Religion

[G.W.K]

why?  don't you care who rules over you?  do you want it to be like imperial rome.  or does noone care?

STOP IT PLEASE! I want to live my life, not die of boredom! Please stop talking sheer and utter rubbish! For once in your life stop for a while and think about how we percieve you and your actions!

G.W.K

[pianistimo]

how about dante alighieri's.  he was sick of the political machinations of his time - but had to wait until 6 years after the pope to die to publish his 'divine comedy.'  in it - pope boniface VIII was assigned a place in hell.  at the time - it was thought by many that it was essential to the salvation of any human creature to be subject to the roman pontiff.  in dante's story it would prove to be a bad choice.

ok.  so you are an atheist.  i am not.  but, on the chance that i am right - what do you lose if you at least tolerate freedom of speech and religion.  apparently it is becoming less of a right on forums by the members.  what does this say?

[G.W.K]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

G.W.K

[pianistimo]

you will care when religion is dictated and you want no part of it.  if you have to worship 'the beast power.'  that means - turning from religious to political.  just like hitler wanted to be 'hailed.'  why did he want this worship?  because he wanted it all.  political AND spiritual.  he was possessed.

i believe that when freedom of religion is no longer tolerated - we have dictatorship.

btw, where are the threads that i have started?  nobody has found them.

[thalbergmad]

do you want it to be like imperial rome. 

No, i would prefer 16th century England, when the Church would happily burn you alive if you did not share their views.

Thal

[pianistimo]

modern day witchcraft burns far more victims.  both animal and human.  there are places where animals are tortured, cut up, blood is used sacrificially (i watched this on animal planet) - where people come and find animals either dead or having been severely abused for ritual purposes.

which is better God or Satan. that's all i'm saying. everyone says 'ha.  nothing is spiritual today.'  but, it is.  you yourself mentioned a fear at one time of things moving, spiritual dimension.  i said to you to pray and read the bible.  how bad is that?  now -satanists would have you look into occultic practices.

[prometheus]

Atheists don't have a belief in gods. So what you think doesn't affect them at all.

[pianistimo]

that's like saying gravity doesn't affect people.  just because you don't believe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  i'm talking about God and Satan.  otherwise Jesus Christ wouldn't have agreed with Satan that he was the 'god of this world.'  money, power, greed.

what motivates peope to randomly shoot others?  is this sane?  or are people becoming more and more succeptible to drugs, satanic practices, and greed?  all products of an insane mind.

[G.W.K]

Atheists don't have a belief in gods. So what you think doesn't affect them at all.

Thank God (pun not intended)! I thought I was going to be cursed for being an atheist.

LOL

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

that's like saying gravity doesn't affect people.  just because you don't believe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  i'm talking about God and Satan.  otherwise Jesus Christ wouldn't have agreed with Satan that he was the 'god of this world.'  money, power, greed.

[pianistimo]

the code is the bible - the decoder the Holy Spirit.  try it sometime!  just get baptized and listen for the Spirit to give you a sense of peace instead of hostility.

do you know any christians that shoot innocent bystanders, or use terrorist methods?  no.  most true christians are not violent at all.  they stand by the fact that we are 'not of this world.'  in other words - it doesn't matter what others do.  but, it does matter what we choose to do.  it affects our salvation and our rewards.

now some say this is idiotic to wait for rewards.  well, in any human endeavor on this earth - that is ALL there is.  if you get a degree - your reward is a higher paying job.  whatever you do - there is some kind of motivation.  i don't care what it is.  so you can't say - this is kindergarten language.  it is the language of human motivation.  to be blessed for the quality of work.  christians are told to 'build' on a foundation of rock.

[thalbergmad]

modern day witchcraft burns far more victims. 

Oh, you did not have to be a witch to be burned.

You could be burned for being a Catholic or proposing the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.

Must have been great times and this was how the Church operated for a long time.

Nice bunch of people.

Thal

[G.W.K]

they stand by the fact that we are 'not of this world.'  in other words - it doesn't matter what others do.

So in other words - your saying that Christians are mad (DO NOT ANSWER ME PLEASE!)

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

do you know any christians that shoot innocent bystanders, or use terrorist methods? .

Bush?

[pianistimo]

how does the world operate now?  it's all about money. banking.  if you don't have money what are you?  now this isn't a 'religion' in terms of bible, etc - but it IS a religion.  the religion of power.

terrorists use many methods to gain power as well.  if you infiltrate and bomb their headquarters it is less likely they will bomb you first.  but, bombing is never a good idea in any case.  yet it continues on both sides.  what if a really REALLY big bomb goes off.  maybe the bomb of all bombs.  then, who is religious.  who can save you from that kind of devastation?  only God.

so why do people criticize faith?  because so far their lives are fine without God.  what about when you need God?  what about when millions of people are walking around in worse condition that that of hiroshima?

[G.W.K]

It would be soooooo easy to tell you are American without you telling us. You all have the same sort of...I don't know...

G.W.K

[pianistimo]

i don't speak for all americans - but i do speak english.  i am interested in history.  and, i believe in manifest destiny.  actually - there aren't that many americans that believe the latter any more.  the reason is that it isn't intellectual.

we are used to blessings and not curses.  but, even our money has 'in God we trust' on the side of newly minted coins instead of the front.  we are not allowed to post the 10 commandments.  pray in public.  what else?

i think that we are seeing God recind the blessings and that the vision of George Washington is soon to be realized.  we ARE in a war.  it's not going away.  and i don't think it's going in backwards motion anytime soon.

[thalbergmad]

do you know any christians that shoot innocent bystanders, or use terrorist methods? 

https://www.vinesbranch.com/view/?pageID=210719

[prometheus]

that's like saying gravity doesn't affect people.  just because you don't believe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Just because you belief something doesn't mean it exists and affects other people.

The only way it affects you is because you believe.



We don't. Why do I even have to explain these obvious things? Even if you are right, just because you are saying it and based on your past record no one will care.

[thalbergmad]

but i do speak english. 

Really, do you have any examples?

Thal

[pianistimo]

my past record has always been of faith in God.  so - based on that - i will continue to care about you.  even if you do not care about me.

[thalbergmad]

pray in public. 

That should be allowed on all freeways.

[G.W.K]

May the Lord preserve us forever then.

Ahhhhh Men

LOL

G.W.K

[cmg]

do you know any christians that shoot innocent bystanders, or use terrorist methods?  no.  most true christians are not violent at all. 

Hitler and Nazi party members were Christians.

"Most true Christians are not  violent at all."  Most?  What about the remainder? Are those the Christians that find it quite easy to condemn violence, yet repeatedly support leaders who campaign on platforms to kill terrorists and other enemies of "the state"?  

Don't you see the "logic disconnect" here?

[prometheus]

do you know any christians that shoot innocent bystanders, or use terrorist methods? 

Hitler? God? Paul Hill? Charles Manson? Joseph Kony?

[thalbergmad]

even if you do not care about me.

I care about you and pity you at the same time.

I occasionally try to inject some humour as it is an alternative to what i would really like to say.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Hitler? God? Paul Hill? Charles Manson? Joseph Kony?

Robert Yates

[cmg]

Robert Yates

Every bloody Christian who took part in the Crusades.

The Ku Klux Klan.  They even broadcast their malevolence with a fiery cross.

[mike_lang]

Are those the Christians that find it quite easy to condemn violence, yet repeatedly support leaders who campaign on platforms to kill terrorists and other enemies of "the state"?  

Don't you see the "logic disconnect" here?

For many of us, abortion is the greater evil and problem; and as we are in a two-party system, we must prioritize.

[prometheus]

By killing people?


Just because you are under the bronze age delusion that abortion is a great evil doesn't mean it is. And even if it is, two evils do not equal a right. Paul Hill was an insane murderer like many others.


Sadly he was executed thanks to more bronze age primitivism.

[mike_lang]

By killing people?


Just because you are under the bronze age delusion that abortion is a great evil doesn't mean it is. And even if it is, two evils do not equal a right. Paul Hill was an insane murderer like many others.


Sadly he was executed thanks to more bronze age primitivism.

I did not justify capital punishment - I said that when one must vote against license of choice or against capital punishment, much of the Christian population goes with the former option.

To play devil's advocate, just because you believe that an eye for an eye is unjust, doesn't mean that  it is.

Regardless of these speculations, we all vote according to our values and our perception of the moral condition of the world.  I happen to side with Gandhi on the eye for an eye bit, but I am unfortunately forced by the system to make a choice in favor of the lesser of two evils (in my - and some others' - humble opinion).

[cmg]

For many of us, abortion is the greater evil and problem; and as we are in a two-party system, we must prioritize.

Yes, I am aware of this argument:  to protect the unborn, one must make a pact with the devil and authorize the wholesale slaughter of those already born.  It's an odd choice, but I understand what you are saying.

But, history has proven, again and again, that making an activity illegal will not stop it.  The activity simply goes "underground."  People who want abortion legalized don't want to kill fetuses, but rather they want to preserve the lives of young pregnant women who, otherwise, would be forced to find incompetent abortionists.  

Why should the fetus AND the mother die at the hands of back-alley butcher abortionists?  If you make abortion illegal, that's where desperate women will have to go.  Would you not prefer to spare the life of the young woman in order to help her gain your redemption?

[mike_lang]

Yes, I am aware of this argument:  to protect the unborn, one must make a pact with the devil and authorize the wholesale slaughter of those already born.  It's an odd choice, but I understand what you are saying.

Thank you for your generous pseudo-concession.

Why should the fetus AND the mother die at the hands of back-alley butcher abortionists?  

Perhaps there shouldn't be an abortion in the first place...?  As a Christian, I am obligated to be an idealist, not a pragmatist.  The back-alley death would be the direct consequence of the abortion that should not have happened in the first place.  Why should I support license to commit an act which I believe is intrinsically evil?

If you make abortion illegal, that's where desperate women will have to go.  Would you not prefer to spare the life of the young woman in order to help her gain your redemption?

One cannot attempt to pursue good by intrinsically evil means.  The means do not justify the end.  Why doesn't she spare her own life?

[prometheus]

Yeah, but keep your idealism for yourself.


Surely you don't want other people to force their views on you. So learn a bit from Jesus and stop deciding what is right and wrong for other people.

[pianistimo]

michael_langlois - i am with you 100% on what you say about abortion.  that the act itself  is evil.  it is destroying a creation of God.

and, as you said about ghandi - 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'  that is agreed, too.  however, as you also said - it doesn't make an eye for an eye unjust.

it all comes down to law, really.  did you know british 'common law' is based in many ways on biblical law?  contracts, torts, property do not exist in statute - but in the prior common law (or law already evidenced).  now, with the UN - they are seeking to reestablish a priority without divine will or divine right.

it makes sense in our age - because we also do not believe in kingship - excepting a few kings and queens (britain, jordan, greece, netherlands?) it's passe.  so - if there is no divine right - can there BE divine law?  the king used to also be the leader of the church.  the alternate being a roman type of emperorship and religious leader combined.  napoleon realized the power involved and crowned himself and married himself at the same time.

[cmg]

Thank you for your generous pseudo-concession.

Perhaps there shouldn't be an abortion in the first place...?  As a Christian, I am obligated to be an idealist, not a pragmatist.  The back-alley death would be the direct consequence of the abortion that should not have happened in the first place.  Why should I support license to commit an act which I believe is intrinsically evil?

One cannot attempt to pursue good by intrinsically evil means.  The means do not justify the end.  Why doesn't she spare her own life?

I'm sorry you have to feel encumbered with the generosity of my "pseudo-concession," but I thought, given the utter absurdity of your argument, I was being -- actually -- kind.

Abortions result from unwanted pregnancies; unwanted pregnancies result from sexual behavior.

So, we get back, as always, to the Catholic notion of original sin.  Sex is too animalistic for Catholics to feel comfortable with.  It's too "creaturely."  And to be a creature (non-human) is to be soulless and therefore exempt from your promise of eternal life.  You've had no choice but to demonize sexual behavior.  But, knowing that it is unavoidable (why, even priests with vows of celibacy indulge in it) you permit it within the bonds of matrimony.  And, then, rationalize that it is now a sanctified act.

What a dreadful double-bind you create for yourselves.  

You really need to read Ernest Becker's "The Denial of Death."

And you also need to extend your Christian charity in the direction of the poor woman seduced by a man, or even raped, who now finds her condition impossibly compromised -- thanks to the Church's well-known condemnation.  This guilt and this fear -- of your religion -- drives her to the abortionist.

[mike_lang]

Yeah, but keep your idealism for yourself.

What would be the good of ideals if they remained dormant in the realm of fantasy and potentiality, rather than being pursued to achieve a greater degree of realization?  The very purpose of an ideal is to provide a standard.

Surely you don't want other people to force their views on you. So learn a bit from Jesus and stop deciding what is right and wrong for other people.

Learn a bit from Jesus in what sense?

[pianistimo]

abortion has nothing to do with marriage, cmg.  within a married state - people should typically want their own children.  this has more to do with women's rights.  the supposed right of a woman to work outside the home than in the home.

one thing i HAVE noticed with michael_langlois (among many things) is that he is very longsufferring.  he has not sought to hit protestantism on the head.  merely waves a flag of peace.  for this - he is a saint already.

in fact, i would dare go so far as to admit that Linus (perhaps the one and only true follower of peter - as he was mentioned in the bible in II tim 4:21) was and would have been the helper and follower of peter (along with claudia rufina?).  i believe at the time of the persecution of peter - he was also persecuted.  that is why clement succeeded him so rapidly.  in fact, i believe linus and claudia rufina escaped to the british isles.

[mike_lang]

as you also said - it doesn't make an eye for an eye unjust.

Please make no mistake - I do not believe that a life for a life is justice.  We do not have license to take lives in pursuit of retribution - this is God's prerogative alone.

[ahinton]

michael_langlois - i am with you 100% on what you say about abortion.  that the act itself  is evil.  it is destroying a creation of God.

Here, I must disagree with both of you. Apart from any other consideration, if one believes what you say here, it is also necessary to accept that it is another creation of God that makes the decision to terminate and the technology that makes this medically possible is also the product of a creation of God. This is not, of coursem, to recommend abortion as though it's just some casual thing upon which to make a decision - very much the reverse, in fact - but I do believe that a totally inflexible anti-abortion stance is one that requires some degree of human insensitivity.

and, as you said about ghandi - 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'  that is agreed, too.  however, as you also said - it doesn't make an eye for an eye unjust.

And a tooth for a tooth makes the whole world no longer able to bit on such arguments, perhaps? Again, I have to disagree that "an eye for an eye" is not unjust; it's a primitive concept, well beyond which we ought all to have progressed.

it all comes down to law, really.  did you know british 'common law' is based in many ways on biblical law?  contracts, torts, property do not exist in statute - but in the prior common law (or law already evidenced).  now, with the UN - they are seeking to reestablish a priority without divine will or divine right.

Legal histories all over the place will inevitably be shot through with such instances but, as in most countries' legal systems, laws have to adapt to circumstance and they do just that. Scottish law remains somewhat different from English and the former has in the past influenced the latter, but the principal point here is that both have changed - and have indeed had to change - in order to accommodate new circumstances. Every second that goes by marks changes in the human condition and in human conduct and experience that laws then have to play their specific part in reflecting.

Best,

Alistair

[mike_lang]

Sex is too animalistic for Catholics to feel comfortable with.  It's too "creaturely."  And to be a creature (non-human) is to be soulless and therefore exempt from your promise of eternal life.  You've had no choice but demonize sexual behavior.  

I'm not sure what version of the catechism you have read, or what your source (if any) of Catholic doctrine is, but the Church does not condemn sexuality.  In fact, JPII's Theology of the Body is a several-hundred page tome praising human sexuality and the sacramentality of it.  What is in fact condemned by the Church is the misuse of human sexuality, i.e., fornication, masturbation, sodomy, etc.  But contrary to popular belief, the Church has nothing against the sexual act itself.

What a dreadful double-bind you create for yourselves.

How so?

And you also need to extend your Christian charity in the direction of the poor woman seduced by a man, or even raped, who now finds her condition impossibly compromised.

Why should evil beget more evil?

[prometheus]

Learn a bit from Jesus in what sense?

Do unto others...


You don't want other people to force on you what they think is the correct lifestyle for you. So don't do it on others. For example, woman who sadly choose to get an abortion.

[mike_lang]

Here, I must disagree with both of you. Apart from any other consideration, if one believes what you say here, it is also necessary to accept that it is another creation of God that makes the decision to terminate and the technology that makes this medically possible is also the product of a creation of God.

I respectfully disagree - our free will was God's creation, and this is what made possible the decision and the means by which to execute (no pun intended) our decision.

And a tooth for a tooth makes the whole world no longer able to bit on such arguments, perhaps? Again, I have to disagree that "an eye for an eye" is not unjust; it's a primitive concept, well beyond which we ought all to have progressed.

I disagree once more - in my view, "an eye for an eye" simply indicates that the punishment must not outweigh the crime (not that the punishment must be equal to the crime).  I do not find this primitive, but rather humane and necessary.

Best,
ML

[pianistimo]

in listening to 'car talk' with my hubby - a man who was a mechanic held a wrench with a flat hand and it flew out of his hand and knocked a co-worker in the mouth - knocking out a tooth.  he was so guilt ridden that he had to call and discuss the event and how to rectify it - even though he had a party that raised only $30. for his buddy.

the car talk hosts decided that paying at least half the bill for the tooth was in order - and also that holding a wrench with a flat hand was only called for when you cannot get a knuckle around an area and must resort to flat hand.  therefore - 1/2 the bill was called for instead of the entire bill. 

the man seemed utterly relieved.  now this is only a tooth knocking.  what if it was a case where someone was run over on a boulevard - as happened recently.  the perpetrator here just ran away because of possible legal action.  but, would he have stayed if there wasn't any?  i'm just wondering if half of law is what is inside each one of us in terms of conscience.

[mike_lang]

Do unto others...

Am I to pick and choose which teachings to follow and which not to?  If He was the Son of God, which I hold to be true, then I am obligated to accept of all of His teachings, including his support of the decalogue.  He came to divide, not to make peace.

[pianistimo]

and, his mercy - which you obviously support in not taking an eye for an eye always to mean literally do it.  just like JEsus didn't let the men stone the adulterous woman.  he said, whoever is without guilt should pick up the first stone.  he did not condemn the law - but those who wanted to use the law hypocritically.

even in tithing - he said to the pharisees that they were tithing 'mint and cummin' and not the weightier matters of the law - such as caring for people and loving people.  that some were not caring for aged parents.  we have to make legal decisions in our lives with many things.

king david ate the 'showbread' typically reserved for priests - and yet God considered him already a king AND a priest. this is the highest form of compliment by God - because if HE considers you able to judge - then you are and He gives you credit.

perhaps it is like piano.  you start with the ground rules.  then, you break some of them - but not out of disregard for the rules - but rather a 'taking off' on the ideas and expanding them.

if our society were proactive - we would work with teens to get them off the streets, to have a home, a place to do homework, help with whatever problems are in their lives, clothing, food, comfort.  this is not always the case.  drugs, babies - etc - they don't mix.  drug babies have to be the saddest form of drug rehab there is.  i suppose in using the judgement of God - having an early abortion would be better than a miserable life of pain or disfigurement or missing parts of body or brain.  and, yet - there is no prescription in the bible to do away with people who are lame or blind, or disfigured.  and, also - it is said that when Jesus lived - he actually healed people.  if we have hope - we can do the impossible.

abortion is a fact of life nowdays - so if we can't change it - we can help people who have made poor choices without judging them.  i must say - that despite my indifference to certain teachings of the catholics, i am overwhelmed by catholic charities which do good.  in the end, it's probably what we are all judged by.  mercy.  if a woman has an abortion - i don't think she's condemned by Jesus if she repents.  but, i do think it is a sin.  and, at the same time - a lifetime of accepting a penalty for early sex by taking care of a baby at an early age.  either way, the women need support and care.

[cmg]

the Church does not condemn sexuality.  In fact, JPII's Theology of the Body is a several-hundred page tome praising human sexuality and the sacramentality of it.  
How so?

Why should evil beget more evil?

Yes, "praising human sexuality and the SACRAMENTALITY  of it."  In other words, sexuality approved of -- if conducted the way the Church mandates it must be conducted.  Within its bounds and bonds.  The very fact of needing to "sacramentalize" it demonstrates the Church's fear of it.

The point I am arguing is very simple:  sex outside of marriage is only "evil" in the eyes of Catholics.  That does not make the act evil.  Because of sex, pregnancies result.  Despite your lofty ideals, young women will get pregnant out of wedlock.  They will be terrified of social/religious/familial rejection and condemnation.  They will seek out abortions.  If abortions are illegal, they will seek out butchers.  If abortions are legal, their risk of the procedure killing or maiming them is greatly reduced.

I'm not suggesting one substitute a lessor evil for a greater one, or vice versa.  Unlike you, I'm not placing myself above others and judging their behavior as moral or immoral.  I'm just arguing for a little compassion.

Woman always have and always will seek out abortions.  I don't advocate that.  But, I do advocate that this regrettable and painful choice -- as terrible as it is for most women -- not be something that will kill them.

[cmg]

He came to divide, not to make peace.

I agree.  But the Church which was constructed around his teachings can only exist to divide.  It sets itself up against other faiths as being the "true" one.  And other faiths argue the same line.  So, who is right?  No one knows.  But one thing is for certain:  conflict results.  Opposing ideas inspire people to war against one another.

The Church is the problem.  Not Christ.

[pianistimo]

sex outside of marriage is also evil in many many other denominations.  i would say most denominations go with the proscription in the bible of a male and female constituting a married relationship and any sexual behavior that goes on between them is private and couldn't be found out unless they shared it.  why worry - even if legislation is made?  who is going to go around snooping in bedrooms?

that said - i don't think that original sin ever made me worry about attempting to remain a virgin after marriage.  how the 'virgin' mary stayed a virgin after having many more children is a mystery only in the catholic faith.  what i mean is - none of the others accepts that she was a virgin after james was born.

and, also i believe that possibly adam and eve had sex the very first day they were together and God said 'it was good.'  what wasn't good was taking from the tree of the 'knowledge of good and evil.'  it was only at that point they knew they were naked.  now if God had to ask them how they knew they were naked - He must have wanted them to have a good look at each other.

[mike_lang]

Yes, "praising human sexuality and the SACRAMENTALITY  of it."  In other words, sexuality approved of -- if conducted the way the Church mandates it must be conducted.  Within its bounds and bonds. 

Yes.

The very fact of needing to "sacramentalize" it demonstrates the Church's fear of it.

Leaving aside the issue that sexual union is a sacrament regardless of its being said to be so, why does the illustration of a real purpose for sexuality imply a fear of it?  

The point I am arguing is very simple:  sex outside of marriage is only "evil" in the eyes of Catholics.  That does not make the act evil. 

Do not tell me is is evil in the eyes of Catholics only.  Things are true or false - if you believe that sexual union outside of marriage is a moral act, then say so.  But do not tell me that certain things hold true for some and not for others.  Something cannot be true and false simultaneously.

Because of sex, pregnancies result.  Despite your lofty ideals, young women will get pregnant out of wedlock.  They will be terrified of social/religious/familial rejection and condemnation.  They will seek out abortions.  If abortions are illegal, they will seek out butchers.

That is their prerogative - but in such a case, they must deal with the consequences.  Evil is still evil in spite of fear.

I'm not suggesting one substitute a lessor evil for a greater one, or vice versa.  Unlike you, I'm not placing myself above others and judging their behavior as moral or immoral.  I'm just arguing for a little compassion.

It does not place me above others to consider an act evil.  "Hate the sin, not the sinner."  I am all for compassion, but not at the expense of virtue.

Best,
ML