Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,283 Year: 5,540/9,624 Month: 565/323 Week: 62/143 Day: 5/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 46 of 380 (712417)
12-03-2013 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 12:35 PM


I'm actually not entirely sure, but even if I knew I would probably not wish to disclose it. Isn't exactly relevant anyway.
I was just curious (And I wanted to stalk your older messages.)
How important and real does that make your religion when on the quest for truth then?
Its not impotant at all for things I can discover in the lab. Its important for other things though.
Those are just semantics to make the catholic faith seem like it is reasonable and on par with rational thought.
How do you know? Maybe he was being sincere.
They will always seek to accommodate science as compatible as long as it does not directly conflict with the core teachings that the catholic church holds. I mean, come on, they still have a Pope figure for crying out loud
Why would they stop having a Pope?
and they can't even admit that they did wrong as a Church by murdering hundreds of thousands of "heretic" christians during the middle ages. It is always blamed on "people within the church".
Pope John Paul II appologized for the sins of the Church in his TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE.
Here's a news article about it: Pope says sorry for sins of church
It is all about degrees of compromise.
But compromise nonetheless. Not the "already has the answers and true no matter what" that you were claiming earlier.
It may seem nauseating to you because you've heard it a lot, and yet it's so profoundly obvious to the person that actually thinks about it without their "I want" lenses.
I don't have "I want" lenses on. And I've been an atheist already.
Pastafarianism is a good argument for why people don't believe in God, but its not a good argument for choosing one particular religion over another.
So you really don't know that God and Christ exist?
That's right. If I knew then there'd be no room for faith.
Ah okay. Now here's a position I can identify with. I held this one for a while. I mean, after all, what is there to lose right? ...maybe only a tiny bit of honesty and integrity but not much else.
Or, I can remain honest and integritous and believe it for reasons other than not having anything to loose.
Religion can't encourage real questioning unless its of the specious veneer variety.
That's just not true. There is nothing inherant in religions that prevent them from encouraging quesitoning.
That's what science is for. Religion asserts, it isn't about learning the truth no matter what that truth might be.
Again, that's your old religion. Its not true of all religions.
Actually I got to the point where I wanted to believe that I just "lean" towards Christianity, believing that the evidence for ID is probably "just as good" as anything else and therefore justified it in that way.
ID is a rotten piece of shit.
From Message 42
Give me one explanation why I should be more persuaded to reluctantly believe in your catholic variety of Christianity over Zeus and the Olympian pantheon or Hinduism or Islam?
You shouldn't be persuaded because of something you read on the internet. it should because you find it helpful, truthful, and it has an impact on your life.
Do you feel that the evidence is greater? If we're speaking in terms of the Bible, archeology has already shown that the Israelites grew out of the collapse of the Canaanite society itself and that they didn't come from Egypt in any mass Exodus like the Bible claims. Israelites were displaced poor people in Canaan who came together to forward egalitarian thought and eventually just formed their own small kingdom, at which time they decided to start having kings.
During the time of David and Solomon the Israelites were polytheists just like the Canaanites. it wasn't until after they were conquered by the Babylonians that scribes writing the early books of the Bible blamed polytheism as the reason for God forsaking them. "Yaweh" along with his wife "Asherah" were worshipped for years and years (there is even archeological evidence showing the words "Yaweh and his wife Asherah" inscribed on tablets found in Israel during that time). Yaweh actually came from the Canaanite chief god "El" (Ever heard of Elohim? Elijah etc etc). And of course, guess who became what we know as Satan today? Ba'al! It's all recycled mythology.
I don't care about all that Jewish stuff. And mythology is recycled because that works better than replacing.
You seem like you are fond of speaking in rational terms, so help me by understanding why it might be a sensible choice for me to start believing in what you do?
Don't believe in what I do. Find out for yourself. Just be honest about it. Drop the dogmatism already. If you come to the position of a non-believer, then that is okay too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 12:35 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 55 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 5:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Stile
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 47 of 380 (712418)
12-03-2013 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 12:48 PM


Who's the Boss?
scienceishonesty writes:
Give me one explanation why I should be more persuaded to reluctantly believe in your catholic variety of Christianity over Zeus and the Olympian pantheon or Hinduism or Islam?
What makes you think anyone is trying to persuade you?
Obviously, you are being honest with yourself and your experiences and they are leading you towards atheism and away from Christianity.
Do you think it's impossible for someone else to be honest about their own experiences and possibly be led towards Christianity and away from atheism? If so, can you explain how this can actually be impossible? Can you provide evidence that it is impossible?
If someone else honestly believes in God... it is not a requirement for them to be able to persuade you of the same thing.
You can argue that it is only rational if they can lay out a reasonable case... but again, this has nothing to do with scienceishonesty's acceptance of that case.
You may very well be the arbiter of you and your own honesty and your own experiences.
But that doesn't give you any special rights to judge someone else or someone else's honesty or someone else's experiences.
Different people think differently.
You are only one person.
Not all people are going to think the same way that you do.
Just because you think there is no reason for something... doesn't mean there actually is no reason for it.
In order to show there is no reason for something... you have to provide the evidence. You can't just say "it doesn't work for me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 12:48 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 6:02 PM Stile has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 48 of 380 (712430)
12-03-2013 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2013 2:55 PM


Some apology
Pope John Paul II appologized for the sins of the Church in his TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE.
As SIH already said, no he did not. He "apologized" for the sins of some of the Catholic "people" in the Church, sins that "some" committed, referring to "those who" without naming the actual perpetrators, which is blaming on nameless innocent members what the power hierarchy headed by the Pope in fact did.
In fact what he describes as the sins themselves are a pretty vague lot. You'd never guess from what he said that the RCC is guilty of some 67 million tortured and murdered over six centuries, 50 million of them Bible-believing dissenters from Roman Catholicism, the rest being Jews, Muslims, witches and others. The average Catholic knows very little about the evils committed by their leaders.
Here, let me quote from that official document itself, Tertio Millennio Adveniente. Scroll down a little past halfway to appreciate the language in which he "apologizes:" "...the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children," her "children," not the Pope, but her poor innocent confused children; and "she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters." Again, her sinful sons and daughters who are innocent of the enormities committed by the Vatican itself. You can read on to discover more blaming of the "children" and the "sons and daughters" for sins that don't even come close to the actual enormities committed throughout history.
It is true that ordinary Catholics committed violence against the Jews in pogroms, even as recently as WWII, but where did they get the inclination to do that? From the Vatican. Also in uprisings in Ireland against the Protestants. Yes, of course you will have heard official Vatican denials and propaganda instead. But it was not the ordinary Catholics who murdered the Bible believers under the Inquisition down the centuries, that was the Pope's army under his orders or the orders of the Jesuits.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : To add details.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 5:32 PM Faith has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 380 (712433)
12-03-2013 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
12-03-2013 4:53 PM


Re: Some apology
As SIH already said, no he did not.
Well I read it and can quote it:
quote:
Hence it is appropriate that, as the Second Millennium of Christianity draws to a close, the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal.
Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance: before God and man she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters. As Lumen Gentium affirms: "The Church, embracing sinners to her bosom, is at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, and incessantly pursues the path of penance and renewal".
So there. All you've got is the biased stuff that you make up.
He "apologized" for the sins of some of the Catholic "people" in the Church, sins that "some" committed, referring to "those who" without naming the actual perpetrators, which is blaming on nameless innocent members what the power hierarchy headed by the Pope in fact did.
"The Church" is made up of two parts:
  • The Church's Spirit, the bride of Christ
  • All the people that belong to the church, including the pope, bishops, priests and laity
When the Pope apologized for "her children", he was apologizing for all of those people. He can't apologize for the Spirit part, though.
Here's some more of the apology:
quote:
Among the sins which require a greater commitment to repentance and conversion should certainly be counted those which have been detrimental to the unity willed by God for his People. In the course of the thousand years now drawing to a close, even more than in the first millennium, ecclesial communion has been painfully wounded, a fact "for which, at times, men of both sides were to blame".(17) Such wounds openly contradict the will of Christ and are a cause of scandal to the world.(18) These sins of the past unfortunately still burden us and remain ever present temptations. It is necessary to make amends for them, and earnestly to beseech Christ's forgiveness.
quote:
Another painful chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.
quote:
And with respect to the Church of our time, how can we not lament the lack of discernment, which at times became even acquiescence, shown by many Christians concerning the violation of fundamental human rights by totalitarian regimes? And should we not also regret, among the shadows of our own day, the responsibility shared by so many Christians for grave forms of injustice and exclusion? It must be asked how many Christians really know and put into practice the principles of the Church's social doctrine.
source of quotes
In fact what he describes as the sins themselves are a pretty vague lot.
You can squeeze a lot more things into a lot fewer words by being vague. He apologized for when the church, that is all of its members, used violence and when it was intolerant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 4:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 53 by 1.61803, posted 12-03-2013 5:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 50 of 380 (712434)
12-03-2013 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2013 5:32 PM


Re: Some apology
Perhaps you missed what I added to that post. Apologizing for the "children" of the Church or its "sons and daughters" amounts to a denial since it was the Vatican and its Jesuit bulldogs that did most of the dirty work down the centuries, not the average Catholic.
Oh, and sins against "unity" is just a concern of the Vatican who wants all true believers in Christ to give up our true belief and come back under the authority of the Antichrist Pope.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 5:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 5:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 56 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 5:52 PM Faith has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 51 of 380 (712435)
12-03-2013 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
12-03-2013 5:35 PM


Re: Some apology
Perhaps you missed what I added to that post. Apologizing for the "children" of the Church or its "sons and daughters" amounts to a denial since it was the Vatican and its Jesuit bulldogs that did most of the dirty work down the centuries, not the average Catholic.
No, the vatican and the Jesuits are included in the children of the Church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 52 of 380 (712436)
12-03-2013 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2013 5:38 PM


Re: Some apology
No, the Vatican and the Jesuits are NOT included in "the Church" or he would have said so, AND named them specifically rather than implicating the millions of innocent members of the Church who had nothing to do with any of it. To apologize for the "children" and not name the true perpetrators, about which the average Catholic knows absolutely zip, is pure lying evil.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 5:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 5:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 12-04-2013 8:53 AM Faith has replied
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 12-04-2013 9:05 AM Faith has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1622 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 53 of 380 (712437)
12-03-2013 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2013 5:32 PM


Re: Some apology
Save your breath. She hates Catholics.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 5:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 380 (712438)
12-03-2013 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
12-03-2013 5:41 PM


Re: Some apology
No, the Vatican and the Jesuits are NOT included in "the Church" or he would have said so,
That's retarded.
The children of the Church includes every single member of the Church. The pope, the bishops, the Jesuits, the priests, the laity. All of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3817 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 55 of 380 (712441)
12-03-2013 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2013 2:55 PM


quote:
I was just curious (And I wanted to stalk your older messages.)
I realize that, haha, but at this time I cannot. Perhaps at a future date.
quote:
How do you know? Maybe he was being sincere.
Sincerity would have prompted him to realize that you can't construct absolute religious beliefs based around absolute religious entities and then somehow pretend that there is no possible way the teachings of that religion may ever conflict with science -- sure there may be a degree of flexibility manifested, but what about when realities start casting a shadow on the core platforms of a religion? It would be foolish to believe that the catholic church or any religious entity pretending to be "open to all scientific truth" will one day, if shown to be unlikely through reasonable doubt, apologize to the millions of people that were duped. Church is a big business.
quote:
I don't have "I want" lenses on. And I've been an atheist already.
Of course you have "I want" lenses on. Faith, which you claim to have, is wanting to believe in something without evidence.
quote:
But compromise nonetheless. Not the "already has the answers and true no matter what" that you were claiming earlier.
So the existence of God and Christ aren't off the table for the catholic church? How about Mary? The only person you are fooling here is yourself. The Catholic church believes it has the answers for salvation, whether you admit to it or not.
quote:
That's right. If I knew then there'd be no room for faith.
Alright. You've convinced me. Despite no evidence whatsoever for Zeus' existence I'm going to exert faith that He really does control the lightning and that there is a place for me waiting when I die on Mount Olympus. It is so exciting to know the truth and be able to have a person relationship with a wonderful God that I just KNOW in my heart of heart exists.
Does this sound reasonable to you? Faith without evidence is never reasonable no matter what you may tell yourself.
quote:
Or, I can remain honest and integritous and believe it for reasons other than not having anything to loose.
Certainly not with intellectual honesty or integrity but perhaps it has a rare effect on you where it makes you feel better? I suppose in that way there's no harm.
quote:
You shouldn't be persuaded because of something you read on the internet. it should because you find it helpful, truthful, and it has an impact on your life.
So if I wanted to believe in creationism now or ID or something else you'd call a peace of shit, what if it makes me feel better? Does it really make me honest to believe in something because it makes me "feel better"?
quote:
Don't believe in what I do. Find out for yourself. Just be honest about it. Drop the dogmatism already. If you come to the position of a non-believer, then that is okay too.
I just decided to take the default position of rationality. If there's no evidence, I'm not going to go out of my way to waste my time.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by 1.61803, posted 12-03-2013 6:07 PM scienceishonesty has replied
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 7:26 PM scienceishonesty has replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3817 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 56 of 380 (712442)
12-03-2013 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
12-03-2013 5:35 PM


Re: Some apology
Correct. The Pope will never apologize for the heinous crimes of the people really running the show, but only people "within the Church", as though they were some minority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 12-03-2013 5:35 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 12-03-2013 8:02 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 57 of 380 (712443)
12-03-2013 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye
12-03-2013 5:44 PM


Re: Some apology
Sorry, you're deceived. You don't understand how the Vatican works, you just believe whatever puts the prettiest face on it.
An apology that specifically apologized for, say, the Bartholomew's Day Massacre, would carry some weight; or the burning at the stake of Tyndale, Latimer, Ridley and scores of other Bible believers, or Guy Fawkes Day / The Gunpowder Plot in England, that would carry some weight, or the multiple assassination attempts against the first Queen Elizabeth, or her successor James I, that would carry some weight, or the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (which was generally known to have been the work of the Jesuits until it got scrubbed out of our history books), or the Jedwabne massacre of the Jews by the local Catholics during WWII at the permission of the Nazi (Catholic) invaders, all that would have given credibility to the apology, and that's just the tip of the iceberg as they say, but that vague language used by the Pope is a lying fraud.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-03-2013 7:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 12-04-2013 11:15 AM Faith has replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3817 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 58 of 380 (712444)
12-03-2013 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
12-03-2013 3:09 PM


Re: Who's the Boss?
quote:
What makes you think anyone is trying to persuade you?
If someone accepts something to be true I would hope that they would have a good reason for themselves, that's why I ask in case I might be offered a convincing reason for why someone might want to believe something. Facts should be something that everyone be persuaded into accepting.
quote:
If someone else honestly believes in God... it is not a requirement for them to be able to persuade you of the same thing.
But you can't honestly believe in something for which there is no evidence. No one can honestly believe in the flying spaghetti monster and neither can anyone honestly believe in any other being or creature for which there is no evidence whatsoever. So in that case, I disagree.
quote:
You may very well be the arbiter of you and your own honesty and your own experiences.
But that doesn't give you any special rights to judge someone else or someone else's honesty or someone else's experiences.
Of course, we are all free to believe what we like. I can believe that fairies crawl into my bed at night but that doesn't mean they do.
quote:
Just because you think there is no reason for something... doesn't mean there actually is no reason for it.
In order to show there is no reason for something... you have to provide the evidence. You can't just say "it doesn't work for me.
But there is no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Are you really going to postulate that one must "provide evidence that not believing based on evidence is reasonable?"...That really makes no sense to me. It's like saying: I don't believe in science and the reason is because no one has produced evidence that not believing in science is not okay?
Edited by scienceishonesty, : redundancy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 12-03-2013 3:09 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Stile, posted 12-04-2013 11:21 AM scienceishonesty has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1622 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 59 of 380 (712446)
12-03-2013 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by scienceishonesty
12-03-2013 5:50 PM


sciencesishonest writes:
The Catholic church believes it has the answers for salvation, whether you admit to it or not.
lol.
Sorry but what religion doesn't?
Should all the folks that hold religious beliefs suddenly abandon them as folly?
Maybe the world would be better off without religion.
If the course of human evolution includes such a thing perhaps it is a matter of course that religion is part of the human story.
And if so then it stands that religion can in some ways provide solice to many in the face of a otherwise nihlistic reality.
Given all the evils commited in the name of religion, I can not imagine a world that without it.
I for one am glad my local church is still in operation and concerned about my immortal sinning soul.
Even if such a thing exist or not.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 5:50 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 6:12 PM 1.61803 has not replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3817 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 60 of 380 (712447)
12-03-2013 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by 1.61803
12-03-2013 6:07 PM


Well thanks for affirming the obvious! Some people want to believe, however, that their religion and the absolutism contained in it (to whatever degree) can never become outdated through scientific enlightenment.
I suppose now that we understand lightning it still doesn't prove that Zeus isn't controlling it, but any reasonable person now realizes that it doesn't require Zeus. There's always that option though, I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by 1.61803, posted 12-03-2013 6:07 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024