I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
Not in the Christian God necessarily, but in a god or gods.
That's what I was looking for. If you look through Jesus's teachings, you will find that He tells us Christians not to kill (Example: the "turn the other cheek" lesson). The "Christians" who killed people "in the name of God" were, I truly believe, not true Christians. I think I've said that to you before...but if you don't remember, perhaps it was to Pixie...
I think I've said that to you before...but if you don't remember, perhaps it was to Pixie...
It could be OSMLS. (Over-stressed memory loss syndrome) :O ------- Yet still, the existence of the idea gives justification. Of any god, really. That's one of the downsides,
So I wouldn't call Catholicism evil because of what a Pope did.
Well, that was one pope - but popes today still do evil things like condemning condoms. Somehow, I think limiting the spread of AIDS in Africa might be slightly more important then prohibiting promiscuous behaviour, but then maybe I have more respect for human life then the pope does.
As for stating that Catholocism isn't evil just because of what the pope has to say? Well, there's a significant problem with that statement. Papal infallibility. According to the church, the pope is never wrong. About anything. Ever. The pope speaks 'ex cathedra' (literally from the chair "of Peter" when issuing a solemn definition of faith or morals.
So... saying that the pope has no impact on the religion is not true. He is the earthly voice for the christian god. It's another reason why the catholic church takes so long to apologize for things like... executing Galileo Galilei.
perspective morality is as useful as no morality.
Why? Canada doesn't have a death penalty, but the US does - so does singapore; hell, they have corporal punishment too. There are a lot more legal drugs in Holland then in other countries. In most first world countries women can wear whatever they want - in many middle eastern countries they have to cover up.
I don't think you have enough to make your point that some morality is better then no morality.
Everyone has morality.
I wouldn't agree with that statement. Sociopaths do not have a sense of morality, and they are 'amoral'. Psychopaths understand morality, but choose to act contrary to it, often enjoying their lack of compliance and are regarded as 'immoral' from the social norm.
As for where it came from? It's a classic religious debate. Essentially it tries to undermine atheism by postulating that morality is not innate, we had to 'get it' from somewhere, that somewhere being the bible. The atheist counterpoint is that morality is indeed, innate, and existed in human society long before religion came to be a powerful force in the world, and human society will continue to have morality long after religion has died out.
1. Not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral. 2. Having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong
Sociopaths do not have an empathic understanding of how these things are relevant.
So... saying that the pope has no impact on the religion is not true. He is the earthly voice for the christian god. It's another reason why the catholic church takes so long to apologize for things like... executing Galileo Galilei.
Is that what I said? The pope obviously has an impact on Catholicism. And Popes have been wrong before, there's no denying it.
According to the church, the pope is never wrong. About anything. Ever.
You don't understand what papal infallibility is, do you? It doesn't mean that the Pope's opinions on theological issues are correct. Actually, it prevents the Pope from defining something that is incorrect. In turn, it entrusts the Pope not to teach something incorrect. Some have abused this power, certainly, and we put too much trust in them. That still doesn't define Catholicism.
but popes today still do evil things like condemning condoms. Somehow, I think limiting the spread of AIDS in Africa might be slightly more important then prohibiting promiscuous behaviour, but then maybe I have more respect for human life then the pope does.
What exactly do you want the Pope to do about the spread of AIDs in Africa? Is anyone denying that it is wrong? Is there some special magic power the Pope has to limit the spread of AIDs? The Catholic Church believes that interfering with sex by the use of birth control and condoms is wrong, so it has declared so. That is an issue America has not agreed upon (even if it has allowed it). My point before was that you shouldn't judge Catholics based on what their leaders do. You'd be surprised how many Catholics I meet that don't even know anything about Catholicism.
What exactly do you want the Pope to do about the spread of AIDs in Africa?
Stop complaining about condoms for starters. These people listen to what he has to say - even to their own detriment. It's like when African countries throw our GE crops because greenpeace or some other anti-capatalist organization warns them that it'll given their babies 3 heads and other ridiculous alarmist BS.
You'd be surprised how many Catholics I meet that don't even know anything about Catholicism.
I wouldn't, actually - and that is partly my point. Catholics and christians don't even know what they're following these days - you're not the only person I've talked to that hasn't read the entire bible; I find it's very often the case that people singing christianity's praises haven't even read the book that contains the rules & guidelines for their own religion. It's like me saying I'm a lawyer without having studied at law school.
Something else I'd like to clarify on this point:
you shouldn't judge Catholics
I'm not judging the people - I'm judging the religion (much like the title of the thread - not Christians vs Atheists). Most people don't even really understand it or follow the tenets - so why even bother saying "I'm christian" if you(royal) don't even understand what that really means?
Stop complaining about condoms for starters. These people listen to what he has to say - even to their own detriment. It's like when African countries throw our GE crops because greenpeace or some other anti-capatalist organization warns them that it'll given their babies 3 heads and other ridiculous alarmist BS.
Why does he have to stop complaining about condoms to limit the spread of AIDs? I can understand you don't agree with that viewpoint, but you can't tell him what to believe on a split issue.
I wouldn't, actually - and that is partly my point. Catholics and christians don't even know what they're following these days - you're not the only person I've talked to that hasn't read the entire bible; I find it's very often the case that people singing christianity's praises haven't even read the book that contains the rules & guidelines for their own religion. It's like me saying I'm a lawyer without having studied at law school.
Okay, maybe you wouldn't be surprised. But I know what I'm following, just haven't read the entire Bible yet. I still read it, just not done yet. The purpose of the Bible is to teach people the morals of the Christian faith. What I meant was people don't even know what their morals are. Not having memorized the Bible isn't a sign of not being a Christian.
I'm not judging the people - I'm judging the religion (much like the title of the thread - not Christians vs Atheists). Most people don't even really understand it or follow the tenets - so why even bother saying "I'm christian" if you(royal) don't even understand what that really means?
Okay, then. I'm sorry, I thought you meant the people. But to respond to your last question, a Christian is someone who believes Christ is the Son of God and has redeemed our sins. Now, there is a lot that needs to be understood about Christ, but the willingness to follow basic human morality and to repent the failure of basic human morality is what's important when I say Christians. If you do good works, even if not in the name of God, you are better off than those who do not.
Mother Theresa insults really...(please, if brought joy to 1/100 as many people as she did)
Pope and Aids there's two sides- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html
The Pope wasn't the greatest anti-Nazi revolutionary but calling him a Nazi is biased history. (keep in mind he's 16) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI
The church didn't execute Galileo(house arrest) and that's in two thousand years of church history.
The problem I have is why do atheists argue whether the church is sinful. No one ever said it wasn't. Atheists aren't perfect either. Further, The Catholic Church argues that the Church is infallible only in issues of faith and morals.
Why? Canada doesn't have a death penalty, but the US does - so does singapore; hell, they have corporal punishment too. There are a lot more legal drugs in Holland then in other countries. In most first world countries women can wear whatever they want - in many middle eastern countries they have to cover up.
That doesn't mean there's not absolute morality. In every death penalty situation there is a right and wrong answer. Does he deserve to die or not? It can get extremely complicated trying to find the right answer and people might not agree what the right answer is but that doesn't mean the right answer doesn't exist.
Further clothing differences are just cultural differences. What you wear is either right or wrong based on the intention behind it. For instance, Are you flaunting your body off just to build up your pride. Its not based on what you do its why you did it.
Why does he have to stop complaining about condoms to limit the spread of AIDs?
Well, then maybe they'd start using them if they didn't think condoms were 'evil' - as to why that's a good thing?
Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV.
Taken from the CDC website on condom effectiveness: http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm#HIV
Not having memorized the Bible isn't a sign of not being a Christian.
Yes, not 'memorized' is a little harsh, and I would agree. But not even having read it... once? I don't think that's much to expect.
the willingness to follow basic human morality and to repent the failure of basic human morality is what's important when I say Christians.
I have to say I'm a little confused by this sentence. To be honest, normally I would offer a counter-arguement (as is my want) =) But I'm not quite sure what you mean.. it's.. following basic morality but repenting it at the same time? Elaboration would be much appreciated.
If you do good works, even if not in the name of God, you are better off than those who do not.
I'd agree to a point; but I don't see why you would need to do them in the name of a god at all. Aren't good works good enough by themselves; I don't have to imagine I'm doing them to please or suck up to some improbable being? Aren't they even more selfless when you know you're not getting anything out of it (ticket into paradise after death or a ride on the Jesus train for rapture)?
Well, then maybe they'd start using them if they didn't think condoms were 'evil' - as to why that's a good thing?
Once again, different opinions on condoms. Catholics believe it to be morally wrong, so that's why he doesn't do that. We're done discussing condoms.
Yes, not 'memorized' is a little harsh, and I would agree. But not even having read it... once? I don't think that's much to expect.
I'm impressed that you have read the entire Bible. I plan on doing so and am doing so, but am not done yet. Does that mean I'm not much to expect?
I have to say I'm a little confused by this sentence. To be honest, normally I would offer a counter-arguement (as is my want) =) But I'm not quite sure what you mean.. it's.. following basic morality but repenting it at the same time? Elaboration would be much appreciated.
Sorry, I was doing another forum at the same time, so my grammar might suck a little. I mean basically that Christians need to behave with the morals of Christianity, and those are easy to grasp without having read the entire Bible.
I'd agree to a point; but I don't see why you would need to do them in the name of a god at all. Aren't good works good enough by themselves; I don't have to imagine I'm doing them to please or suck up to some improbable being? Aren't they even more selfless when you know you're not getting anything out of it (ticket into paradise after death or a ride on the Jesus train for rapture)?
You don't need to do them in the name of a god, that's the point I was making. That last arugment is a good one, I can't refute it for everyone. But I can say myself that I wouldn't regret my good works if there was no god, because I find morality important no matter what started life. I can also say that many Christians have never once thought about the after-life (I'm sure you've seen that from experience), so their good works come from selflessness too. If this makes sense, this is why Christians try to convert people so much- they want to instill their morals upon everyone they can, for fear that those who are not Christians may stray from the path. I don't think most people would, but some people would need a faith to show them there's something else to life.
But now I'm really mad at you for the Jesus train. You know that's not true, but now I want to ride one! (jk, not mad)
Perspective morality solves no problems and effectively kills reasoning itself.
Only if you make logic decisions based on morality. ------- Just because something is useless doesn't mean it's false. ---------
Do you not make logical decisions based on morality? Are you just an animal using stimulus-respond? I'm confused.
Also, I guarantee you don't live your life using perspective morality. For example, your friend talks behind your back and destroys your reputation to steal your girlfriend. Do you a.) Say "Who am I to judge him. It all depends on his perspective whether or not he acted morally." b.) realize your friend is @-hole and act accordingly.
if you picked B then guess what? That's absolute morality. You are judging your friend based on moral ideals that you accept as true for all humans.
Read the book "The Missionary Position" on Mother Teresa, as written by Christopher Hitchens & you'll understand my view of Mother Teresa. I know you won't.
I don't really feel wikipedia is a reliably accurate source of information, since it's available to anyone to make edits to material.
As for Galileo Gallei, I retract my assertion & concede point.. I was thinking of someone else but I'll be damned if I can remember... Heck, I'm probably damned anyway
The Catholic Church argues that the Church is infallible only in issues of faith and morals.
Well, if they're infallible, I guess molesting children is a good thing then? Granted, not all priests do it - but the church protected the priests responsible - and that, is unforgivable.
It can get extremely complicated trying to find the right answer and people might not agree what the right answer is but that doesn't mean the right answer doesn't exist.
This is straying a bit from the subject matter of the topic - I'll give you that, there may be absolute morality in humans, but it's not to be found in religion.
@ BigP
Once again, different opinions on condoms. Catholics believe it to be morally wrong, so that's why he doesn't do that. We're done discussing condoms.
No, we're not. Okay, catholics believe it to be morally wrong, but is it morally worse then allowing people to contract a disease for which the first world does not posess a cure, much less the third world - meaning realistically, a death sentence. I would arguue it's a malevolent act of cruelty.
Does that mean I'm not much to expect?
Nah, there are people who *have* read the bible that can't argue half as well as you can - I still think it's important though; and for me. If I'm going to argue a subject, I better know what it is that I'm discussing =)
morals of Christianity, and those are easy to grasp without having read the entire Bible.
This is arriving at my point. If morals are so easy to grasp without it... perhaps the bible (and subsequently) the religion, institutions, churches, and cruel edicts(not to say *all* are cruel) are unnecessary. There are a lot of good and selfless works done by christians - and I have no doubt that without a bible they'd be doing the same things, perhaps have some private spiritual beliefs & live life well.
