PDA

View Full Version : Vatican lists "new sins," including pollution



Joker2thief
03-10-2008, 11:00 AM
http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20080310/hl_nm/pope_sins_dc.html

Once again omitted from the list of sins
Rape,child abuse,sex with alter boys and being a Jet fan.

On a brighter not for Catholics though it is still ok
to look at Internet porn and listen to Marilyn Manson

Pagan
03-10-2008, 11:05 AM
Now here's a question posed to the Christians/Catholics also, and no....it's not a slam, it's a legit question.

Is this the "word of God" also now, or just something made up by man? If God's laws are supposedly concrete, how can you decide to add some new ones?

Den54
03-10-2008, 11:14 AM
Now here's a question posed to the Christians/Catholics also, and no....it's not a slam, it's a legit question.

Is this the "word of God" also now, or just something made up by man? If God's laws are supposedly concrete, how can you decide to add some new ones?


Ssshhhh don't ask questions.

Vertical Limit
03-10-2008, 11:38 AM
Forgot to get my daily update on the new sins of the week last night. Earlier I threw a gum wrapper outside my window on my way to work.

I hope I don't go to hell. :rolleyes2: Perhaps I should confess tommorow and have the priest forgive me for that gum wrapper I threw.

ch19079
03-10-2008, 11:48 AM
"Vatican law cannot be changed, so sayith the Spider", Queen Spider, South Park

LouPhinFan
03-10-2008, 12:36 PM
Now here's a question posed to the Christians/Catholics also, and no....it's not a slam, it's a legit question.

Is this the "word of God" also now, or just something made up by man? If God's laws are supposedly concrete, how can you decide to add some new ones?

Well I'm not Catholic, so this "new list" means exactly squat to me. I go by what the Bible says, not what a pope/preacher/reverend says. As far as I'm concerned the pope is just another guy and the Vatican is a pretty city in Italy.

Miamian
03-10-2008, 12:42 PM
I can't and won't answer from a Christian perspective so I'm not approaching this from what the Vatican has decreed

From a Jewish perspective, the Torah speaks in allegory and there are often different ways to interpret passages. That's why the Talmud was written.

Dolphan7
03-10-2008, 01:31 PM
Now here's a question posed to the Christians/Catholics also, and no....it's not a slam, it's a legit question.

Is this the "word of God" also now, or just something made up by man? If God's laws are supposedly concrete, how can you decide to add some new ones?It's a fair question....and the simple answer is.....They Can't. This is why there is such division between Catholics and Protestants.

We can't add to or take away from the witten bible. No one can, not even the Pope. But The Catholics have done this for centuries and have strayed from the faith - become Apostate.

If one is basing their view of Christianity on the Catholic Church, they are getting a skewed view at best.

Joker2thief
03-10-2008, 03:45 PM
But the bible was in fact edited to begin with.
Several books were left out-

Dolphan7
03-10-2008, 04:42 PM
I can't and won't answer from a Christian perspective so I'm not approaching this from what the Vatican has decreed

From a Jewish perspective, the Torah speaks in allegory and there are often different ways to interpret passages. That's why the Talmud was written.I didn't realize the Jews look at the Torah as written in Allegory.

Dolphan7
03-10-2008, 04:43 PM
But the bible was in fact edited to begin with.
Several books were left out-Really?

Which books?

And by whom?

LouPhinFan
03-10-2008, 04:58 PM
Really?

Which books?

And by whom?

He's speaking of the "lost" books of the bible. Examples include Tobit, Judith, The Gospel of Judas, etc. They aren't the lost books at all. They were just not included in the bible by the church fathers for various reasons. Mostly because the books were not written by one of the desciples or by one of the old testament prophets or had too many historical inaccuracies to be taken seriously. In other words, they were probably fiction.

Joker2thief
03-10-2008, 05:44 PM
The Life of Adam and Eve: A more detailed story of creation than what
is found in Genesis, this book includes jealous angels, a more devious
serpent, and more information about Eve's fall from grace from her
point of view.

* The Book of Jubilees: This obscure Hebrew text offers an answer to a
question that has vexed Christians for centuries -- if Adam and Eve
only had sons, and if no other humans existed, who gave birth to
humanity? This text reveals that Adam and Eve had nine children and
that Cain's younger sister Awan became his wife. The idea that humanity
was born of incest would have been radical -- and heretical.

* The Book of Enoch: This scripture reads like a modern day action film,
telling of fallen angels, bloodthirsty giants, an earth that had become
home to an increasingly flawed humanity and a divine judgment to be
rendered though denied a place in most Western Bibles; it has been used
for centuries by Ethiopian Christians. Large portions of this book were
found as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Joker2thief
03-10-2008, 05:47 PM
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: The only book that deals with young
Jesus, it indicates that Jesus was a strong-willed child who one
historian describes as "Dennis the Menace as God." The book reveals
that at age five, Jesus may have killed a boy by pushing push him off a
roof and then resurrected him. Perhaps too disturbing for inclusion in
the Bible, this book seems to contain traditions, also known to the
Koran.

The Protovangelion of James: This book offers details of the life of
the Virgin Mary, her parents, her birth and her youth, stories not
found in the New Testament Gospels but was beloved by many early
Christians.

* The Gospel of Mary: This Gnostic Text reveals that Mary Magdalene may
have been an apostle, perhaps even a leading apostle, not a prostitute.
While some texts in the Bible seem to deny women a voice in the
Christian community, this texts helps spark the debate about the role
of women in the church.

* The Gospel of Nicodemus: This is the story of Jesus's trial and
execution and his descent into hell. According to this gospel the
Savior asserts his power over Satan by freeing patriarchs such as Adam,
Isaiah and Abraham from Hell.

The Apocalypse of Peter: Peter's apocalypse suggests that there is a
way out of punishment for evildoers and implies that the threat of the
apocalypse is a way for God to scare people into living a moral life,
and committing fewer sins.

Joker2thief
03-10-2008, 05:49 PM
These books are just a sampling of the hundreds that were never included
in the Holy Bible.

Pagan
03-10-2008, 05:51 PM
*gets popcorn*

This could get interesting. :tongue:

Dolphan7
03-10-2008, 06:07 PM
These books are just a sampling of the hundreds that were never included
in the Holy Bible.Ok good. Now can you tell me when these books were written, and by whom?

DonShula84
03-10-2008, 06:31 PM
I dont see a problem with the Vatican doing this. Modern times will have modern temptations. Warning people about them seems like their job.

Joker2thief
03-10-2008, 07:12 PM
Ok good. Now can you tell me when these books were written, and by whom?

I guess it would be foolish of me to tell someone who is religious to actually research something they believe in.I mean of course you did and of course you know all about this.That is a funny joke by you-to ask me something you already know the answer to.I mean no one would believe in something they did not research for themselves right?Especially something they live their life by-this would be something you would know-how could you not?
I mean I could tell you to use google or yahoo or even watch several of the documentaries that are shown on the history channel and are available on you tube and the Internet.I know that would do no good.

Dolphan7
03-10-2008, 07:25 PM
I dont see a problem with the Vatican doing this. Modern times will have modern temptations. Warning people about them seems like their job.Warning and suggesting are examples of good stewardship, of the mind, body and environment, but to call it a sin?

Dolphan7
03-10-2008, 07:29 PM
I guess it would be foolish of me to tell someone who is religious to actually research something they believe in.I mean of course you did and of course you know all about this.That is a funny joke by you-to ask me something you already know the answer to.I mean no one would believe in something they did not research for themselves right?Especially something they live their life by-this would be something you would know-how could you not?
I mean I could tell you to use google or yahoo or even watch several of the documentaries that are shown on the history channel and are available on you tube and the Internet.I know that would do no good. You made the statement, I am asking you to support it. Why should I look up things to support your argument?

But there is a method to my questions if you care to continue.

When were these lost books written and by whom?

Joker2thief
03-10-2008, 07:32 PM
But for those with short attention spans
and with no will power to overcome the ladies lounge and the ongoing philosophical debate over booty and boo-TAY and backsides bubble or big
or the lure of Internet porn
here is a start-
note the search took 0.03 seconds to show 1 - 10 of 4,580,000 for books (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu94AxNVHE0cBaNtXNyoA/SIG=12k3upcg9/EXP=1205278080/**http%3a//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search%3fp=books) banned (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu94AxNVHE0cBadtXNyoA/SIG=12l3i27s8/EXP=1205278080/**http%3a//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search%3fp=banned) from (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu94AxNVHE0cBattXNyoA/SIG=12jbrd3kl/EXP=1205278080/**http%3a//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search%3fp=from) the (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu94AxNVHE0cBa9tXNyoA/SIG=12inr5t16/EXP=1205278080/**http%3a//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search%3fp=the) bible (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu94AxNVHE0cBbNtXNyoA/SIG=12kslun0j/EXP=1205278080/**http%3a//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search%3fp=bible)
---too much time i know so here is just one which leads to many more-since there are hundred of books left out-i don't have time to list more-i am off to doing more investigative research tonights topic-----------midget porn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phyN5tWUIUI

Mike13
03-10-2008, 07:41 PM
"Vatican law cannot be changed, so sayith the Spider", Queen Spider, South Park

"The Galgamech vagina is 40 feet wide and is lined with razor sharp teeth, how do you expect us to have sex with that?"

"Look, I think we should just forget about the Galgamechs-

"FORGET ABOUT THE GALGAMECHS?!"

:lol:


Is this the "word of God" also now, or just something made up by man? If God's laws are supposedly concrete, how can you decide to add some new ones?

Its the word of man inspired by the Holy Spirit in other words, God tells them what to do, supposedly.

Dolphan7
03-10-2008, 08:19 PM
But for those with short attention spans
and with no will power to overcome the ladies lounge and the ongoing philosophical debate over booty and boo-TAY and backsides bubble or big
or the lure of Internet porn
here is a start-
note the search took 0.03 seconds to show 1 - 10 of 4,580,000 for books (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu94AxNVHE0cBaNtXNyoA/SIG=12k3upcg9/EXP=1205278080/**http%3a//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search%3fp=books) banned (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu94AxNVHE0cBadtXNyoA/SIG=12l3i27s8/EXP=1205278080/**http%3a//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search%3fp=banned) from (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu94AxNVHE0cBattXNyoA/SIG=12jbrd3kl/EXP=1205278080/**http%3a//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search%3fp=from) the (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu94AxNVHE0cBa9tXNyoA/SIG=12inr5t16/EXP=1205278080/**http%3a//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search%3fp=the) bible (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu94AxNVHE0cBbNtXNyoA/SIG=12kslun0j/EXP=1205278080/**http%3a//education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search%3fp=bible)
---too much time i know so here is just one which leads to many more-since there are hundred of books left out-i don't have time to list more-i am off to doing more investigative research tonights topic-----------midget porn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phyN5tWUIUIThis is your answer? This is what you are basing your opinion on? This was done by the History Channel, which by the way is not a champion of God Jesus and the Bible. This isn't their first documentary to take shots at the bible. So just so you know - it is biased, and very innaccurate.

Marcion - a man who 75 years after the NT was completed, and 550 years after the OT was completed, decided - eh I don't "think" that is how it all happened. With no other basis for his beliefs than that. He was excommunicated and considered a heretic.

And he lived from 110-180 AD, well after the NT was complete (about 95 AD).

The reason I asked you for the dates and by whom these supposed lost books were written, and which you obviously have no clue about, was to show you that these questionable books were written well after the completion of the NT. So there was never any debate about which ones to include or not - They didn't exist yet. They weren't lost, they weren't written yet.

And They were not considered inspired and were not consistant, meaning they were the opinions of their writers (like Marcion) and those opinions varied widely, again without any basis of fact for their creation.

Don't believe everything the History Channel tells you. I suggest you do a little research on just how the bible was written, when, and by whom.

Joker2thief
03-10-2008, 08:27 PM
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=banned+from+the+bible&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

here is just one search 1 - 10 of 8,030,000
it's ok to be scarred.---sorry edit scared

Dolphan7
03-11-2008, 02:07 AM
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=banned+from+the+bible&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

here is just one search 1 - 10 of 8,030,000
it's ok to be scarred.---sorry edit scaredDude - it is obvious there are many links to articles about banned books of the bible available on the internet. You want me to refute all 8 million? But quantity does not equate to truth. You can repeat a lie a trillion times, it is still a lie. You may believe it to be true, but it is still a lie. Same here - show me the author, the time it was written. Just pick one book and we can talk about it in depth.

Miamian
03-11-2008, 02:52 AM
I didn't realize the Jews look at the Torah as written in Allegory.
The Torah is law, but again because of the way it was written, many passages are subject to interpretation. That is the reason for the Talmud and the Shulkhan Arukh.

Numbers 15:32 recounts the story of a man gathering wood on the Sabbath. The people told him to stop, that was he was doing was a desecration. He continued and they executed him. G-d told Moses that the people were correct. The Torah explicitly states in other passages that work is strictly forbidden on the Sabbath and major holidays, however this passage relates the law in a more allegorical way.

Pagan
03-11-2008, 10:19 AM
Dude - it is obvious there are many links to articles about banned books of the bible available on the internet. You want me to refute all 8 million? But quantity does not equate to truth. You can repeat a lie a trillion times, it is still a lie. You may believe it to be true, but it is still a lie. Same here - show me the author, the time it was written. Just pick one book and we can talk about it in depth.
Anyone else catching the delicious irony here? :lol:

Just messin' with ya, D7. :tongue:

padre31
03-11-2008, 10:34 AM
Now here's a question posed to the Christians/Catholics also, and no....it's not a slam, it's a legit question.

Is this the "word of God" also now, or just something made up by man? If God's laws are supposedly concrete, how can you decide to add some new ones?


Because the Vatican and by extension, the Pope and the guys who dress in those fabulous red outfits have nominated themselves as Editors in Chief of what the Bible says, and doesn't say.

Protestants of course, find that laughable, the Bible, as Written, is to be considered the Word of God, that said, when Luther translated the Bible from Latin to German, he dropped the Apocryphal Books.

It is my belief that the RCC has decided not follow what the Bible, or even Historical Christian teachings are in favor of their own way of doing things, and that has led to the Pedo Priests and Banking Scandals of the early 80's.

And this is how such nonsense as "Pollution is a Sin" Hmm, did they get around to classfying it as "Venal" or "Heinous" as of yet?

And (wait there's more) as to the Ladies Lounge, most of the Art of the Renaissance depicts woman as semi nude, does that mean museums should be avoided do to prurient interests?

To that I say "Nay".

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-11-2008, 10:48 AM
This is your answer? This is what you are basing your opinion on? This was done by the History Channel, which by the way is not a champion of God Jesus and the Bible. This isn't their first documentary to take shots at the bible. So just so you know - it is biased, and very innaccurate.

Marcion - a man who 75 years after the NT was completed, and 550 years after the OT was completed, decided - eh I don't "think" that is how it all happened. With no other basis for his beliefs than that. He was excommunicated and considered a heretic.

And he lived from 110-180 AD, well after the NT was complete (about 95 AD).

The reason I asked you for the dates and by whom these supposed lost books were written, and which you obviously have no clue about, was to show you that these questionable books were written well after the completion of the NT. So there was never any debate about which ones to include or not - They didn't exist yet. They weren't lost, they weren't written yet.

And They were not considered inspired and were not consistant, meaning they were the opinions of their writers (like Marcion) and those opinions varied widely, again without any basis of fact for their creation.

Don't believe everything the History Channel tells you. I suggest you do a little research on just how the bible was written, when, and by whom.

So you are not biased?

padre31
03-11-2008, 10:58 AM
So you are not biased?

Isn't everyone?

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-11-2008, 11:07 AM
Isn't everyone?

that is true. So basically something that shouldn't be used in an arguement. Especially about religion

padre31
03-11-2008, 11:14 AM
that is true. So basically something that shouldn't be used in an arguement. Especially about religion

Not necessarily, there is a difference between "bias" from a view point as every single person has some level of bias in personal choices, from vanilla ice cream to ferrari's being nicer then porsches and "bias" that leads to inaccuracy or prejudice from supposed neutrality.

Joker2thief
03-11-2008, 11:31 AM
I understand where you are trying to go with this.
If you watched the whole series on the history channel you would see that many church leaders and historians know this to be fact.They do not dispute this.But I'm guessing if you take it on as fact-the next place you will have to then go to is the why they were left out of the bible.So of course you will continue to argue in circles.I gave you the information-but i can't read it for you or watch it for you-
I listed several books already to you-
But to play along here you go

The Book of Enoch
several works that attribute themselves to Enoch the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared.Dated during the Second Temple period, between the fourth/third century BC and the first century AD

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-11-2008, 12:02 PM
Not necessarily, there is a difference between "bias" from a view point as every single person has some level of bias in personal choices, from vanilla ice cream to ferrari's being nicer then porsches and "bias" that leads to inaccuracy or prejudice from supposed neutrality.

That is not necessarily true as the bias between a ferrari being nicer than a porsches can lead to inaccuracy or prejudice from supposed neutrality.

It is all splitting hairs at that point.

Dolphan7
03-11-2008, 12:48 PM
So you are not biased?Of course I am biased. Does that mean I can't challenge something I know to be false?

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-11-2008, 01:03 PM
Of course I am biased. Does that mean I can't challenge something I know to be false?

does put your knowledge in question as it tends to go with the human ability to make a decision and then find the explaination for it rather than the other way around. Which is the problem with bias. Plus it adds blindspots to the arguement.

padre31
03-11-2008, 01:28 PM
I understand where you are trying to go with this.
If you watched the whole series on the history channel you would see that many church leaders and historians know this to be fact.They do not dispute this.But I'm guessing if you take it on as fact-the next place you will have to then go to is the why they were left out of the bible.So of course you will continue to argue in circles.I gave you the information-but i can't read it for you or watch it for you-
I listed several books already to you-
But to play along here you go

The Book of Enoch
several works that attribute themselves to Enoch the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared.Dated during the Second Temple period, between the fourth/third century BC and the first century AD

It should be pointed out that there is a difference between "Heretical" and "Non-Canonical", a good example of that is the Apocalypse of Peter, it was widely read at the time the Bible (NT) was Canonized, the problem was it was written to late to be included, so one could read the Apocalypse of Peter, and read what a pre 200 AD would have read, but the origins of the work would have been excluded for not being written before 140 AD.

A good example of a Heretical work are the Gnostic books that were excluded, they also were denied for cause, and they were a much later sect.

There was indeed a mass of books that just didn't make the Constantinian Bible, the vast majority were excluded do to either being written to late, or their direct connection to a Apostle could not be proven, books such as Clement, the first Pope, just was not considered Apostolic by anyone in that time period even though some of the material related to the Early Church.

And then there is the Didache...:)

eclaycamp
03-11-2008, 01:34 PM
Of course I am biased. Does that mean I can't challenge something I know to be false?

I usually avoid these types of arguments, but I simply have to point this out. Bias, by it's very nature, precludes you from being able to come to the same reasonable conclusions as other folks.

Let's use an off-the-wall example:

Dinosaurs once roamed the earth
All chickens are dinosaurs
Chickens roam the earth
Dinosaurs still roam the earthI don't want to argue that chickens are dinosaurs - in the context of my argument, let's say that you're biased against the first fact. Dinosaurs never existed. The fossils and other discoveries are part of a vast conspiracy to keep the millions of chickens at bay. In this example, here's what you end up with:

Dinosaurs NEVER roamed the earth
All chickens ARE NOT dinosaurs
Chickens roam the earth
Dinosaurs NEVER roamed the earthRegardless of any facts that I may have at my disposal to back up the original argument, it's going to fall on deaf ears to the person biased against dinosaurs. In a more contemporary context, this is why arguments centered around matters of faith are rarely resolved. This is why there's been more wars fought "In (insert appropriate deity here)'s name" than for any other reason. I applaud the fact that you can see things in such stark black and white context, but for me, the world is viewed in shades of gray.

Dolphan7
03-11-2008, 02:10 PM
I understand where you are trying to go with this.
If you watched the whole series on the history channel you would see that many church leaders and historians know this to be fact.They do not dispute this.But I'm guessing if you take it on as fact-the next place you will have to then go to is the why they were left out of the bible.So of course you will continue to argue in circles.I gave you the information-but i can't read it for you or watch it for you-
I listed several books already to you-
But to play along here you go

The Book of Enoch
several works that attribute themselves to Enoch the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared.Dated during the Second Temple period, between the fourth/third century BC and the first century ADEnoch, great grandfather of Noah. That puts him 1500-2000 years BC. The book of Enoch, supposedly about him, (it could not possibly be written by him) was wriiten somewhere between 400bc and 100 ad. Yet it was touted as written by Enoch himself. Nobody believes that and reject it as divine scripture because of that, plus it's content.

This book is considered a pseudoepigraphal work. The author disguised himself and sought to credit the writings to an historical figure. Why would anyone believe such a person, and what authority and accuracy would such a person have writing about a figure that lived 1500 plus years before?

Dolphan7
03-11-2008, 02:17 PM
does put your knowledge in question as it tends to go with the human ability to make a decision and then find the explaination for it rather than the other way around. Which is the problem with bias. Plus it adds blindspots to the arguement.Hey I am all ears to anyone who wants to put an sound argument together with facts, foundation and a sincere desire to know the truth. None of that is present in this thread.

So even though I have a bias, we all do, I also can listen to alternative views and understand them, and if found to be true can adjust my viewpoint. It has happened before.

padre31
03-11-2008, 02:37 PM
I usually avoid these types of arguments, but I simply have to point this out. Bias, by it's very nature, precludes you from being able to come to the same reasonable conclusions as other folks.

Let's use an off-the-wall example:
Dinosaurs once roamed the earth
All chickens are dinosaurs
Chickens roam the earth
Dinosaurs still roam the earthI don't want to argue that chickens are dinosaurs - in the context of my argument, let's say that you're biased against the first fact. Dinosaurs never existed. The fossils and other discoveries are part of a vast conspiracy to keep the millions of chickens at bay. In this example, here's what you end up with:
Dinosaurs NEVER roamed the earth
All chickens ARE NOT dinosaurs
Chickens roam the earth
Dinosaurs NEVER roamed the earthRegardless of any facts that I may have at my disposal to back up the original argument, it's going to fall on deaf ears to the person biased against dinosaurs. In a more contemporary context, this is why arguments centered around matters of faith are rarely resolved. This is why there's been more wars fought "In (insert appropriate deity here)'s name" than for any other reason. I applaud the fact that you can see things in such stark black and white context, but for me, the world is viewed in shades of gray.

Ahh, but there have been more people killed by Atheistic Governments then by Christianity by far, perhaps even by every religious zealot combined.

Death by Atheism is the #1 man caused of loss of life in history.

As to chickens, I think the history of mankind can be tracked through chicken bones found at archeaological (sp) sites..


Dinosaurs never existed is a lie put forward by Satan himself...:lol:

ih8brady
03-11-2008, 04:29 PM
Ahh, but there have been more people killed by Atheistic Governments then by Christianity by far, perhaps even by every religious zealot combined.

Death by Atheism is the #1 man caused of loss of life in history.

As to chickens, I think the history of mankind can be tracked through chicken bones found at archeaological (sp) sites..


Dinosaurs never existed is a lie put forward by Satan himself...:lol:


You can't be serial? WTF are you talking about(if serial)

padre31
03-11-2008, 04:52 PM
You can't be serial? WTF are you talking about(if serial)

I'm super duper serial guys...

In fact, death by govt, not religion, is the all time #1 stunner/killer.

The most religious of fanatics wishing to wash his blood with as many of "them" as they could, cannot hope to approach the numbers of dead put into the ground by Atheistic Governments...it literally is no contest.


Now Christianity views the world as we all are going to die, Govt is the best device to make that happen in the largest of numbers of people who died.

As to "It's a lie from Satan that dinosaurs never existed" well, that one speaks for itself, most folks do not know the Bible to any serious level j8.

Pagan
03-11-2008, 04:56 PM
I'm super duper serial guys...

In fact, death by govt, not religion, is the all time #1 stunner/killer.

The most religious of fanatics wishing to wash his blood with as many of "them" as they could, cannot hope to approach the numbers of dead put into the ground by Atheistic Governments...it literally is no contest.


Now Christianity views the world as we all are going to die, Govt is the best device to make that happen in the largest of numbers of people who died.
Link? Facts? Anyone....anyone....Beuhler?

padre31
03-11-2008, 05:04 PM
Link? Facts? Anyone....anyone....Beuhler?

Wohoo there Nelly, if I must link to the litany of 100 million people put into the ground by aggressive Atheism, then what, pray tell, is my reward for doing your research for you?

After all, if one thinks my post is full of Bravo Sierra, then surely you can refute my statements can't you?

Unless of course, one merely knows what one has been told...:beer1:

Pagan
03-11-2008, 05:31 PM
Wohoo there Nelly, if I must link to the litany of 100 million people put into the ground by aggressive Atheism, then what, pray tell, is my reward for doing your research for you?

After all, if one thinks my post is full of Bravo Sierra, then surely you can refute my statements can't you?

Unless of course, one merely knows what one has been told...:beer1:

LOL....ah...I see you have the Christian playbook open and are following it to a T. ;)

When a statement is made that somehow is against something Christianity claims, proof has to be shown...like the lost books of the Bible Joker2thief was talking about. Proof on the side of the religious claims though...need not be.

However, when a statement is made like yours, that defers blame from religion in general, and Christianity in specific....then no such proof need be shown. On top of that, anyone doubting said unshown proof is "just believing what they're told".

Gotcha. :lol:

HaRdKoReXXX
03-11-2008, 05:37 PM
I usually avoid these types of arguments, but I simply have to point this out. Bias, by it's very nature, precludes you from being able to come to the same reasonable conclusions as other folks.


Let's use an off-the-wall example:
Dinosaurs once roamed the earth
All chickens are dinosaurs
Chickens roam the earth
Dinosaurs still roam the earthI don't want to argue that chickens are dinosaurs - in the context of my argument, let's say that you're biased against the first fact. Dinosaurs never existed. The fossils and other discoveries are part of a vast conspiracy to keep the millions of chickens at bay. In this example, here's what you end up with:
Dinosaurs NEVER roamed the earth
All chickens ARE NOT dinosaurs
Chickens roam the earth
Dinosaurs NEVER roamed the earthRegardless of any facts that I may have at my disposal to back up the original argument, it's going to fall on deaf ears to the person biased against dinosaurs. In a more contemporary context, this is why arguments centered around matters of faith are rarely resolved. This is why there's been more wars fought "In (insert appropriate deity here)'s name" than for any other reason. I applaud the fact that you can see things in such stark black and white context, but for me, the world is viewed in shades of gray.

That was a wicked flashback to my college Logic and Reasoning course...which sadly I got a D in :(

DonShula84
03-11-2008, 05:38 PM
The difference is atheist arent killing on behalf of their belief, religious people are. Can you really blame atheism for what a secular government does? Stalin wasnt killing people in the name of atheism, however, religious fanatics are killing in the name of their religion. Usually people who say atheism killed more people put Hitler in that list, and I'm not sure he qualifies.


Reversing Atheists' Critiques of Religious Violence:
A common criticism which atheists raise against religion is how violent religion and religious believers have been in the past. People have slaughtered each other in large numbers either because of differences in religious beliefs or because of other differences which are further justified and intensified through religious rhetoric. Either way, religion has a lot of blood on its hands. Can the same be said for atheists and atheism? Haven't atheists killed more people in the name of atheism than religious theists have killed in the name of their religion? No, because atheism isn't a philosophy or ideology.
How Many Have Been Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?:
None, probably. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic. So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — even in the name of atheism and secularism? No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheismKills.htm

More supportive argument to the claim

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html

padre31
03-11-2008, 05:39 PM
LOL....ah...I see you have the Christian playbook open and are following it to a T. ;)

When a statement is made that somehow is against something Christianity claims, proof has to be shown...like the lost books of the Bible Joker2thief was talking about. Proof on the side of the religious claims though...need not be.

However, when a statement is made like yours, that defers blame from religion in general, and Christianity in specific....then no such proof need be shown. On top of that, anyone doubting said unshown proof is "just believing what they're told".

Gotcha. :lol:

You see Pagan, your problem is pretty clear to anyone who is even a semi serious student of history, that and I suspect you are a very bad poker player, you put your cards on the table with a "gotcha" but you seem to not to understand the trap that you've walked into.

So once again, what is my reward for doing you research, for you? Why am I the progenator of your ideas? Have I been proven a mere know nothing Christian Apologist?

Let's hear it Pagan, I'm curious, where is your "gotcha"?

Do you doubt knowledge or History? Do you have clue about history and whom put who in the ground?

Do yo have Chutzpah to respond? You've lost already, you just do not know it yet...:beer1:

unluckyluciano
03-11-2008, 05:58 PM
The difference is atheist arent killing on behalf of their belief, religious people are. Can you really blame atheism for what a secular government does? Stalin wasnt killing people in the name of atheism, however, religious fanatics are killing in the name of their religion. Usually people who say atheism killed more people put Hitler in that list, and I'm not sure he qualifies.

I agree with you somewhat. But I think people miss the moral of the story. The moral of the story is not that religion is evil, the moral of the story is that any idea can be used as a justification to kill and commit atrocities on your fellow man. Religion is just easier to propagate, think im using that right, and to twist, because it is personal. But the number one reason for mass atrocities is apathy and indifference by the majority to react to any wrong-doing. That has nothing to do with religion and more with humanity IMO.

Pagan
03-11-2008, 06:01 PM
You see Pagan, your problem is pretty clear to anyone who is even a semi serious student of history, that and I suspect you are a very bad poker player, you put your cards on the table with a "gotcha" but you seem to not to understand the trap that you've walked into.
You see Padre...to anyone who is a serious student of being able to comprehend the written word, your problem is pretty obvious too.

The "gotcha" I said refers to "oh okay...I get it", in reference to what you said. As in "I got what you said". Not "gotcha" as in "I got you."

Your poker playing reference is ironic, for you were the one who threw your cards down while misreading what the opponent was doing.

Please...enlighten me as to this "trap" I've walked into.


So once again, what is my reward for doing you research, for you?
Again, bad poker. Similar to tossing down a pair of 2's and then asking the dealer to explain why you had them. You make a bold statement, yet others have to do the research for you?

Why did you not tell D7 to do the research when joker2thief made his claims? Id be curious as to that reasoning.


Why am I the progenator of your ideas? Have I been proven a mere know nothing Christian Apologist?
First lesson...when one tries to be Dennis Miller and use those big words, spelling them correctly is usually a good idea. The word is "progenitor", and I'm not asking you to be anything to my ideas. I'm asking you to back up your own statements. Pretty simple.


Let's hear it Pagan, I'm curious, where is your "gotcha"?
Again, read the first paragraph for that explanation.


Do you doubt knowledge or History? Do you have clue about history and whom put who in the ground?

Do yo have Chutzpah to respond? You've lost already, you just do not know it yet...:beer1:

Oooooh...psychology! Works well on lesser mammals, my friend. D7 tried this ploy many times with me before. Lemme save you some typing....doesn't work, my brotha. But nice try anyway!

Now...do you care to back up your bold statement with the proof, or will you continue to hide behind blather? I've backed up anything I've said in these forums with links and proof. In this situation, I have nothing to back up.

YOU made the statement, and somehow through babble you're trying to make it seem like I've "lost" something. What that could be I can't fathom, since I made no claims of anything...only asked you a question that you still haven't answered. :D

padre31
03-11-2008, 06:16 PM
You see Padre...to anyone who is a serious student of being able to comprehend the written word, your problem is pretty obvious too.

The "gotcha" I said refers to "oh okay...I get it", in reference to what you said. As in "I got what you said". Not "gotcha" as in "I got you."

Your poker playing reference is ironic, for you were the one who threw your cards down while misreading what the opponent was doing.

Please...enlighten me as to this "trap" I've walked into.


Again, bad poker. Similar to tossing down a pair of 2's and then asking the dealer to explain why you had them. You make a bold statement, yet others have to do the research for you?

Why did you not tell D7 to do the research when joker2thief made his claims? Id be curious as to that reasoning.


First lesson...when one tries to be Dennis Miller and use those big words, spelling them correctly is usually a good idea. The word is "progenitor", and I'm not asking you to be anything to my ideas. I'm asking you to back up your own statements. Pretty simple.


Again, read the first paragraph for that explanation.


Oooooh...psychology! Works well on lesser mammals, my friend. D7 tried this ploy many times with me before. Lemme save you some typing....doesn't work, my brotha. But nice try anyway!

Now...do you care to back up your bold statement with the proof, or will you continue to hide behind blather? I've backed up anything I've said in these forums with links and proof. In this situation, I have nothing to back up.

YOU made the statement, and somehow through babble you're trying to make it seem like I've "lost" something. What that could be I can't fathom, since I made no claims of anything...only asked you a question that you still haven't answered. :D

You see, pagan, D7, worthy though he is, this discussion may be a touch out of his depth.

Now as to my main charge, the one (I think) you are referring to, that Atheism has put far more people into the grave then religion ever has, I was waiting for my "prize" for doing your work, that prize apparently, is not forthcoming.

Which is fine, your questions should be answered anyway.

Those questions being"What has killed the omst all time"?

Let us start with:


The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression is a book that describes the history of political repressions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression) by Communist states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state), including extrajudicial executions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_punishment), deportations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation), and man-made famines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine) that the book argues resulted from communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist) policies.Now let us look at the "le morte' de masse" of Atheism:


irst, however, I should clarify the term democide (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM). It means for governments what murder means for an individual under municipal law. It is the premeditated killing of a person in cold blood, or causing the death of a person through reckless and wanton disregard for their life. Thus, a government incarcerating people in a prison under such deadly conditions that they die in a few years is murder by the state--democide--as would parents letting a child die from malnutrition and exposure be murder. So would government forced labor that kills a person within months or a couple of years be murder. So would government created famines that then are ignored or knowingly aggravated by government action be murder of those who starve to death. And obviously, extrajudicial executions, death by torture, government massacres, and all genocidal killing be murder. However, judicial executions for crimes that internationally would be considered capital offenses, such as for murder or treason (as long as it is clear that these are not fabricated for the purpose of executing the accused, as in communist show trials), are not democide. Nor is democide the killing of enemy soldiers in combat or of armed rebels, nor of noncombatants as a result of military action against military targets. With this understanding of democide, Table 1 (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF) lists all communist governments that have committed any form of democide and gives their estimated total domestic and foreign democide and its annual rate (the percent of a government's domestic population murdered per year). It also shows the total for communist guerrillas (including quasi-governments, as of the Mao soviets in China prior to the communist victory in 1949) and the world total for all governments and guerillas (including such quasi-governments as of the White Armies during the Russian civil war in 1917-1922). Figure 1 (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIF) graphs the communist megamurderers and compares this to the communist and world totals.
Of course, eventhough systematically determined and calculated, all these figures and their graph are only rough approximations. Even were we to have total access to all communist archives we still would not be able to calculate precisely how many the communists murdered. Consider that even in spite of the archival statistics and detailed reports of survivors, the best experts still disagree by over 40 percent on the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis. We cannot expect near this accuracy for the victims of communism. We can, however, get a probable order of magnitude and a relative approximation of these deaths within a most likely range. And that is what the figures in Table 1 (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF) are meant to be. Their apparent precision is only due to the total for most communist governments being the summation of dozens of subtotals (as of forced labor deaths each year) and calculations (as in extrapolating scholarly estimates of executions or massacres).
With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia.
Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1.
In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

So 110,000,000 million or so people were killed by Atheists, merely because the victims were theists..or not... and yet you cling to religion being the main cause of death in the world.

Tsk Tsk Tsk like an errant child, show them facts and watch what will happen Democide will be excused, and one will be left with the fact that Atheism has planted far far more people into the dirt then even the most religious of fanatics could ever hope for....scripsi quod scripsi..

And seeing how "proof" has been shown, esepcially that 110 million death gap, do tell me Mr. Atheist, how are yo going to bless me for doing your work for you?

Ask for intercession or retreat to mental slumber?

In summation Pagan, "your" line of thought has led to 110 million people being killed, yet, in you original statement, you did have questions.

Not surprising really, what with all the blood on your hands....:beer1:

Pagan
03-11-2008, 06:30 PM
So 110,000,000 million or so people were killed by Atheists, mereloy because the vicitms were theists..or not... and yet you cling to religion being the main cause of death in the world.
I don't cling to anything. Once again you assume. I never said anything either way. All I did was ask for proof. You showed proof. Good on ya.


Tsk Tsk Tsk liek an errant child, show them facts and watch what will happen Democide will be excused, and one will be left with the fact that Atheism has planted far far more people into the dirt then even the most religious of fanatics could ever hope for....

And seeing how "proof" has been shown, esepcially that 110 million death gap, do tell me Mr. Atheist, how are yo going to bless me for doing your work for you?

Ask for intercession or retreat to mental slumber?
Again, you open your mouth and firmly plant your foot right in it. I'm not an athiest. Where you get that idea from I'll never know.

Second, doing MY work for me? Maybe you need a refresher course in how message boards usually operate. It's pretty much standard that those who make claims need to back them up. Had you done this initially, I would have seen your proof, agreed with you, and congratulated you for a job well done.

Instead, you come off (and continue to come off) as a pompous, arrogant *** who somehow believes himself to me more intelligent than those around him. (and to the mods, I didn't call him an ***, I said he's coming off as one. ;))

While you did provide your link, (finally) your constant attempts to insinuate that somehow I'm going to cower in fear from your supposed superior intellect is pretty puzzling. I don't know what happened to you in the past that you need vindication on a message board to feel good about yourself, but hey...everyone needs a reason. If somehow it blows your skirt up to think you've "won" something here, then by all means do so.

You'll sleep well now tonight I'm sure. :lol:

DonShula84
03-11-2008, 06:33 PM
:jt0323:

Pagan
03-11-2008, 06:44 PM
Oh and before you think I'm "retreating to mental slumber" at your inevitable witty comeback...I'm leaving for the recording studio now, so I'll read your reply tomorrow. :D

padre31
03-11-2008, 06:54 PM
I don't cling to anything. Once again you assume. I never said anything either way. All I did was ask for proof. You showed proof. Good on ya.

nice dodge, you make no commentary on the facts.


Again, you open your mouth and firmly plant your foot right in it. I'm not an athiest. Where you get that idea from I'll never know.

Hmm, could be the whole "pagan" thing, or it coudl be in response to your questions...



Second, doing MY work for me? Maybe you need a refresher course in how message boards usually operate. It's pretty much standard that those who make claims need to back them up. Had you done this initially, I would have seen your proof, agreed with you, and congratulated you for a job well done.

Not so, when one makes an assertion, it is up to the opposition to to disprove that theory, not for the insighter to offer impeachable proof, if what is offered is impeachable, then by all means "Do the work".


Instead, you come off (and continue to come off) as a pompous, arrogant *** who somehow believes himself to me more intelligent than those around him. (and to the mods, I didn't call him an ***, I said he's coming off as one. ;))

As if: Dogs bark the caravan moves forward.

While you did provide your link, (finally) your constant attempts to insinuate that somehow I'm going to cower in fear from your supposed superior intellect is pretty puzzling. I don't know what happened to you in the past that you need vindication on a message board to feel good about yourself, but hey...everyone needs a reason. If somehow it blows your skirt up to think you've "won" something here, then by all means do so.

Geez, you've clearly missed your calling, if you were a jester, you could perform for you supper..You made claims, they have been debunked, say what you say...


You'll sleep well now tonight I'm sure. :lol:


Not really pagan, your approach is a bit...helter skelter, your initial charge has been proven absurd, evidence shows that atheists have killed 110 million ( at least) and yet, somehow a small group that wishes to eat a cracker and sip some win is equal to a Athiestic killer?

padre31
03-11-2008, 06:57 PM
Oh and before you think I'm "retreating to mental slumber" at your inevitable witty comeback...I'm leaving for the recording studio now, so I'll read your reply tomorrow. :D

This F**** guy....:D

Bonn Chance Pagan ,rip it up my friend..

TexanPhinatic
03-11-2008, 07:02 PM
Im not sure what its called, but there is a term used to denote a Pope speaking while basically being talked to by God. It will sound stupid to anyone who doesnt believe in God, and frankly, to many non-Catholics who do, but thats why we dont all share the same belief. In that way, Catholics (at least so WE believe) actually pretty much ARE following the literal word of God, instead of, as the protestant faiths do, rest with the derivations of various men (I mean, Henry 8th?) and faith in an ancient non-litteral book.
Catholicism is actually more about evolving with the world than people think, mostly having the impression of a bunch of stuffy old guys making up crap.
I dont know if this list was made under this assumption or not, if not its more of a guide than a strict set of rules. Why do they make it? Well, Im not sure if the Bible and Jesus were all that into telling people about things such as not polluting. In a general sense we are told to be stewards of our world, this seems to me to be more specification for people in a new age. Whats wrong with that?

And as for the guy who said that catholic policies led to the scandal with the molestation and such, utter bull****. The fact that the Church (or at least sevearal highly ranked individuals within it) covered it up is unfortunate, but young boys were not molested because of Catholic policies.
The reason molestations happen is because the molesters manage to wiggle themselves into positions that enable them. Priests are currently a much maligned group of such, but scandals involving teachers, government workers, etc are all out there. This scandal was (IS) not unique to the Catholic Church, and to believe so is just foolish.

Note that I am in no way a scholar. Im really not a model Catholic atm, so there may be a few errors above, but in general I see the Church getting a pretty bad rap out there, when in reality it is usually a very progressive and beneficial institution. Nothing is perfect, not even the Church or the Pope, and they know and recognize it. Bad decisions have and will be made. But you know what? The same can be said for every other person or organization on this planet.

Pagan
03-11-2008, 07:05 PM
[B]
nice dodge, you make no commentary on the facts.
Glad I came to check one more time before leaving. Where am I "dodging"???

I said "you provided the facts. Good on ya." Meaning I accepted what you provided as proof. Damn bro, instead of constantly trying to "win" things, how about reading what is posted before typing?

Later on I also said "Had you done this initially, I would have seen your proof, agreed with you, and congratulated you for a job well done."

Comprehension, man...comprehension.


Hmm, could be the whole "pagan" thing, or it coudl be in response to your questions...
Then you're not as intelligent as you think you are. Pagan beliefs are a religion son, maybe YOU need to do some research.


Not so, when one makes an assertion, it is up to the opposition to to disprove that theory, not for the insighter to offer impeachable proof, if what is offered is impeachable, then by all means "Do the work".
Whatever floats your boat. :rolleyes:


As if: Dogs bark the caravan moves forward.
As if? When did you become a valley girl? :tongue:


Geez, you've clearly missed your calling, if you were a jester, you could perform for you supper..You made claims, they have been debunked, say what you say...
And you certainly missed yours. I made NO claims. I asked you a question. For someone who thinks he's so intelligent, you continue to fail to see this little tidbit.

I made not one claim. I asked, you finally provided the proof. Good for you. Here's a ****ing cookie. Happy now? :lol:


Not really pagan, your approach is a bit...helter skelter, your initial charge has been proven absurd, evidence shows that atheists have killed 110 million ( at least) and yet, somehow a small group that wishes to eat a cracker and sip some win is equal to a Athiestic killer?
Gods, you are as thick as a fire hydrant, aren't you? What "initial charge"???

My "initial charge" was:


Link? Facts? Anyone....anyone....Beuhler?

How did you "prove that absurd"?

Dude, you really need to eat a cracker, "sip some win" and calm the **** down a little. :lol:

Now I really do have to go...I'm late as all hell. Have your last word, which I'm sure you will. I'm done.

Pagan
03-11-2008, 07:06 PM
This F**** guy....:D

Bonn Chance Pagan ,rip it up my friend..
I intend to. :D

padre31
03-11-2008, 07:09 PM
Im not sure what its called, but there is a term used to denote a Pope speaking while basically being talked to by God. It will sound stupid to anyone who doesnt believe in God, and frankly, to many non-Catholics who do, but thats why we dont all share the same belief. In that way, Catholics (at least so WE believe) actually pretty much ARE following the literal word of God, instead of, as the protestant faiths do, rest with the derivations of various men (I mean, Henry 8th?) and faith in an ancient non-litteral book.
Catholicism is actually more about evolving with the world than people think, mostly having the impression of a bunch of stuffy old guys making up crap.
I dont know if this list was made under this assumption or not, if not its more of a guide than a strict set of rules. Why do they make it? Well, Im not sure if the Bible and Jesus were all that into telling people about things such as not polluting. In a general sense we are told to be stewards of our world, this seems to me to be more specification for people in a new age. Whats wrong with that?

And as for the guy who said that catholic policies led to the scandal with the molestation and such, utter bull****. The fact that the Church (or at least sevearal highly ranked individuals within it) covered it up is unfortunate, but young boys were not molested because of Catholic policies.
The reason molestations happen is because the molesters manage to wiggle themselves into positions that enable them. Priests are currently a much maligned group of such, but scandals involving teachers, government workers, etc are all out there. This scandal was (IS) not unique to the Catholic Church, and to believe so is just foolish.

Note that I am in no way a scholar. Im really not a model Catholic atm, so there may be a few errors above, but in general I see the Church getting a pretty bad rap out there, when in reality it is usually a very progressive and beneficial institution. Nothing is perfect, not even the Church or the Pope, and they know and recognize it. Bad decisions have and will be made. But you know what? The same can be said for every other person or organization on this planet.

No, The Catholic Church is in the wilderness, they have lost their moral Authority.

Dolphan7
03-11-2008, 07:48 PM
Im not sure what its called, but there is a term used to denote a Pope speaking while basically being talked to by God. It will sound stupid to anyone who doesnt believe in God, and frankly, to many non-Catholics who do, but thats why we dont all share the same belief. In that way, Catholics (at least so WE believe) actually pretty much ARE following the literal word of God, instead of, as the protestant faiths do, rest with the derivations of various men (I mean, Henry 8th?) and faith in an ancient non-litteral book.
Catholicism is actually more about evolving with the world than people think, mostly having the impression of a bunch of stuffy old guys making up crap.
I dont know if this list was made under this assumption or not, if not its more of a guide than a strict set of rules. Why do they make it? Well, Im not sure if the Bible and Jesus were all that into telling people about things such as not polluting. In a general sense we are told to be stewards of our world, this seems to me to be more specification for people in a new age. Whats wrong with that?

And as for the guy who said that catholic policies led to the scandal with the molestation and such, utter bull****. The fact that the Church (or at least sevearal highly ranked individuals within it) covered it up is unfortunate, but young boys were not molested because of Catholic policies.
The reason molestations happen is because the molesters manage to wiggle themselves into positions that enable them. Priests are currently a much maligned group of such, but scandals involving teachers, government workers, etc are all out there. This scandal was (IS) not unique to the Catholic Church, and to believe so is just foolish.

Note that I am in no way a scholar. Im really not a model Catholic atm, so there may be a few errors above, but in general I see the Church getting a pretty bad rap out there, when in reality it is usually a very progressive and beneficial institution. Nothing is perfect, not even the Church or the Pope, and they know and recognize it. Bad decisions have and will be made. But you know what? The same can be said for every other person or organization on this planet.It is called Ex Cathedra, were in the Pope teaches from the throne and is considered infallible.

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

A case can be made that the catholic "tradition" of restricting marriage from priests is the cause and result of the molestation of chior boys. If a man, even priests have needs, is not permitted to have a wife, then all that sexuallity is pent up and must seek it's release somehow. Most deal with it effectively (don't want to know how). Others who are weak in that area become attracted to young boys over time and with opportunity, ....bad things happen. These men are human and fallible and sinners just like the rest of us. They go into the preisthood celebate and heterosexual with all the greatest intentions, and come out as a child molester. You can't make the claim that they seek the preisthood solely to molest children.

The problem with the Catholic church evolving, is that it slowly conforms to the world, not the world conforming to it. They make a stand for God, then change that stand, then change it again. That is an ever changing standard.

God doesn't change. His character and laws and truth are the same today as they have always been. Compromise by a man made church with absolutely no authority other than what they give themsleves cannot then set themselves up as the sole authority on God.

DonShula84
03-11-2008, 08:06 PM
It is called Ex Cathedra, were in the Pope teaches from the throne and is considered infallible.

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

A case can be made that the catholic "tradition" of restricting marriage from priests is the cause and result of the molestation of chior boys. If a man, even priests have needs, is not permitted to have a wife, then all that sexuallity is pent up and must seek it's release somehow. Most deal with it effectively (don't want to know how). Others who are weak in that area become attracted to young boys over time and with opportunity, ....bad things happen. These men are human and fallible and sinners just like the rest of us. They go into the preisthood celebate and heterosexual with all the greatest intentions, and come out as a child molester. You can't make the claim that they seek the preisthood solely to molest children.

The problem with the Catholic church evolving, is that it slowly conforms to the world, not the world conforming to it. They make a stand for God, then change that stand, then change it again. That is an ever changing standard.

God doesn't change. His character and laws and truth are the same today as they have always been. Compromise by a man made church with absolutely no authority other than what they give themsleves cannot then set themselves up as the sole authority on God.

A very weak and flimsy case. What support do you have that celibacy turns someone into a homosexual? If they had heterosexual tendencies to begin with (which you have no idea if they did or not but I suppose we can ignore that) why wouldnt they prey on females? Or just break their vow and have sex with willing partners? You've thrown some wild (insane?) accusations out there with nothing to support it. Common sense doesnt even support what you're saying, in fact, it probably refutes most of it. Everything I bolded is nothing more than your unsupportable opinion.

Dolphan7
03-11-2008, 09:15 PM
A very weak and flimsy case. What support do you have that celibacy turns someone into a homosexual? If they had heterosexual tendencies to begin with (which you have no idea if they did or not but I suppose we can ignore that) why wouldnt they prey on females? Or just break their vow and have sex with willing partners? You've thrown some wild (insane?) accusations out there with nothing to support it. Common sense doesnt even support what you're saying, in fact, it probably refutes most of it. Everything I bolded is nothing more than your unsupportable opinion.Let me expound further. The Catholic Tradition is that their priests be celibate, and not married They get that from the Apostle Paul, who was celibate and did not marry. There was no way he could have done God's work with sexual needs, and having a wife while he traveled would not have been the best situation. Anyhow...The problem is....celibacy is a gift. You either have it, or you don't.

If you don't have it, and you commit yourself to a life of a priest, and you cannot marry, and the constant and close proximity to choir boys (for lack of choir girls) leads to innappropriate temptations and finally bad things happen.

What other explanation for the above normal incidents of priest sexual abuse of boys in the Catholic church?

In Protestant churches, pastors and ministers and such are allowed to marry, and we just don't hear about this type of stuff going on, not as much as in the Catholic church.

Joker2thief
03-11-2008, 11:02 PM
Now i see your post and your research and it looks more that communism was to blame and not Atheism.People were killed in communist nations for a lot of different reasons. Some were communists who disagreed with those in power and were killed because of that. Some were anti-communists opposed the government and were killed for that. Some were simply in the way or inconvenient and were killed for that. These are political disagreements that people were being killed over, not murder in the name of atheism
Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker's paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. Once again, we are generally looking at political issues, not a question of atheism.

padre31
03-11-2008, 11:05 PM
I intend to. :D


Of course, however make no mistake Pagan, as surely as the sun rises in the East, and sets in the West, Christ is Lord, the oracle between man and God, the bridge between the mundane and the Divine.

My Friend would have it no other mi simpatico...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQxTYLlayXk

You called down the Thunder...now you have it...

Pagan
03-11-2008, 11:26 PM
Yea...but Christ makes for lousy heavy metal music.

Just ask Stryper. :tongue:

padre31
03-11-2008, 11:39 PM
Yea...but Christ makes for lousy heavy metal music.

Just ask Stryper. :tongue:


not so, from "creeping death" to Audio Slave's "like a stone.." to Temple of the Dog's "Hunger Strike" or even Led Zepplin's "Kashmir"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTaOvzZKRxA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PXdSOxEnwWM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=D1j823QH6cU&feature=related

Stryper sucked Ray...Stryper sucks, it's 4 o'clock time for Whopner....

Pagan
03-11-2008, 11:49 PM
not so, from "creeping death" to Audio Slave's "like a stone.." to Temple of the Dog's "Hunger Strike" or even Led Zepplin's "Kashmir"
Well...out of those only Metallica's song is truly metal. And it wasn't about Christ, it was about the plague that struck down the first borns. ;)

Remember sir....

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2008/03/l_890098d9b79cd631ab7994a2d79d0b5c-1.jpg

:lol:

padre31
03-12-2008, 12:06 AM
Well...out of those only Metallica's song is truly metal. And it wasn't about Christ, it was about the plague that struck down the first borns. ;)

Remember sir....

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2008/03/l_890098d9b79cd631ab7994a2d79d0b5c-1.jpg

:lol:

Alrighty tough guy...

Let us consider a different path from the Slaytanic Wermacht...but equal in intensity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XakhJYnGA3w
:beer1:
Make no mistake Pagan, that simple three cord song, with intensity, has more to say then 80% of the so called "metal".

The average Band would never....that is what makes them average...

Pagan
03-12-2008, 06:41 AM
Make no mistake Pagan, that simple three cord song, with intensity, has more to say then 80% of the so called "metal".

The average Band would never....that is what makes them average...
Yup...must be the reason they sold so many albums. :tongue:

The Rev
03-12-2008, 03:47 PM
Another article on the topic:



When asked to list the new areas of sinful behavior, Girotti denounced "certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulations."
He also mentioned drugs, which weaken the mind and obscure intelligence; pollution; as well as the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor that "cause an unbearable social injustice."


http://http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/03/10/vatican.updates.sins.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Quelonio
03-13-2008, 01:51 PM
Im not sure what its called, but there is a term used to denote a Pope speaking while basically being talked to by God. It will sound stupid to anyone who doesnt believe in God, and frankly, to many non-Catholics who do, but thats why we dont all share the same belief. In that way, Catholics (at least so WE believe) actually pretty much ARE following the literal word of God, instead of, as the protestant faiths do, rest with the derivations of various men (I mean, Henry 8th?) and faith in an ancient non-litteral book.
Catholicism is actually more about evolving with the world than people think, mostly having the impression of a bunch of stuffy old guys making up crap.
I dont know if this list was made under this assumption or not, if not its more of a guide than a strict set of rules. Why do they make it? Well, Im not sure if the Bible and Jesus were all that into telling people about things such as not polluting. In a general sense we are told to be stewards of our world, this seems to me to be more specification for people in a new age. Whats wrong with that?

And as for the guy who said that catholic policies led to the scandal with the molestation and such, utter bull****. The fact that the Church (or at least sevearal highly ranked individuals within it) covered it up is unfortunate, but young boys were not molested because of Catholic policies.
The reason molestations happen is because the molesters manage to wiggle themselves into positions that enable them. Priests are currently a much maligned group of such, but scandals involving teachers, government workers, etc are all out there. This scandal was (IS) not unique to the Catholic Church, and to believe so is just foolish.

Note that I am in no way a scholar. Im really not a model Catholic atm, so there may be a few errors above, but in general I see the Church getting a pretty bad rap out there, when in reality it is usually a very progressive and beneficial institution. Nothing is perfect, not even the Church or the Pope, and they know and recognize it. Bad decisions have and will be made. But you know what? The same can be said for every other person or organization on this planet.

Yup its the infalibility of the pope when he speaks on the matters of faith. Which was established later with the church, after the rupture with the protestant church that allowed the creation of such Dogma.

I used to hate Catholics with all my might, they surrounded me and continuously clashed with me (I went to a marist school in small town Mexico). BUT you are right, Catholics are more capable to understand and participate with other cultures without demanding the destruction of everything other cultures have to offer, but being more able to accept them and move forward.

So... I have come to realize that in terms of the world, and cultures of the world, the Catholic church is nowhere near as destructive as the Christian/protestant groups, which seem to have a fear towards the unknown and a ability to absolutely murder (and for the whole religion kills less than atheist discussion, I don't mean murder in a literal way. I mean murder in destruction of culture way) people that do not live like them.

Quelonio
03-13-2008, 02:10 PM
No, The Catholic Church is in the wilderness, they have lost their moral Authority.

The problem here is who is not in the wilderness... the example of Henri VIII as it pertains to Anglicans and Presbiterians is an important one, that was a church that created a rift not because of problems with the theology of the church, but because the King wanted a divorce... plain and simple, the Catholic Church had granted him one but the King did not like the new one who was spanish, and the church refused to give him one beccause the Alliance between England and Spain was something that they felt important especially with so many rifts going on in eastern europe. So the King voila, broke away and created a new church.

Same goes on on many of these new groups. The contention is that Catholics are evil because they are being ran by a man (the Pope) and their Dogma changes when the pope speaks Ex Cathedra.

That is reasonable arguments as to the possible flailings of the Catholic church, but Catholics believe (with the same amount of strenght and therefore fact on their side) that somehow God talks through the Pope. So how can you debate that?

Especially when it is not allowed to debate that the four evangelists, four people that did not even meet Christ, since the four gospels where written way after DC. To make matters worse it was the Catholic Church under Pope Innocence the 1st which established the validity of said Gospels over other Books that where rounding the world at the time... not only that but this was all done because Constantin the 1st had decided that he was going to take over Christianity and pushed forth a Concile to give structure to a religion that at that point was still very much unstructured and made off of different groups that each believed what they wanted (I guess not much has changed on that front).

In other words, it was the catholic Church that settled on the Book now known to you as the Bible. In other words the book "Inspired by God" was put together by a the group that is now contended to not be inspired by God... If God inspired them that time, well, why are we to suppose that he hasn't inspired them again?

Which brings me to the point, Why has god not inspired anyone again? I mean he whispered into the ears of so many people more than 2008 years ago, but has done nothing since he told those four gospel makers the life of his "son" 50 to 60 years after the fact. Its not like we are doing any better really, so why the lack of communication...

Dunno that is a matter for a different thing. My point is that people here love to cry out whenever us non christians are berating their beliefs, yet seem to be so ready to absolutely lambast the church of others when Catholicism or Islam is discussed. Just as long as Christianism is not touched, then you can call names on other people's beliefs, presenting opinion and faith as facts.

Well you know, Catholics can also turn around and present faith as fact, and you would just have to accept it, the same way you expect us to accept your faith as fact.

Point being you are all wrong, and some day will learn from Maitreya when he comes round to teach the Dharma again :D

finswin56
03-13-2008, 03:11 PM
Great posting Q :up:

Dolphan7
03-13-2008, 03:41 PM
Yup its the infalibility of the pope when he speaks on the matters of faith. Which was established later with the church, after the rupture with the protestant church that allowed the creation of such Dogma.

I used to hate Catholics with all my might, they surrounded me and continuously clashed with me (I went to a marist school in small town Mexico). BUT you are right, Catholics are more capable to understand and participate with other cultures without demanding the destruction of everything other cultures have to offer, but being more able to accept them and move forward.

So... I have come to realize that in terms of the world, and cultures of the world, the Catholic church is nowhere near as destructive as the Christian/protestant groups, which seem to have a fear towards the unknown and a ability to absolutely murder (and for the whole religion kills less than atheist discussion, I don't mean murder in a literal way. I mean murder in destruction of culture way) people that do not live like them.Q did you know that Jesus said that even when you have hatred for your fellow man you have committed murder in your heart. Haven't we all done that at some point in time?
If there is an obsolute truth, which I believe there is, then that truth has absolute morals laws that govern us all. Those laws don't change over time. Ever.

For a church to say that they maintian the authority of God, yet are constantly changing the laws depending on their belief and the changing world around it, don't hold much authority imo.

The difference is Catholics believe in continued revelation from God, which wasn't present in the early Catholic church. It was added later on. So if it was added later on, why wasn't it at the beginning of the church? Reason - because it isn't biblical. It is manmade, as in many Catholic traditions.

If you want a church that changes over time and that agrees with what you believe in, that is your prerogative. Until I guess it disagrees with your belief system, then it's garbage again.

Look the world is changing constantly, values are changing, lower in my opinion. As the Christian vlaues remain constant, the gap between the two gets larger and larger every decade, making it stand out. Some people call that intolerant and hatefull. We believe that God's word does not change and the more the world changes the more disparity there is.

This is why I don't put my faith in men, political parties, governments or churches/religion. I put my faith in Jesus. He never let's me down, he never changes.

Quelonio
03-13-2008, 04:57 PM
Q did you know that Jesus said that even when you have hatred for your fellow man you have committed murder in your heart. Haven't we all done that at some point in time?
If there is an obsolute truth, which I believe there is, then that truth has absolute morals laws that govern us all. Those laws don't change over time. Ever.

For a church to say that they maintian the authority of God, yet are constantly changing the laws depending on their belief and the changing world around it, don't hold much authority imo.

The difference is Catholics believe in continued revelation from God, which wasn't present in the early Catholic church. It was added later on. So if it was added later on, why wasn't it at the beginning of the church? Reason - because it isn't biblical. It is manmade, as in many Catholic traditions.

If you want a church that changes over time and that agrees with what you believe in, that is your prerogative. Until I guess it disagrees with your belief system, then it's garbage again.

Look the world is changing constantly, values are changing, lower in my opinion. As the Christian vlaues remain constant, the gap between the two gets larger and larger every decade, making it stand out. Some people call that intolerant and hatefull. We believe that God's word does not change and the more the world changes the more disparity there is.

This is why I don't put my faith in men, political parties, governments or churches/religion. I put my faith in Jesus. He never let's me down, he never changes.

We all choose religions on the basis of whether or not it agrees with our worldview or not. You agree with the christian world view therefore you are ok with that, if say due to an act of god that christian world view adopted Abortion as valid then you might move to a different view that continued to be against it.

Religion is about community and it makes no sense to make community unless you are sitting with people that for the most part... agree with you on your basic core beliefs.

(I can't believe I am defending catholicism... but anyways)

The core beliefs of catholicism are there and remain strong and steadfast, they believe in there is one God that is three at the same time (The Father, THe son and the holly Ghost), they believe in Communion, they believe in confessing your sins to a priest and doing pennance. All those things have been unmovable for centuries, as have their views on sex, on abortion, on preservatives, on many things.

The difference here is that if they encounter a person that does indigenous alternative medicine, like say in parts of Mexico where they do healing with eggs and massages, they accept that tradition, might even encourage the people that do that tradition to bring in God or Jesus into said tradition. So we preserve a ancient tradition that hurts no one and that has even provided healing to some people... Protestants would have murdered that tradition years ago, called it off the devil and just done away with that.

My point is simple, you don't want your religion belittled... don't belittle other religions. If you don't want me to say that Christians are stupid for believing in Evolution, then don't call catholics apostates and their religion and the people they cherish and believe in "the whore of Babylon" which are things that people here have called them. This doesnt mean that you can't dissagree with them, things like Virgin Mary and the Ex Cathedra authority of the Pope are obviously things that you can disagree with theologically, but then be ready to hear that these things where a part of the creation of that book that you hold so strongly and love so strongly. THe Catholic church was the cathalist to the creation of the Bible, no catholic church, no bible as simple as that.

St. Thomas Aquinas was charged by the catholic church to revise the Bible again during the times of Pope Urban IV, this is the bible that Luther then takes and makes some changes to to make it you know... the Bible.

Bible's change... your own religion is due to a change to the biggest and most powerful religion of the time. A change that was incited by the fact that this religion's ideals did not speak to the needs of Germanic readings of the same text.

No religion in the world is static, they all change according to the needs around them. I'm sorry Dolphan, but there is no way you can argue with me that Christianism has remained the same since Christ was crucified, it hasn't it has changed, been modified, toyed with. Just the fact that there are so many different groups of it is proof that the religion has been modified, a catholic, a presbiterian, a evangelist, a mormon, a jehova's witness all have something in common they all believe in god and in jesus, if the religion was unchangeable, we would be talking of one group not tens of thousands of groups that are calling theirs as the true interpretation (this in a religion that is supposed to be static to the words of one book, it is more understandable in say bhuddism where the words are the dharma and are open to readidng and interpretation). I can tell you this, the fact that almost all American people have changed their religious affiliation in their lifetimes (as presented in that report that was posted here) and most those changes are inside the same religious family, as in christian, that means people are looking for the religion that most suits their ideas on life.

I can debate you on catholicism all you want, I was raised in the most catholic town of Mexico, I was raised by Marist priests, and was a member of Amigos en Marcha and Ciudad Nueva, which are their Boy Scouts/like groups. I have read their bible over and over and I have read the works of both Thosmas Aquina and St Augustine (essentially City of God). Took religious classes from age 6 to age 14 and for a little time I actually considered studying religious studies and focusing in catholicism (despite never have been a practicant of the religion). But for all my disagreements and problems with it, I have a sore point for anyone attacking it as the "Whore of Babylon" or Apostates, these are people's beliefs and as such should be respected... that doees not preclude debating this beliefs, but respected none the least.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-13-2008, 04:58 PM
Q did you know that Jesus said that even when you have hatred for your fellow man you have committed murder in your heart. Haven't we all done that at some point in time?
If there is an obsolute truth, which I believe there is, then that truth has absolute morals laws that govern us all. Those laws don't change over time. Ever.

For a church to say that they maintian the authority of God, yet are constantly changing the laws depending on their belief and the changing world around it, don't hold much authority imo.

The difference is Catholics believe in continued revelation from God, which wasn't present in the early Catholic church. It was added later on. So if it was added later on, why wasn't it at the beginning of the church? Reason - because it isn't biblical. It is manmade, as in many Catholic traditions.

If you want a church that changes over time and that agrees with what you believe in, that is your prerogative. Until I guess it disagrees with your belief system, then it's garbage again.

Look the world is changing constantly, values are changing, lower in my opinion. As the Christian vlaues remain constant, the gap between the two gets larger and larger every decade, making it stand out. Some people call that intolerant and hatefull. We believe that God's word does not change and the more the world changes the more disparity there is.

This is why I don't put my faith in men, political parties, governments or churches/religion. I put my faith in Jesus. He never let's me down, he never changes.

the laws do not change, but the understanding does. Human minds are growing. We have better understandings and deeper truths.


The day humans stop growing is the day we die as a species

Pagan
03-13-2008, 05:10 PM
the laws do not change, but the understanding does. Human minds are growing. We have better understandings and deeper truths.


The day humans stop growing is the day we die as a species
Good point. I've said that before, laws of morality written for primitive people can't be concrete for the 21st Century.

Things are just a tad different than they were back then.

Dolphan7
03-13-2008, 06:31 PM
[quote=Quelonio;1062397231]We all choose religions on the basis of whether or not it agrees with our worldview or not. You agree with the christian world view therefore you are ok with that, if say due to an act of god that christian world view adopted Abortion as valid then you might move to a different view that continued to be against it. I was an atheist. I didn't agree with Christianity at all. But I beleived it to be true, the truth. I don't believe because it meshes with my personal beliefs, but because I have learned that it is the truth. I understand what you are saying, many go "church shopping", looking for the one that best fits their belief. Then truth becomes whatever you want it to be, relative truth. But that isn't me.



Religion is about community and it makes no sense to make community unless you are sitting with people that for the most part... agree with you on your basic core beliefs.

(I can't believe I am defending catholicism... but anyways)
Nice when you can do it, but it does kinda force conformity.


The core beliefs of catholicism are there and remain strong and steadfast, they believe in there is one God that is three at the same time (The Father, THe son and the holly Ghost), they believe in Communion, they believe in confessing your sins to a priest and doing pennance. All those things have been unmovable for centuries, as have their views on sex, on abortion, on preservatives, on many things.Confessing and pennance to a priest are not anywhere in the bible. This isn't a core Christian belief. It is a core Catholic belief though. Pergatory, praying to saints, the diety of the Virgin Mary, the pope, purple robes, incense etc are all non-biblical catholic beliefs. And there is a lot more.


The difference here is that if they encounter a person that does indigenous alternative medicine, like say in parts of Mexico where they do healing with eggs and massages, they accept that tradition, might even encourage the people that do that tradition to bring in God or Jesus into said tradition. So we preserve a ancient tradition that hurts no one and that has even provided healing to some people... Protestants would have murdered that tradition years ago, called it off the devil and just done away with that.Actually it goes further back than that and is much worse. Ever wonder why there are so many weird things in Catholicism? During the roman empire christianity was vying with all the other religions of the realm, and had been persecuted up to that point. Constantine, believing he had a vision from God became a Christian. What unfolded from there was he made Christianity the religion of the Empire. How he did that was much to be desired. He allowed the inclusion of many of the other religious practices of the time into the christian church. It was at that time that Catholicism (meaning "univesal") came into existance between 314 -395 AD.


My point is simple, you don't want your religion belittled... don't belittle other religions. If you don't want me to say that Christians are stupid for believing in Evolution, then don't call catholics apostates and their religion and the people they cherish and believe in "the whore of Babylon" which are things that people here have called them. This doesnt mean that you can't dissagree with them, things like Virgin Mary and the Ex Cathedra authority of the Pope are obviously things that you can disagree with theologically, but then be ready to hear that these things where a part of the creation of that book that you hold so strongly and love so strongly. THe Catholic church was the cathalist to the creation of the Bible, no catholic church, no bible as simple as that.Oh boy! Where to begin. First off there is no harm in stating the historocity and facts of any religion. We can debate the theological differences all day long. But I agree there is no call for making fun of it's followers, and I have not done that. I have always based my posts around the religion itself, not the followers. I have not called Catholicism the whore of babylon. That must be someone else. I can't speak for them. But I do say that at the point that Constantine became a Christian, and did what he did, the Catholic church became a church and at the same time became Apostate. They went away from the true path. The Christian church as a whole went off track until the Protestant Reformation, which put it back on track. Thank God for Martin Luther.

Also - The OT was completed around 400BC, the NT was completed in the first century. Catholicism, as stated above, came into existance in 300+ AD. How could they have created the bible? They added to it, but they didn't create it as many believe.


St. Thomas Aquinas was charged by the catholic church to revise the Bible again during the times of Pope Urban IV, this is the bible that Luther then takes and makes some changes to to make it you know... the Bible. The bible was reviewed during the Council of Trent in the 1500's. That was in reponse to the Reformation. This is where the Apocrypha was added to the Catholic Bible. That is the only time up to that point that any group got together to decide the biblical cannon.


Bible's change... your own religion is due to a change to the biggest and most powerful religion of the time. A change that was incited by the fact that this religion's ideals did not speak to the needs of Germanic readings of the same text.No I think it was Martin Luthers protestation to the churches practice of selling indulgences (sins), among other things. See the 95 thesis. This is God's way of getting the true church back on track. Thank you God for Martin Luther.


No religion in the world is static, they all change according to the needs around them. I'm sorry Dolphan, but there is no way you can argue with me that Christianism has remained the same since Christ was crucified, it hasn't it has changed, been modified, toyed with. Just the fact that there are so many different groups of it is proof that the religion has been modified, a catholic, a presbiterian, a evangelist, a mormon, a jehova's witness all have something in common they all believe in god and in jesus, if the religion was unchangeable, we would be talking of one group not tens of thousands of groups that are calling theirs as the true interpretation (this in a religion that is supposed to be static to the words of one book, it is more understandable in say bhuddism where the words are the dharma and are open to readidng and interpretation). The interpretation changes depending on men. Perfect example of this is the Catholic Church itself. But you can always go back to the source document, the bible, to guage just how for off a religion is.


I can tell you this, the fact that almost all American people have changed their religious affiliation in their lifetimes (as presented in that report that was posted here) and most those changes are inside the same religious family, as in christian, that means people are looking for the religion that most suits their ideas on life. People will do what they need to do, but that doesn't mean the religion is wrong, just that people compromise their faith becasue ....well.....it's easier. Sometimes holding to what is right is harder, and people who hold to that one truth take criticism for it and get persecuted for it. It is much easier to live in the world when you compromise with the world. It doesn't mean truth doesn't exist or isn't neccessary anymore. It is that people have abandoned it.


I can debate you on catholicism all you want, I was raised in the most catholic town of Mexico, I was raised by Marist priests, and was a member of Amigos en Marcha and Ciudad Nueva, which are their Boy Scouts/like groups. I have read their bible over and over and I have read the works of both Thosmas Aquina and St Augustine (essentially City of God). Took religious classes from age 6 to age 14 and for a little time I actually considered studying religious studies and focusing in catholicism (despite never have been a practicant of the religion). But for all my disagreements and problems with it, I have a sore point for anyone attacking it as the "Whore of Babylon" or Apostates, these are people's beliefs and as such should be respected... that doees not preclude debating this beliefs, but respected none the least.Like I said, the whore of babylon could mean anything. I have not make a claim that it is Catholicism. But the truth and the facts are that it is Apostate.

Pagan
03-13-2008, 06:54 PM
I was an atheist. I didn't agree with Christianity at all. But I beleived it to be true, the truth. I don't believe because it meshes with my personal beliefs, but because I have learned that it is the truth. I understand what you are saying, many go "church shopping", looking for the one that best fits their belief. Then truth becomes whatever you want it to be, relative truth. But that isn't me.
Not that you'll answer me - because you haven't lately - but this is the reason why people get fed up with Christians. Your way is the truth, everyone else has "relative truth". :rolleyes:

I know it's beating a dead horse, but you do NOT know if your way is the truth, my friend. You simply do not, no matter how many Christian websites you may link to with your "proof". Unless Jesus himself flies back down here and announces to everyone on the planet that he is the way, all you have your FAITH. That is all.

Your Bible is meaningless when it comes to those of other faiths. They all have their old books too, D7, that tell THEM their way is the truth. I'm sure they can all provide proof like you do from THEIR biased websites also. Doesn't make their way any more true than yours.

And telling everyone else that their faith is "relative truth" is the exact kind of pompous arrogance that causes the Christian backlash that's becoming oh so popular these days.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-13-2008, 07:04 PM
[quote]I was an atheist. I didn't agree with Christianity at all. But I beleived it to be true, the truth. I don't believe because it meshes with my personal beliefs, but because I have learned that it is the truth. I understand what you are saying, many go "church shopping", looking for the one that best fits their belief. Then truth becomes whatever you want it to be, relative truth. But that isn't me.




So you are saying Christianity picked you and not the other way around?

Honestly, this does not make sense. Just because you went to one store, does not mean you didn't go shopping.

It is all relative truth. It is all open to the interpretation of the person who is viewing the truth.

Edit: While I do believe it is possible to have a direct experience with the truth of everything. I know I have. I just know it is improbable to do in writing or verbal words. I originally used the word impossible, however someday there maybe a book that perfectly puts a person in direct knowing I changed it. It would be easy to know if it is the book due to the fact that anyone who reads it would know and there would only be one faith from such book or period if people are open to such a thing. Now I wonder if the book would be really long or just a few pages. Probably would only need to read the first few pages, but would have the next 10 million or so for the people who like things to be complicated.

Dolphan7
03-13-2008, 08:47 PM
So you are saying Christianity picked you and not the other way around?

Honestly, this does not make sense. Just because you went to one store, does not mean you didn't go shopping.

It is all relative truth. It is all open to the interpretation of the person who is viewing the truth.

Edit: While I do believe it is possible to have a direct experience with the truth of everything. I know I have. I just know it is improbable to do in writing or verbal words. I originally used the word impossible, however someday there maybe a book that perfectly puts a person in direct knowing I changed it. It would be easy to know if it is the book due to the fact that anyone who reads it would know and there would only be one faith from such book or period if people are open to such a thing. Now I wonder if the book would be really long or just a few pages. Probably would only need to read the first few pages, but would have the next 10 million or so for the people who like things to be complicated.I wasn't looking. It just happened. A knock at the door, and questions asked and questions answered, and then morequestions and more answers.......

So no I wasn't shopping for a church.

If truth is relative, then none of us have the basis to say what is right or wrong, what truth is. There is no foundation to determine right from wrong.

So Hitler wasn't right or wrong, he just had his own interpretation.

911 terrorists aren't right or wrong, they just have their interpretation.

See why that don't work?

Or there is a being that has absolute authority to declare absolute truth and absolute right and wrong, and that is the foundation to determine right from wrong. Without God, man is a zero when making absolutes for man.

Dolphan7
03-13-2008, 08:52 PM
Not that you'll answer me - because you haven't lately - but this is the reason why people get fed up with Christians. Your way is the truth, everyone else has "relative truth". :rolleyes:

I know it's beating a dead horse, but you do NOT know if your way is the truth, my friend. You simply do not, no matter how many Christian websites you may link to with your "proof". Unless Jesus himself flies back down here and announces to everyone on the planet that he is the way, all you have your FAITH. That is all.

Your Bible is meaningless when it comes to those of other faiths. They all have their old books too, D7, that tell THEM their way is the truth. I'm sure they can all provide proof like you do from THEIR biased websites also. Doesn't make their way any more true than yours.

And telling everyone else that their faith is "relative truth" is the exact kind of pompous arrogance that causes the Christian backlash that's becoming oh so popular these days.We have been here before. I choose to not go down this road with you again.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-13-2008, 09:14 PM
I wasn't looking. It just happened. A knock at the door, and questions asked and questions answered, and then morequestions and more answers.......

So no I wasn't shopping for a church.

If truth is relative, then none of us have the basis to say what is right or wrong, what truth is. There is no foundation to determine right from wrong.

So Hitler wasn't right or wrong, he just had his own interpretation.

911 terrorists aren't right or wrong, they just have their interpretation.

See why that don't work?

Or there is a being that has absolute authority to declare absolute truth and absolute right and wrong, and that is the foundation to determine right from wrong. Without God, man is a zero when making absolutes for man.


You at least have to be openned to it or your would of shut the door.

Hitler wasn't right or wrong, that is his own interpretation. Our interpretation says his actions were wrong. Same thing with the 911 terrorists. It isn't that it works or doesn't work, it is what it is.

Right and wrong isn't the invention of some father in the clouds sending lighting down to strike us. Right and wrong is an invention of man. If it works for our society it is right, if it does not work it is wrong. Or at least that is how they interpret it. Myself I would say that Hitler and the 9/11 terrorists did not allow it in.

Also using Hitler and the 911 terrorists need to have the assumption that death is a bad thing or even human suffering in the gigantic theme of things. When you look at it from a higher perspective such as a god. Almost simple math would dictate if you have 80 years of suffering, yet an infinite years of bliss in heaven, you actually didn't suffer at all. In fact if you have 80 years of life and an infinite years of non life, in a way you never existed since 80 divided by infinity is so close to zero it might as well be zero.

So basically I always find the Hitler and 911 terrorist arguement to be inconsequential and not having much merit.

Pagan
03-13-2008, 11:05 PM
We have been here before. I choose to not go down this road with you again.
Of course you don't. :rolleyes:

Dolphan7
03-14-2008, 01:31 AM
You at least have to be openned to it or your would of shut the door. You know how many doors I shut before then? Lot's.


Hitler wasn't right or wrong, that is his own interpretation. Our interpretation says his actions were wrong. Same thing with the 911 terrorists. It isn't that it works or doesn't work, it is what it is. Hitler was wrong.....for you in your world.....not for him in his world. You can't say what he did was wrong outside of your world. You are both right.


Right and wrong isn't the invention of some father in the clouds sending lighting down to strike us. Right and wrong is an invention of man. No actually right and wrong are from God. Man has no authority to make moral absolutes for man. Zero. Right and wrong have to come from above, otherwise we have billions of interpretations wf what billions of people think is right or wrong. Now societies can get together and form social contracts that they can agree on, but an alternate society can do the same thing, and right and wrong could contradict each other. We have that same situation today between western culture and Islamic extremism. In our world we think 911 is wrong. In their world 911 is right. Without a foundation, an moral absolute given be something higher than mankind, no one can tell the other they are right, or wrong. They both are right.



If it works for our society it is right, if it does not work it is wrong. Or at least that is how they interpret it. Myself I would say that Hitler and the 9/11 terrorists did not allow it in. That is pragmatism, not truth.




So basically I always find the Hitler and 911 terrorist arguement to be inconsequential and not having much merit.So are they wrong for what they did? If so, why? On what basis do you say that they are wrong?

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-14-2008, 02:33 AM
Hitler was wrong.....for you in your world.....not for him in his world. You can't say what he did was wrong outside of your world. You are both right.

I can say anything I want. However right and wrong are just two sides of the same coin. You have heads, you have tails, yet it still doesn't change the fact that it is a coin.


No actually right and wrong are from God. Man has no authority to make moral absolutes for man. Zero. Right and wrong have to come from above, otherwise we have billions of interpretations wf what billions of people think is right or wrong. Now societies can get together and form social contracts that they can agree on, but an alternate society can do the same thing, and right and wrong could contradict each other. We have that same situation today between western culture and Islamic extremism. In our world we think 911 is wrong. In their world 911 is right. Without a foundation, an moral absolute given be something higher than mankind, no one can tell the other they are right, or wrong. They both are right.

That is not true. What does that matter in the misiscule time that we are here on this planet?

The need for right and wrong is a creation of our ego. The part of us that in this world now. If all of mankind got rid of the ego, then there is no right and wrong.

Right and wrong are things we use because we need meanings for things. There is no right, there is no wrong. All there is, is.

The right and wrongs that are in my life, are the rights and wrongs that I am attached to. I am attached to this body so if someone hurts it, it feels wrong to me. However if someone is protecting something that they are attached to when they hurt me, they feel right for doing so. However what happens isn't actually right and wrong. There isn't a big board out there in the cosmos that has each event with a huge check mark that states, "Right", "Wrong".

Right now we do have billions of interpretations of what is right and what is wrong. That is simply because we are interpretating beings. When something happens, you see it or read it or hear it or feel it or somehow bring it into your mind. Your mind goes through and looks for rules. Those rules are rules that you have made through your life, be it by your parents or a book like the bible. Due to that, your mind comes up with the idea of right and wrong.

I can understand the desire to take away responsibility and look for some


That is pragmatism, not truth.




So are they wrong for what they did? If so, why? On what basis do you say that they are wrong?

They are wrong in my mind. The keyword there is mind. I do not think they are burning in hell right now suffering FOREVER for something they did for not even a fraction of their existance.

Dolphan7
03-14-2008, 11:28 AM
I can say anything I want. However right and wrong are just two sides of the same coin. You have heads, you have tails, yet it still doesn't change the fact that it is a coin.



That is not true. What does that matter in the misiscule time that we are here on this planet?

The need for right and wrong is a creation of our ego. The part of us that in this world now. If all of mankind got rid of the ego, then there is no right and wrong.

Right and wrong are things we use because we need meanings for things. There is no right, there is no wrong. All there is, is.

The right and wrongs that are in my life, are the rights and wrongs that I am attached to. I am attached to this body so if someone hurts it, it feels wrong to me. However if someone is protecting something that they are attached to when they hurt me, they feel right for doing so. However what happens isn't actually right and wrong. There isn't a big board out there in the cosmos that has each event with a huge check mark that states, "Right", "Wrong".

Right now we do have billions of interpretations of what is right and what is wrong. That is simply because we are interpretating beings. When something happens, you see it or read it or hear it or feel it or somehow bring it into your mind. Your mind goes through and looks for rules. Those rules are rules that you have made through your life, be it by your parents or a book like the bible. Due to that, your mind comes up with the idea of right and wrong.

I can understand the desire to take away responsibility and look for some







They are wrong in my mind. The keyword there is mind. I do not think they are burning in hell right now suffering FOREVER for something they did for not even a fraction of their existance.I am sorry but I don't understand half of the things you say. Maybe you feel the same way. I can't do this anymore.

Pagan
03-14-2008, 11:44 AM
Way to go, Dupree. Join the club now.

We have jackets. :lol:

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-14-2008, 04:51 PM
I am sorry but I don't understand half of the things you say. Maybe you feel the same way. I can't do this anymore.

ok I respect that. Good luck in your journey. I hope it brings you happiness

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-14-2008, 04:55 PM
Way to go, Dupree. Join the club now.

We have jackets. :lol:

Really? I do like jackets. Do I have to be a Pagan? I am not a fan of worshiping gods with goat heads or anything like that. ;)

Pagan
03-14-2008, 05:10 PM
No man, you don't have to be Pagan...you just have to be one of the ones D7 won't talk to anymore. :tongue:

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-14-2008, 05:15 PM
No man, you don't have to be Pagan...you just have to be one of the ones D7 won't talk to anymore. :tongue:

alright, what do the jackets look like?

Pagan
03-14-2008, 05:26 PM
alright, what do the jackets look like?
I think they have Jesus flipping us the bird. :lol:

*before anyone gets bent out of shape...it's a JOKE, people.*

Quelonio
03-14-2008, 05:45 PM
I think they have Jesus flipping us the bird. :lol:

*before anyone gets bent out of shape...it's a JOKE, people.*

I'm starting to think you have a contract with Magickal Cat... everytime there is a post by Pagan in the MB there is a advertisement for Magickal Cat, your presence is of such strength that you just call the Google adds all for yourself... I was hoping for ads based on the Whore of Babylon thing... you know, spitzer-esque adds.... but no...

Dolphan7
03-14-2008, 05:59 PM
No man, you don't have to be Pagan...you just have to be one of the ones D7 won't talk to anymore. :tongue:Hey my wife said she might want one! :lol:

Dolphan7
03-14-2008, 06:01 PM
ok I respect that. Good luck in your journey. I hope it brings you happinessDitto Brother Dupree.:up:

Pagan
03-14-2008, 06:04 PM
Hey my wife said she might want one! :lol:
You do have a good sense of humor sometimes D...I'll give ya that. :up:


I'm starting to think you have a contract with Magickal Cat... everytime there is a post by Pagan in the MB there is a advertisement for Magickal Cat, your presence is of such strength that you just call the Google adds all for yourself... I was hoping for ads based on the Whore of Babylon thing... you know, spitzer-esque adds.... but no...
The wires must have gotten crossed....I've drawn the google ad for the Magickal Cat to me, and in reality I cast a spell to get more p****. :tongue:

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-14-2008, 06:16 PM
You do have a good sense of humor sometimes D...I'll give ya that. :up:


The wires must have gotten crossed....I've drawn the google ad for the Magickal Cat to me, and in reality I cast a spell to get more p****. :tongue:

that is the problem with spells. The universe has a great sense of humor

Mike13
03-17-2008, 02:02 PM
This reminds me of the time I was given a small sheet of paper with various sins listed before I went to confession.
Some odd crap was on there, like "watching soap operas" and "reckless driving".

If the latter is a sin, then 90% of Miami -Dade's population are going to hell.