Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 65

Thread: Begging for response.

  1. #1
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Begging for response.

    Well GiGi, I guess we will have to continue here.

    The only certain thing of which Christian ministries (with Scriptural and orthodox basis) outreaching to ****sexuals clearly would state is that ****sexual acts are sinful and should not be done.

    Catholic Courage, Exodus International, etc. on down the line to sister groups outreaching to even dysfunctional families I think would be in agreement with this concept. There are other ministries that claim to be Christian, but do not retain the Scriptural authority or reject the historicity of Christian teachings in favor of making the ****sexual feel comfortable in their lifestyle and encourage and foster same sex unions. I am not talking about these ministries, but to give you an example would be First Baptist Church of Seattle. I remember hearing about them when the Southern Baptist Convention redirected its funding from the Baptist World Alliance to their own international ministries due to the the BWA's allowance of other Baptist organizations that allow affirmation of the ****sexual within the body of Christ... of which it was specifically stated that the Evergreen Baptist ***ociation, with First Baptist Church of Seattle and another church belonged. http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?opt...133&Itemid=117. Anyways, this is fairly old news.


    Now in regards to you not being a Christian, I am sure you have some thoughts on the subject, but which clearly you have no personal claim. If you belonged to a church, it would be a different matter. The question is for me, what sort of secular claim can you make in regards to such Christian orthodox ministries? Has those Christian ministries that make the ****sexual feel safe in their ****sexual acts brought you into a church? Everyone theorizes that if the orthodox churches would change that it would increase their membership, yet has it changed your mind to come into their fold?

  2. #2
    BrotherBrian
    Guest

    Default Scripture vs. Tradition

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    There are other ministries that claim to be Christian, but do not retain the Scriptural authority or reject the historicity of Christian teachings in favor of making the ****sexual feel comfortable in their lifestyle and encourage and foster same sex unions.
    And there are yet other ministries that are Christians who do retain the authority of Scripture, even when it flies in the face of tradition, that encourages gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender to identify as the "born eunuchs" that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 19:11-12, but that the Church refuses to teach on. There are also eunuchs mentioned in Isaiah 56:1-8 where God says that eunuchs will be accepted in His congregation, yet many congregations not only refuse to acknowledge that it is an unfulfilled prophecy. Could it be that the church is opposed to ****sexuality only because they fail to recognize the eunuchs of the Scriptures?

    Just saying......

  3. #3
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Well GiGi, I guess we will have to continue here.

    The only certain thing of which Christian ministries (with Scriptural and orthodox basis) outreaching to ****sexuals clearly would state is that ****sexual acts are sinful and should not be done.

    Catholic Courage, Exodus International, etc. on down the line to sister groups outreaching to even dysfunctional families I think would be in agreement with this concept. There are other ministries that claim to be Christian, but do not retain the Scriptural authority or reject the historicity of Christian teachings in favor of making the ****sexual feel comfortable in their lifestyle and encourage and foster same sex unions. I am not talking about these ministries, but to give you an example would be First Baptist Church of Seattle. I remember hearing about them when the Southern Baptist Convention redirected its funding from the Baptist World Alliance to their own international ministries due to the the BWA's allowance of other Baptist organizations that allow affirmation of the ****sexual within the body of Christ... of which it was specifically stated that the Evergreen Baptist ***ociation, with First Baptist Church of Seattle and another church belonged. http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?opt...133&Itemid=117. Anyways, this is fairly old news.


    Now in regards to you not being a Christian, I am sure you have some thoughts on the subject, but which clearly you have no personal claim. If you belonged to a church, it would be a different matter. The question is for me, what sort of secular claim can you make in regards to such Christian orthodox ministries? Has those Christian ministries that make the ****sexual feel safe in their ****sexual acts brought you into a church? Everyone theorizes that if the orthodox churches would change that it would increase their membership, yet has it changed your mind to come into their fold?
    Christian ministries, like the ones you mentioned, do more than simply state their belief that ****sexuality is sin. Many offer programs designed to "cure". Even that wouldn't be so bad in developed countries. I object to ALL foriegn missions whose primary objective is to 'spread the word'.
    As I said, I'm not a Christian. There's not much to say about it. I have never believed in anything supernatural.
    "Sin" is religious terminology. Mr. Bush would happily strip me of my US citizenship, and my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many will agree with him. If the conservative position is as influenced by Christianity as it appears to be, it is a dangerous thing.

  4. #4
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Everyone theorizes that if the orthodox churches would change that it would increase their membership, yet has it changed your mind to come into their fold?
    No. The only thing that would change my mind would be evidence, any evidence, that god exists.

  5. #5
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    No. The only thing that would change my mind would be evidence, any evidence, that god exists.
    First of all, what kind of evidence do you suggest? Some sort of tangibleness? God in a celestial body?

    Secondly, even if one does present you the evidence, who says you will understand it unless you taste and see that it is good?

  6. #6
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    Christian ministries, like the ones you mentioned, do more than simply state their belief that ****sexuality is sin. Many offer programs designed to "cure". Even that wouldn't be so bad in developed countries. I object to ALL foriegn missions whose primary objective is to 'spread the word'.
    As I said, I'm not a Christian. There's not much to say about it. I have never believed in anything supernatural.
    "Sin" is religious terminology. Mr. Bush would happily strip me of my US citizenship, and my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many will agree with him. If the conservative position is as influenced by Christianity as it appears to be, it is a dangerous thing.
    So be it, what concern is it to you? Oh, I see, you want to say Catholics, who believe in the sanc***y of life, and other Christians that hold the same, are some type of war monger gun totting vigilantes. No. I think your fears are ill founded and a little bit embellished. If you are going to make such a connection, I would like to see offical primary publications from Exodus International instead of from ****sexual word of mouth, where verbal quotes can be taken out of context. Mr. Bush is "moderate" in some of his policies, especially immigration and most political conservatives would rather see a Mr. Reagan--but secular politics should have nothing to interfer with any type of religious ministry.

  7. #7
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrotherBrian View Post
    And there are yet other ministries that are Christians who do retain the authority of Scripture, even when it flies in the face of tradition, that encourages gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender to identify as the "born eunuchs" that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 19:11-12, but that the Church refuses to teach on. There are also eunuchs mentioned in Isaiah 56:1-8 where God says that eunuchs will be accepted in His congregation, yet many congregations not only refuse to acknowledge that it is an unfulfilled prophecy. Could it be that the church is opposed to ****sexuality only because they fail to recognize the eunuchs of the Scriptures?

    Just saying......
    Please expound or restate this. "Eunuchs" are physically incapable of sexual intercourse. If a person decides to remain celibate, like Paul encourages in 1 Cor. 7, it is a better stance on a life of chas***y than the four groupings you just identified acting on their same sex attractions, with exception to the transgender due to being born with an abnormal condition, and even the so called "bi-sexual" which would be offensive to the sanc***y of marriage between male and female. I could give you clear reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you are infering the Catholic Church. I could even point to Early Church Fathers, some Reformers, and other types of documentation based on a particular church tradition... Methodists should take head to Wesley, Lutheran to Luther, Reformed to Calvin, etc.. However, I do not not really know where you are coming from. What particular church do you affiliate with?

  8. #8
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    First of all, what kind of evidence do you suggest? Some sort of tangibleness? God in a celestial body?

    Secondly, even if one does present you the evidence, who says you will understand it unless you taste and see that it is good?
    Something tangible would be nice.

  9. #9
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    So be it, what concern is it to you? Oh, I see, you want to say Catholics, who believe in the sanc***y of life, and other Christians that hold the same, are some type of war monger gun totting vigilantes. No. I think your fears are ill founded and a little bit embellished. If you are going to make such a connection, I would like to see offical primary publications from Exodus International instead of from ****sexual word of mouth, where verbal quotes can be taken out of context. Mr. Bush is "moderate" in some of his policies, especially immigration and most political conservatives would rather see a Mr. Reagan--but secular politics should have nothing to interfer with any type of religious ministry.
    1. You have asked, and answered a question. Seems you've decided my position for me.
    2. Mr. Bush said, "No. I do not know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." One must ***ume that Mr. Bush believes that the sacrifices and contributions atheists have made for America are of a lesser value than those of religious citizens. What is your opinion?
    3. Secular politics do not interfere with with religious ministries, to my knowledge.

  10. #10
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Please expound or restate this. "Eunuchs" are physically incapable of sexual intercourse. If a person decides to remain celibate, like Paul encourages in 1 Cor. 7, it is a better stance on a life of chas***y than the four groupings you just identified acting on their same sex attractions, with exception to the transgender due to being born with an abnormal condition, and even the so called "bi-sexual" which would be offensive to the sanc***y of marriage between male and female. I could give you clear reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you are infering the Catholic Church. I could even point to Early Church Fathers, some Reformers, and other types of documentation based on a particular church tradition... Methodists should take head to Wesley, Lutheran to Luther, Reformed to Calvin, etc.. However, I do not not really know where you are coming from. What particular church do you affiliate with?
    I can not answer for Brother Brian, but I'd just like to interject re one part of your post. The so-called sanc***y of marriage is not at risk. Many couples are married in civil ceromonies. I was. My marriage may not be recognized by the church, but it is legal. My marriage has no effect on your church, your religion, or you. Those who fight to lift state bans on same-sex marriage ask only for the same rights I possess. Witholding those rights and priveledges benefits no one.

  11. #11
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    The so-called sanc***y of marriage is not at risk.
    The mere fact that you use the word so-called before marriage means that it is. If ****sexuals can marry other ****sexuals then that means less people will be likely to believe in the uniqueness or holiness of marriage to begin with, Christian or not.

  12. #12
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    The mere fact that you use the word so-called before marriage means that it is. If ****sexuals can marry other ****sexuals then that means less people will be likely to believe in the uniqueness or holiness of marriage to begin with, Christian or not.

    I emphasize the word 'sanc***y'. If you believe that marriage outside of a church means less people will believe in the 'holiness' of marriage, then civil marriages for ****sexuals will have no greater impact than any other.
    Words like 'sanc***y and 'holiness' should be reserved for religious ceromonies. Churches frequently refuse to marry divorcees, members of other faiths, as well as same-sex couples. That won't change.

  13. #13
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Is God coporeal?

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    Something tangible would be nice.
    Can a finite immortal man ever hold the world in the palm of their hands? Did you create yourself? Is love just a chemical reaction, our whole being just a long string of events solely based on "tangibleness?" If you could get tangible, it would no longer necessarily be worthy of consideration. My questions above are merely rhetorical questions, I am not really looking for you to answer them. The purpose of the questions is try and gather what you mean by "tangible." God as a corporeal being?

  14. #14
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Can a finite immortal man ever hold the world in the palm of their hands? Did you create yourself? Is love just a chemical reaction, our whole being just a long string of events solely based on "tangibleness?" If you could get tangible, it would no longer necessarily be worthy of consideration. My questions above are merely rhetorical questions, I am not really looking for you to answer them. The purpose of the questions is try and gather what you mean by "tangible." God as a corporeal being?
    We both know what 'tangible' means.
    No, I don't think god is corporeal, no more so than devils, ghosts, sprits, and some of the other stuff people believe in.

  15. #15
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    1. You have asked, and answered a question. Seems you've decided my position for me.
    2. Mr. Bush said, "No. I do not know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." One must ***ume that Mr. Bush believes that the sacrifices and contributions atheists have made for America are of a lesser value than those of religious citizens. What is your opinion?
    3. Secular politics do not interfere with with religious ministries, to my knowledge.
    1. Do not feel it necessary to expound, as it will lead to an unproductive ***-for-tat.
    2. I had to run your quote through Google. I thought Mr. Bush was the last one, but it seems you mean President Bush Senior. One term president who let the UN keep Saddam in power after his invading the soveriegn country of Kuwait. Weak kneed, not a true Reagan conservative, even though he was his VP. President Bush Senior is not my bishop, and typically I find athiesm to rather a hopeless religious system. Not sure what sort of "sacrifices or contributions atheist have made for America" except in advancing their own freedoms and limiting the rest of everyone elses. I find the statement there are no such things as athiests in foxholes rather a trueful statement. While I see athiests in the military, and they may be in Iraq with me sacrificing their time, I have heard their remarks when in a smalls arms fire or just following an IED blast when they are not preferencing their remarks... God is ever on their mind, they just don't like him.
    3. You know how the Vatican became its own soveriegn state? It was because Italy's government in the 1870s thought that if they controled the Catholic Church that they can force the Church to help their own cause.
    Secular politics in America has within its cons***ution certain rights of its citizens to practice their religion. If it could be possible, I have no doubt that many of the ****sexual caucus in the secular government would love to dictate to the Christian ministries and churches by strong arming them into submission to become tolerant of ****sexual lifestyles. This strong arming may be done in various ways, from attempts to take away tax-free exemption, from even electing Harry Knox as head of the faith based initiatives, and many other means. That fact that you are even talking about it shows that even you want to attempt this sort of change in the religious arena. If you get the highest court in the land to rule in favor of ****sexual marriages, the civil rights movement will undoubtably take this to the churches that deny marriage and press charges for discrimination. Hey, it worked with the Mormons twice... they even had to have two official declarations that God changes his mind to allow blacks into ministry and Mormons could no longer have more than one wife. At any rate, it already seems that some once conservative denominations in America have already folded, the ECUSA was once more high Anglican than it is today. Luther is probably already rolling in his grave over the ELCA.

  16. #16
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    We both know what 'tangible' means.
    No, I don't think god is corporeal, no more so than devils, ghosts, sprits, and some of the other stuff people believe in.
    I see. Do you believe in devils, ghosts, spirits, and other stuff?

  17. #17
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I see. Do you believe in devils, ghosts, spirits, and other stuff?
    Of course not.

  18. #18
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    1. Do not feel it necessary to expound, as it will lead to an unproductive ***-for-tat.
    2. I had to run your quote through Google. I thought Mr. Bush was the last one, but it seems you mean President Bush Senior. One term president who let the UN keep Saddam in power after his invading the soveriegn country of Kuwait. Weak kneed, not a true Reagan conservative, even though he was his VP. President Bush Senior is not my bishop, and typically I find athiesm to rather a hopeless religious system. Not sure what sort of "sacrifices or contributions atheist have made for America" except in advancing their own freedoms and limiting the rest of everyone elses. I find the statement there are no such things as athiests in foxholes rather a trueful statement. While I see athiests in the military, and they may be in Iraq with me sacrificing their time, I have heard their remarks when in a smalls arms fire or just following an IED blast when they are not preferencing their remarks... God is ever on their mind, they just don't like him.
    3. You know how the Vatican became its own soveriegn state? It was because Italy's government in the 1870s thought that if they controled the Catholic Church that they can force the Church to help their own cause.
    Secular politics in America has within its cons***ution certain rights of its citizens to practice their religion. If it could be possible, I have no doubt that many of the ****sexual caucus in the secular government would love to dictate to the Christian ministries and churches by strong arming them into submission to become tolerant of ****sexual lifestyles. This strong arming may be done in various ways, from attempts to take away tax-free exemption, from even electing Harry Knox as head of the faith based initiatives, and many other means. That fact that you are even talking about it shows that even you want to attempt this sort of change in the religious arena. If you get the highest court in the land to rule in favor of ****sexual marriages, the civil rights movement will undoubtably take this to the churches that deny marriage and press charges for discrimination. Hey, it worked with the Mormons twice... they even had to have two official declarations that God changes his mind to allow blacks into ministry and Mormons could no longer have more than one wife. At any rate, it already seems that some once conservative denominations in America have already folded, the ECUSA was once more high Anglican than it is today. Luther is probably already rolling in his grave over the ELCA.
    This entire discussion has deteriorated into an unproductive *** for tat.
    I hoped we could do better.
    I'm perfectly capable of addressing each point you've made, predictible cliche's, deliberate misrepresentations, government conspiracies, but I feel it would be a waste of time.
    If I were you, I wouldn't whine about any mistreatment of the Vatican in Rome in 1870. Someone might come along and ask you what catholicism was up to in Ireland that same decade.
    I realize I'm being rather abrupt. I'm tired of finding a christian that might explain their world-view, only to be disappointed yet again.
    Last edited by GiGi; 09-03-2009 at 04:12 AM.

  19. #19
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    If I were you, I wouldn't whine about any mistreatment of the Vatican in Rome in 1870. Someone might come along and ask you what catholicism was up to in Ireland that same decade.
    .
    I think Michael Collins and the IRA was a little later than the 1870s. But as far as Ireland is concerned, you should read up on Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal." Ireland may be Catholic, but the underlying issue is a human one. Ireland and Britian have been at odds for a long period of time, and not just because of their religious differences. Otherwise you will have to expound more of what happened in 1870s. As far as I am concerned, the UK should give up Northern Ireland back to Ireland and find a way to reconcile the landowners and citizens. In fact, annexing Northern Ireland might have to pattern Hong Kong's reentry into China.

    Oh, and ps. Catholicism is the teaching of the Church, not its political acts. Catholicism has taught a lot of good things, even under bad circumstances. In fact, IRA members of the Sinn Fein terrorists at odds with the Church, and the Pope for that matter. They are as rougue Catholic believers as Nanci Pelosi, John Kerry, and the recently deceased Ted Kennedy--because of their open support of abortion, they are at odds with Catholicism. You cannot lay blame to the Church for the laity's not listening to their priests and Church leaders.
    Last edited by Columcille; 09-03-2009 at 06:55 AM.

  20. #20
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I think Michael Collins and the IRA was a little later than the 1870s. But as far as Ireland is concerned, you should read up on Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal." Ireland may be Catholic, but the underlying issue is a human one. Ireland and Britian have been at odds for a long period of time, and not just because of their religious differences. Otherwise you will have to expound more of what happened in 1870s. As far as I am concerned, the UK should give up Northern Ireland back to Ireland and find a way to reconcile the landowners and citizens. In fact, annexing Northern Ireland might have to pattern Hong Kong's reentry into China.

    Oh, and ps. Catholicism is the teaching of the Church, not its political acts. Catholicism has taught a lot of good things, even under bad circumstances. In fact, IRA members of the Sinn Fein terrorists at odds with the Church, and the Pope for that matter. They are as rougue Catholic believers as Nanci Pelosi, John Kerry, and the recently deceased Ted Kennedy--because of their open support of abortion, they are at odds with Catholicism. You cannot lay blame to the Church for the laity's not listening to their priests and Church leaders.
    Like I said, I'm just about done in.
    Oh, and p.s. Catholicism should clean its own house. The atrocities I refered to are the innumerable abuses of children in reform schools and orphanges before, during, and after the 1870s. Its a little too convenient to say, 'but they aren't REAL catholics'. In fact, I often see people struggle to define their faith. Every denomination makes the same appology. There are as many definitions of christianity as there are christians. One would think you guys could get it together in 2000+ years.

  21. #21
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    GiGi, you would have to annihilate the whole human race to prevent evil from reoccuring. The doctrinal stance of the Church recognizes the sinfulness of the human race, as such, even priests and Popes are subject to temptations and even gross error. And the Pope even goes to confession. If you want to lay the Church to blame for such bad things, you would also have to consistently apply it to every type of government. Marxism of Stalin, Fredrich Neitzche's philosophy in Hitler, and on and on. I am sure Karl Marx did not envision Stalin, or Nitzche envision Hitler, but you seem to be doing this very thing when it comes to the Church.

    Just wanted to add, the Catholic Church has its own court system based on the Ancient Roman court system. It is different from English law from which the American system patterns. I am told the Catholic Court system is a little backwards from the English court system of which the American system is based. Perhaps Trinity can expound more on this, but if anyone was married before, and seeking to remarry in the Catholic Church, the process of annulment goes through canon lawyers. It is only binding within the Church, meaning it has no jurisdiction in telling the civilian courts that they should grant annulments rather than divorces. However, it is possible, so I believe, that the findings or research of which the canon lawyers use could be admissible evidence in the civilian courts and vice versa. I think the system in the Church is more methodical and is mainly interested gather as much facts before it deliberates. So what you may be thinking in regards to inactivity of the Church on the basis of the English/American court systems, is simply not true. The canon lawyers are probably also examining the same evidences that the civilian court system uses. Personally, because the systems are different, I think it an unfair ***essment to prejudge the Church's disciplinary action of its members while the accused is still presummed innocent in the American/English court of law. And as far as what happened in the 1870, I have no clue to what you are talking about. And to tell the truth, I am more concerned with what the Church actually teaches than bad Catholics doing bad things, you can go endlessly on evil acts by every religious follower and end up nowhere.
    Last edited by Columcille; 09-03-2009 at 08:39 AM. Reason: Church has its own court system.

  22. #22
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    GiGi, you would have to annihilate the whole human race to prevent evil from reoccuring. The doctrinal stance of the Church recognizes the sinfulness of the human race, as such, even priests and Popes are subject to temptations and even gross error. And the Pope even goes to confession. If you want to lay the Church to blame for such bad things, you would also have to consistently apply it to every type of government. Marxism of Stalin, Fredrich Neitzche's philosophy in Hitler, and on and on. I am sure Karl Marx did not envision Stalin, or Nitzche envision Hitler, but you seem to be doing this very thing when it comes to the Church.

    Just wanted to add, the Catholic Church has its own court system based on the Ancient Roman court system. It is different from English law from which the American system patterns. I am told the Catholic Court system is a little backwards from the English court system of which the American system is based. Perhaps Trinity can expound more on this, but if anyone was married before, and seeking to remarry in the Catholic Church, the process of annulment goes through canon lawyers. It is only binding within the Church, meaning it has no jurisdiction in telling the civilian courts that they should grant annulments rather than divorces. However, it is possible, so I believe, that the findings or research of which the canon lawyers use could be admissible evidence in the civilian courts and vice versa. I think the system in the Church is more methodical and is mainly interested gather as much facts before it deliberates. So what you may be thinking in regards to inactivity of the Church on the basis of the English/American court systems, is simply not true. The canon lawyers are probably also examining the same evidences that the civilian court system uses. Personally, because the systems are different, I think it an unfair ***essment to prejudge the Church's disciplinary action of its members while the accused is still presummed innocent in the American/English court of law. And as far as what happened in the 1870, I have no clue to what you are talking about. And to tell the truth, I am more concerned with what the Church actually teaches than bad Catholics doing bad things, you can go endlessly on evil acts by every religious follower and end up nowhere.
    Did I blame the church, or anyone else for evil? The fact is 'evil' is just another religious term I try to avoid. I stated, as simply as possible, that the church should clean its own house. Beyond that, I've not criticized the church much at all.
    It is supers***ion that I find most bewildering.
    To think, in the 21st century, there are still a very large number of people who believe that an unknowable deity, that reads minds and intentions, waits in some other dimension of reality to judge every individual human being that has ever lived, or will ever be born, is just absurd.
    Last edited by GiGi; 09-03-2009 at 10:25 AM.

  23. #23
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    Did I blame the church, or anyone else for evil? The fact is 'evil' is just another religious term I try to avoid. I stated, as simply as possible, that the church should clean its own house. Beyond that, I've not criticized the church much at all.
    It is supers***ion that I find most bewildering.
    To think, in the 21st century, there are still a very large number of people who believe that an unknowable deity, that reads minds and intentions, waits in some other dimension of reality to judge every individual human being that has ever lived, or will ever be born, is just absurd.
    Fine by me. I have no problem being Christ's fool. I think Blaise Pascal's wager in his letters (Pensees) is the most pragmatic solution. You think something supers***utious makes it unworthy for consideration, but your a finite mind like the rest of us and I see no place to put your judgement above anyone elses. With the exception that there does seem to be a consistent judgement by a collective body with the same experiences with the divine, so much so that they were killed for their convictions at the hands of the pagan Roman empire. Most people would just buckle in fear of the threat of death and recant their supers***ion in favor of the pagan authority's view. Really, I do not see much good of your position to denounce religion, when it produces people like St. Theresa to help the poor in Calcutta, or missionaries that in face of certain death attempt to help others that the governments would not lift a finger. It is a matter of developing character.

  24. #24
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Fine by me. I have no problem being Christ's fool. I think Blaise Pascal's wager in his letters (Pensees) is the most pragmatic solution. You think something supers***utious makes it unworthy for consideration, but your a finite mind like the rest of us and I see no place to put your judgement above anyone elses. With the exception that there does seem to be a consistent judgement by a collective body with the same experiences with the divine, so much so that they were killed for their convictions at the hands of the pagan Roman empire. Most people would just buckle in fear of the threat of death and recant their supers***ion in favor of the pagan authority's view. Really, I do not see much good of your position to denounce religion, when it produces people like St. Theresa to help the poor in Calcutta, or missionaries that in face of certain death attempt to help others that the governments would not lift a finger. It is a matter of developing character.
    I'm sure you realize that Pascal's wager is an effective argument for other supers***ions, other religions. I once stirred a pot with a knife because it was close at hand. My mother-in-law screeched at me, 'Don't do that, its bad luck'. She never thought to question the truth of it. Why not believe its really bad luck? Nothing to lose, right?
    Even if I accept Christianity because of Pascal's argument, would that be good enough for god?
    There are good and bad products of religion. For every "saint" or "martyr" for the faith, I'll give you 10 victims OF the faith.

    I'm willing to bet that you have not taken a moment to find any sacrifice or contribution by an atheist.

  25. #25
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    I'm sure you realize that Pascal's wager is an effective argument for other supers***ions, other religions. I once stirred a pot with a knife because it was close at hand. My mother-in-law screeched at me, 'Don't do that, its bad luck'. She never thought to question the truth of it. Why not believe its really bad luck? Nothing to lose, right?
    Even if I accept Christianity because of Pascal's argument, would that be good enough for god?
    There are good and bad products of religion. For every "saint" or "martyr" for the faith, I'll give you 10 victims OF the faith.

    I'm willing to bet that you have not taken a moment to find any sacrifice or contribution by an atheist.
    I am not saying that they do not sacrifice or even contribute to our society. I am only saying that their contribution is eternally meaningless.

    As far as Pascal's Wager, if you can pick up the "Pensees" by Penguin Cl***ics, its entry is numbered 418. Section 2, Series 2. Page 121-125. Translated by A.J. Krailsheimer. My edition was printed in 1995.

    You can find it online in another translation http://www.cl***icallibrary.org/pasc.../pensees03.htm
    under #233.

    Now, if you can apply it to other religions, that is fine and dandy. However, the stakes are highest in Pascal, for an eternity of Hell is a lot more riskier than say a reincarnation. I cannot really imagine any other supers***ion that would supercede the idea of Hell. As a matter of practibility, I would rather accept the God of Pascal to prevent an eternity of Hell over rejecting Buddha or other religions whose ideas of the afterlife are of a lesser punishment and of which lacks decernment on just how Karma or final justice is obtained. If there is a worse punishment explained by another religion, I would like to hear about it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •