Mankind "groping in the darkness"

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

Even if that is true, and even if you are happy and all the rest of it with the things that are between here and the grave, ultimately what should be more significant than happiness is truth. Truth is the most important thing in this world. That isn't to say that I'm not content with my existence for the most part, but it is to say that no matter how much we can run from this thing called truth it will catch up with us.

The question is what is truth. Is it what we want it to be? Is it that there is no such thing as God and that this is all a fable? Perhaps. Is it that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that He came into this world to rescue us from sin? If so that has significant consequences both for you and for I.

Sounds like you are 'covering your a*se'?? Just in case he's real, you have your seat booked. You don't sound wholly convinced. You attend mass and pray, because of fear! Fear of hell.

Wibbs

Promac wrote: »

They still have a bank full of cash in a city full of gold full of people who pledge their entire lives to going out into the world and getting people to make "offerings" to mystic sky-bob so that they can go and live in sky-bob's house when they're dead...

Welll the catholic church was nearly broke by the end of the 19th century. Interesting time in it's history.

GOD STRIKE ME DOWN IF I'M WRONG.

Could you stand over there please P? *edges away with unseemly haste*

bnt

joseph brand wrote: »

Sounds like you are 'covering your a*se'?? Just in case he's real, you have your seat booked. You don't sound wholly convinced. You attend mass and pray, because of fear! Fear of hell.

See: Pascal's Wager.

Promac wrote: »

OH LOOK - HE DIDN'T!

God's off doing something else, too busy to smite today. Heck, he last posted on Boards over ten years ago. File him under "missing, presumed having a good time". :cool:

philologos

joseph brand wrote: »

Sounds like you are 'covering your a*se'?? Just in case he's real, you have your seat booked. You don't sound wholly convinced. You attend mass and pray, because of fear! Fear of hell.

Not at all.

I believe and trust in Jesus entirely, and it is for that reason I post about Him here.

It isn't about "covering my a*se" as you've so eloquently put it. In the here and now, it is far better to acknowledge the living God who created us and who has the very best for us in mind than to reject Him. It is better to know and acknowledge the very reason that we are here, that is to know God and live and speak for Him in every single part of our lives than to live in what is essentially nothingness.

Promac

philologos wrote: »

Not at all.

I believe and trust in Jesus entirely, and it is for that reason I post about Him here.

It isn't about "covering my a*se" as you've so eloquently put it. In the here and now, it is far better to acknowledge the living God who created us and who has the very best for us in mind than to reject Him. It is better to know and acknowledge the very reason that we are here, that is to know God and live and speak for Him in every single part of our lives than to live in what is essentially nothingness.

I love encountering people like you because even though I openly scorn your god (ineffectual hatred-monger) and jesus (****ing hippy jew), I still have a fantastic life! Your god, it seems, isn't all as vengeful or powerful as you'd like him to be!

It just baffles me why people like you, who are obviously not stupid, don't realise that when the martial roman empire ended, the religious roman empire began.

Good job, centurion!

gordon_gekko

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What is the best way to tell a lie?

Answer: Hide it between two truths,

This is exactly how the Church of Rome operates. The Bible is the ONLY source of truth contrary to the blasphemous Roman "Tradition" which adds to and takes away from the word of God.

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." -Mark 7:7

When Catholics eat the bread and drink the wine they think they are eating Jesus' flesh/guts/toe-nails/eyeballs/etc. They believe they are drinking Jesus' blood. They "receive" their Jesus by EATING him!. :eek:

im no longer a catholic but how is the above any more or less nutty than what the various reformed churches teach , as bart simpon said , the small stupid differences are nothing compared to the big stupid similaritys

philologos

Promac wrote: »

It just baffles me why people like you, who are obviously not stupid, don't realise that when the martial roman empire ended, the religious roman empire began.

Good job, centurion!

To clarify again. I'm an evangelical Christian, not a Roman Catholic. That's why I encourage defending God and His Word over institutions.

Edit:

44leto wrote: »

I could let another more learned fellow on the bible tell me me so then check with google. I know history and around which political entity the bible tried to please and that would be the slave economy of the Romans.

To go back to this briefly. That's hardly likely considering that Christianity was criminalised in the Roman Empire for about 400 odd years before becoming legal.

alphabeat

Epic Troll by Benny the Nonce

redt0m

philologos wrote: »

Christianity was criminalised in the Roman Empire for about 400 odd years before Constantine realised he needed the christians to stay in power

Fixed your post.

Promac

philologos wrote: »

To clarify again. I'm an evangelical Christian, not a Roman Catholic. That's why I encourage defending God and His Word over institutions.

I totally understand what you're saying - I'm a slightly blue atheist rather than a slightly orange one.

philologos

redt0m wrote: »

Fixed your post.

Indeed, I think Constantine's codification of Christianity was perhaps one of the worst things that could have ever happened to it. It caused this "nationalisation" of Christianity, and a mix between State and church which has caused untold problems since for both. If Christianity had stayed illegal, it would have grown much quicker, faiths tend to do that when they are criminalised. For example looking to the underground church in China.

I don't support mixing political and Christian interests at all. It's better for Christianity to be a grass roots movement that is active in society from bottom up rather than a political force from top down.

woodoo

Promac wrote: »

I love encountering people like you because even though I openly scorn your god (ineffectual hatred-monger) and jesus (****ing hippy jew), I still have a fantastic life! Your god, it seems, isn't all as vengeful or powerful as you'd like him to be!

It just baffles me why people like you, who are obviously not stupid, don't realise that when the martial roman empire ended, the religious roman empire began.

Good job, centurion!

Why are atheists so threatened by believers?

I'm agnostic i don't profess to know if God does or doesn't exist. But i am in no way bothered by believers.

Even Lord Dawkins has admitted to not being 100% atheist. Humans can't really know for sure what is or isn't out there.

Promac

woodoo wrote: »

Why are atheists so threatened by believers?

I'm agnostic i don't profess to know if God does or doesn't exist. But i am in no way bothered by believers.

Even Lord Dawkins has admitted to not being 100% atheist. Humans can't really know for sure what is or isn't out there.

Why are you assuming I'm atheist and not agnostic? Or Gnostic?

I'm bothered by believers because they still have a very real impact on the world I live in. If you've ever heard of a place called the USA that should be perfectly obvious.

Latchy

woodoo wrote: »

Humans can't really know for sure what is or isn't out there.

If only we could kick this whole belief / non belief dilemma into touch although I'm sure there are many who really would prefer not to know .The idea that we live our lifes then go back to nothingness isin't very appealing to any side .

bnt

woodoo wrote: »

I'm agnostic i don't profess to know if God does or doesn't exist. But i am in no way bothered by believers.

Even Lord Dawkins has admitted to not being 100% atheist. Humans can't really know for sure what is or isn't out there.

Your definitions need a little tweaking. (A)theism and (A)gnosticism are answers to two separate questions, not different degrees of unbelief. It is possible to be both atheist and agnostic at the same time, and a lot of people are:
atheist = I don't believe in gods;
agnostic = I don't think that we'll ever answer that question.
There's a nice diagram explaining it here. But the idea that "agnosticism = I don't know" is just wrong. No-one knows. Some claim to, but when you ask for evidence, all you get are more words.

It's fine that you "don't profess to know": I've never met or read an atheist who does profess to know with any certainty. I don't. Dawkins doesn't. Stephen Fry doesn't. It's a "straw man" fallacy. The confusion seems to come from the mistaken belief that you need to have definite answers to these questions, either way, before you can live a normal life - and so, if we aren't certain that gods do exist, we must be certain that they don't. That's a false dichotomy. I get along just fine without either answer, and don't even think the question is important on a personal level, but when it affects things like government policy, I suppose I have to say something. I expect to be called an "angry atheist" for saying this much. :rolleyes:

lividduck

Oh you intelligent poster you!:D
Very well iterated, great post.

DrumSteve

bnt wrote: »

Your definitions need a little tweaking. (A)theism and (A)gnosticism are answers to two separate questions, not different degrees of unbelief. It is possible to be both atheist and agnostic at the same time, and a lot of people are:
atheist = I don't believe in gods;
agnostic = I don't think that we'll ever answer that question.
There's a nice diagram explaining it here. But the idea that "agnosticism = I don't know" is just wrong. No-one knows. Some claim to, but when you ask for evidence, all you get are more words.

It's fine that you "don't profess to know": I've never met or read an atheist who does profess to know with any certainty. I don't. Dawkins doesn't. Stephen Fry doesn't. It's a "straw man" fallacy. The confusion seems to come from the mistaken belief that you need to have definite answers to these questions, either way, before you can live a normal life - and so, if we aren't certain that gods do exist, we must be certain that they don't. That's a false dichotomy. I get along just fine without either answer, and don't even think the question is important on a personal level, but when it affects things like government policy, I suppose I have to say something. I expect to be called an "angry atheist" for saying this much. :rolleyes:

Typical angry atheist.

bnt

DrumSteve wrote: »

Typical angry atheist.

I'm more angry at your lack of netiquette: quoting a whole post just to add one line is poor form. :mad:

woodoo

bnt wrote: »

Your definitions need a little tweaking. (A)theism and (A)gnosticism are answers to two separate questions, not different degrees of unbelief. It is possible to be both atheist and agnostic at the same time, and a lot of people are:
atheist = I don't believe in gods;
agnostic = I don't think that we'll ever answer that question.
There's a nice diagram explaining it here. But the idea that "agnosticism = I don't know" is just wrong. No-one knows. Some claim to, but when you ask for evidence, all you get are more words.

It's fine that you "don't profess to know": I've never met or read an atheist who does profess to know with any certainty. I don't. Dawkins doesn't. Stephen Fry doesn't. It's a "straw man" fallacy. The confusion seems to come from the mistaken belief that you need to have definite answers to these questions, either way, before you can live a normal life - and so, if we aren't certain that gods do exist, we must be certain that they don't. That's a false dichotomy. I get along just fine without either answer, and don't even think the question is important on a personal level, but when it affects things like government policy, I suppose I have to say something. I expect to be called an "angry atheist" for saying this much. :rolleyes:

Sometimes people get too mixed up with words and definitions. I just don't know what is out there. That's all really.

When i die if there is something then brilliant, if there is nothing then i won't know much about it.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

President Of Paedo Enterprises

DrumSteve

bnt wrote: »

I'm more angry at your lack of netiquette: quoting a whole post just to add one line is poor form. :mad:

Typical Angry Atheist.

44leto

philologos wrote: »

To clarify again. I'm an evangelical Christian, not a Roman Catholic. That's why I encourage defending God and His Word over institutions.

Edit:


To go back to this briefly. That's hardly likely considering that Christianity was criminalised in the Roman Empire for about 400 odd years before becoming legal.

Constantine died in 337 AD (wiki) he is largely responsible for Christianising the empire, then the new testament was edited. The holy days were made to fit into Roman festivals, Gospels were dropped and editing in that, scripture was omitted and even added to. Christianity was sold as a package to fit into the roman world, it gave them a powerful god and a pantheon of angels, a holy spirit and saints, it even gave the prospect of anyone becoming a deity in saint form. I am not to sure if Constantine is a saint, but if so, in a way according to your faith he did become a demi deity or a saint, just like Caesar.

But this drifts from the point. OK we will ignore slavery and I ask what did the ecclesiastical Christian powers do to stop torture, nothing is the answer. Governments stopped that independently from any Christian establishment. So my point is the church as far as human rights are concerned have not got a history where they are in a position to preach.

They have kept humanity groping in the dark and IMO still do. They have nothing valid to say anymore. Democracy and secularism has done more to create a fairer world then ANY church has.

philologos

Yes, let's ignore the people I've already mentioned 44leto.

Secularism didn't stop slavery in Britain. Unfortunately the inconvenient truth for you is that evangelical Christians stopped slavery in Britain. The Clapham Sect and William Wilberforce as well as other abolitionists such as John Newton. I even showed you how other Christians after it was finished in Britain went to countries such as Malawi to condemn the practice elsewhere. I've even shown you, how Paul in the Scripture clearly speaks to masters to reform their behaviour towards their slaves.

Are you going to argue that these men were atheists? Or argue with history yet again?

As for what any "Christian" institutions have done, if it doesn't agree with the Christian Gospel I.E what Jesus Christ stood for, then it is not legitimately Christian behaviour. I won't pin that on Jesus or God, rather I will blame human selfishness. I'm more than happy to say that churches (note churches) screwed up. I am not happy to say that this represents Christianity as Jesus teaches it.

If you're going to be intellectually dishonest, I'm going to point it out.

Edit: Perhaps you should read through the New Testament to see what Christianity actually stands for, and then compare it with what you see in the world. It is a very useful exercise. By the by, the New Testament scriptures existed long before Constantine and were used in churches long before Constantine. Textually they were not changed, what happened was that the New Testament was compiled into a single volume.

Biblical Christianity won't keep anyone in the dark, simply put because Jesus won't keep you in the dark. Controlling human organisations - yes, they will keep you in the dark. I don't believe atheism has been any different in its lifespan, and I don't believe it will be any different. Human efforts are doomed to failure. Only what God has done will remain.

RiseToTheTop

DrumSteve wrote: »

This Bull**** annoys me.


Almost as much as the Pope does.

It must really pain you to leave your house and see churches, monasteries.

Long may it last.

If only fellow atheists could stay inside and not encounter the world. Eat 5 kilo's of red meat on Good Friday, eat an extra bar of chocolate all the way through lent and scratch there hole on Christmas day, that'd be nice.

Run_to_da_hills

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

It must really pain you to leave your house and see churches, monasteries.

Long may it last.

If only fellow atheists could stay inside and not encounter the world. Eat 5 kilo's of red meat on Good Friday, eat an extra bar of chocolate all the way through lent and scratch there hole on Christmas day, that'd be nice.

I'm not an atheist and would be delighted to see all these church buildings and monasteries sold off to pay damages to victims of child abuse. The true Church is the body of believers and has nothing got to do with buildings, gold and wealth.

I would also like to see the Pope and the rest of his untouchables put on trial by an international court for perverting the course of justice.

And BTW I also love tucking into my Good Friday Big Mac.

DrumSteve

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

It must really pain you to leave your house and see churches, monasteries.

Long may it last.

If only fellow atheists could stay inside and not encounter the world. Eat 5 kilo's of red meat on Good Friday, eat an extra bar of chocolate all the way through lent and scratch there hole on Christmas day, that'd be nice.

Why would it pain me to see buildings...?

It's not like they cause me any great physical discomfort? I like architecture.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I'm not an atheist and would be delighted to see all these church buildings and monasteries sold off to pay damages to victims of child abuse. The true Church is the body of believers and has nothing got to do with buildings, gold and wealth.

I would also like to see the Pope and the rest of his untouchables put on trial by an international court for perverting the course of justice.

And BTW I also love tucking into my Good Friday Big Mac.

That's an appropriate verb.

44leto

philologos wrote: »

Yes, let's ignore the people I've already mentioned 44leto.

Secularism didn't stop slavery in Britain. Unfortunately the inconvenient truth for you is that evangelical Christians stopped slavery in Britain. The Clapham Sect and William Wilberforce as well as other abolitionists such as John Newton. I even showed you how other Christians after it was finished in Britain went to countries such as Malawi to condemn the practice elsewhere. I've even shown you, how Paul in the Scripture clearly speaks to masters to reform their behaviour towards their slaves.

Are you going to argue that these men were atheists? Or argue with history yet again?

As for what any "Christian" institutions have done, if it doesn't agree with the Christian Gospel I.E what Jesus Christ stood for, then it is not legitimately Christian behaviour. I won't pin that on Jesus or God, rather I will blame human selfishness. I'm more than happy to say that churches (note churches) screwed up. I am not happy to say that this represents Christianity as Jesus teaches it.

If you're going to be intellectually dishonest, I'm going to point it out.

Edit: Perhaps you should read through the New Testament to see what Christianity actually stands for, and then compare it with what you see in the world. It is a very useful exercise. By the by, the New Testament scriptures existed long before Constantine and were used in churches long before Constantine. Textually they were not changed, what happened was that the New Testament was compiled into a single volume.

Biblical Christianity won't keep anyone in the dark, simply put because Jesus won't keep you in the dark. Controlling human organisations - yes, they will keep you in the dark. I don't believe atheism has been any different in its lifespan, and I don't believe it will be any different. Human efforts are doomed to failure. Only what God has done will remain.

Yes those people were Christian but that does not excuse the simple historical fact they came very late in the day to that already very established faith, 1300 years after Constantine. So Christianity supported slavery longer then they were opposed. If you want to point out a few individuals, fine, but the morality and powers in that religion sat very comfortable with slavery without addressing it. You can claim they were not adhering to the teachings of Christ which is a decent argument, but but not really a very good one.

I will not read the scriptures because I regard them as basically flawed in preaching a way of life as I do with any so called religious texts. But I do suggest you read a history book. I suppose you know the edith he who does not learn from history is destined to repeat it. So we tried religion it failed to make a better world, lets try something different.

We did and it did make a better world, in the west anyway. But I notice you attempt to quickly put aside Christianity's role in torture, if I was arguing your case Jaysus I would to. It a pretty dire record.

Run_to_da_hills

DrumSteve wrote: »

Why would it pain me to see buildings...?

It's not like they cause me any great physical discomfort? I like architecture.



That's an appropriate verb.

I never looked at that way.

Maudi

Kidchameleon wrote: »

44leto wrote: »

The OP did come up with an original and witty response or riposte to groping in the dark.

The Church, what a beacon for human rights. Well no. They were the "moral power" from the fourth ? century right up to 19th century to the rise of secularism. After that all they had with-in the powers was nagging rights.

So lets look at the moral causes they championed in that period of that 15 hundred years. Was it slavery, judicial torture, the death penalty, cruel and unusual punishments, injustice, poverty, children's rights, women's rights, democratic rights, animal rights or even basic human rights, did they tackle any moral issue facing society.

The answer is a plain big NO.

What addressed the above was the enlightenment then secularism and democracy. All of a sudden your time on Earth mattered more then your time in death.

The church and organised religion is a very negative force for humanity, they kept us groping in the dark. Their power is waning further in western Europe and good riddance.

I'm glad you specified it was the church. Allot of people on here seem to think that believing in God means you follow the church. God, Jesus could not be more removed from the church.

F**k the pope, and f**k the one before him.

2nd that...the church has nothing to do with "God" imo.im sure hes horrified to be associated with the pope and co.

latenia

I think the pope is alright.

Run_to_da_hills

Maudi wrote: »

2nd that...the church has nothing to do with "God" imo.im sure hes horrified to be associated with the pope and co.

Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

44leto

latenia wrote: »

I think the pope is alright.

So do I, he is just misguided and lets of lot of gaffs, but in general his reason is blocked by his conviction. I am sure his heart is in the right place.

KeithAFC

Yet again the Pope of Rome is trying to cover up his tracks and lead people to turn the eye away from him and its organisation which is bad for mankind. One day the people will turn against Rome and march towards the Vatican and see its ruin.

44leto

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yet again the Pope of Rome is trying to cover up his tracks and lead people to turn the eye away from him and its organisation which is bad for mankind. One day the people will turn against Rome and march towards the Vatican and see its ruin.

I agree till you said that, the Vatican, with its art and its architecture is a treasure for all mankind. It is truly magnificent. It would be as much a sin as the early Christians killing Hypatia and then burning the great library of Alexandria.

DrumSteve

44leto wrote: »

I agree till you said that, the Vatican, with its art and its architecture is a treasure for all mankind. It is truly magnificent. It would be as much a sin as the early Christians killing Hypatia and then burning the great library of Alexandria.

I think he meant figurtively... but it's Keith, so he probably meant it literally.

44leto

DrumSteve wrote: »

I think he meant figurtively... but it's Keith, so he probably meant it literally.

He's a gem alright, it would be like saying lets march on Saint Pauls or our own magnificent Christchurch cathedral and see those in ruin.

Dyr

DrumSteve wrote: »

I think he meant figurtively... but it's Keith, so he probably meant it literally.

No harm meant, he just loves a good march.

Min

There was a discussion about slavery earlier in this thread.

I just want to add something to it about Irish slavery, when we were ruled from London and how the Irish were transported as slaves to the West Indies to work on plantations.
The thing is Roman Catholics could be used as slaves as the English had decided that RC were not in fact Christian.

http://www.historyjournal.ie/irish-slavery/57-irish-slavery-topics/113-irish-slaves-in-jamaica.html

I don't remember Irish slavery being taught in school when I went, I really only fund out about it when the island of Montserrat was being evacuated due to the Volcano and how so many had Irish surnames and celebrated St Patrick's day as their national holiday.

kylith

Min wrote: »

There was a discussion about slavery earlier in this thread.

I just want to add something to it about Irish slavery, when we were ruled from London and how the Irish were transported as slaves to the West Indies to work on plantations.
The thing is Roman Catholics could be used as slaves as the English had decided that RC were not in fact Christian.

http://www.historyjournal.ie/irish-slavery/57-irish-slavery-topics/113-irish-slaves-in-jamaica.html

I don't remember Irish slavery being taught in school when I went, I really only fund out about it when the island of Montserrat was being evacuated due to the Volcano and how so many had Irish surnames and celebrated St Patrick's day as their national holiday.

That was thanks to the lovely Cromwell, iirc. It wasn't quite slavery, it was indentured servitude which is, imo, a lot worse because there's a time limit on the servitude so the owner had no reason not to work the Irish to death, unlike the African slaves which were a life-long investment for him.

They go into it in greater depth in The Redneck Manifesto.

44leto

kylith wrote: »

That was thanks to the lovely Cromwell, iirc. It wasn't quite slavery, it was indentured servitude which is, imo, a lot worse because there's a time limit on the servitude so the owner had no reason not to work the Irish to death, unlike the African slaves which were a life-long investment for him.

They go into it in greater depth in The Redneck Manifesto.

aHH Christians for you, deeming another group of different Christians or other religions as alien and therefore not human, so lets treat them as animals and exploit them.

Min

Irish slaves were cheaper than black slaves due to the fact the black skin tolerated the hot sun a lot better compared to the white skinned Irish.

philologos

44leto wrote: »

Yes those people were Christian but that does not excuse the simple historical fact they came very late in the day to that already very established faith, 1300 years after Constantine. So Christianity supported slavery longer then they were opposed. If you want to point out a few individuals, fine, but the morality and powers in that religion sat very comfortable with slavery without addressing it. You can claim they were not adhering to the teachings of Christ which is a decent argument, but but not really a very good one.

There were Christian abolitionists throughout history. Admittedly the most significant drives came between the 18th and 19th centuries.

I don't need to "excuse" anyone. I believe in Biblical Christianity and Jesus' example to mankind. What I can do in cases where people have rejected the Gospel truth, and have done things contrary to it, even (and particularly) in Jesus' name is outright condemn such acts as profoundly unchristian.

What I can do in respect to those who very clearly lived for the Gospel, and acted by its principles is say that they represented the Biblical truth both in word and deed. I can only hope to emulate people like that.

I don't see how it is a "bad argument" to offer condemnation where it is due.

I ask again, where were the scores of atheists and agnostics condemning slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, because the main drive to abolish slavery came from Christians following Jesus in both word and deed.

44leto wrote: »

I will not read the scriptures because I regard them as basically flawed in preaching a way of life as I do with any so called religious texts. But I do suggest you read a history book. I suppose you know the edith he who does not learn from history is destined to repeat it. So we tried religion it failed to make a better world, lets try something different.

So you regard them as flawed before even giving your consideration? That's a perfect example of confirmation bias, and perhaps explains why you are not being truthful about the historical fact that Christianity worked towards abolishing slavery in the British Empire.

Could you imagine a book reviewer who honestly said they had not read the book they were reviewing before they criticised it? Likewise, the same is true for people who are vocally critical of the Bible without knowing what it actually says.

44leto wrote: »

We did and it did make a better world, in the west anyway. But I notice you attempt to quickly put aside Christianity's role in torture, if I was arguing your case Jaysus I would to. It a pretty dire record.

Again, a lame excuse in respect to your dishonesty. Can I ask who is this "we" you speak of?

As much as you might want me to praise what is unchristian. I won't, because I stand up for what is right, I.E what God has revealed to us, rather than what is evil, I.E the foul works of man.

It's rather simple, and as much as the question is clichéd. All one needs to do is this. In every instance, ask what would Jesus do. If the answer is not that, it is not based on Christian truth.

I condemn any person who has tortured in Jesus' name. Such things make me sick because I know what Jesus would have stood for.

ArtSmart

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

When Ratzinger dies later this year I have it on good authority that Vatican 3 is coming. Sweeping changes in our lifetime folks.

Is that the one with the girl robot?

already done. and better by Drum Steve.

44leto

philologos wrote: »

There were Christian abolitionists throughout history. Admittedly the most significant drives came between the 18th and 19th centuries.

OK so we are agreed the christian churches did nothing till then that is 1300 years but really a bit longer.

I don't need to "excuse" anyone. I believe in Biblical Christianity and Jesus' example to mankind. What I can do in cases where people have rejected the Gospel truth, and have done things contrary to it, even (and particularly) in Jesus' name is outright condemn such acts as profoundly unchristian.

There is a long list of unchristian things carried out in his name so his teachings are subject to interpretation and priority. This thread is about the present catholic pontiffs speech so his church and its record is subject to scrutiny.

What I can do in respect to those who very clearly lived for the Gospel, and acted by its principles is say that they represented the Biblical truth both in word and deed. I can only hope to emulate people like that.

Then do and live your life freely in a tolerant society created for you by the secularists and democrats. No matter your colour,

I don't see how it is a "bad argument" to offer condemnation where it is due.

I ask again, where were the scores of atheists and agnostics condemning slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, because the main drive to abolish slavery came from Christians following Jesus in both word and deed.

There weren't many its a very modern "faith" David Hume is the only one I know and he was quite a human being, quite a humanist.

So you regard them as flawed before even giving your consideration? That's a perfect example of confirmation bias, and perhaps explains why you are not being truthful about the historical fact that Christianity worked towards abolishing slavery in the British Empire.

You keep harping back to this and I keep asking where were they for 1300 years and you only mention slavery which morally kept humanity groping in the dark. There are other christian based atrocities torture and censorship of science been others. But you have a get out clause there you keep saying you are a christian and not part of a church, at least that is what I think you are saying. I am condemning the record of the church that this thread is about. But I would condemn others aswell.

Could you imagine a book reviewer who honestly said they had not read the book they were reviewing before they criticised it? Likewise, the same is true for people who are vocally critical of the Bible without knowing what it actually says.

Remember most the subject of the church could not read the bible, they were not allowed right up to the reformation and few were burned to death by bloody mary for translating it. I could also criticise Mein Kampt without ever reading it. Now how is that??



Again, a lame excuse in respect to your dishonesty. Can I ask who is this "we" you speak of?

I am sick saying it, the humanists, democrats the republicans, a general trust of man on the back of knowledge.

As much as you might want me to praise what is unchristian. I won't, because I stand up for what is right, I.E what God has revealed to us, rather than what is evil, I.E the foul works of man.

That is disgusting, the foul works of man has opened and eased a lot of suffering for humanity, you want to see real crucifixion suffering and groping in the dark, forego science.

It's rather simple, and as much as the question is clichéd. All one needs to do is this. In every instance, ask what would Jesus do. If the answer is not that, it is not based on Christian truth.

Interesting, would jesus buy an SUV, build a nuclear weapon run the bankers from town see black and white with everything suffer another man who doesn't agree, ignore suffering, have a ****, shaft mary I would say so he was human. Would jesus understand if I had different ideas, I doubt it, he did claim to be the son of man, pointless listening to a mere man.

I condemn any person who has tortured in Jesus' name. Such things make me sick because I know what Jesus would have stood for.

But yet his father or the other part of the trinity allowed it, the supreme irony.

philologos

OK so we are agreed the christian churches did nothing till then that is 1300 years but really a bit longer.

There are Christians dotted throughout history who opposed slavery.

There is a long list of unchristian things carried out in his name so his teachings are subject to interpretation and priority. This thread is about the present catholic pontiffs speech so his church and its record is subject to scrutiny.

Great, I'm not going to deal with the RCC, because I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'll allow followers of that church to do that.

There are quite a number of things that people did in Jesus' name that He would have vocally criticised. That's why I don't defend such acts naturally.

Then do and live your life freely in a tolerant society created for you by the secularists and democrats. No matter your colour,

I don't think they were solely created by secularists. I think Christians contributed heavily to the way that society is.

There weren't many its a very modern "faith" David Hume is the only one I know and he was quite a human being, quite a humanist.

There have been atheists since classical times.

You keep harping back to this and I keep asking where were they for 1300 years and you only mention slavery which morally kept humanity groping in the dark. There are other christian based atrocities torture and censorship of science been others. But you have a get out clause there you keep saying you are a christian and not part of a church, at least that is what I think you are saying. I am condemning the record of the church that this thread is about. But I would condemn others aswell.

Ignoring the question. I asked you about criticising the Bible - which I'm defending. You've openly said that you have no interest in what it says, yet you've criticised it without knowledge of it. Like a book reviewer criticising a book he has never read. Don't you see the problem in that logic?

I am sick saying it, the humanists, democrats the republicans, a general trust of man on the back of knowledge.

I think you have your own narrative that you want to believe in, despite how I have clearly shown you how belief and trust in Jesus reformed Britain's attitude to slavery and brought in prison reform.

That is disgusting, the foul works of man has opened and eased a lot of suffering for humanity, you want to see real crucifixion suffering and groping in the dark, forego science.

The "foul works of man" have also tortured, massacred and maimed hundreds of millions of people. One could think of Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, and Pol Pot for a start. Between them all they wiped about 100 million people from the face of the earth.

But yet his father or the other part of the trinity allowed it, the supreme irony.

This is interesting. I don't see why God should intervene in every case of evil. God has a better knowledge of when to step in and when not to. Likewise if your parents stepped in every time they were worried / paranoid that you were going to take drugs or something, you would probably find that very annoying. God must allow us to learn truth from living in His world, even if that means on occasion enduring great evils.

I don't see why God should step in on every occasion, especially in respect to humanity which largely holds Him in contempt. That's a whole different discussion though.

woodoo

How was it that so many converted to protestantism in England back then. Was it because the English Catholics were badly there too. The Irish just didn't convert en-masse.

44leto

woodoo wrote: »

How was it that so many converted to protestantism in England back then. Was it because the English Catholics were badly there too. The Irish just didn't convert en-masse.

Forced to by by ould Enry, Henry the 8th a tyrant king and a bit of a cutn really.

Philogos

Would you criticise Mein Kemp by Hitler or On the origin of the species, by Darwin, or Eugenics by Dalton. I would omagine you have some opinion yet I bet you never read those works.

I cut short my reply, there is a programme on BBC2 "Divine women", a history of women in the role of religion, it should be interesting.

Run_to_da_hills

woodoo wrote: »

How was it that so many converted to protestantism in England back then. Was it because the English Catholics were badly there too. The Irish just didn't convert en-masse.

Early days yet.

Hopefully with all the exposed atrocities of child molesting and clerical abuse whitewashing in the Vatican we will ultimately see the Catholic Church in Ireland ending up on the same scrapheap as Fianna Fail.

philologos

44leto wrote: »

hilogos

Would you criticise Mein Kemp by Hitler or On the origin of the species, by Darwin, or Eugenics by Dalton. I would omagine you have some opinion yet I bet you never read those works.

I cut short my reply, there is a programme on BBC2 "Divine women", a history of women in the role of religion, it should be interesting.

I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on any of them until I have read them. By the by, I'm open to reading Mein Kampf as a window until 1930's Europe, it could be very interesting as a window into that time of history. Personally, I don't see any issue with reading Darwin's - On the Origin of the Species as it is a science book. Finally I wouldn't have any issue reading Eugenics as an insight into how that mindset worked.

I wouldn't argue for a moment that these books are awful without having read them first, that's the intellectually honest position to take.

woodoo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Early days yet.

Hopefully with all the exposed atrocities of child molesting and clerical abuse whitewashing in the Vatican we will ultimately see the Catholic Church in Ireland ending up on the same scrapheap as Fianna Fail.

I think it is fairly disappointing that you can no longer officially leave. Benedict put a stop to that which is a scandal.

There is still the feeling that if you can't officially leave and something happened to you an aul Priest would be slithering through the door administering last rights.