Exactly. mswas, you say the Catholics are wrong. They, if asked would say they are right. What support do you have for your claim being better ?
“You’re right.” At least about the equally stupid part, if not the equally violent. Which I haven’t said, anyway.
Or, “You’re wrong, and here are the factual, objective reasons why.” Which you won’t do, because religion is empty of facts.
What’s to study ? The facts supporting your position ? Well, there’s none; that was fast. All of the baseless, empty, contradictory speculation and assertions ? Why bother ? It’s meaningless without facts behind it, and the fact that it’s all so contradictory destroys any claim that the believers are doing anything but making it all up. And, it’s dull; Christian mythology is as boring and unpleasant as it is stupid.
There’s no there there.
Which sounds like religious arguments in general, doesn’t it ?
And my position doesn’t change, because I’m right, and the believers are wrong. Obviously, completely wrong.
I CAN comprehend why people believe what they believe; watch your mouth. Just because I don’t buy the line doesn’t mean it’s too complicated for me; that’s simply ad hominim.
I don’t buy your line about death is better than corruption for churches; that interpretation seems pretty week, since Jesus was happy to leave the religion he started in the hands of men, instead of staying and protecting its accuracy himself. That fact alone shows he was happy to cast it to its eventual fate, which he presumably knew included Catholocism, right? Regardless, if you really believe that death of a religion is better than corruption of it, then you logically ought to abandon all religion immidiately. You might be wrong about it, after all (unless you think you’re infallible :dubious: ), and incorrectly understanding your religion is corruption. (The exact same corruption you’re accusing the Catholics of, in fact.)
I don’t I buy that you’re the One True Interpreter of the bible. Everyone else is as valid an interpreter as you, including the catholics - and as a group, they’ve been at it longer. As one who criticises declarations from an amateur level of knowledge, you yourself should be looking to them for guidance. Unless you’re s self-aggrandizing hypocrite or something.
No religion is beyond reproach. Including yours. Your derisive stance towards Catholocism betrays that you have precisely the same “I’m right” attitude that the Catholics have; presumably, being an intellecually honest person, you should deride your own egotism as strongly as you deride theirs.
He wasn’t wrong, only unsophisticated. The equivocation shows that he missed the point. It isn’t about whether or not Protestants or Catholics have a monopoly on truth. The point is that the monopoly on truth isn’t held by an organization. I think that this point is held within Christ’s teachings. Organizations ultimately become about lusting after the different thrones and sashes. So the machinations that occur within the organization often are more about collecting the most bling. When the church is also the Imperial seat, everyone in the world has a vested interest in controlling the seat of power. This is why Popes were so often nobility and heavily involved in the worldly politics of the day.
The problem is that arguing with him is not interesting, because he has nothing to teach me, as I haven’t seen him make a new argument in years. I also know that nothing I say will teach him anything about the subject because for him the point isn’t learning but the emotional gestalt of expressing his hatred.
If you do not accept that Christianity is based off of the notion that it is worthy to die in the service of your God, rather than compromise your morality, there is nothing to discuss. If that basic precept is debateable to you, then the entire point HAS been lost on you.
Not that that particular basic precept has anything to do with what I just said, mind you, but I do get it. You think you’re the One True Prophet, of your amateur Christianity 101. Congratulations on your achievement! Proceed now to announce that I’m completely wrong in my assessment.
Ah, I see. You’re referring to “Christianity”, the radical religion that arose as a fringe underground cult among convinced, fearless-of-martyrdom, converts of the 1st-through-3rd Century Roman Empire.
Easily confused with the mainstream sociocultural establishment religious practices that are followed by 1/3 of humanity trying to just live a peaceful life in the post-industrial era, mostly because that’s what Mom and Dad and respectable folks in town followed from time immemorial, and that also took the name “Christianity”.
No, but seriously, it’s not that it’s debatable whether the ideal is that you die rather than compromise your Faith; but what has been debated ever since the time of the Apostles themselves, is WHAT constitutes “compromising your Faith”. Because it would strike me as kind of silly to tell the Gatekeeper that I was martyred for the cause of Sunday closing laws.
What are the uncompromisable fundamentals, beyond “JC=Son of God=Savior”? (And who IS qualified to define the uncompromisable fundamentals? The Curia? The SDSAB? The Theology Dept. at Oral Roberts U? Any schlub trying to decypher the archaic English in a KJV Bible?) Is ANYTHING in the religion not an uncompromisable fundamental, and thus subject to evolving interpretations? To accomodation of circumstances? To accretions from historical tradition or expurgations from reforms? As long as we keep professing JC=SOG=S, is it OK to set up a bureaucratic organization and accept state sponsorship? As long as we keep professing JC=SOG=S, can we agree to disagree about gay rights or clerical celibacy? About becoming rich vs. handing all property to the Poor? Can we say JC=SOG=S and also that the Bible is an extended allegory subject to interpretation, divinely inspired WRT making the general point, but not word-by-word literally exact?
What IS “service to your God” that you should take on to the death if need be IS debatable, has been debated, and will be. The RCC just has a whole lot invested in claiming they got the answer, and I don’t blame them, they’ve been at it since Roman times. I sure would be unlikely to say oops, never mind, when I’ve been working on a project for 1800 years
JRDelirious Well for the Christian Jesus Christ is real, and one is capable of relating to him. The debate is not about whether or not there is a real and objective Christian truth, but whether or not one needs to bow to a sacerdotal authority.
Actually, the debate IS whether there’s a " real and objective Christian truth", because you claim you are right, and the Catholics wrong. You didn’t say that you’d prefer things your way, but that you were right, and Christ is on your side
Which is just what the Catholics would say. DO you have any objective, factual reasons why anyone would consider your One True Way more accurate than their One True Way ? Why is taking orders and advice from a dead guy in person less silly than taking orders and advice from someone else who talks to a dead guy ? And his Invisible Sky Daddy ?
Where do you get the notion that “Christianity is based off of the notion that it is worthy to die in the service of your God, rather than compromise your morality”? (Bolding mine)
I was always under the impression that Christianity is based on the notion that God created Man.
Look at the Abrahamic religions. Presupposing a single God (or else what would be the point of these religions) the first religion is Judaism. Yahweh names the Jews as his “Chosen People”, tells Abraham that they’ll have a promised land, plays one of the worst April Fools jokes (“Yo, Abe. I want you to kill your son Isaac. Kidding!”), lets the Israelites get enslaved, gets Moses to perform a few tricks so they get freed and then passes along 10 big laws and a whole bunch of fine print. The religion of Judaism was written as it happened.
Hundreds of years later, along comes this son of a carpenter, preaching all kinds of stuff about being nice to each other and eternal life and people call him the Son of God. This pisses off the religious and political PTB so he is nailed to a giant addition symbol. He names one of his followers, [del]Rocky[/del] Peter, to start a religion. His followers don’t start writing about him and his teachings until many decades after his death/resurrection.
About 500 years later a descendant of Abraham and an Egyptian handmaid kicks some ass, takes some names and talks to Allah. His followers write down his beliefs as they happen.
What screws everything up is the people who came along long after the original writings and interpret them. Each religion has mutated and morphed over time, usually as a way to “modernize” the rules inherent in the belief structure. The one that seems to have warped the most is Christianity. The original church was Catholic, not Presbyterian, Methodist or Latter Day Saints. Each denomination that branched off did so hundreds of years after the founding and was done because somebody didn’t like the way business was being run or they thought some rule was too strict or not strict enough.
No religion that started within the past 1000 years can call itself the One True Way because of how far away they are from Point A.
I think the constant attacks on Red Shirt for repeating himself are absurd coming from mswas, who beats several horses way past death on a regular basis. At this point, you’re just pretending to refute him by pointing out who he is.
It’s not legitimate. Shia are more like catholics with their Ayatollahs and fatwas (papal edicts?), Sunnis are more like protestants, where anyone can become a preacher with a bible and different church flavors ranging from sweet to weird and downright bitter.
Funny and insightful. It’s the most logical explanation.
ps: So catholics think protestants are heretics and vice versa and atheist zealots imply they are both idiots, What else is new?
Youre recent arguments seem to be 100% based in ad hominem. You don’t sound superior to Der Trihs, you sound afraid to debate him directly.
And I don’t think that the debate is about differences in doctorine, either. I think it’s about what makes one sect of a religion decide it’s better than another sect of the same religion. For this to be about differences in doctorine, we’d have to have some objective way to assess which set of doctorine is more ‘correct’…and by “objective way”, I don’t mean “from the lips of the prophet mswas”.
Are you serious? Afraid to debate him? The point is that there is a certain type of atheist, you included with whom discussion of religion is entirely pointless because they have no respect for religion whatsoever, so if you are discussing the finer points, they always turn it into an argument that says, “God doesn’t exist anyway, so what’s the point of discussing this?”, which leaves no room for discussion. There is no debate to be had with Der Trihs, I know the argument he will make, it is exactly the same every time. I won’t argue it because I won’t argue with ‘HIM’, and yes that’s an ad hominem. I never said his argument was wrong, I just said that his unsophisticated rants are unworthy of getting into because they always lead to the same conclusion. “Heh heh, people who believe in religion are stupid, heh heh.”
If YOU really want to discuss this, rather than simply berate me for not wasting my time banging my head against a brick wall, I’ll discuss it. Basically, Der Trihs doesn’t believe in anything that unifies people into larger groups. His position seems to be ‘Utopia or nothing.’, which is a position he is welcome to take, and I am welcome to not take very seriously. He doesn’t believe in religion, he doesn’t believe in the state, he doesn’t believe in anything that brings people together. But not only that, he’s very angry about it. It’s not like he’s discussing Chomsky or Proudon, or looking into alternate methods of organization. All he does is offer reactionary anger, and I have not seen him say anything in any thread related to religion in the past couple of years that is any different from when I went the rounds with him several years ago.
So, for some reason people are closing ranks with him acting like I have some ethical responsibility to have the same argument with him AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. He has nothing to teach me, and I have nothing to teach him, so why argue?
If you really want to discuss the notion of Christianity and it’s creative destruction of tribal pagan organization in favor of a cross-tribal ‘universal’, religion, we can discuss it. However, what I am talking about is not really all that controversial a notion amongst intellectual religious circles. My take on it is controversial, but it’s a very big topic in the analysis of Christian history. If you have no respect for the subject matter from the outset, then no, your opinion on it isn’t relevant. I’m not interested in arguing whether or not religion is valid.
I’m sorry, but the Freshman Atheism 101 argument that angry 18 year old atheists think is so brilliant, and some never grow out of simply has no appeal to me. I spent some time debating it years ago, I know the argument, it’s not interesting.
Carefully reviewing your response here, laden with ad hominems (towards all atheists and specifically me, in addition to Der Trihs) and the false presumption that you have to believe in religion to be allowed to discuss it… and my inclination to debate you has dropped to an all-time low as well. Especially since the one topic you offer for discussion seems rather irrelevent to the thread at hand.
So, yeah, have fun with refusing to debate the actual topic and declaring that your reticence is all we atheists’ fault, since we’re unworthy to debate with. I’m sure that attitude is impressing somebody in the audience.
