Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[craigless]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

And while we're on the subject of private versus public faith, it's worth noting that in the bible, Christ spoke in no uncertain terms of keeping one's faith to oneself.

this is one of my biggest qualms with other catholics. i hate it when they try to reach out and help the "unwashed and ignorant savages" and convert people to our faith. because when they do so, they make me and and many other catholics look like a bunch of complete fucking douchebags.

one of the passages that so many bible thumpers like to quote and bring up is Luke 8:16

Originally Posted by The Bible

Now, no one after lighting a lamp covers it over with a container, or puts it under a bed; but he puts it on a lampstand, so that those who come in may see the light.

many take this to mean "hey, get out there and spread the light of Christ! people need to be shown that Christ is the way and through him all sins are washed away and healed! convert, convert, convert!" i hate these people.

the meaning that i take from this is to live your life in a way that is an example to others. people will see the light that is put on the lampstand on their own; you don't need to burn them with it.

the part regarding not hiding the light refers to people using their talents to live a meaningful life and better the world around them. don't squander your God-given gifts, go out and change the world. by doing this, others will see your good example and be inspired to live a better life.

[Toast]

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

Aw...when you say it like that it sounds like some sort of conspiracy. Lets put it into perspective. Both government and laws serve only one major purpose, can you guess what it is (if you can't, look at the what I quoted, then think about it for a moment)? Does that mean its a bad thing? Of course, this line of discussion assumes that what I quoted is right, which I don't think it is. But I'm gonna take the cheap way out and say that I can't really convey my thoughts in words at the moment (which is true, I guess).

No where did I imply otherwise. Let me add two more- education and the family. But when you have one form of social control that is intended to increase creative thinking ability and one that is intended to limit it, I have little respect for the latter as something beneficial.

Originally Posted by Sesshoumaru

New topic. I absolutely despise how the 'intellectuals' have systematically implemented an agenda to suppress religion (specially Christianity, more specially Catholism). Think I'm a conspiracy nut? Well, I got some examples for you.

There's a good reason for that. I'm going to say this in general terms, the 'you' isn't you specifically, but a more general you. My spiritual beliefs aren't the same as yours. You have every right to hold whatever belief you want. On the other hand, you have no right whatsoever to force your beliefs on me. Even if that's not your intent that's how it comes across. I hold the right to mute commercials and skip advertisements, simply because I don't want what you're selling.

That sounds very angry and defensive, and it is. In the same way that you would get defensive if someone from a different religion tried to convert you, those of us who don't hold the beliefs of any major religion, but rather our own, feel rather hemmed in by a demand to conform.

And as for Catholicism, it's the Christian denomination that is most closely tied historically as having little separation between church and state. We've seen what happened then, and nobody really wants to go back to that kind of living. It may also be because, historically, Catholicism has been responsible for incredible destruction, not just human lives, but also art, ideas, and culture.

As the article that Fifth posted alludes to, religion doesn't just seek to control behavior, but also your thoughts, feelings, lifestyle, creativity, everything. I'm sorry, but as an intelligent, sentient, creative creature, how I live my life is no business of anyone else's, until such time as I harm someone else or myself.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend
And while we're on the subject of private versus public faith, it's worth noting that in the bible, Christ spoke in no uncertain terms of keeping one's faith to oneself.

I believe you misunderstand the passages you are referring to, if I understand where you're getting this correctly. Christ did not say to keep one's faith to oneself. He very specifically taught to spread one's faith through being an example to others and through teaching those who want to be taught.

I think what you're referring to, and I may be wrong, is the part of the Bible where Jesus spoke against those who prayed openly in the streets. He said to do so in secret, in your own home. The people he railed against were using loud prayer in the streets to boast about their own holiness. They were proud of how well they followed the law, and of how righteous they were, and wanted everyone to admire them. Christ was saying that it is wrong to be so proud and boastful, and that we should keep our prayer as a communication between us and God, and not use it or use any part of our faith to one-up anyone else. He wasn't advocating for keeping faith private, he was advocating for humility.

And I admit that is a lesson far too many Christians don't understand still.

[Nikose Tyris]

I agree with you Ryan. While we are supposed to spread the word of God, I honestly feel that there's something to be learned from South Park's Latest episode for every christian ever.

It's amazing how South Park managed to convey what I try to. ((Ep 05, season 11))

[Fifthfiend]

I believe you misunderstand the passages you are referring to, if I understand where you're getting this correctly. Christ did not say to keep one's faith to oneself. He very specifically taught to spread one's faith through being an example to others and through teaching those who want to be taught.

Fair enough, yeah, "keep to yourself" was an overstatement. But yeah, basically all I was getting at was as far as the the actual word of Christ is concerned you're supposed to show faith by living your life the way Jesus taught, not by demanding a taxpayer-funded nativity scene in front of City Hall, or whatever.

[Sesshoumaru]

Well it's my fault for not being clear enough about what I was talking about, so let me clarify. I was refering to how any public dispay of Christianity is denounced as 'forcing' religion on others, yet attempts to ban public displays of Christianity (oh, and I say 'Christianity' instead of the more general 'religion' because thats what happens; nowadays, if you target Judeism or Islam then your an intolerant ass, but Christianity is considered fair game for any kind of slander of abuse) aren't (thank you, but no thanks, I don't want your atheism). Which leads me to the next point, 'Seperation of Church and State."

This is another example of bias against Christianity over other religions. You say that Catholicism has a history of "terrible destruction," and you guys say I don't provide evidence (oh, and I did look for the news artical about the EU thing, but I can't remember the guys name and I'm pretty sure we recycled the print copy, I'll try again tomarrow). But I digress. On the topic of seperation of church and state; how exactly does suppression of publich dispalys and discusion of religion and relgious symbols violate that? I recall from my last reading of the constitution (last week, btw) that it reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (emphasis added)." Last time I checked, a Catholic organization refusing to provide birth control in their health plan had nothing to do with Congress recognizing Catholicism as the official Church of America. So why are so many states forcing them to provide birth control in their health plans and denouncing any oppostion as 'attempting to subvert the seperation of church and state' (no, I don't have a link for this either, cause I'm lazy and have to go do HW, it shouldn't be too hard to find it yourself, I"ll try to edit one in tommarow).

Wow, this one is longer than I thought it was going to be. Well I'm logging off for tonight, I'll try to address the of the your guys' criticisms tommarrow. Oh, and while you're right that most of the earlier anti-Catholicism was led by Protesants, almost all of the new stuff is secular (such as forcing Catholic organizations to provide birth control).

[Squishy Cheeks]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Oh, there's lots of ways it could potentially work. Probably quite a few that we can't even imagine. It just happened to turn out this way. You only have to look at the deep deep sea to know that life is perfectly capable of occurring in vastly different environments to what we have up here. Intelligent life, no less: Just look at the vampire squid.

Life's an anomaly to begin with. Who knows where and how else it can occur. We do know that the variation in environments that exist in the universe is pretty much limited only by your imagination, and we've got evidence on our own planet in things like the extremophiles and vampire squids, that life can survive pretty much however and wherever it damn well pleases.

Thank you.

There are bacteria on this planet, that can exist without any energy from the sun, or from the heat of the earth. They consume radiation from chemical reactions. It is entirely possible that there are other creatures in this solar system that do the same, so who is to say that earth is the only rock with life on it. Perhaps these lifeforms are descendants of the first life forms on earth, and maybe even predate the solar system. There is life in side even nuclear reactors, and that can survive three years in space in at least 20 degrees above absolute zero.

http://www.resa.net/nasa/otherextreme.htm

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

Fair enough, yeah, "keep to yourself" was an overstatement. But yeah, basically all I was getting at was as far as the the actual word of Christ is concerned you're supposed to show faith by living your life the way Jesus taught, not by demanding a taxpayer-funded nativity scene in front of City Hall, or whatever.

In a rare turn of events, I actually understand what fifth is saying here. I was always taught that "I'm the only bible some people are going to read", and thats the philosophy I live by. I try my best to be a decent person, and if somebody asks me what makes me tick, I tell them. If they don't care, I'm pretty sure shoving it down their throats doesn't work. So basically, is preaching by example or walking the walk, rather than just talking big.

But yeah, Jesus did say go into all the world to spread the good news. But he was a big believer in letting your light shine through behavior and attitude rather than powerful lungs, I think.

As for the taxpayer-funded nativity, I believe way too much taxpayer money is spent on decorations anyway. There's so many more useful things it could go for.

And for the whole "how life began" debate, it was covered fairly heavily in the previous thread. I'm pretty sure God is just as legitimate an explanation as any of the others out there right now. That might change, but then again, it might not.

[Tendronai]

I agree with the idea that you shouldn't force people to believe what you do. If nothing else, it's based on the fact that they won't believe it because they want to, but because they fear you. People have to be able to make their own mistakes and reach their own conclusions for their actions to have validity to themselves.

I don't think that the government should endorse any particular religion, for the same reason. Giving funds to certain aspects of society simply because they read the same book the guy in charge seems corrupt, to me, no matter how many people agree with it.

[Fifthfiend]

For reference the specific passages I've been referring to are:

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was refering to how any public dispay of Christianity is denounced as 'forcing' religion on others, yet attempts to ban public displays of Christianity (oh, and I say 'Christianity' instead of the more general 'religion' because thats what happens; nowadays, if you target Judaism or Islam then your an intolerant ass, but Christianity is considered fair game for any kind of slander of abuse) aren't (thank you, but no thanks, I don't want your atheism).

Again, unless someone somewhere is putting up a public monument to No God, then Christians are just being expected to follow the same rules as everybody else.

Not having public monuments to religion is not the same as having public monuments to no religion, which is why we have one word - secularism - for the former and another word - atheism - for the latter.

You say that Catholicism has a history of "terrible destruction," and you guys say I don't provide evidence (oh, and I did look for the news artical about the EU thing, but I can't remember the guys name and I'm pretty sure we recycled the print copy, I'll try again tomarrow).

I'm the one who said you didn't have much evidence, and I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything thus far about Christianity having a history of terrible destruction. Toast did, and you're perfectly free to ask that he support that assertion.

On the topic of seperation of church and state; how exactly does suppression of publich dispalys and discusion of religion and relgious symbols violate that? I recall from my last reading of the constitution (last week, btw) that it reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (emphasis added)." Last time I checked, a Catholic organization refusing to provide birth control in their health plan had nothing to do with Congress recognizing Catholicism as the official Church of America. So why are so many states forcing them to provide birth control in their health plans and denouncing any oppostion as 'attempting to subvert the seperation of church and state' (no, I don't have a link for this either, cause I'm lazy and have to go do HW, it shouldn't be too hard to find it yourself, I"ll try to edit one in tommarow).

Well again, it's hard to say without any particulars of the incident to which you are referring. Whether or not these religious organizations receive public money would certainly be one factor. Also, I believe it's generally been held that the right to free exercise of religion ends where other people's well-being begins.

...ah okay, found a citation: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...harities_x.htm

So apparently what you're calling "anti-Catholicism" is actually just refusing to let Catholics force their own beliefs on non-Catholic employees. Catholic employees are still perfectly free to not avail themselves of birth control as their own faith dictates, so I really don't see where you're having a problem.

Speaking directly to your particular question about establishment, giving the Catholic Church the right to force its doctrines on employees would establish the Catholic Church as an organization accorded special rights and status under the law, superior to that held by other organizations.