Their ideas concerning sexual freedom their intolerance of homosexuality and intolerance of contraceptives (without which you have more abortion/crime due to improper parenting and poverty)

Since this is a history board, I'd say historically the quakers and unitarians were much more progressive.the catholic church has historically condoned genocide, been in bed with fascist regimes (two of which in central europe were lead by priests) and believed developmentally challenged people would go to hell . . . actually I think they might still believe that.

File 132804548792.jpg - (11.13KB , 435x318 , joker.jpg )

...oh wait. you're serious?

after all the evil shit they did for nearly 2000 years, they're almost obligated to "modernize" lest they be considered a relic of the medieval ages.

plenty of protestant sects are progressive. you're obviously just thinking of stupid southern baptist faggots and evangelists. there's lutherans, quakers, anabaptists, anglicans, universalists, european sects that are also political movements like christian democrats, etc.

File 132806946090.jpg - (38.02KB , 640x480 , 1327889214283.jpg )

>calling anything evil
at worst their motives were driven by economic or completely ignorant concerns.

In many areas OP has a point. But the Catholic "reform" was kinda forced by society like a previous poster said.

Southern Baptists are actually a little more progressive though. Not talking about independent fundamental Baptist. Those are the crazies.

>>11392
So I suppose Christianity and Catholicism are worse and are the bane of humanity compared to Judaism or Islam or Paganism?
This thread is going to become a flame war quick, and I hope it gets locked as nothing good is coming from this.

>>11407
If someone isn't a Catholic, Evangelical, or southern Baptist they're not a Christian?

Or did you completely forget to read his last paragraph?

>>11408
all the other ones are pretty minuscule sects

>>11411
yes, the hundreds of millions of Eastern Orthodoxes i.e. greek, russian, syrian, etc.

read a book.

>>11411
Actually, when combined, the Protestant sects outnumber Catholics if counted worldwide.

Of course, baptists & evangelicals are also Protestant.

>>11413
>>11414
Apologies, I meant "all the other Protestant sects". I postulate that all but a very few minor sects of protestants are much more conservative than Catholicism. Doubly so for the Orthodox.

On a descending scale of enlightenment: Religious Society of Friends, Unitarians, ... (other minuscule progressive/deist protestants) > Anglican > Catholics > Orthodox > other protestants

>>11429
>I postulate that all but a very few minor sects of protestants are much more conservative than Catholicism.
You would postulate wrong, except for region-specific varieties of protestant religions. Remember, protestant religions started because the Catholic church refused to change, a trait they've continued with up until the current day.

That's not to say that aren't protestant religions that are ridiculously conservative. Fundamentalists, for instance. Evangelicals for another. Then there's Southern variants of otherwise very progressive sects... for instance, southern US Presbyterians are every bit as conservative as fundamentalist baptists, while northern US Presbyterians are very progressive. By which I mean teaching sex ed (including birth control) to teenage children of members, recognize and accept gay & lesbian as members as well as leaders, accept the theory of evolution as scientific fact, and so on.

It's funny that while some protestant sects have church services that are very dogmatic and straight laced, their views are very modern. While evangelicals have very relaxed services, replete with plays in front of 10,000+ seats, while their actual views are ridiculously conservative (a widely held belief among evangelicals is that prayer & scripture can turn homosexuals into heterosexuals).

>>11431
>Remember, protestant religions started because the Catholic church refused to change, a trait they've continued with up until the current day.
Not really, it started because the church had strayed to far from the path, allowing such things as indulgences. Protestantism was basically populism (vulgar bibles and rites) + fundamentalism (sola scriptura in stead of church dogma etc.).

>>11435
So a religion that continues to demonize homosexuality, birth control, etc. is somehow more progressive than religions that don't?

>>11435
Also, I find it odd that the supposedly heretical act of translating the bible from latin to local languages is somehow a "conservative" thing. Instead of having local Catholic leaders reading it in latin and telling their followers what it says, they were able to read it for themselves.

And for this and other "conservative" acts the Catholic church burned people at the stake.

Keep in mind, I don't view the Catholic church as evil, just antiquated. The fact that they've recently adopted stances that most of the rest of Christianity adopted ages ago doesn't speak well for the church, and certainly speaks volumes against it being "progressive."

>>11440
>burning witches
Everyone did, see Salem Witch Trials.
>translating bible in local languages
Has conservative consequences, since it allows for less straying from the text if everyone can read it. If no-one can read the bible, church leaders can innovate to a greater degree, for better or worse.
>>11439
Sects of Christianity that don't do the things mentioned: ... Quakers, I guess.

>>11441
"CAN" innovate, but historically, they didn't except in defense of the status quo.

>>11446
They innovated alright. They innovated by inventing shit like Lent, which was created because the Pope owned the only fishmarket in Rome.

I fail to see how that's "progressive."

I wouldn't describe "racial tolerance" and "universal health care" as progressive ideas so much as really shitty ideas that suck

>>11449
Rerum Novarum was pretty big game. Transformed the entire European political democratic Catholic movement.

>>11459
Duly noted.

>>11459
Universal health care sucks, but the US insurance industry sucks more.

Nix that. Any company that's supposed to concerned with your health, being frugal so premiums don't increase, etc. spends millions on executive compensation and millions to create 18 hole golf courses surrounding their HQs, so executives can play golf all day while drawing those million-plus salaries, doesn't deserve the work suck. What they do is a whole level below sucking.

>>11477
In other words: private insurers will try to funnel as much money as possible to their stockholders, creating an incentive to provide less care. Government institutions will be structured to appease voters, creating an incentive to provide the best care/cost equilibrium (as voters like to be healthy, but also dislike paying taxes).

>>11494
>stockholders
If I was an insurance company stockholder I'd be fucking livid with all the bullshit they've been pulling.

>spends millions on executive compensation
>millions to create 18 hole golf courses surrounding their HQs
>executives play golf all day

>>11496
Yeah, that's the textbook theory of it, but you're right: currently, power and wealth are shifting from the owning class to the managerial class (which is by and large the same though; a lot of executive compensation is stocks and option, and they usually park their fortunes in investment vehicles ~ stocks of other companies).

But at the end of the day, it's always the patients and workers that get fucked.

>>11497
I think most of the problem is that a lot of stockholders are basically sociopaths - they don't care what a company does so long as the stock price increases, whether their actions are immoral, even illegal, so long as the stock goes up the stockholders don't care.

And they view raising a stink at stockholder meetings as likely to cause the stock price to drop, so it's a self-reinforcing cycle of douchebaggery.

>>11498
You can't really blame them for being heartless; all they do is look at numbers on a computer screen. It's easy once you're that alienated.

protip: they're not progressive if they're not leading the charge

they're "draggedbytheirearsessive"

Roman Catholicism as a church, is progressive. I mean this to the extent that a Roman Catholic in good standing 200 years ago would be in danger of excommunication today. The theology and ecclesiology of the R.C. Church is fluid, and they feel that it develops over time, to the extent that they think that they know more than the Apostles or early Church Fathers did.

This is in stark contrast to how their predecessors handled doctrinal matters for the first 8-9 centuries of Christianity. The opposite to the Roman Catholic approach is that held by the Orthodox Church: that all teachings are passed on as an unchanging tradition.

Protestantism is a broad category with many diverse groups and sub groups. In general though, the doctrines held by Protestants such as: the "blood atonement" or Sola Scriptura are newer inventions, and would have been alien to the early church. But Protestants (especially Evangelicals and Calvinists) get really pissed when you tell them that.

In terms of social/political issues, Roman Catholics (both laity and bishops) vary in their opinions. There is no one consistent social/political message issued by the R.C. Church, in America at least.

>>11533
But Sola Scriptura would only have been alien to the early church because nothing was written. The early church were Messianic cults of limited membership, each with their own views & beliefs, being told & retold stories unique to each cult verbally, member to member.

By their eyes the R.C. dogma of having a leader telling all the stories and dictating what is and isn't holy would be just as alien. In Messianic cults, we are all holy, we are all God, we are all leaders.

It wasn't until the ancestor of RC & Orthodox churches formed, and threw out so much of the teachings they proclaimed to hold so dear, that we ended up with the absurdist religious follies we have today.

>>11537

Incorrect. I believe you are confusing Gnosticism with the actual established "Church." Read any of the epistles of Paul, and it is quite clear that there was an establishment. There was actual "catholic" ecclesiology. There were authority figures telling people what to believe. The Protestant model, which starts with the presupposition that the Bible is the ONLY source of doctrine, is a Post-Renaissance invention.

You are correct in that there was no "Bible" compiled as such in say the second century AD, however, tradition always precedes scripture. The tradition (the teachings) of Christianity were written down, preached, lived out, and passed on. Christianity itself was around long before the Holy Bible. The Bible is a large part of this tradition, but it is difficult to quantify just how much.

The historic and archeological record is very clear, that indeed the line of episcopacy to the bishops of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (and Anglican for that matter) churches runs directly back to the Apostles. The question then becomes, which church maintains the ancient tradition with fidelity.

In general, your argument utterly is fallacious. I don't mean to sound condescending, but your statements are very ignorant, and I am led to believe that you know little of this subject. The "Messianic cults" that were not in communion with the church of Peter, Paul, Polycarp, Ignatios of Antioch, Justin the Philosopher (martyr), Irenaeus of Lyons, and so on, are not the predecessors to today's Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Even during the pre-Nicene period, we see a church establishment, a group of communities throughout the world that were in communion, and whose bishops looked to one another as brothers, teachers, and fellow authority figures. This Church held doctrines in such a way, that their policy as explained by Vincent of Lerins was: "...we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." This wasn't a diverse group of dissenting parties. It was an international community of believers who shared the same doctrines. In general, when confronted with a controversy, the logical question these believers would ask themselves was: "was this what my teachers taught me?"

By the way, in case you didn't know there are numerous other early Christian documents available besides the Bible (example: Didache).


>absurdist religious follies we have today
Examples please.

>>11540
Paul's sect was but one of many Messianic cults, it was not simply the only Messianic cult. Eventually scriptures were written, yes, but it took lifetimes before that happened in most Messianic cults (remember, people didn't live very long). And Paul's sect did a wonderful job of purging all teachings it chose not to adopt (also known as massively rewriting them to give as much power as possible to the church), which is why the Gospel of Judas was such an incredible find.

Here's the fundamental problem: You think the church starts with Paul and other sects that sided with him, the ones who viewed each other as equals. I think the church started with one person: Christ. All the Messianic cults, even those you don't think are fathers of the Catholic church, I consider equal to Paul's sect, even if Paul's sect leaders and their equally power- & money-mad contemporaries didn't view them as equals. By the time the sects had aligned and organized, which you feel is the creation of the Catholic church, the corruption of the teachings had already set in.

>It was an international community of believers who shared the same doctrines.
So similar that they went to great lengths to stamp out all all written record of views that didn't coincide with what they wrote in The Bible. Gotcha.

>Examples please
"Nazis are good, oh crap, wait a second, I meant to say they're bad."

Fundamentally the Catholic church is on the right track, but ultimately it is hidebound to tradition far more than many of their contemporaries. They don't allow gays. They claim that contraception is a sin (despite something like 98% of all Catholic women in the US having used it). And so on.

This isn't to say that the Protestant method is fundamentally better. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists take things to ridiculous conservative extremes, and the hateful messages they preach holds great power with the stupid. But that's why I don't consider them to even be Christian. They simply perpetuate hate and worship money, something the Catholic church has done it's fair share of.

But at the end of the day there are Protestant sects that help the poor, are against war, fight against social inequality, but also promote contraception and accept gays not only as members but as leaders as well. How anyone can consider a church that doesn't do all of those things more progressive than ones that do is simply beyond me.

>>11545
Lots of diverse points to address:


>Paul's sect was but one of many Messianic cults

Please name the others.

>Eventually scriptures were written, yes, but it took lifetimes before that happened in most Messianic cults

When was the youngest book of the New Testament written?

>purging all teachings it chose not to adopt (also known as massively rewriting them to give as much power as possible to the church),

Citation and examples please.

>You think the church starts with Paul and other sects that sided with him, the ones who viewed each other as equals. I think the church started with one person: Christ.

I'll tell you what I think, since you're telling me what I think, and you're wrong: Christ founded the Church, not Paul. Plus, I have some news for you: Paul died circa 67 AD. St. John wrote his Gospel circa 96 AD. Are you telling me that they were of a different faith? Ever read the Epistle of St. James (the brother of the Lord)? Try telling me he and St. Paul were of different faiths.

>I consider equal to Paul's sect, even if Paul's sect leaders and their equally power- & money-mad contemporaries didn't view them as equals.

Wow, lots of goodies to un-rap there. Please identify sects. Also, please explain how people who were being tortured to death for their faith were "money-mad," as I can assure you that if they were "money-mad," they would not have been Christians during that period of severe persecution.

>which you feel is the creation of the Catholic church, the corruption of the teachings had already set in.

Okay, allow me to clarify: I'm not Roman Catholic, and I agree that they do teach newer teachings that are not true (created grace, immaculate conception of Mary, Papal supremacy, Mary as co-redemptrix, etc.). However, the pre-schismatic Latin Church was true to the teachings of Christ, and subsequently His Apostles, before the Franks began to influence Rome about the 9th century onward. The teachings of the "Early Church" are preserved inviolate today in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The point I made about bishops tracing their roots back through ordination holds true for the others I mentioned, insofar as their lines of episcopal ordination itself go. For example, the title of the Bishop (not universal pope) of Rome went from Linus to Anacletus to Clement to Evaristus...onward. I will not deny that the other churches have grace from God (let God judge), by I will deny that they hold "the truth in its fullness" when it comes to doctrine.

>So similar that they went to great lengths to stamp out all all written record of views that didn't coincide with what they wrote in The Bible. Gotcha.

You need to clarify what groups you are talking about. But in case you've never considered it: when you are in a community that is trying to preserve a set of teachings, you speak out against heresies (the choice to change teachings). Again I will say this, that the doctrinal approach of the Early Church was to uphold teachings, not to preach a "new gospel." Sorry to burst your bubble, but the teachings of the heretics were actually well documented by the church (Montanism, Manicheism, Nestorianism, Arianism, etc). That's why the 7 Ecumenical Councils were held, to publicly, conciliarily, confront the new teachings that deviated.

>"Nazis are good, oh crap, wait a second, I meant to say they're bad."

That's it? That's all you can provide? Nothing that actually deals with doctrinal matters, with theology? Which group is this addressed to anyhow, the Roman Catholics, Lutherans,...who?

>Fundamentally the Catholic church is on the right track, but ultimately it is hidebound to tradition far more than many of their contemporaries

I would disagree. The Roman Catholic Church is actually liberal; they change their doctrines over time to fit whatever ends the Pope feels need to be met! Tradition is the means by which truth is preserved. Tradition is keeping teachings intact. If Christianity is supposed to preach ontological truths, then how can this be accomplished if doctrine is changed to conform with the current social mores? (Hint: the reason Christians were being flayed alive and burned to death by the Romans was because they spoke out against the values and social mores of that society).

>Evangelicals and Fundamentalists take things to ridiculous conservative extremes

Again, factually incorrect. If the individuals in those groups were conservative, they would not be Protestant. Their faith is new, and in many cases, actually a PRODUCT OF THE 20TH CENTURY!

>ridiculous conservative extremes, and the hateful messages they preach holds great power with the stupid. But that's why I don't consider them to even be Christian.

"God is love." If it's hateful, its not Christian.

>accept gays not only as members but as leaders as well.

Just to clarify: Christianity does not preach that gays should be hated. It does preach that the choice to commit sodomy (like the choice to fornicate heterosexually) is wrong. A leader who has homosexual feelings they cannot help is not the problem: the leader who follows their homosexual feelings and submits to them, and acts on them is sinning, and obviously does not hold the Christian teachings on sexuality very highly. Just as a bishop who shop-lifts, or is hateful, or fornicates with women is unfit for that ministry, so too one who submits to their bodily feelings over the truth reveled by God is unfit.

>How anyone can consider a church that doesn't do all of those things more progressive than ones that do is simply beyond me.

The point I made is that the Roman Catholic Church actually is inconsistent. While they may be more socially/politically conservative than some new Protestant church with 16 members, they do change their doctrines over time. They are doctrinally liberal. History: true story.



It sounds to me that you highly value modern and post-modern ideals. You think that Christianity ought to conform with "The World" and compromise the doctrines that are supposedly, truth. Please correct me if I am wrong in my assessment.

>Citation and examples please.
You want him to provide citations and examples of teachings that the church purged from the historical record?

Seriously?

>>11553

Dear Sir,

I the prince of Nigeria been deposed. I live in exile on Fiji Island, in poor condition. Need I to secure deposit for to go home back on ship or plane. Need your help, do I.

There be undocumented buried treasures hidden near your home. There be no other record of buried treasure. I only one who know. Send deposit please to 00093223847 Bank of Geneva, in total $5000 US. These monies should cover transport cost of I, to Nigeria back.

When deposit you make, I reemberse you ten fold by telling you treasure whereabouts, to pay back you.

Thank you,
His Highness, Prince Onagoikthu Pathung Klek Manamassi Nashitelmikalashi, of Nigeria






Spoiler: You can claim anything. As of late, there have a ton of stories about small obscure groups being "persecuted" by the mainstream church, or as having other beliefs that undermine and bring into question mainstream Christianity. These stories are unsubstantiated, and typically involve conspiracy theories that defy historic record, and are based on little to no actual information.

>>11553

Read this:
>>11550
>Sorry to burst your bubble, but the teachings of the heretics were actually well documented by the church (Montanism, Manicheism, Nestorianism, Arianism, etc). That's why the 7 Ecumenical Councils were held, to publicly, conciliarily, confront the new teachings that deviated.

You can say anything was "purged from the record" but with the latest wave of 17 year old Zeitgeistites out there theologizing, you've got to take everything you see on an image board with a grain of salt.

>>11550
Imagine my surprise when my thread attracted actual scholars!

One point of disagreement with this post though:

>The teachings of the "Early Church" are preserved inviolate today in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

This is flat out wrong, I think. Whatever the teachings and traditions of the early church (before Constantine), I do believe those are lost in time, or at the very least no longer practiced. Keep in mind that it took the church about a thousand years to even have something like the Orthodox; a thousand years of (quasi) secular leaders (West and Eastern Roman Emperors) bending the church to their designs.

Maybe one doctrinal point to illustrate: the concept of the bellum justum (~ just war). The early church was decidedly pacifist, and remained so for almost three centuries, going so far as to forbid Christians from enlisting as soldiers (especially for the pagan Empire). Then along comes Emperor Constantine, turns the Empire Christian, and all of a sudden we see the (re)emergence of the old Roman concept of just war, recycled as church doctrine by Saint Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas to cope with the difficulties of managing a worldly empire. That's a pretty defining shift; the use of the sword in His name would come to shape much of the Church's history.

No sect today can lay claim to the original church, the only thing we can say is that they mutated in different ways, some more than other maybe, with variable consequences for the degree to which the sects can be considered "progressive".

>>11550
>Again, factually incorrect. If the individuals in those groups were conservative, they would not be Protestant.
>Their faith is new, and in many cases, actually a PRODUCT OF THE 20TH CENTURY!
By this logic, because Rick Santorum and FDR are both politicians, Santorum can't be more conservative than FDR because FDR was born earlier.


>>11558
>Imagine my surprise when my thread attracted actual scholars!
Who apparently aren't native English speakers, and get hopelessly confused over simple terms like conservative and progressive.

>>11564
FDR wanted to bring us into the 20th century, and Santorum wants to throw us back to the nineteenth. It's not where you are, it's where you're going. Catholic church is and always has been trudging forward, many current protestants want to fall back.

>>11449
Could I have the source for that claim please?

>>11567
>many
If you may have noticed, I didn't try to call the ass-backwards Protestant sects progressive. But just because there are some who are ass-backwards doesn't mean they're all ass-backwards. Protestant sects aren't the same thing as the "friendly" messianic cults, all marching in lock-step towards the creation of the Catholic church.

There are some who are more conservative than the RCC, and, yes indeed, some that are more progressive. Those that accept that homosexuality is a genetic condition, and teach that contraception use isn't a sin, are:
1) More
or
2) Less
progressive than the Catholic church, who chooses bigotry over acceptance?

Just because Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have their heads up their asses doesn't mean all Protestants are marching in lock step with them.

>>11545
>That's it?
Well, if siding with the most genocidal group of the 20th century isn't enough, how about their systematic enabling of the pedophiles in their ranks, protecting them when their predatory actions are uncovered by moving them to fresh hunting grounds, time and time again, for decades?

but... they were 'progressive' pedos...

>>11558

>a thousand years of (quasi) secular leaders (West and Eastern Roman Emperors) bending the church to their designs.

This claim is fallacious.

This is a common misconception, or in some cases (Jehovah's Witnesses) an outright, purposeful lie. Constantine DID NOT meddle with doctrinal affairs. He simply didn't. The historical record is very clear that Constantine, at the convocation of the 1st Ecumenical Council at Nicaea entered the room with downcast eyes and an air of humility. He was present (probably not for the entire council) but did not interfere with the theological discussions, because quite frankly, he was not even fully catechised yet! The other emperors did not change doctrines either, and when they attempted to like in the Iconoclast Heresy, their work was opposed by bishops and clergy, eventually undone, and their memory held with disdain by The Church and society at large. Read about the lives and ministry of St. John Chrysostom and Pope Gregory III (Pre-Schismatic Bishop of Rome).

Besides, do you honestly think that those who attended the Council of Nicaea, men who were being viciously persecuted by the Roman government a few years before would all of a sudden betray the faith they were tortured for, and saw their brothers and sisters die for?! It was said that when the various bishops, clergy, and laity met at the council that they looked like an "assembled army of martyrs." Many of them bore scars from torture, and pretty much all of them knew someone who had died for the faith.

Historically, you are incorrect in that if one examines the pre-Constantinian doctrines of the Church, they are consistent with the post-Constantinian doctrines. The doctrines that the Eastern Orthodox Church holds, are consistent with the writings of the Church Fathers, including the pre-Nicaean (Ante-Nicene) fathers. The church councils did not "formulate" or synthesize doctrines, rather they addressed heresies that arose and sought to publicly clarify the boundaries of doctrines that already existed.


>bellum justum

While I cannot speak for Roman Catholics on this one, I believe you are confusing a cultural colloquialism with church doctrine. Once the Roman Empire became a Christian state, the situation changed-not doctrine. The Church was in a position much like the Old Testament state of Israel, with the major exception being that the truth had been reveled to them in the person of Jesus Christ. In order to defend Christians from enemies like pagan barbarians, the state fought. This not done out of hatred for enemies, but rather out of love for those Christians who would be harmed. In the end, all war is a symptom of the falleness of mankind. Having said all that, there are plenty of people in history who fallaciously claimed that "God willed" their fight, or that they were upholding "the sword of Christendom" when in fact they were seeking worldly ends (much like Mohammed when he invented Islam).


>forbid Christians from enlisting as soldiers (especially for the pagan Empire)

Yeah, look up the biographies of St. Demetrius and St. George.


>use of the sword in His name would come to shape much of the Church's history.

Which church are you talking about?


>No sect today can lay claim to the original church, the only thing we can say is that they mutated in different ways, some more than other maybe, with variable consequences for the degree to which the sects can be considered "progressive".

Well let's see, there's this old saying: "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it's a duck. We have early Christian writings as well as the New Testament. We know from a purely historical perspective what the doctrines of the early Church were. Read Polycarp, read Justin Martyr, read Irenaeus. Today, the Orthodox Church is the only church that can lay claim to the "original church" because both the Apostolic Succession of that body, as well as the doctrines are consistent with pre-Constantinian Christianity. Christ said: "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall by no means pass away (Luke 21:33). If there is doctrinal mutation, that separates a group/community from "The Church." Progressive groups (I don't call them sects) simply do not preserve doctrine, and therefore, preach a new faith.


>>11564

Clarification: I've been speaking about the "big picture" of denominations. This includes adherence to consistent doctrine. Sorry for confusion.

Santorum is more conservative than FDR, because he generally upholds an older value system than FDR. There are old people who are more left-wing than younger people.


>>11568
Fasting is actually an ancient practice that came about long before that Pope.


>>11577
>most genocidal group of the 20th century

First of all, Marxists were the most genocidal group of the 20th Century, not Nazis. Second, I'm not sure if your claim is entirely true. Third, a Roman Catholic (if there are any here) needs to address this, not me.

>enabling of the pedophiles in their ranks, protecting them when their predatory actions are uncovered by moving them to fresh hunting grounds, time and time again, for decades?

Disgusting, and I concur with your outrage. However, I must bring up a point that people often misunderstand: is the harboring of pedophiles a Roman Catholic doctrine, or are the individual bishops and priest responsible acting in rebellion? I tend to believe the latter, even though I believe that Roman Catholicism is doctrinally wrong.

>>11587

"rather they addressed heresies that arose"

The only difference between an "accepted doctrine" and a "heresy" is how long it survives. Just saying.

>>11614
That's crazy talk. I mean, it's not like history is written by the victors.

>>11587
>Besides, do you honestly think that those who attended the Council of Nicaea, men who were being viciously persecuted by the Roman government a few years before would all of a sudden betray the faith they were tortured for, and saw their brothers and sisters die for?!
Because there's no way that would create a sense of entitlement, a belief that they deserve something for all the suffering they and all the people who came before them have endured.

>However, I must bring up a point that people often misunderstand: is the harboring of pedophiles a Roman Catholic doctrine, or are the individual bishops and priest responsible acting in rebellion?
If it was isolated instances, then yes, it'd be individual bishops and priests. The problem is far too widespread across too large of an area.

It's like if a priest in Moscow was caught molesting children, and the church sent him to Siberia, where he was caught, so the church sent him to St. Petersburg, and so on. The coverup is too widespread for it to simply be isolated to a particular group.

Fundamentally the RCC believes in forgiving pedophiles if they repent their sins and do penance for them... and if they later sin... then they repent... and then sin... and so on. The fundamental problem is that they believe they're above the law, and the ridiculous notion that prayer can affect sexual orientation and aberrations.

would the Church be so quick to forgive if someone was killing pedo priests?

>>11659
Of course not, because the killer would be infringing on their religious freedom to perpetuate pedophilia.

>>11614

Incorrect. The definition of a heresy is the deviation from traditionally upheld doctrine. When someone begins preaching new teachings, that's heresy. The term "heresy" is derived from the Greek word "αιρεομαι" which is translated as "to choose."

>>11624


Wait just a minute. Let's take that thought to its full effect: what you're telling me is that we can't believe anything that has been passed down to us in historical records. What a dumbass I've been for believing that Napoleon Bonaparte existed and invaded his European neighbors!

Seriously though, part of historical analysis is sorting out what happened. You can't simply discredit an account because it was made by the victor. After all, just remember that American history books document well the oppression of Native Americans as well as the effects of the Atom bombs on the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>>11628

>Because there's no way that would create a sense of entitlement, a belief that they deserve something for all the suffering they and all the people who came before them have endured.

I think I know what you are trying to say, but to be honest I'm not sure if I fully understand your point. Please elaborate. I'm not going to assume that I understand its context of this statement.


I'm not going to defend the RCC at this juncture, hopefully if a Roman Catholic reads this, they will chime in. I do however detest the practices you referenced. But there's an interesting point you just brought up at the tail end of your post:
>and the ridiculous notion that prayer can affect sexual orientation and aberrations.

There is a difference between simply having immoral sexual musings and desires which rise up outside of one's control, and submitting to those feelings, resulting in a sinful action. The Christian prays that any immoral desires that arise (whatever their nature) may be removed, and that they may be made strong enough to resist. "Sexual orientation" is fundamentally defined by our choice of actions, regardless of our feelings. The Post-Modern world disagrees, and society in this day-in-age tells us to submit ourselves to our fantasies. "If it feels good, do it" goes the slogan. I guess if one upholds this tenet, they ought to jump from the window of a tall building when they desire to feel a breeze of air.

>>11723
>"Sexual orientation" is fundamentally defined by our choice of actions, regardless of our feelings.
Sexual orientation is defined by genetics, idiot.

>>11726
Mainly by genetics, but also by environmental factors. Lest we forget prison gay.

>>11723
Every religion was a deviation from what came before. What Christ preached was by your provided definition heresy, at the time Christ preached it.

>>11727
Just so you know, prison gay is an entirely American phenomenon.

>>11732

Pirate Gay is the European version.

Personally I think that the Waldensians are (probably) the most progressive christian sect at this time.

>>11726

Thanks for calling me an idiot. I can tell your level of sophistication, and indicates your emotional reaction.

The choice to commit sodomy, is a choice. The point being, if people are to be morally consistent, they should define morals and seek to live according to those morals regardless of whatever they feel. There are plenty of people who are sexually attracted to young children. Should they live out their fantasies? Should they be "who they are" according to the logic of those who promote homosexuality? Is our identity found in what gets us hard? What you're saying is that genetics is a justification for behavior, therefore circumventing ethical constructs and pronouncing that right and wrong are defined by our feelings and urges, versus objective reality.

>>11729

No. I presume you speak of the Old Testament Jewish faith. In fact (and what you said is a common misconception these days) Christ was actually the one properly upholding the Jewish faith. His detractors who held positions of power were the heretics. That was a major point of Christ's teachings. They weren't doing it right, and when He corrected them, they killed Him.


>>11742

They are/were progressive theologically. Are they progressive socially these days?

>>11743
The difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is the ability of both parties to consent. Don't conflate the two.
And what is this so-called objective reality you speak of?

>>11743
> Christ was actually the one properly upholding the Jewish faith.

Which was heretical to the Romans, et cetera ad infinitum.

>>11743
>The choice to commit sodomy, is a choice.
Except it's not. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality aren't choices. You can't choose to be gay any more than I choose to be straight. It just is.

Forcing people to live an existence where they can't admit who they are is how you end up with priests who molest children and serial murderers.

It's like if I contrived a means to force you to live the life of a homosexual. Would you be happy? Would you just suck one up and take it for the team? For the rest of your life? Or would it eat at you, day by day, month by month, year by year, because in your heart you know you're not attracted to the same sex? Now you know how all the gay men in your church feel.

Repression isn't healthy, it always ends badly.

>Repression isn't healthy, it always ends badly.

we wouldn't want the pedos to 'feel' bad

>>11751
>pedos
Because if the men felt themselves able to publicly be a homosexual, openly, without Catholic Guilt, they would STILL grow into their twisted adult priestly selves which molest children to sate their homosexual urges?

By the way, I assume you guys heard about the recent media blitz about the Archibishop of Dublin turning in over 20,000 pages of documentation to police? Which shows that not only were church leaders throughout Ireland aware of the pedos in their midst, they also repeatedly, constantly, notified the Vatican of it... who participated in the coverup.

So much for it being an isolated phenomenon.

>Because if the men felt themselves able to publicly be a homosexual, openly, without Catholic Guilt, they would STILL grow into their twisted adult priestly selves which molest children to sate their homosexual urges?

if it was 'acceptable' to be openly gay in the priesthood would there still be molesters?

if there were married priests in the catholic church would there still be molesters?

>>11765
Pedos are gonna pedo whether they're clergymen or not.

>>11765
>if it was 'acceptable' to be openly gay in the priesthood would there still be molesters?
Sure there would. There are some people who are just plain evil and will abuse whatever power they've been given over other human beings. To them pedophilia isn't about having gay sex, it's about abuse of power.

The question isn't would there be any, at all, the question is would there be as many. Because in addition to those evil individuals, there are people whose only outlet for their urge is to molest children. Those individuals, when not persecuted every minute of every day, would be able to have a normal healthy sex life.

You know. Like Jesus did.

>>11745

You clearly have no idea what the term "heretic" means. A heretic is one within an organization who deviates from the orthodoxy that it upholds.

>>11746

Except it is. If you learn that someone you are attracted to has AIDs, and you don't have any contraceptives, are you going to engage in unprotected sex so that you can fulfill your desire? I think not. You would CHOOSE to not engage in unprotected sex so as to avoid disease. Its called discretion, and somehow modern society doesn't want to understand it in a sexual context. Why? Because it gets between a person and their fun-time called sex. It gets in the way of them getting off, and when you talk about these issues, they resist not only in debate, but internally, desperately trying to ignore the concept of sexual morality (because if it's true, then their fun-time has to stop).

If a straight person gets turned on, does that mean they MUST have sex? No. Sex is a choice.

Rape is the ONLY case where someone is forced to sexually engage another person.


>is how you end up with priests who molest children and serial murderers.

No. Just: no. The reason child molesters and murderers exist, is because they do not exercise self control. They allow their sickness to become their identity.


>they can't admit who they are

Why identify one's person according to sexual feelings? Or better yet, why identify oneself by their sins?

>Would you just suck one up and take it for the team? For the rest of your life? Or would it eat at you, day by day, month by month, year by year, because in your heart you know you're not attracted to the same sex?

If you believe in an objective morality, then you will allow it to guide your life. Life is a constant struggle, the question the Christian asks them self is: Shall I struggle against evil in order to do what is right, or shall I struggle against God? It's your choice.

>Now you know how all the gay men in your church feel.

As a matter of fact, those who choose not to have gay sex, aren't gay. Everyone has sexual fantasies, and they come in all forms. It's what people choose to do that counts.


>Repression isn't healthy, it always ends badly.

The subordination of morality to lusts, is the source of all evil.



In the context of history, traditional Christianity recognizes that everyone is a sinner, and is in need of redemption. We all have different faults. Most societies tend to dwell on homosexuality as a major taboo (with the exception of the Post-Modern West). There are many things people can do wrong, and most people have at least some moral values. But sexuality seems to evade any sense of morality in the Post-Modern West. This is the anthropological shift we are experiencing, and it is unique in the world, and in history.

In the context of this thread, the most socially "progressive" churches are probably those of the Anglican Communion in the US.

>>11780
>Except it is.
LOL, sure it is.

You know, there are names for people who are so staunchly anti-homosexual like yourself.

We call them closeted homosexuals. Say hello to John Travolta and Tom Cruise while you're in there, would you?

File 133109439998.jpg - (6.62KB , 284x178 , mplaugh.jpg )

>>11783

You know you're argument has been defeated, when your only defense is: "you just don't like it cause' you're gay and closeted!" What kind of argument is that? No argument at all. You lose.

File 133109799292.jpg - (50.06KB , 478x269 , russian_putin_protests.jpg )

>>11784
>you're argument
Jesus fucking christ son, if you're going to try and pull off the arrogant smug act, you have to use correct grammar.

>What kind of argument is that?
A truthful one, because anti-homosexuals are normally closet homosexuals. Just look at the last couple dozen years of the Republican party, their staunchest anti-homosexual members were, one by one, exposed as homosexuals themselves. It takes a special kind of self-hate to constantly attack a group who's done no harm to them.

Let's be clear - this guy has absolutely no knowledge of psychology. At all. He argues points of psychology from points of theology, because that's all he can argue. And spouts half-truths and tinfoil-hat-esque anti-western conspiracy theories to justify his bigotry and ignorance.

I sincerely think that he's a closet homosexual who has buried himself in his religion in order to live a life of denial, which has severely isolated himself from his fellow man as a result. The only way he can relate to anyone is through his religion. Just look at how he drags every discussion back to a religion, no matter how tangential it is.

Not every view has to be framed by Orthodox Christianity, yet that's all he's done. He comes across as a very sad man who has no life except for his church.

>>11786
>I sincerely think that he's a closet homosexual

>>11783
>We call them closeted homosexuals

Why is it that every time we have this debate, the person who speaks out against homosexuality is accused of being gay? I have a theory. Supporters of homosexuality try to set up the dialogue the same way every time so that there is an automatic gut/kneejerk reaction to the opposition pre-programmed into people's minds: that the person arguing is acutally gay. Also, because the person in question argues against homosexuality, they make an attempt to strike out in the only sure-fire way to offend their opponent.

So far you guys haven't refuted his/her argument. All you've done is call him/her gay.

/Thread

>>11788

Because it's pretty common for the most vocal gay bashers to be closeted gay themselves, with serious guilt issues, usually beaten into them by the same ancient barbarian religions that are seen as great moral codes even though they're wildly destructive in every civilization they've been adopted in.

Continue...

File 133110305794.jpg - (93.01KB , 496x602 , arr troll threads.jpg )

>>11786

>anti-homosexuals are normally closet homosexuals.
>It takes a special kind of self-hate
>this guy has absolutely no knowledge of psychology.
>spouts half-truths and tinfoil-hat-esque anti-western conspiracy theories
>bigotry and ignorance
>I sincerely think that he's a closet homosexual

vague assumptions

>drags every discussion back to a religion,

and what was the subject of this thread until you decided to troll?

>very sad man who has no life

fake sympathy to try and make post look legit

>>11789

And that's a pretty common response.


Oh, and Nihilism totally isn't destroying our society, eh?

Yes, I'd agree with that. All 86% of the american public that self-identify as belonging to a christian religion, the leaders of which openly and proudly claim to both seek and be succeeding in embroiling the nation in a "spiritual war" to forge a "christian nation", and whom have developed and embraced a 100% materialistic individualist greed based economy and aggressive, violent militaristic presence, are being held back by... nihilists.

Right. Go ahead an purge the non-believers. Then who will you blame for your problems?

Sow. Reap. Causality is a bitch.

>>11780
You do realise that homosexuals want long-term loving relationships as well as sex?
And you keep saying it's immoral, but who does it actually harm? Safe, consensual sex between two consenting adults does not constitute anything immoral in my book.

>>11790
I see the "I can't come up with a counter to your statements so I'll just call you a troll" comment has come into play. And just in time!

>>11794
It makes Baby Jesus cry.

>>11801

I see the "I can't come up with a counter to your statements so I'll just call you gay" comment has come into play.
>>11789
>>11786
>>11783

>>11793
>Then who will you blame for your problems?
The devil?

They'll just do the Robertson/Santorum thing and claim, one by one, that various sects are the antichrist and/or not "true Christians."

When a group thinks they're blameless they'll always find someone to blame rather than admit their ignorance and bigotry.

>>11804
When people write long-winded explanations as to why he's wrong, and carefully try to educate him on simple high-school level psychology, to which he just regurgitates the same old tired anti-western religious diatribes, eventually you have to see a pattern.

I suspect this guy would counsel people into going into careers they have no aptitude for, and will therefore be miserable in, just because he wants to see them in that career. Nevermind if they go with what they're good at they could do a much better job, enjoy life more, and be generally more successful because of utilizing their inherent skills - that's not important, what's important is to do what he says because he said it.

Notice how he completely ignored the question of whether he would be happy if he was forced to live his life as a homosexual. It was clearly an attempt to force him to identify with them, and he refused to even entertain the notion. It would have required him to recognize that he and homosexuals were both human beings. Instead he used the opportunity to reiterate that homosexuals are evil.

>>11783

I'm not a closeted homosexual. I simply state the moral value that I believe in. Seriously though, these typical, predictable responses about those who are opposed to homosexuality being gay are getting old. They also do not constitute an argument.

>>11786

>A truthful one, because anti-homosexuals are normally closet homosexuals.

Nice try. Never heard that one before...oh wait...nope...heard it plenty of times. An empty presupposition that is easy to pronounce.

>It takes a special kind of self-hate to constantly attack a group who's done no harm to them.

Now see, this one is kind of clever, but dishonest to the core. I do not hate homosexuals, nor did I even make any reference to hatred. All I did was state what my moral values are, without actually passing judgement on any particular gay person. But, like your previous statements, this is a very typical response to criticism of homosexuality, and one leveled at any Christian who refuses to bend over (pardon the pun) and submit to modern thought.

>absolutely no knowledge of psychology.

How do you know that?

>And spouts half-truths and tinfoil-hat-esque anti-western conspiracy theories

No. Where did I talk about conspiracies? All I have done is attempted to contrast worldviews. If I am indeed guilty of "half-truths," then what lies have I told? You are accusing me of lying.

>his bigotry and ignorance.

A bigot, is one who hates. I do not hate. An ignorant person is one who does not know enough to come to a correct conclusion. It is because I know what I do, that I have come to my conclusion. If you can tell me, what is it exactly that I am ignorant of?

>The only way he can relate to anyone is through his religion

I relate to people through the fact that we are all human. I also engage people in various settings.

>Just look at how he drags every discussion back to a religion, no matter how tangential it is.

Whoa, you got me there. I didn't know this thread was totally not about religion and stuff... This thread conversation has become a debate of sorts. All I've done is respond to posts related to the subject matter.

>He argues points of psychology from points of theology, because that's all he can argue.
>buried himself in his religion in order to live a life of denial
>Not every view has to be framed by Orthodox Christianity
>a very sad man who has no life except for his church

Psychology is a science. Science is a way of understanding the universe, with the limitation that all conclusions find their source in empirical data obtained from physical experimentation and observation. Theology is literally the "study of God," although in modern usage it is applied to the study of any spiritual thoughts. If one takes a purely scholastic approach to Christianity: our learnings come from individuals such as the Biblical authors, who had at various times and in various ways received knowledge of God. In Christianity, Christ Himself is the revelation of God, and taught His followers to search for truth and live according to how God intends, chiefly to be loving and compassionate to all human beings. One thing Christ did not teach, was to lie in order to make people feel better. Theology is only useful when it is used to inform one's spiritual life.

I grouped these points together on purpose. There is good religion and bad religion. Bad religion is dead. It is nothing more than a legal construct. It has no life, and minimal spiritual virtues. An example would be a person who goes to church on Sunday, and "checks the box off" that they've done their duty. They then proceed to praise them self and feel content that they are not "as bad as those other lost souls." In the end, its all an act where specific obligations are met, but one is not transformed.

Good religion isn't religion in the modern linguistic context. Good religion is when an institution (Church) preserves spiritual methodologies which become a lifestyle for the believers. It isn't, as in the context of your statement, that I "have no life," instead I say that I have life so long as I am in communion with God. It is because I have found life in a world of suffering and corruption, that I engage in my religion. When you actually believe in a religion, it informs your thought, it guides your life. Anything less would be picking and choosing whatever "feels right" from arbitrary sources. If there is a true religion, then its chief attribute by definition would be to reconnect the human person with the Divine.

These days, my views are unpopular. Even amongst those who call themselves Christians.


>isolated himself from his fellow man

I love my fellow man. It is because I care about truth, it is because I enjoy talking with people about important issues, it is because I consider the opinions of others, it is because I want to share ideas and learn, that I engage in discussions. If my views offend you, please know that this was not the intention.

One thing is for certain, it doesn't isolate me as you say it does. Even when people disagree with what I hold dear, even when they despise me and spit upon me for sharing a teaching that I received (not to my own credit), even when they hate me because they sense I have attacked their "gods" whether it be actual false deities or simply actions; when they are filled with rage I sit here content, not feeling anger. From my perspective, I am at peace with them and wish them no harm. That is what was given to me, that's the faith that fortunate enough to learn about. And after seeing and tasting the alternative philosophies and ethics (or lack thereof), I know that I have found freedom in God. I am closer to other people because I was taught to love them, and that being compassionate fulfills a persons life. The trick for me is to keep striving, as I am not perfect.

>>11789

>usually beaten into them by the same ancient barbarian religions that are seen as great moral codes even though they're wildly destructive in every civilization they've been adopted in.

Civilization is the product of religion.

>>11793

The attributes you listed are not Christian attributes.

>>11794

>You do realise that homosexuals want long-term loving relationships as well as sex?

Yes I do realize that.

>And you keep saying it's immoral, but who does it actually harm? Safe, consensual sex between two consenting adults does not constitute anything immoral in my book.

The argument from Christianity is that it does hurt those who partake in it. It falls short of the fruits offered by a man-woman relationship, and is a distortion of true human sexuality. As for living together in a close relationship, do you realize that monasticism is an ancient Christian tradition in which brotherhoods and sisterhoods are formed (same gender, common living space, etc.)? The problem is not caring for other people or forming bonds, the problem is when a substitute for a heterosexual marriage is sought.

>>11805

When a group thinks they're correct (which is the entire reason for believing in and preserving an organized religion), and harbor teachings against someone else's actions, those who dissent will often accuse them of ignorance and bigotry, whether it is true or not.

>>11806

I didn't know psychology was the only method of understanding the universe, and therefore how we define morality.

Your entire statement about me is fallacious. I absolutely recognize homosexuals as human beings! It is precisely because they are human beings that they ought to seek God! I don't tell people these things because I said it, or because I am some kind of authority, I truly believe what I do, not to my own credit. When you actually believe in something, you stand up for it. The stuff you said about careers is complete bullshit. I thought I answered the bit about "being forced to be homosexual," but let me elaborate: if I was "forced to be homosexual" I would refuse on moral grounds. But since you disdain complete answers (which you characterize as "long-winded), I won't go into any more details than that.

>>11808

Presupposition it might have been, before decades of pastors and priests made it reality. Pray away the gay, sinners!

You value some shit morals.

>There is good religion and bad religion. Bad religion is dead. It is nothing more than a legal construct. It has no life, and minimal spiritual virtues. An example would be a person who goes to church on Sunday, and "checks the box off" that they've done their duty. They then proceed to praise them self and feel content that they are not "as bad as those other lost souls." In the end, its all an act where specific obligations are met, but one is not transformed.

>Good religion isn't religion in the modern linguistic context. Good religion is when an institution (Church) preserves spiritual methodologies which become a lifestyle for the believers. It isn't, as in the context of your statement, that I "have no life," instead I say that I have life so long as I am in communion with God. It is because I have found life in a world of suffering and corruption, that I engage in my religion. When you actually believe in a religion, it informs your thought, it guides your life. Anything less would be picking and choosing whatever "feels right" from arbitrary sources. If there is a true religion, then its chief attribute by definition would be to reconnect the human person with the Divine.

>These days, my views are unpopular. Even amongst those who call themselves Christians.

thank you

>>11809
>I didn't know psychology was the only method of understanding the universe
The problem is the discussion in question wasn't talking about understanding the universe, it was talking about understanding your fellow human beings and not demonizing soime of them as sinners because a group of jackasses in antiquity were deeply ashamed that their ancestors openly practiced pedo and non-pedo buttsex.

And psychology is the understanding of humanity in it's actual, not antiquated scripture, form. Therefore when people start talking about psychology, quoting scripture doesn't actually yield anything useful to the discussion, because we're not talking about burning heretics at the stake, etc. we're talking about understanding your fellow man.

>long-winded
You really need to go back to school and take some more English coursework, because
>When people write long-winded explanations as to why he's wrong
applies to the people replying to you. "he" is you.

>regurgitates the same old tired anti-western religious diatribes
applies to you. Which you have done, yet again.

By the way
>These days, my views are unpopular.
You know why they're unpopular? Because they're divisive, because they serve not to draw parishioners together but instead serve to drive them apart. Because they've been used, and are being used, to justify atrocities.

You need look no further than the current middle east to see evidence of this.

>You need look no further than the current middle east to see evidence of this.

but... they DO love their pedo buttsex in the arab world

and with goats... and camels...

sure glad they're taking the moral high ground with female circumcision

>>11821

>And psychology is the understanding of humanity in it's actual, not antiquated scripture, form. Therefore when people start talking about psychology, quoting scripture doesn't actually yield anything useful to the discussion, because we're not talking about burning heretics at the stake, etc. we're talking about understanding your fellow man

So basically you just said that psychology is the only way to understand people. If there is a God, then this God would understand man better than man understands himself. Psychology, since it is a science, cannot account for the spiritual attributes of man. Spirituality cannot be approached with empirical methods and rationalism. I believe what you have done is fallen for the common non-sequitur argument that came out of the Enlightenment Era: "If it isn't scientific, I can't believe it since science is the only basis for knowledge." Oh and by the way, where did you actually convey a psychological argument for homosexuality?

>You know why they're unpopular? Because they're divisive, because they serve not to draw parishioners together but instead serve to drive them apart. Because they've been used, and are being used, to justify atrocities.

You know why they're unpopular? Because our society values instant gratification over truth. Even when presented with a profitable teaching, people stop up their ears because it threatens their fun.

So basically you just said that moral teachings should not be preserved but submitted to modern trends in culture. You just said that we ought to simply do "what everyone else is doing" instead of seeking what's right, no matter how unpopular. Atrocities are not justified by morals; morals stand on their own as concepts of guidance. Atrocities originate from hatred, which is a symptom of the existence of evil.

>You need look no further than the current middle east to see evidence of this.

{Christianity U OT Judaism} =/= Islam

What is this, I don't even...?

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."
- Theodore Roosevelt

>>11916
Is that related to this?

>>11915
>You know why they're unpopular? Because our society values instant gratification over truth. Even when presented with a profitable teaching, people stop up their ears because it threatens their fun.

>Because our society values instant gratification over truth

>"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt

>Is that related to this?

yup

File 133221777930.jpg - (230.62KB , 1037x1600 , SoLong.jpg )

>>11915
>So basically you just said that psychology is the only way to understand people.
It's the only way you, a human being, are going to understand people. You, me, and every other internet-connected person on this planet is just a human being. A sentient animal. And, in all likelihood, not even the only one on this planet.

>If there is a God, then this God would understand man better than man understands himself.
And if you could actually communicate with God, you could know what he knows. But you can't. And no human has. Ever.

>Oh and by the way, where did you actually convey a psychological argument for homosexuality?
About the same time Psychology stopped listing homosexuality as a mental disease. You really should pull your head out of the bible once in a while. Did you know the Catholic Church doesn't blame Joos for all that is wrong with the world anymore?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

>You know why they're unpopular?
Because fundamentalism, which is what you're defending, is responsible for more horrors witnessed upon this planet than all the good Christianity has ever done and will ever do.

>So basically you just said that moral teachings should not be preserved but submitted to modern trends in culture.
As our understanding of ourselves and our surroundings and the universe itself expands, spirituality must change as well to suit the changing world we all live in. Otherwise you end up murdering people for daring to claim the world isn't flat, the earth revolves around the sun, and similarly antiquated ideas that were justified by fundamentalist interpretation.

While you may be content to live in caves and draw on walls, the rest of us quite like expanding our knowledge of the universe that God himself created for us to - yes - understand.

Again, just because some jackasses in antiquity were deeply, deeply ashamed that their ancestors openly practiced buttsex does not mean that what they wrote down to justify their persecution of homosexuality was "truth."

By the way: Evolution contradicts literal interpretation of the bible.

>What is this, I don't even...?
Of course you don't, because you couldn't grasp the simple concept that I clearly pointed out you're a fundamentalist, and inferred that fundamentalists of all religions are more alike than they are different. You're an extremist hiding behind religion to cloak your naked hatred of the modern world.

>>11915
>threatens their fun
I'm sure all the homosexuals being shunned and outright murdered in this world are fucking having the times of their lives.

>>11921
Maybe your worldview is simply over liberalized. Maybe you're a fundamentalist of modernity. Maybe the reason you jump to the accusation of "fundamentalism" is because your concept of moral consistency is so warped and misguided, that you just can't even consider the possibility that truth was given to humans earlier than you. Maybe you are uncomfortable with the idea that scientific thought and processes might not be the only way to find what's right.

You're probably more close minded than religious people. I could be wrong...probably not.

>>11921

Why do you keep jumping to violence and persecution? The concept of homosexuality being wrong is not violent, it's simply a moral value. The chief cause of violence is a violent attitude-this is not something exclusive to moral teachings against homosexuality. People have been persecuted all over the world and throughout history for their ethnicity, for their origin, their faith, their appearance and the list goes on. You make it sound as if the automatic outcome of moral teachings is violence. That is simply disingenuous.

does moral relativism always come to the conclusion that homosexuals are God's 'special snowflakes' - and therefor above 'any' form of criticism?

If you so lack ethics that the bronze-age barbarian morals of the Abrahamic cults are an improvement to you, then hey, good for you. At least you're making an effort, regardless of how misguided it may be. As a "moral code", it's got a particularly bad track record, having grown and then destroyed nearly every civilization it's been adopted in at least once, due to the primitive violence and destruction woven in. So long as people voluntarily choose to limit their worldview to it, so too will be your civilization be restricted by it and fail like the thousands of others that came before.

Actually read your bible. Aside from God forgetting how he made the universe and how nature works, just try to tell me with a straight face that's the most important wisdom a supreme all-knowing being could impart upon earths people. It's not even good advice, much less divine advice.

New Testament and Old are amalgams of well-established and well-documented myths from across dozens of early civilizations and cultures all stemming from Akhenaten's original monotheism cult that was driven out of Egypt after his reign ended. The history is traceable all the way back.

You're worshipping the sun, and the sun does not care.
Thomas Jefferson was right, even before all the evidence we now have was in.

>>11927
>it's got a particularly bad track record, having grown and then destroyed nearly every civilization it's been adopted in at least once, due to the primitive violence and destruction woven in
Well let's see, if it wasn't for the adoption of Christianity by Europe, children would not be considered full human beings, and human life would not be inherently valued. You, even as an unbeliever would be utterly shocked and dumbfouned if you encountered pre-Christian Europeans.

Study the Pagan cultures of Europe and try telling me with a straight face that Christianity (Abrahamic religion) destroyed their civilizations. It enriched them and transformed them, sending them into a much better state despite the transgressions of feudal tyrants and the all too human corruption that is pervasive in every region of the world.

>all stemming from Akhenaten's original monotheism cult that was driven out of Egypt
Please tell me you're not spewing that Zeitgeist bullshit.

Ever heard of the "Spermatikos Logos?" Probably not; look it up. The commonalities between religions such as the Golden Rule, are just inherent truths that people recognized and preached despite their other disagreements.

>Thomas Jefferson was right, even before all the evidence we now have was in.
What evidence? Of what?

>>11928
>Please tell me you're not spewing that Zeitgeist bullshit.
>Ever heard of the "Spermatikos Logos?" Probably not; look it up. The commonalities between religions such as the Golden Rule, are just inherent truths that people recognized and preached despite their other disagreements.

No, religions are just another manifestation of the memetic principle. They evolve and mutate just like any other packet of cultural information, and they can have common ancestors. Those "universal truths" are not at all universal, but just point to a shared ancestor-religion.

>>11923
>close minded
Because it takes a closed mind not to stone people to death. To accept people for who they are, instead of shun some for being different.

He hasn't budged his opinion one bit and he's got an open mind? No matter how many times you try to put him in the place of the people he's persecuting, he refuses to identify that they're human beings. Just like him.

>>11925
Crazy thought, I know, but did you ever consider that some Christians (e.g. like fundy mc2mdcentury here) persecute those who don't follow their antiquated moral code? And said persecution often is backed up by violence if they refuse to follow the "truth."

Religion doesn't have to be divisive. But this guy requires a literal interpretation of the bible and has repeatedly insisted that no part of it, not even the parts that contradict each another, can be ignored.

>>11923
"I just ritually sacrificed this baby! You're close minded if you don't accept me!"

There are limits to what people in good conscience can accept.

hey, they're bashing in emo and suspected homo heads with cinderblocks in Iraq now because of islamic beliefs

are you all so happy we pulled our invasion of troops and christian values out of their lands - what happens when we pull out of afWackystan?

Yea, because aggression and homophobia and misogyny and all the other most destructive elements of humanity are represented in Islamic culture, but totally not in Christian culture at all.

Head in the clouds.

>>11921

>It's the only way you, a human being, are going to understand people

I rest my case.

>A sentient animal

This is what happens when the Christian ethic is rebelled against: humans become dehumanized. I prefer to give preferential treatment to human beings, who are not merely sentient, nor animal, but possessing of actual souls (something no computer, electronic of biological, can create).

>And if you could actually communicate with God, you could know what he knows. But you can't. And no human has. Ever.

You aren't going to be able to know everything God knows, even if there is communication. The difference between me and you, is that I believe that people were revealed truths by God. You can't prove that "...no human has," as this is a negative, and all I'm doing is saying that I recognize truth in the teachings of Christianity. This is the same dynamic as when you seek out sources of true information for say, a research project.

>About the same time Psychology stopped listing homosexuality as a mental disease

Categories like that are a human affair, and it all depends who you talk to in an intellectual community.

>You really should pull your head out of the bible once in a while.

You who have shut your mind to Christian teaching tell me to be open minded? The reason I arrive at my conclusions is precisely because I am open minded. I listen to, and believe in science. It informs my thinking. I simply have not fallen for the lie that emperical thought is the only thought. I process everything I hear, that's why I have intently read, and re-read every argument you make.

Let me put this concept into other terms: if I have pain in my chest, I go to the doctor; if I have a spiritual and/or moral question I go to the Bible, the Holy Church Fathers, etc. Science, whether we are talking about psychology, physics, chemistry, etc. is utterly physical, and can help us to understand that which we can comprehend.

>Did you know the Catholic Church....

I'm not Roman Catholic.

>Because fundamentalism....blah.....blah

Ahh, labels and categories: the association fallacy. Label someone a "fundamentalist" in a desperate effort to discredit them instead of debating an actual issue. Didn't see that one coming.

By your definition, anyone who claims they know the truth about something, and stands up for what they believe in is a fundamentalist. Anyone, including you, a Post-Modern Fundamentalist.

>which is what you're defending, is responsible for more horrors witnessed upon this planet than all the good Christianity has ever done and will ever do

First of all, the horrors of which you speak are not the product of Christianity, they are the product of fallen people, imperfect people.

Second, people drown in water all the time when they jump in and don't know how to swim. Is water bad? Should we apostatize from water?

>spirituality must change as well to suit the changing world we all live in

One of the hardest things in life is identifying what changes, and what doesn't. By definition, God, the Divine, the transcendent does not change, but remains steadfast not bound by time, of which change is a product. Therefore, objectively true spirituality never changes. If you change it, you destroy it and loose its inherent worth.

>Otherwise you end up murdering people for daring to claim the world isn't flat, the earth revolves around the sun, and similarly antiquated ideas that were justified by fundamentalist interpretation

Apples and oranges + assumption about murder. Nice try; not falling for it.

>just because some jackasses in antiquity were deeply, deeply ashamed that their ancestors openly practiced buttsex does not mean....

Is this a claim?

>you couldn't grasp the simple concept that I clearly pointed out you're a fundamentalist
>You're an extremist hiding behind religion to cloak your naked hatred of the modern world

Elaborate on your comment about the Middle East. That's what confused me: the fact that you randomly spewed a region of the world under Islamic influence into a discussion of Christianity.

Your desperation is quite apparent from your lables. By your standards, you are bigot for labeling me and saying those things. As I said before (maybe you didn't read) I don't hate. I embrace my religion because I believe it to be true, and it is a way of life for me.

Is a scientist an "extremist" when he defends a hypothesis? Is an historian an "extremist" when she stands by records whilst social engineering agendas are being pushed?


>>11927

>destroyed nearly every civilization it's been adopted in

lol. Lies.

>God forgetting how he made the universe and how nature works

What?

>just try to tell me with a straight face that's the most important wisdom a supreme all-knowing being could impart upon earths people. It's not even good advice, much less divine advice.

Are you speaking of the Protestant concept that God wrote the Bible? It's a new concept and would be alien to the early Church. That's not what the Bible is.

>New Testament and Old are amalgams of well-established and well-documented myths from across dozens of early civilizations and cultures all stemming from Akhenaten's original monotheism cult that was driven out of Egypt after his reign ended. The history is traceable all the way back.

Check this: >>11928


>>11932

>Those "universal truths" are not at all universal, but just point to a shared ancestor-religion.

The "Golden Rule" is indeed a universal good. Truth is often self-evident.

>>11936

>Because it takes a closed mind not to stone people to death

Here we go again with non-arguments, just vain words, vague associations, and the attachment of false attributes to Christianity. Then again, this is an image board.

>He hasn't budged his opinion one bit and he's got an open mind?

Neither have those I argue with "budged one bit." That is no criterion for an open mind. Open mindedness is when one is willing to listen and consider the words of all.

>he refuses to identify that they're human beings

That is a lie. You officially lost the argument.

Check: >>11809

>parts that contradict each another

What parts exactly? Let's see if we get an answer.

FYI: I don't follow the Protestant Sola Scriptura model or ideals in case you were wondering.


>>11943

While violence fulfills the tenets of Islam, it defies the tenets of Christianity. Typical false attack, I've heard it a lot these days. Is the best you can do?

Well your gods chose some lame "truths" to reveal. Any number of more productive "truths" would have been far more constructive to a positive life than most of the central tenets of your dogma. Like, "I am the Lord thy God, be fuckin nice to each other no matter what, and leave the persecuting to me, you little shits, cause I'm pretty sure I can swing it without your assistance. Also don't pollute the shit out of this world I let you live on, cause I'm not going to save you from cancer. And once you've gone forth and populated the world, exercise some self-control til you can take care of the people you've already squirted out, for fucks sake. It's not a game of breed-til-it-kills-everyone. Now get your ignorant asses to work growing stuff and building good things to benefit each other, enjoy life, and leave the judgmental bullshit to me."

...why is this topic in History?

...Oh, right, because it's slowly, steadily being relegated to the past as people grow as a culture and leave these slug-brained ways behind.

>>11945
History and CULTURE is the name of the board. And those views are in no way relegated to the past. Maybe the majority of image board posters are atheist or agnostic, but society at large is not.

>>11946
>...society at large is not.

That depends entirely on which country you're in.

>Yea, because aggression and homophobia and misogyny and all the other most destructive elements of humanity are represented in Islamic culture, but totally not in Christian culture at all.

then it's sure a 'good thing' that generally atheists are totally free of aggression, hatred, homophobia, misogyny, hypocrisy, and all the other most destructive elements of humanity... we can safely trust in their ineffable intellectual and moral superiority to provide sound practical guidance in all matters secular and sacred

>Head in the clouds.

<thud>

>as people grow as a culture and leave these slug-brained ways behind.

we've had atheism for thousands of years, too - can we leave THAT behind for the slug-brained?

>>11946
>society at large is not
Depends on where you live, skippy.

3 in 5 Europeans self-describe themselves as atheists.

And yet, their quality of life ratings are continually higher than the US's. Even though the US has all the money in the world and could buy everyone a giant goddamn robot army to do their work.

Oh, but those europeans don't know what christianity is all about! Let's you tell em about christianity. Currently, 80% of US citizens identify as Christian. ...and falling. Thus, the evangelicals new focus on developing nations. I believe the quote from a one Mr Rick Warren was that the US was a lost cause, the battleground to create a new holy empire was in poor countries across africa, where there are few to no enforced laws preventing them from doing gods work. They then went on to donate millions of dollars to militant groups across africa, killing nonbelievers and gays, and instituting the death penalty for acts of heresy.

This is happening now, in 2012, with your church donations.

Complain about birth control in the US though. Go on...

sorry, that joke about the EU standard of life being so high was a real corker... hope they never have to worry about their government's massive debts

>>11951
>joke
Keep thinking that.

Funny how those massive debts accrued right after they adopted massive tax cuts like the US did, huh?

>>11951

Hah, look at that, the US ranks 35th!

...of course, what I fail to understand is that countries 1-34 don't count. What was I thinking.

>>11950

Who's making the ratings? What I know is this, I'd rather live in America then in Europe, because of the economic opportunities and standard of living.

>>11952

Massive debts accrue due to spending more than you take in, not because of tax cuts. Taxes are still relatively high in Europe, and yet the Big Brother governments who are the caretaker of all continue to pour money they don't actually have into their economies of failure.

>>11950
Not every Christian is an Evangelical. Why do you automatically assume that anyone who identifies as Christian is of the ilk of Warren, Robertson and others?

>Funny how those massive debts accrued right after they adopted massive tax cuts

Funny how those 'enlightened' euro governments just signed their countries over to the global bankers, and their people are going to be ass-raped for it

>...of course, what I fail to understand

is truly awesome in scope

>Why do you automatically assume that anyone who identifies as Christian is of the ilk of Warren, Robertson and others?

he needs to stoke his hatred to get through the long lonely dark night of the soul ?

>>11945

>Well your gods chose some lame "truths" to reveal

Oh, so you are in a position to dictate what God gives us? That is the definition of self-righteousness: when someone thinks they in and of them self possess the criterion for ultimate truths.

The "truths" revealed in the Christian faith are ontological, they deal with the purpose of why we are here, and with fulfilling the primal purpose. Everything else, including technology and all earthly cares, is secondary with the ultimate mission of the Christian: to return to the source, God. Anything else simply helps us along the way. But the ultimate purpose, the meaning of life, and our relationship to God is revealed.

Interestingly, some of the things you proposed in your mockery actually are values held by Christianity, like "being nice" and being non-judgemental of individuals.

>Interestingly, some of the things you proposed in your mockery actually are values held by Christianity, like "being nice" and being non-judgemental of individuals.

now he'll just get MORE angry at you for saying that

>>11956
>the global bankers
Not the global bankers!

And the Joos!

And the Reverse Vampires!

>>11963
>being non-judgemental of individuals
Hey, I'm all for the nice Christians.

But fundy mc2ndcentury here most definitely passes judgement on everyone else who doesn't follow his particular literal interpretation of biblical passages.

Look at how he cries about being called a fundamentalist despite repeatedly insisting that everyone must follow a literal interpretation of biblical writings, which is one of the basic tenets of fundamentalist Christianity.

Remember, you can't ignore any part of the bible since it was all written by Jesus and God himself.

of the three on your list - the global bankers are real

>Hey, I'm all for the nice Christians.
Hey, I'm all for the nice Niggers.
Hey, I'm all for the nice Kikes.
Hey, I'm all for the nice Wops.
Hey, I'm all for the nice Chinks.
Hey, I'm all for the nice Towelheads.
Hey, I'm all for the nice Spics.

and you sound so progressive

>>11970
Actually they're the only ones who don't exist.

>>11971
Have a good cry in /rnb/

enjoy your whistling in the dark

>>11969

>definitely passes judgement on everyone else who doesn't follow his

No I don't. I don't pass judgement on those individuals. What you have said here is a false assumption, the assumption that I declare myself judge over transgressors. I am a transgressor, I am imperfect. All I have done here is speak about values. All I have done is discussed moral values that I hold to be objectively correct.

>literal interpretation of biblical passages.
>...bible since it was all written by Jesus and God himself.

This is why atheism and agnosticism are so prevalent in our society: you have been fed the straw-god of Protestant thought. The God of punishment and revenge, the false teachings about what scripture is. If you are honest, seek to understand what you are actually attacking. Are you attacking Christianity as it was in Christ's time, in the apostles time, or are you attacking the liberalized, warped theology of Western Christianity as it is today? If the later is true, then it is not Christ that is your enemy, it is not actual Christianity that is wrong. Take a gander at Orthodox Christianity.

As for literal interpretation: how about we stop literally interpreting the dictionary? A physics text book? Why take anything literally? Why actually believe in anything when we can just seek out the lowest common social denominator and go with the flow? (sarcasm implied)

>cries about being called a fundamentalist

Not a tear was shed. I was simply demonstrating the feeble attempt of my counterpart. He/she attempted to employ the association fallacy. They sought to persuade readers from listing to my argument through categorizing me.

As I said before, anyone who makes an assertion and sticks by it is as much of a "fundamentalist" as I. That includes you. (No offense intended)

>repeatedly insisting that everyone must follow a literal interpretation of biblical writings, which is one of the basic tenets of fundamentalist Christianity.

If standing up for what you believe in is a crime, I am guilty as charged.

If Christ is God, then the Bible as well as the teachings of the Church outside of it are authorities. Anything less than adhering to doctrine is picking and choosing what feels comfortable.

What we have witnessed here in this thread is the mental decline of humanity. Now it seems, we are no longer supposed to actually, really, truly believe in anything. This is especially true when religious teaching goes against modern popular culture.

It used to be in Roman Pagan times that they would put Christians to death miserably for refusing to sacrifice to the idols. Similarly, modern man cries out in anger at the Christian saying: "...he has spoken out against our gods!"

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.

-C. S. Lewis

>>11928

I looked up your zeitgeist conspiracy theory movie thing. Some paranoid wackos took a tiny chunk of the history of monotheism, and ran with it. Good for them. This may come as a shock to you, but the history of your religion(s) is not lost to time. Its no secret, it's no conspiracy, it's just anthropology, and it's well understood by millions of people who've devoted their entire lives to working together piecing the history back together after the early church unsuccessfully tried erasing it.

If you like being christian, do yourself a favor and don't look into it. Just read that one book, and other supporting books within the umbrella, and revel in the mystery.

Those of us who prefer facts over truths have them.

>>11977

I actually look into everything and consider the points of others. Even after having researched various religions as well as extinct religions, I am even more convinced of the veracity of Christinaity. Sure you can note the common threads between religions, as I have already, but in the end, truth is self-evident and therefore it is only a further confirmation of it when we see the embrace of things like monotheism, and the "Golden Rule."

Interestingly, researchers actually have noted parallels between OT Judaism and ancient Chinese religion. Plato and others concluded that monotheism was a reality. American Indian religions often believe in a single creator god. In the end, none of the parallels are a shock to me, they simply make sense. The difference between the different religions was how they developed; the ultimate question is which one actually preserved true teachings.

>>11977
>Those of us who prefer facts over truths have them.
>Those of us who prefer facts over truths
>facts over truths

Wut?

>>11981

Facts = objective = the evidence
Truths = subjective = conclusions

>>11982

No, just...no.

Truth is truth. Truth is ontological. Truth IS fact. Each fact that exists is TRUE, otherwise, it would not be a fact, but a fallacy: a lie.

Language can be a dangerous thing. Don't fall into a delusion based upon semantics.

>>11983
I'm guessing he's been paying way too much attention to what the GOP frontrunners are saying, while they fall over themselves backpedaling over earlier comments they've made.

cause those dems are infallible - just like the pope

>>11983
>>11984

Hah, you wish. Look it up, jackhammers. ...and you don't even need to get into theologians convenient "personal truth vs universal truth", though you could, since this conversation is between theists and atheists.

Apparently in some people's worlds, the speed of light isn't a constant, it's subject to interpretation.

>>11987
Actually most of the conversation, up until recently, was theists vs. theists.

Fundamentalism is not the only theism.

Oh, fun...

>>11990

And in a sizable fraction of Americans worlds, the universe was created 6000 years ago. We think of them with pity, stuck in their eddy, willfully ignorant of the deep, rich, dynamic, amazing river beyond the little spiral they spin around in. But, that's what happens when you tailor your reality to match on one horribly erroneous book.

If it's mystery why those of us who've moved beyond early civilizations brutal & crude moral code look back on it with some disdain, then perhaps you'll understand when you eventually wind up where we are, and can try to answer to people at an earlier place on the path. Or perhaps no.

Perhaps you'll die a mad old bugger, convinced the entire universe was put here just for you, as billions believe.

so, atheists are just NATURALLY prone to be scientifically and morally superior to mere Christian 'believers'... which explains how comrades Stalin and Mao were able to send so many more of their faithful 'believers' to Valhalla than those naughty 'primitive' papists and their pathetic crusades

because we know that atheists are manifestly immune to creating or maintaining arcane irrational belief systems that can cause widespread death and destruction to millions of people - based on idiot theories about social class or faulty theories about history or economics

>>11993
To be fair, there were a LOT more people alive in the time of Mao & Stalin than were alive during the time of the crusades. In terms of percentage of a population being sent to their deaths you'd be surprised at just how large a percentage of the population were sent off to their deaths in opportunistic religious wars.

And, of course, Mao & Stalin weren't really atheists; they were both afflicted with God complexes. Believing yourself to be a God and deriving pleasure from the life & death of other human beings doesn't make you an atheist (otherwise you could say the Spanish Inquisition was atheist).

>>11993

Here's the process:

1.) The presupposition that knowledge can only come from scientific thought.

2.) The automatic, categorical denial of any/all spiritual testimony.

3.) The denial of divine interaction with earth.

4.) The denial of the existence of the divine.

5.) The philosophical ideal known as Materialism comes full circle and becomes the worldview.

6.) Humans are fully dehumanized (their identity as beings with souls, created in the image and likeness of God is lost).

7.) Humans are viewed as bags of flesh and bone: nothing more, nothing less.

8.) Humans are viewed purely as a resource to be exploited for material affluence (this is recognized by the malevolent).

9.) Intelligent but malevolent people take control.

10.) Humans are placed in subjugation and are abused, oppressed, physically slaughtered, and forced to be spiritually dead.

11.) Human life has no real, objective value other than as a resource to be manipulated by charismatic atheistic leaders.

>>11995

To be fair (and honest), Stalin and Mao were atheists. They did not view themselves as divine, and therefore did not actually view themselves as "God." They simply saw themselves as extremely powerful humans.

As for the "non-atheist" atrocities you mentioned, their source was evil. It was not Christianity that caused those maladies. It was the fact that imperfect--and far too often, evil--people abused each other. It's a common atheist apologistic trick to attach all sufferings created in the name of a deity to a certain phantom labeled "Religion." Then, when anyone who belongs to a religion speaks, the atheist apologist simply says they are part of "Religion" and therefore complicit with the suffering. Ultimately, the result is that invasions and subsequent persecutions made by the Muslim Ottoman Turks are just as much the fault of Buddhists as they are the Ottomans. If you think that a religion in and of itself is responsible for sufferings, then focus on that individual religion and seek to discover whether or not the religion itself is at fault doctrinally (the doctrine commands injustice).

All of the sufferings, of all time, whether from atheistic regimes, or from so-called "holy warriors," find their root with evil: the absence of good, the state of existence that is devoid of communion with God. We've all done things that are evil in our lives, some more than others.

The slaughter of civilians during the Roman Catholic Crusades as well as Stalin's firing squads find their genesis with fallible, brutal, erring people.

>>11997

One is not an atheist who wipes out all other gods and inserts themselves in the same position.

>>11998

Incorrect. Look at the definition of "atheist."

If one does not believe in divinity, they do not believe in a god or gods.

>>11996
That's the story of Marxism, a European creation. The same Europe in which the phenomenon of atheism started.

>>11996

You do realize number 7 doesn't really jive with numbers 6-10.


The far more common and far more effective process is:

1. Welcome to your life. Let me tell you something. I know you have spent your life studying how the laws of this universe work and have a handle on them. I don't. But let me tell you, there are magical invisible beings called gods and angels and demons and souls, none of which has ever been seen or detected, and even though we know the literal origin of all these fantasies, they're totally real, but you wouldn't know unless I tell you because they're not part of this reality, except they sometimes speak to you through the voice in your head, which is totally not parts of your conscious or subconscious mind interacting even though it's been proven, and I know because the voices tell me they're not of this world, they're god instead, providing me with amazing revelations of divine importance, things no human or society could ever figure out on their own, such as don't murder each other or steal from each other. Also, stone virgins and gays and anyone who cuts their hair or wears clothing made of mixed fibers.

2. Listen to me and do what I say, vote me into positions of power, and you will enjoy supernatural ecstasy for eternity as we smite our enemies.

3. War.

>>11997
>It was not Christianity that caused those maladies
So if someone comes into power in a Christian church and does evil things, Christianity is blameless now? So when Robertson screams about how gays are to blame for 9/11 because it says so in the bible, Christianity isn't to blame for him, he's just evil. That's known as having your cake and eating it too, and it's typically frowned upon since it requires talking out of both ends.

Christianity has done many evil things in it's time and evil continues to be done in it's name even today. Does that mean that all of Christianity is evil? No. But it does mean that all of Christianity should expose the evil hate-mongers in their midst for the hypocrites they are, instead of turning a blind eye to their diatribes and acting shocked when they get lumped in with the group being allowed to flourish in their midst.

>>12001
1 part fringe new-age 'rainbow' Cult
2 part Mujaheddin
2 part Al Qaeda
3 part Taliban

hmm... the first bunch don't have a history of aggression or violence

>>11944
>Label someone a "fundamentalist" in a desperate effort to discredit them instead of debating an actual issue.
But you are a fundamentalist.

You believe in literal interpretations of scripture and dogma. You say we cannot dismiss any part of church dogma or the Bible because it is all meant to be followed. That's the very definition of a fundamentalist. That kind of fundamentalism is responsible for Galileo being imprisoned because he said the earth revolved around the sun.

Just because you don't like the term for political reasons doesn't mean it's not an accurate description of your beliefs. If you don't like being called a fundamentalist, there's only one way to shake the label... don't be one.


>First of all, the horrors of which you speak are not the product of Christianity, they are the product of fallen people, imperfect people.
This is what I love about you. When someone is a Christian and, over the course of history we've found them to have done bad things, suddenly they're not a Christian anymore according to you. Apparently being a Christian is a popularity contest in your particular fundamentalist sect. Accept Christ as your lord and savior, yes yes, very nice, but do you stay popular after you do it? No? Then you're not a Christian, sorry, but help yourself to our selection of unleavened breads on the way out.

By the way, since you apparently reject some forms of scientific thought, like Psychology, why exactly are you using technology to type these edicts? Are you picking and choosing what parts of our scientific progress to accept while rejecting the rest? Doesn't it seem rather, well, odd, even duplicitous, to do that while refusing to do the same for the theological?

>>12010
What you call "fundamentalist" I call "morally consistent." To do anything less is "morally inconsistent."

>>12011
Being consistently wrong is not a good thing.

>>12001

>You do realize number 7 doesn't really jive with numbers 6-10.

How so? When you remove the spiritual component of the soul, you are left with a biological robot.


In both cases--both the process outlined above, as well as yours--the root of the problem, the ultimate cause of the violence lies with people being evil. All of us are evil at some time or another, just some more than others. The other differentiation (most important to God) is between those who repent, and seek to activate a real change in their character versus those who do not repent, who "come as they are" and refuse to be transformed and to emulate the mercy and love revealed by the Christian God.

Oh yeah, and I don't believe in that Protestant idea that was introduced in Modernity of "once saved always saved." Nor do I believe in the lie that "all I need is to declare Christ my personal savior and have faith, and then I can murder a thousand orphans and still 'get into Heaven.'" This is the bullshit that atheist apologists feed on, and it isn't authentic Christianity. It is a warped distortion that even atheists and agnostics recognize as inherently wrong.

Also on another note, I sense the need on your part to further examine Deuteronomy and Leviticus both in their content, and in their understanding.

>>12002

>That's known as having your cake and eating it too

Lol, I predicted someone would say that about this time! Well guess what? Let's entertain that idea for a short while. If what you say is true, than all atheists are complicit with the atrocities committed against religious people by Lenin, Stalin, Moa, et al. Atheism (for sure under your definition of 'having your cake and eating it too') is directly at fault for the most terrible, biggest massacres in human history. (But of course as discussed above, that assertion is not dependent upon your current argument, only supported by it.)

>Christianity should expose the evil hate-mongers in their midst for the hypocrites they are

What have I been doing on this board for the past while? Exactly that. What are Christians saying about the aforementioned maladies? That hate-mongers are not hate-mongering due to Christianity, and in fact their hate-mongering is a contradiction of their supposed faith.

If a duck wear's a sign around it's neck that says "goose," does that make it a goose? Now of course in the end, people have, in the least, minor faults; nobody lives and does not sin. Nobody measures up fully and is "worthy" of Heaven. It is by the grace of God that people are redeemed (key word) and enter into communion with Him during this life.

>>12010

>But you are a fundamentalist.

I addressed this above.

>When someone is a Christian and, over the course of history we've found them to have done bad things, suddenly they're not a Christian anymore according to you.

Unlike Post-Modern relativists, I prefer to call a spade a spade.

>Apparently being a Christian is a popularity contest in your particular fundamentalist sect

Absolutely not. It's about following Christ and seeking to live a life in Him.

>since you apparently reject some forms of scientific thought, like Psychology

What seems "apparent" often is not. You completely misunderstood my discourse above, unless you didn't read. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. Science itself is absolutely valid. But science is limited to the physical realm. One of the chief misjudgments of Western Christianity, and what lead to the unique invention of atheism, was that we can reason about God. When you begin to apply empirical methods to the unfathomable, you get flawed data; from flawed data, flawed conclusions. Science has it's place in our life, and scientific discovery improves and enriches us. What I've been trying to communicate is that knowledge is knowledge regardless of the source. What I argue against is the worldview that science is the ONLY source of knowledge.

Did OT Judaism teach the Simon Peter and Andrew how to be fishermen? No. They learned their trade from secular knowledge developed from experimentation. But Christ made them fishers of men, and offered salvation to them.

>Being consistently wrong is not a good thing.
dropping the proverbial giant 16-Ton weight on the 'convenient' theologies of the left - communism, socialism, statism, redistributionism

>But science is limited to the physical realm. One of the chief misjudgments of Western Christianity, and what lead to the unique invention of atheism, was that we can reason about God. When you begin to apply empirical methods to the unfathomable, you get flawed data; from flawed data, flawed conclusions.

i'm not as certain about this, wondering if there CAN be metaphysical principles than can be examined/tested/proven and lived - that the spiritual 'realm' has structure to it, and not a chaotic unknowable mercurial randomness

>>12015

I'm not sure if I a agree entirely with your statement, but if I understand you correctly I agree with your basic premise. The difference between the theology of east and west (Orthodox vs. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism), in the case of the former, is that theology is not a matter of making precise definitions (which is what western theologians aimed to accomplish). There are certain absolute statements such as: God is Trinity, Christ is the Son of God, God spoke to Moses and other prophets. However, there is no attempt to "know the mind of God." The essence of God is ultimately unknowable, and any human metaphysical understand will always fall short in this respect. The Ecumenical Councils for instance delineated the boundaries of pre-established doctrines, they did not seek precise definitions and reasoned explanations.

As it says in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: "God is ineffable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, ever existing and eternally the same." This is perhaps the best definition one can have for the Divine. But one would be remiss to think that human words can contain the very concept of God. Come to think of it, God is beyond concepts if He actually exists.

>examined/tested/proven

These are scientific terms. But perhaps the corollary to this for the spiritual realm is that our "data points" are the Prophets, the saints, and Christ Himself. The testimony of those who came before us leads us to a better (but never complete) understanding. The establishment of a Church provides a body in which believers are united to God, but still do not fully comprehend God. From Christianity, the belief emerges that God made human beings for love, and that they choose to either love Him or not. But no matter what, God will always love them and allow them to hate Him: making Hell the state of hatred towards God versus a legalistic prison of punishment as the western theologians reasoned in later times. These are indeed metaphysical statements, but they are simple truths, versus doctrines completely invented by reasoning minds through deduction, applying human legalisms.

As for a "structure" to the spiritual realm or "chaotic randomness", what I would say is: if we are ever to know metaphysical truths, they would need to originate with the Divine and be revealed to us. According to Christianity, Christ is the revelation in and of Himself. The ultimate revelation of God is not a set of words (such as Muslims view the Koran, or some Protestants view the Bible) but rather the "Word" or "Logos" (or Tao in Chinese philosophical terms) which is Christ. Through becoming incarnate, the Creator renews creation and makes a path to Heaven; He lowers Himself to our level that we may be elevated to His. Throughout the OT period there were times when the Jews were taught truths and witnessed divine actions, but the full revelation, the salvific actions occurred only with Christ. So in the end, Christianity is not merely a set of metaphysical teachings to be understood, it is a life to be lived: The Life; a life of communion with the Creator and Source of all things.

>>12013
>knowledge is knowledge regardless of the source
And this is the problem. Not all sources are created equal.

You need only look at >>12014 to see what happens when you follow invalid sources to their illogical conclusion.

>>12018

If a statement is true: it is knowledge. Nothing less.

The trick is in identifying sources of true information. The point is--relating to spirituality--that scientific analysis will not provide correct conclusions for that which is outside of the physical realm.

>>12019
Sure.

But within the physical realm you have sciences like Psychology to explain & understand human behavior. And since homosexuality was removed from the list of mental diseases in 1974...

>>12065
I'm going out on a limb here, and suggest that he'll only accept sciences that don't require him to change his antiquated worldview.

>I'm going out on a limb here, and suggest that he'll only accept sciences that don't require him to change his antiquated worldview.

I'm going out on a limb here, and suggest that he'll only promote sciences that don't require him to change his anti-religion worldview.

>>12017
thanks for the answer, it gave me a few more questions to ponder

>>12070
So he'll promote all science in general, then. Sounds fair enough to me.

>>12070
>anti-religion
LOL, so Psychology is anti-religion now?

What are you, a Scientologist?

>What are you, a Scientologist?

LOL

A quick trip over to the Catholic Answers Forum will quickly disprove this thread. It's full of all the pro-life warhawk bullshit that you find in many evangelical circles.

>>12087
To be fair, while Rick Santorum is a Catholic, most Catholics don't support his extremist views.

It's kind of like how Catholic bishops are screaming about birth control coverage (primarily because Santorum's in the race and they think it'll help him get elected - otherwise why didn't they scream when all those states legislated coverage?), even though most Catholic men & women use birth control.

There's always a difference between what a very vocal extremist minority says and what the majority actually do.

File 133955307170.jpg - (334.70KB , 1650x1050 , 132243628890.jpg )

>>11389

I'm sorry that I came in so late, but OP is implying that these social projects aren't actually regressive. The U.S.S.R., China and North Korea, proved that Communism (essentially Socialism, which is the category that these social reforms fall under) is inherently flawed. That being said, I am Catholic. I support my Church and, in turn, the Pope. I support the philosophies presented to me by the Church since an early age, but I don't believe that any authority should pursue these philosophies (disconcerning the Church).

>>12545
Hurr Durr, I don't like X, but an authority I follow says I should like X, therefore I like X- I have so much individuality!

Fuckin' kill yourself

No, seriously.

>>12545
>these social projects aren't actually regressive... U.S.S.R., China and North Korea
>opposing the death penalty, opposing war, opposing poverty, supporting universal health care and unionisation, racial tolerance
And the award for least intelligent remark goes to... >>12545! Go ahead, take a bow.
Here's a few things China and the DPRK don't do / have: opposing the death penalty, opposing war, having universal health care, having free unionisation, racial tolerance.

Learn to look at facts in stead of conservative/libertardian propaganda, you'd know that the most truly socialised states are the Scandinavian ones - universally recognised as superior in all respects.

>>12545
"Communism (essentially socialism)"

I appreciate your honesty, in coming straight out and admitting you know so little about either that you think they're essentially the same, and mindlessly follow whatever the Vatican (of all institutions lol) tells you to think) yet you are proud enough to voice your admittedly uneducated, ill-informed, and inexperienced, opinion.

Wundebar.

>>12549
>>12547
>>12546

You think the Church gave me these opinions?You think that Communism isn't a product of Socialism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Read the first sentence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

I know that these aren't the best references, but given any thought, my post makes sense. Maybe if you weren't so brainwashed by hippies telling you to hate every Christian and Conservative, you would see that I disagree with my Church before immediately writing me off as a brainless sheep as soon as you saw my religious tendencies.

As a kid that was raised on the yolk of the Presbyterian church, then went to multiple Catholic services when my dad married a Sicilian Catholic, let me tell you: your church doesn't know shit about liberalism and tolerance. Its trying now so it doesn't (as another Historian said) become a relic of the middle ages, but its no where near where a lot of western protestant churches are. But at least its better than Baptists and Evangelists and whatnot now. That much I'll grant.

>>12572
Not the guy you're replying to, but it doesn't help that most of the Tea Party use the word Socialism when the word Communism would make more sense in the context of what they're saying, because they obviously don't know there's a difference.

Listen, I've met many Republicans I agree with, including some current Republican representatives, but the problem is that I (like most independent moderates) have no common ground with the extreme right. Just because we don't agree with the extremists doesn't mean we don't agree with the moderates on many issues.

End of the day a state that is Good will implement more philosophies that are Good, instead of implementing more philosophies that are Bad. And Good and Bad are determined by the ethics you follow. If the Catholic church opposes the death penalty, war, poverty and social inequality, therefore Catholics should, in general (obviously everyone's an individual and they believe what they believe, and don't just parrot their religious leaders beliefs - which is why most American Catholics use birth control), support a government that does the same. Supporting a Bad government is hypocritical, from a philosophical perspective at least.

The problem, at least as far as I can see, are your examples. China, USSR, DPRK are/were Communist states. It's a flavor of socialism, yes, but some other socialist states, like the Scandinavian countries, have weathered the current economic downturn far better than the U.S. has without nearly the hit in quality of life. Therefore blanket statements like socialism is always bad falls flat on it's face. Blanket statements generally fall flat on their face, that's why you should try to avoid them, their only use are creating 10 second sound bites.


>>12573
Watch out, because a lot of good ol' boys might think you're talking about Southern Presbyterians, some of which can be just as rabid as Southern Baptists. When I learned that Unification didn't require a unification of ideals, well, it was a very sad day for me.

I'd say the difference between Catholic and Presbyterian social projects is that Catholic projects typically require you to adhere to their views (are you the 1 in 3 women who needs a pill to prevent life-threatening ovarian cysts? well too fucking bad, we won't help you get those pills), while the Presbyterian projects (the ones I've been involved in, at least) are willing to help just about anyone.

>>12574
Definitely not southern Presbyterian. California. In fact, it was the Brentwood Presbyterian church.. just to give you an idea of how liberal we're talking.

>>12572

>>show my ass in the fact that i reject socialism yet turn around and support everything the catholic church supports, which is by-and-large socialism

>>accuse people who point out the fact that i look like a credulous fool having rejected my out beliefs for those of an authority of being brainwashed

>>wah! you think i'm a mindless drone for being religious

no, i think you're a mindless drone for having no spine and supporting an anti-capitalistic church while claiming to oppose anti-capitalism.

seriosuly, wtf?

'Liberation Theology' is being purged from the Catholic Church. There are now holocaust deniers among the clergy. Expect more prosperity theology and other associated horseshit, expect more buddy-buddying between the papacy and the Fellowship/PrayerBreakfastCouncil

>>12584
>There are now holocaust deniers among the clergy.
When you elect a member of the Nazi Youth to be Pope, that is to be expected.