As long as we have seperation of church and state no one should have to worrry about someone taking away their faith or making them believe a certain religion, and I think that may be Der Tris’s complaint,that some one is trying to force their beliefs into law. I have fundamentalist friends who are worried that their religion is not law and their faith will be taken away from them. No one can take my beliefs away, I have the freedom to use my own mind and am grateful to our forefathers who had the insite to protect the miniority from the majority, as far as religious belief is concerned. One could consider what happens when a religion uses law to inforce their belifs…Just look a t radical Muslim countries today as an example,then if Muslims became the majority here it would be the same. Think of the father who ran over his daughter because she wasn’t following her father’s radical ideas.
If one doesn’t want the fundamentalist laws then they should make sure they get out and vote for a non-fundamentalist, then the law will protect them.
Ask your girl friend if she ever read the Epistles of Paul, that is why the Pope says being gay is a sin…a mortal one at that! I believe the Fundamentalists use that as well.
The RCC also destroyed a lot of literature that didn’t agree with it’s teachings and put a lot of books on the list it’s people couldn’t read.(Early writings of Thomas etc. for example were excluded from the NT) At one time it even made people pledge not to see certain movies and leaned on their fear of hell if they did read or attend the movies it didn’t want them to see or read. At one time it was a sin to even go to a non Catholic Church service. Vatican 2 changed a lot of that. That is a way of brain washing…not to let people think for themselves. Luther changed that and the Christian Church again became a very divided religion.
I wasn’t directing my ideas to Der Trihs, but makeing a general statement. Der Trihs doesn’t seem to be up set with the people as the religons that he feels harm them. One can love a person, but hate the action one takes.
It can also be considered that the answers are not the truth but a way of quieting their fears, like taking an asprin for a head ache, but not curing the cause.
I didn’t read the thread, but count me as another fan of Der Trihs. I think that he is incredible patient, has honest debating tactics, and supports Enlightenment in general. Also, I have never seen him attack anyone who truly sees their religion as something personal.
Stan, I have to disagree with you and agree with DT based on that one statement alone. Arthur C. Clarke said it best:
Given that religion is a lie, a con game from start to finish, anything and everything that it does is tainted by that lie. It’s like swimming in a pool and ignoring the fact that someone peed in it.
One does not need religion to be moral and do good; quite the opposite, actually.
Hmmm…sounds a little like “hate the sin, love the sinner”, don’t it? I wonder why that works when we’re talking about believers but not when we’re talking about rationalists.
Except the Epistles of Paul don’t say that, and the Pope doesn’t say that being gay is a mortal sin.
We Christians have made our share of mistakes and misjudgments, we don’t need you inventing new ones.
Not adding the Gospel of Thomas to the Bible is not putting a book on a banned list.
Cite?
I’m pretty sure Martin Luther came BEFORE Vatican II. Of course, you’ve been spouting lunacy all thread, so feel free not to believe me.
Well I’m not, because I am a hundred per cent confident I can safely file that under “Ridiculous shit you made up when you posted to this thread”, and I needn’t look more deeply into it than that.
Indeed. I am glad to see that you have at least some standards of evidence. There’s some critical thinking going on there, you don’t just believe anything anyone makes up.
So, remind me, how did you ever hear about this Jesus guy? Once upon a time you did NOT believe Jesus was the son of God, because you didn’t have a clue who ‘Jesus’ or ‘God’ were. And then, a little while later, you DID believe, and have done ever since.
When did that happen? What evidence persuaded you? How did you verify that assertion? How did you select that hypothesis amongst its many competitors?
IIRC, any church specifically campaigning for a particular politician or political party is subject to having their tax exempt status revoked, no? Yes, I know that doesn’t always happen, but if Bishop Such and Such were to come and out and say, “Vote for Senator What’s His Face!” he could be in a lot of trouble.
Or campaigning actively for a certain bill from the pulpit.
At least, I THINK that’s the case. It isn’t always followed through, though.
Count me though as one who finds Der Trihs to be an asshole. I don’t give a shit what his beliefs are. “Help help, I’m being repressed!” :rolleyes:
I agree. Sometimes Der Trihs jumps in more forcefully than appeals to my sensibilities. On the other hand, he has the patience to explain his position over and over again, in the face of some astonishingly willful ignorance. Under similar circumstances, I can confidently say, I would quickly flame out in a massive BBQ Pit bonfire of truly awesome proportions.
Actually, as an aside, I am continually amazed by the patience displayed by a large number of Dopers during debates. One of the reasons I love this place.
Actually, he does a pretty good job explaining why he believes what he does. Whether you agree with him or not, he makes it plain where he’s coming from. Going back to the old partisan analogues, I think Starving Artist may be full of it but I think he does a decent job explaining why he thinks the way he does.
Both of them may restate their theses an awful lot, but it’s far from the only thing they say.