Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

#51
#51
IPorange said:
But ya, the early Christians of Alexandria systematically murdered the local Jews into near extinction.
Click to expand...

The Maccabees systematically murdered their own Jews in Alexandria for not being Jewish enough.

It is interesting that Hanukkah is a celebration of this victory; you know, the one in which the victors (the Maccabees) force circumcised the Greeks in Jerusalem and murdered women in the Temple (it is also interesting that the Jews do not include the Books of Maccabees in their religious texts, yet religiously celebrate the occasion; thus, Protestants have also left these books out of their canon).
 
#55
#55
milohimself said:
I suspect he's speaking of deism, the belief of choice for a number of our founding fathers and a heavy influence for others.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Thats why I asked. I have heard similar stances before with several different ideas on what it means.
 
#56
#56
IPorange said:
I guess there have only been "true Christians" for the last 100 years.
Click to expand...

There have been true Christians since day 1.

That said, the Catholic Church went way off course as an organization for a long time.

It's basically the same as saying that every person that works for a company is a bad person because management and upper management is very corrupt.
 
#59
#59
BeecherVol said:
If you don't mind. Could you explain this a little more in depth.
Click to expand...

I believe that, according to the laws of nature, neither matter nor energy can manifest themselves. Therefore, there has to have been, before time (time is simply the measure of change and without matter and/or energy nothing can change), a supernatural being/entity.

That entity created the universe; it was the uncaused first cause. Natural reason can lead me to that point. Whether or not that being ever spoke to any prophets or begot a divine son, relies on revelation. "Revelation" in its true sense can be shared by others; however, one who has experienced a revelation cannot truly ever communicate and persuade another who has not experienced such a revelation of the revelation.

Religions rely on revelation. I have not experienced such a revelation; therefore, all accounts of such are simply hearsay and are unprovable (they are also unfalsifiable). Unfortunately, many of these "revelations" contradict each other. One cannot accept a hearsay account of the "revelation" of Christ without dismissing the hearsay account of the "revelation" of Muhammad, the Brahman, etc.

Choosing to accept one hearsay account closes one off to the possibility of accepting other, contradictory hearsay accounts. By not accepting any, I keep myself open to the possibility of an actual, individual, and experience revelation.

I could possibly wait my entire life to receive such a revelation. Maybe it never comes. In the meantime, I will continue to do my best to treat other human beings as rational, reasoned individuals with the ability to make their own choices and I will do my best not to impede their actions, so long as those actions do not cause physical, measurable harm to other human beings.

For those who might be offended by my use of the term "hearsay":

hearsay (n.): rumor
rumor (n.): (1) talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source; (2) a statement or report current without known authority for its truth
 
Last edited:
#60
#60
therealUT said:
You are joking about Galileo, right?

As to what they did scientifically, there is not much material difference between Galileo and Bruno; yet, Bruno was burnt at the stake while Galileo was given an estate, a classroom, pupils, and his telescope as part of his house arrest.

Why?

Bruno also wrote tracts dismissing the theology of the Catholic Church as nonsense.

The Galileo trial was a show trial and the punishment was a slap on the wrist and a muzzle.

I would not say that the response to Galileo was the right response; however, as it is one of the most understood episodes in history, I imagine that the Church never realized it would somehow resurface as a big deal in the 20th Century.

When it did, the Church responded by "pardoning him" postmortem; however, he was never excommunicated.
Click to expand...

You did actually read what I wrote, right? Or are you just blindly reacting to the words "Church" and "Galileo"? It took the church 400 years to formally absolve Galileo by the records.

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right - It Moves - NYTimes.com

That is all I said, you can save the elementary defense over percieved overraction to the whole Galileo/Church episode for someone else.

You could also start by addressing the original point, which was there has been no excommunications or even "show trial" (or whatever you are calling it) against the Nazi. The point, was given the history of the church and its actions, they have been more concerned about free-thinkers and scientists then they have about Nazis and anti-semitism.
 
#61
#61
rjd970 said:
You did actually read what I wrote, right? Or are you just blindly reacting to the words "Church" and "Galileo"? It took the church 400 years to formally absolve Galileo by the records.

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right - It Moves - NYTimes.com

That is all I said, you can save the elementary defense over percieved overraction to the whole Galileo/Church episode for someone else.

You could also start by addressing the original point, which was there has been no excommunications or even "show trial" (or whatever you are calling it) against the Nazi. The point, was given the history of the church and its actions, they have been more concerned about free-thinkers and scientists then they have about Nazis and anti-semitism.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the only political personage who has been excommunicated in the 20th Century was Fidel Castro. So, you are upset that the Church did not excommunicate Hitler? Were they going to refuse to give him communion even though he was not going to church?

Can you provide a specific name for who you want the Church to excommunicate (forbid the taking of the Eucharist)?
 
#62
#62
therealUT said:
I believe that, according to the laws of nature, neither matter nor energy can manifest themselves. Therefore, there has to have been, before time (time is simply the measure of change and without matter and/or energy nothing can change), a supernatural being/entity.

That entity created the universe; it was the uncaused first cause. Natural reason can lead me to that point. Whether or not that being ever spoke to any prophets or begot a divine son, relies on revelation. "Revelation" in its true sense can be shared by others; however, one who has experienced a revelation cannot truly ever communicate and persuade another who has not experienced such a revelation of the revelation.

Religions rely on revelation. I have not experienced such a revelation; therefore, all accounts of such are simply hearsay and are unprovable (they are also unfalsifiable). Unfortunately, many of these "revelations" contradict each other. One cannot accept a hearsay account of the "revelation" of Christ without dismissing the hearsay account of the "revelation" of Muhammad, the Brahman, etc.

Choosing to accept one hearsay account closes one off to the possibility of accepting other, contradictory hearsay accounts. By not accepting any, I keep myself open to the possibility of an actual, individual, and experience revelation.

I could possibly wait my entire life to receive such a revelation. Maybe it never comes. In the meantime, I will continue to do my best to treat other human beings as rational, reasoned individuals with the ability to make their own choices and I will do my best not to impede their actions, so long as those actions do not cause physical, measurable harm to other human beings.

For those who might be offended by my use of the term "hearsay":

hearsay (n.): rumor
rumor (n.): (1) talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source; (2) a statement or report current without known authority for its truth
Click to expand...

:hi:

I can agree with some of that. Your human related intentions are really no different than mine.
 
#63
#63
therealUT said:
As far as I know, the only political personage who has been excommunicated in the 20th Century was Fidel Castro. So, you are upset that the Church did not excommunicate Hitler? Were they going to refuse to give him communion even though he was not going to church?

Can you provide a specific name for who you want the Church to excommunicate (forbid the taking of the Eucharist)?
Click to expand...

Again, my point goes right over your head.

The Church did more to slap Galileo and other scientists on the hand then they did for the Nazi. I don't even know if there has been a formal condemnation for Nazi atrocities. And lets not even get started on the child abuse scandals.

But by all means, we can't be having scientists speculating on the nature of the cosmos that doesn't agree with Biblical forthought. At the very least, these criminals need a slap on the wrist.
 
#64
#64
rjd970 said:
Again, my point goes right over your head.

The Church did more to slap Galileo and other scientists on the hand then they did for the Nazi. I don't even know if there has been a formal condemnation for Nazi atrocities. And lets not even get started on the child abuse scandals.

But by all means, we can't be having scientists speculating on the nature of the cosmos that doesn't agree with Biblical forthought. At the very least, these criminals need a slap on the wrist.
Click to expand...

The Church controlled powerful armies in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries...what force could the Church have used against the Nazi's again? So, they would have just held a lot of trials in absentia, and in doing so would have stood by and watched more Catholics perish?

The Church spoke out adamantly against Hitler and the Nazi Party prior to their rise to power in Germany, in an effort to sway the populace enough to keep them out of power. It did not work. At that point, the Church made the decision, much like the rest of the world until 1941, not to explicitly condemn.
 
#65
#65
rjd970 said:
Again, my point goes right over your head.

The Church did more to slap Galileo and other scientists on the hand then they did for the Nazi. I don't even know if there has been a formal condemnation for Nazi atrocities. And lets not even get started on the child abuse scandals.

But by all means, we can't be having scientists speculating on the nature of the cosmos that doesn't agree with Biblical forthought. At the very least, these criminals need a slap on the wrist.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think scientists at the time had the most powerful military threatening to flatten the basis of Catholicism if they didn't let them get their way.
 
#66
#66
as far as i can tell protestants claim moral superiority simply because they haven't been around as long (for full disclosure i'm a protestant that went to catholic school). there is plenty of blame to go around in every religion.
 
#67
#67
therealUT said:
The Church spoke out adamantly against Hitler and the Nazi Party prior to their rise to power in Germany, in an effort to sway the populace enough to keep them out of power. It did not work. At that point, the Church made the decision, much like the rest of the world until 1941, not to explicitly condemn.
Click to expand...
This. Nazi Germany looked completely unstoppable to everyone else in Europe prior to their turn against Stalin. It was a matter of self-preservation.
 
#68
#68
droski said:
as far as i can tell protestants claim moral superiority simply because they haven't been around as long (for full disclosure i'm a protestant that went to catholic school). there is plenty of blame to go around in every religion.
Click to expand...

Every large group claims moral superiority for one reason or another. It's entertaining, but in the end of the day nobody has ever changed anybody else's mind on anything in thousands of years. I think it's safe to conclude at this point it's all fruitless theological acrobatics to try and prove why "my guy is awsum and ur guy sux."
 
#69
#69
milohimself said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think scientists at the time had the most powerful military threatening to flatten the basis of Catholicism if they didn't let them get their way.
Click to expand...

droski said:
as far as i can tell protestants claim moral superiority simply because they haven't been around as long (for full disclosure i'm a protestant that went to catholic school). there is plenty of blame to go around in every religion.
Click to expand...

It certainly wasn't the Catholic Church pressuring the Attorney General in Tennessee to put John Scopes on trial.
 
#70
#70
therealUT said:
The Church controlled powerful armies in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries...what force could the Church have used against the Nazi's again? So, they would have just held a lot of trials in absentia, and in doing so would have stood by and watched more Catholics perish?

The Church spoke out adamantly against Hitler and the Nazi Party prior to their rise to power in Germany, in an effort to sway the populace enough to keep them out of power. It did not work. At that point, the Church made the decision, much like the rest of the world until 1941, not to explicitly condemn.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think scientists at the time had the most powerful military threatening to flatten the basis of Catholicism if they didn't let them get their way.
Click to expand...

This. Nazi Germany looked completely unstoppable to everyone else in Europe prior to their turn against Stalin. It was a matter of self-preservation.
Click to expand...

This isn't really that hard.

It's been 65 years since the fall of the Nazi regime. There has been plenty of time to condemn, show trial, or whatever you guys want to call what they did to Galileo.

It took 350 years to finally say Galileo wasn't all that bad afterall. I guess we have another 300 years or so before we should expect the Church to condemn the Nazi party and specific high level members, many of whom were official members of the Catholic Church, for what they did?

It is absurd I even have to argue this.
 
#72
#72
rjd970 said:
This isn't really that hard.

It's been 65 years since the fall of the Nazi regime. There has been plenty of time to condemn, show trial, or whatever you guys want to call what they did to Galileo.

It took 350 years to finally say Galileo wasn't all that bad afterall. I guess we have another 300 years or so before we should expect the Church to condemn the Nazi party and specific high level members, many of whom were official members of the Catholic Church, for what they did?

It is absurd I even have to argue this.
Click to expand...

i guess my question is a) why you give a crap and b) why it shoudl matter? why is it the church's problem? did every protestant church condemn the nazi party?
 
#73
#73
droski said:
i guess my question is a) why you give a crap and b) why it shoudl matter? why is it the church's problem? did every protestant church condemn the nazi party?
Click to expand...

A) I don't. But the discussion turned into the Catholic Church and Hitler/Nazi's. I was pointing out a relevant precendent and the hypocrisy.

B) It doesn't. But if somebody wants to argue and react to the Galileo situation and water down what the Church did while overlooking blatant hypocrisy's when it comes to condemning something more serious than scientific inquiry....I'll have that discussion all day.

Bottomline:

The Church did more to publicly criticize and condemn Galileo than it did to any member of the Nazi party or even Hitler himself. Who disagrees?
 
#74
#74
I assure you the church wasn't the only place in the middle ages filled with uneducated wackjobs.
 
#75
#75
rjd970 said:
A) I don't. But the discussion turned into the Catholic Church and Hitler/Nazi's. I was pointing out a relevant precendent and the hypocrisy.

B) It doesn't. But if somebody wants to argue and react to the Galileo situation and water down what the Church did while overlooking blatant hypocrisy's when it comes to condemning something more serious than scientific inquiry....I'll have that discussion all day.

Bottomline:

The Church did more to publicly criticize and condemn Galileo than it did to any member of the Nazi party or even Hitler himself. Who disagrees?
Click to expand...

You are correct. The Church bought Galileo a fabulous Roman villa and ensured that he would be comfortable the rest of his life while he continued his scientific research and teaching.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top