No, it’s not necessary to count every raindrop to know that you’re wet, but if you say that a particular shower that just got you wet is the heaviest one in human history, you better know a lot about showers and history.
Ah, and now we have another standard; “Unless you have hard proof that <religion X> is the worst thing in all of human history, don’t you dare criticize it in any way!”
It was, and is, monstrously evil. Regardless of whether or not it’s the worst thing in history, that’s more than bad enough to condemn it.
About the original topic:
I wanted to get replies from people who thought that the Bible can be taken literally… I tried making a new thread about it:
For some reason I didn’t seem to get the Christians I was after there…
Then I went back to a forum I posted on a few years ago - christianforums.com… I got quite a few good replies and also humorous non-believer replies.
As has been said, it’s because there are barely any such people here since the position is such a bad one to take.
I have no problem with you criticizing the Catholic church in the Middle Ages. I do have problems with you claiming that it’s vastly worse than many other screwed-up institutions at many other times. Quit misquoting me. At no point did I ever say anything that implied that you can’t criticize it.
What’s the point of the Roman Catholic Church if it cannot be held to a higher standard than other contemporary institutions? Surely God’s chosen lieutenant on Earth can come up with a better way of doing things than the normal people. Surely they would be the first to condemn injustice and cruelty. And if not, what purpose do they have? Why do they have to keep apologizing for their predecessors? What justification does anyone have to think of the Vatican as any kind of moral authority at all? The thing is, if you declare yourself to be above and better than everyone else, you get judged accordingly.
The idea that, maybe, just maybe, the current version of the Catholic Church is good this time, that no one is going to be apologizing for their current actions in 50 or 100 years time and saying “yeah we got it all wrong then, but now we’ve got it right!” is desperate and foolish.
It shouldn’t be a huge surprise if christianforums.com has a lot more vocal Christians than a site about “fighting ignorance”.
If it is, that’s still condemning it, because it claims to be better, to have a special inside take on what is right and good. If it’s no better, then that adds “liar” and/or “self deluded” to its list of flaws, and eliminates the one excuse it has to be taken seriously when it lectures and browbeats everyone on what it thinks is “moral”. And few of those “other institutions” exist anymore, either.
When an organization or person makes a claim to moral authority, then it gets held to a higher standard than one that does not. And the Church’s alleged moral authority is by your own argument limited to no better than a Middle Ages King/thug.
Why would you think they would have any insight? If you ran a restaurant and only a few regulars ever came, you would not poll them to see why other people are not coming. You would need to talk with the people who aren’t coming to learn what is keeping them from being patrons. The answer could be as simple as a repainting or as complex as a complete re-do of the menu, but at least you would be hearing from the folks in question.
Otherwise you are just reinforcing your concepts of the “others.” You will never learn or grow if you do not talk to outsiders.
I never claimed that the Catholic church is a moral authority. I don’t remotely care whether it claims that it’s a moral authority. Where did you possibly get the idea that I claimed that it’s a moral authority? I was replying to your statement that I seemed to be claiming that “Unless you have hard proof that <religion X> is the worst thing in all of human history, don’t you dare criticize it in any way!” I never claimed that you shouldn’t criticize it in any way. You know, you spend a lot of time on the SDMB criticizing religion. I seldom even address the subject of religion in my posts. You seem to think that anyone who isn’t as critical of religion as you are must think that it’s perfect and beyond criticism.
It is not a matter of what Captain Amazing or anyone else “likes”, but a matter of historical fact. The case of Galileo’s trial was not motivated by the church being “anti-science” and neither was anything related to Bruno. In fact, Bruno was never a scientist. You’ve have been shown these things, with real cites rather than just Wikipedia articles. You entered the thread with incorrect beliefs about these matters; others have told you the truth, in accordance with the Straight Dope’s purpose. Anyone’s entitled to make a mistake, but you shouldn’t continue spreading ignorance after learning that it’s ignorance.
I’m not interested in the real reason for my question… I’m wondering what literalist Christians think about it.
I’ve already heard enough from outsiders. I want to hear from literalist Christians.
Once again; there pretty much aren’t any here.
Dave’s not here, man.
Yes that’s why I went to another forum. I was responding to “You will never learn or grow if you do not talk to outsiders” from DrFidelius.
In that case, my auto mechanic is a scientist.
I think we’re had quite a few threads here where YEC types have dropped by with a claim that their opinion is based on science. And invariably, they are totally unable to defend that opinion against any type of logic or actual facts.
Why ask a question if you are not interested in “the real reason?”
Because he’s interested in what certain people think the reason is. That’s not necessarily the same thing as “the real reason”.
How about Bolsheviki? I would say they are 100% atheists.
They changed a country from old Russian icons to new Soviet icons (Lenin, Stalin, etc.) :rolleyes: