09:00 PM | |||||||||
| VinceZeb | But there inlies your problem: You are an atheist. Atheist do not believe in a spiritual force or existance, so the very nature of spirituality or religion is foreign. | ||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 08:58 PM | |||||||||
| Helm |
Spiritual salvation is not something you can specialize on, inherently. The process of achieving it for yourself or others cannot be likened to a job, because it, again inherently, involves neither a clearly defined service or product, nor a need for such to be achieved. Spiritual salvation was last time a checked a matter of faith, and a matter of determination, neither of which can be sold or bought. And I'm an atheist, but playing devil's advocate once in a while is interesting. Especially over such an easy subject. |
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 08:52 PM | |||||||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
And the idea of priesthood doesn't come from that instance. Its the fact that Jesus took a large group (the Disciples) and preached to them away from the crowd so they could relay the Word to the masses. He then took another smaller group ( the Apostles) and gave them even more information and thought to bring to the masses. Thats not to say they are some better higher social class, just that they are the specialists who are trained to handle that specific job. |
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 08:38 PM | |||||||||
| Helm |
Quote:
|
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 08:30 PM | |||||||||
| ziggytrix | What a fucking cop-out. | ||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 08:29 PM | |||||||||
| VinceZeb | Religion is admittedly my best subject that I can go on and on about about this isn't the type of board that wants to read an essay about something. I think the others are doing just fine in explaining what being Catholic is and is not. | ||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 08:23 PM | |||||||||
| ziggytrix |
No parent can speak for a child's soul. It seems rather difficult to get that thru your skull, but then, presumably, you have been taught this from a very early age (another way of saying this is indoctrinated, but that has ugly connotations). It just seems rediculous, unless you believe that entire households are saved by the baptism of the head of the household, which wouldn't be so odd in a Romanic tradition, but the Christian tradition should be based on the Bible, and not on the practices of the old men who used to have the only copies of it. Jesus said, "No man may come to the father, but by ME." He did not say anything about the intercession of any body of clergy. Especially not some group of old men that credit the existence of their vocations to when Jesus called Peter a rock. edit: To Vince, Please, by all means, BRING IT. If you have ANYTHING to say that is not just parroting something your priest has told you. IF you have a single, independant thought in your head regarding the Chruch, I'd love to hear it. |
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 08:11 PM | |||||||||
| VinceZeb | Not a good idea to bait Catholics on the internet. This may suprise you, but when both atheists and fundies give you shit, you gotta know how to duke it out. | ||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 08:01 PM | |||||||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
Quote:
A lot of that is cultural, also. When Christianity was brought to the New World, a lot of the native people thought the saints were meant to be worshiped. Thats where the practice of "worshipping the saints" came from. The Church doesn't condone it at all. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, the RCC does not tell people to worship saints. Only to look up to them. They are humans that did follow Christ's teachings and show us it can be done. Quote:
|
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 07:38 PM | |||||||||
| ziggytrix |
Actually, it expands the role of priests in the community. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus talk about a need for priests. [Mary] is not an object of worship. she is a person we hold in high esteem. We treat her like the USA treats Washington, Lincoln etc. Not as a diety herself, but as a human who pulled off an extrodinary fete. Presuming we went to mediums to ask Washington, Lincoln, etc. thier opinions on current political policy, this would be a fair comparison. Quote:
Its a practice from the Middle Ages when there was sky high infant mortality rate. And really, do kids have any concept of half the shit we put them through? This is so beside the point as to be confirming my belief that your response is facetious. The point you are dodging is that a child makes no decision to be baptised, and as such, the ritual thru which Christians are redeemed is turned into a pointless baby-washing.  I mean, hell, if one can be baptised without thier consent, why don't we see an active wing of the Church running around baptising people commando-style so that the work of the Chruch (saving souls) can be even more successful! |
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 07:37 PM | |||||||||
| Zero Signal |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What is also amusing are the myriad of Catholic churchs, cathedrals, etc across Europe that claim to have artifacts in the form of bone material (fingers, thighs, etc.) from the apostles. They venerate them like some pagan shaman as if they can grant the power of God through them. Given the number of bones claimed, there must have been over 10,000 apostles and not 12. Right. |
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 05:19 PM | |||||||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 04:39 PM | |||||||||
| Zero Signal |
Quote:
The New Testament essentially abolishes the need for priests. It states that no man should know your personal situations; only God has any business knowing what your sins are. This also precludes the ludicrous notion that you need to pray to Mary to deliver your message to Jesus, and THEN God finally gets it. Nevermind that many Catholics see Mary as an object of worship, something expressly forbidden. Idolotry. Christening babies is a horrific practice, as well. The Bible states that baptism should only be performed on an individual that is of the mature understanding of what he is doing. Catholics have this notion of children being damned if they are not baptised. Babies have no perception of what is being done, and so baptising them at that age is ridiculous. There is more, certainly, but I have to leave for a movie right now. I will return later. |
||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 04:29 PM | |||||||||
| El Blanco | I like the kind with tha alhoe. | ||||||||
| Jul 3rd, 2003 04:25 PM | |||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
||||||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||||||||
