[Deka1184]

Hah, that reminds me of when I used to take the train to Chicago just to see the gay men's chorus perform every year. completely hilarious, even for the straight crowd. 

[jdjtcagle]

When you really look at all passages in their proper context. It's actually harmonious and laid out clearly, just (IMHO) very different from traditional belief. (Council of Nicea)

When you say something like that, it instantly becomes clear you're not viewing the same Bible I am, and I reject the concept of organized religion.

lol, Yeah.

I probably read the same one as you, I have no problem with accepted canon of scripture. Most of the books have considerable evidence for their validity. A few passages are a little shaky (some don't have any evidence) but they don't make a huge difference if they are original or not. For the record I read NKJV and NASB, so no special bible. I hope to be able to read Greek and Hebrew one day.

[karajorma]

And once again Bill Hicks called it first.

[S-99]

There's a lot i don't believe in when it comes to christianity. My pull to just follow the bible and this whole fellowship with god and following his way, and being practical and realistic.

What's in the bible is what's in the bible. Now the only case where this is prime for conflict is mormonism with the other book. I hate it when people try to take away from it, or add on to it. Neither should happen. But, denominations are a great way to add to and take away from the bible in a strong, literal, or subtle way. Each denomination believes in certain ways, different things, or doesn't believe some stuff.

Confession to a priest is sort of a dumb. You don't need to confess to a priest when you can confess to god directly. But hey, some people like the tradition (good for them), just as long as they understand it's not the only way you can confess to god. But, many times it will be purported as the only way to confess your sins.

Speaking in tongues is retarded. I forget where it says in the bible, but it's something that fools do. One of the reasons i hate speaking in tongues is more of a personal reason other than the fact that it's dumb. My mom kept trying to get me to do it by making me feel guilty by saying "when you speak in tongues you're actually praying for the people that need prayer that you don't know that you're praying for that you need to pray for". God doesn't impose impossible burdens upon us like this (those that don't believe this can have fun with their zues complex). The other part of this that speaking in tongues is supposed to be like a gift from god to man. Speaking garbledeegook is not a gift, it's something that you can just do. FLAMAJAMA! I wouldn't even really call speaking in tongues a tradition or ritual..whatever. Speaking in tongues is comparable to a person who's too drunk to talk or do anything.

Baptism with what i know about it, which isn't much but is pretty brief. Baptism in assembly of god churches from what i know use it as a personal affirmation for when a person is ready to be fully submitted to god. My only reasoning for why it's dumb is for similar reasoning why confessing to a priest is dumb. You can tell god yourself if you're ready to be fully submitted, you don't need a physical act to do this. But hey, some people like the tradition (good for them), just as long as they understand it's not the only way to let god know you're fully submitted to him. But, many times it will be purported as the only way to show god you're fully submitted to him and ready to follow his direction.

The other thing i find highly retarded about christianity is the rejection of science. I don't like this because it means there's a rejection of learning how the universe around you works. Knowing how the universe around you works is sort of necessary to stay alive. Stuff like gravity and how the earth is on a tilt and that causes the 5 seasons. I think the rejection of science in christianity comes from pastors and priests who get the shepherd complex and that they must lead the sheep, so just like governments they will use misinformation and lack of information to lead the sheeple. Even going so far as saying science is evil. Saying science is evil is taking it too far for me. That's like saying god gave us a brain for us to not use, scientific theories lead you down the path of beastiality, and finding out the anatomy of the helium atom is next to the invention of the guillotine. Dumb people are easier to lead for whoever has an agenda.

And lastly, what's up with the hijacking of pagan holidays? Christianity appears to have an archaic need for hijacking of many things. Hmmmm, veterans day, we churches need to get together to figure out how make this just about god, not the veterans. Hijacking holidays and other things is just vain.

[StarSlayer]

And lastly, what's up with the hijacking of pagan holidays? Christianity appears to have an archaic need for hijacking of many things. Hmmmm, veterans day, we churches need to get together to figure out how make this just about god, not the veterans. Hijacking holidays and other things is just vain.

It makes conquering them and converting their followers easier if they assimilate some of their traditions.  Going in church militant and having knightly orders quash the local religion with steel and zeal tends to get messy.

[Mongoose]

Confession to a priest is sort of a dumb. You don't need to confess to a priest when you can confess to god directly. But hey, some people like the tradition (good for them), just as long as they understand it's not the only way you can confess to god. But, many times it will be purported as the only way to confess your sins.

The J-man himself did say to his disciples, "Whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whoever's sins you hold bound are held bound," which the Catholic Church takes as the root of the sacrament of Reconciliation.  And under Catholic teaching, you're not confessing your sins to the priest, but to God, with the priest essentially acting as a medium for the transference of God's forgiveness.  The Catholic Church views the seven sacraments as being outward signs by which God's grace is conveyed, and Reconciliation fits in with that.

Baptism with what i know about it, which isn't much but is pretty brief. Baptism in assembly of god churches from what i know use it as a personal affirmation for when a person is ready to be fully submitted to god. My only reasoning for why it's dumb is for similar reasoning why confessing to a priest is dumb. You can tell god yourself if you're ready to be fully submitted, you don't need a physical act to do this. But hey, some people like the tradition (good for them), just as long as they understand it's not the only way to let god know you're fully submitted to him. But, many times it will be purported as the only way to show god you're fully submitted to him and ready to follow his direction.

Again to quote the J-man, "Go and make disciples of all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."  The action of pouring water is just a sacramental, a symbol, for that bestowing of God's grace on the person.  Even Jesus submitted to being baptized at the hands of John the Baptist, which one would think indicates that he placed a great deal of importance on it.  I don't see why continuing to recognize that importance today is a big issue.

The other thing i find highly retarded about christianity is the rejection of science. I don't like this because it means there's a rejection of learning how the universe around you works. Knowing how the universe around you works is sort of necessary to stay alive. Stuff like gravity and how the earth is on a tilt and that causes the 5 seasons. I think the rejection of science in christianity comes from pastors and priests who get the shepherd complex and that they must lead the sheep, so just like governments they will use misinformation and lack of information to lead the sheeple. Even going so far as saying science is evil. Saying science is evil is taking it too far for me. That's like saying god gave us a brain for us to not use, scientific theories lead you down the path of beastiality, and finding out the anatomy of the helium atom is next to the invention of the guillotine. Dumb people are easier to lead for whoever has an agenda.

I'm not sure where you're getting this, as most mainstream Christian denominations don't reject science in any sense.  To provide a specific example, the Catholic Church has stated that the theory of evolution is valid, and John Paul II finally formally apologized for the Church's treatment of Galileo (though it accepted the heliocentric model long before that).  Hell, the Vatican has its own official observatory which has published in peer-reviewed journals.

(And can we seriously ban the use of the term "sheeple" in here? )

And lastly, what's up with the hijacking of pagan holidays? Christianity appears to have an archaic need for hijacking of many things. Hmmmm, veterans day, we churches need to get together to figure out how make this just about god, not the veterans. Hijacking holidays and other things is just vain.

I've never understood why so many people seem to take issue with Christian holidays using elements that were also used in pagan rituals.  As StarSlayer noted, the utilization of certain pre-existing traditions in a new context was most likely beneficial to the early spread of Christianity.  It's not the history of the object or action that's important, but instead how it's being treated within the Christian belief system.  Early Christians took the timeframe of the pre-existing pagan Saturnalia and used it to commemorate Christ's birth as a way of providing an alternative celebration; after all, why not do so at a time when everyone is used to celebrating?  Likewise, using symbols like an evergreen that were already familiar elements to locals at the time aided in conveying the spiritual messages of the celebration.  It wasn't about "vanity" at all.

I'm wasn't trying to prosletyze here, but you seem to be operating under a number of misconceptions about what Christians believe and why they believe it, so I figured I'd throw some stuff out there.

[Qent]

The action of pouring water is just a sacramental

Irrelevant nitpick: Baptism is a Sacrament according to the Catholic Church. A sacramental is slightly different.

[Mongoose]

The action of pouring water is just a sacramental

Irrelevant nitpick: Baptism is a Sacrament according to the Catholic Church. A sacramental is slightly different.

Yes, Baptism is a Sacrament, but the holy water used is a sacramental.  I think I kind of fudged the two together in my explanation.

[S-99]

I think you slightly misinterpretted me, but i did appreciate learning more of the areas i mentioned. There's spiritual baptism which of course i agree with and happens. The act of needing to do it for the reasons of my old church i didn't agree with. It was put across as baptism with water was the only way god would know that i am submitting myself to him completely. I was like bull****, god's a smart person, he's going to very well know if i am submitted to his way or not.

And the whole confessing your sins to a priest. The explanation you gave makes total sense. But, a lot of people out there don't know why it's done even if they're catholic. So then you get a bunch of people with a slight misconception about communication with god.

So, we've got all of these things that aren't necessary for talking to god, but are great at the same time. My only problem is the people who do things blindly in religion that try to propogate tradition/ritual/whatever to the younger generation. Sort of like my mom speaking in tongues saying that's it's something i have to do, even so far as guilting me into trying to get me to do it. I told my mom bullpuckey, i don't have to speak in tongues if i don't want too.

It's a bunch of reasons why i'm still a christian but am non denominational. But, you said the keywords with hijacking of pagan holidays with the mentioning of the spread of christianity and that kind little word "alternative". Christianity being spread around the globe for centuries pretty much was the form of shoving gospel down people's throats. So, to provide an "alternative" celebration for a pagan holiday was all about dominance and replacement with something christian. Who cares that the pagan now christian holiday still has pagan elements, it still needs to have some familiar appeal to those who use to celebrate the actual holiday.

If the now non pagan holidays didn't have any familiar aspects to them, then they would probably have not been christianized and have been eliminated from the calendar long ago. But, that's not a good way to get potential converts to play ball. Better to get potential converts to convert and still celebrate their holidays (now christified). Otherwise potential converts goes really far down since it would be more fun to not be christian. With the forceful spread of christianity in the past "alternative" becomes replacement.

[karajorma]

I'm not sure where you're getting this, as most mainstream Christian denominations don't reject science in any sense.  To provide a specific example, the Catholic Church has stated that the theory of evolution is valid,

And if Benedict could repeal that, you know he would.

The fact is that the Christian Church has had a very troubled relationship with science. Good on the Vatican for finally realising that denying evolution is stupid but while they have taken a step back from denying it officially they haven't exactly told their flocks. IIRC I was the first person on HLP to point out the fact that any Roman Catholics on here could stop arguing in favour of Young Earth Creationism with me cause many of them still thought that they were stating the official line.

When it comes to Protestants it gets even worse. There are lots of mainstream protestants who deny evolution. You only need to look at the intelligent design debacle for proof of this.

So while there are plenty of Christians getting it right, there are a whole lot using their religion as an excuse for getting it wrong.

[NGTM-1R]

And if Benedict could repeal that, you know he would.

Doubtful. The man was the doctrinal mover and shaker for a very long time before assuming the Papacy, if he wanted it repealed I don't think he could have been stopped.

The fact is that the Christian Church has had a very troubled relationship with science. Good on the Vatican for finally realising that denying evolution is stupid but while they have taken a step back from denying it officially they haven't exactly told their flocks. IIRC I was the first person on HLP to point out the fact that any Roman Catholics on here could stop arguing in favour of Young Earth Creationism with me cause many of them still thought that they were stating the official line.

Like what? Stuff from the Renassiance? Come on, we both know a little time goes a lot longer now and in the recent past than hundreds of years did then. The Vatican has a pretty good relationship with science these days. If you doubt me then I recommend learning up on the hotbed of Copernicanism that is the Vatican Observatory. Yes, there's abiogenesis, but to be honest that one hasn't been worked out by science itself either.

(And I'm pretty sure I was, sorry Kara. )

[karajorma]

Doubtful. The man was the doctrinal mover and shaker for a very long time before assuming the Papacy, if he wanted it repealed I don't think he could have been stopped.

Or maybe he just has other things on his plate.

If you're going to tell me that he doesn't wish his predecessor hadn't made that speech I'm going to expect you to prove it. Benedict is well known for being doubtful about evolution but there isn't much point in him trying to claim John Paul was wrong. I doubt it's worth the fight for him. 

Like what? Stuff from the Renassiance? Come on, we both know a little time goes a lot longer now and in the recent past than hundreds of years did then. The Vatican has a pretty good relationship with science these days. If you doubt me then I recommend learning up on the hotbed of Copernicanism that is the Vatican Observatory. Yes, there's abiogenesis, but to be honest that one hasn't been worked out by science itself either.

How about repeatedly lying about the HIV virus then? The Vatican repeatedly claimed that the virus was able to pass through latex condoms.

(And I'm pretty sure I was, sorry Kara. )

I very much doubt it. I said it in 2004-2005. And as far as I know no one had mentioned it on HLP before because I was actually quite surprised to learn it.

[Mongoose]

The fact is that the Christian Church has had a very troubled relationship with science. Good on the Vatican for finally realising that denying evolution is stupid but while they have taken a step back from denying it officially they haven't exactly told their flocks. IIRC I was the first person on HLP to point out the fact that any Roman Catholics on here could stop arguing in favour of Young Earth Creationism with me cause many of them still thought that they were stating the official line.

If people are too stupid to realize what's actually been stated on the matter, then that's their own problem; it's not exactly a brand-spanking-new concept.  But having said that, the topic isn't exactly something that comes up in your average Sunday homily, so maybe there are people out there who have simply never thought about it.  I know it was made pretty clear to me when my Catholic high school's AP Biology class used a textbook which, like any other college-level bio textbook, was completely founded on the principle.

And as NGTM-1R alluded to, the Pope wouldn't, and indeed really couldn't, just snap his fingers and say, "We don't support evolutionary theory now."  The Church has for some time now viewed scientific research as a means of learning more about God's creation, and it's in that light that it accepted evolutionary theory in the first place.  Even if Benedict did have personal misgivings about the subject, he couldn't renege on that declaration, since it would undermine that entire sentiment.

[NGTM-1R]

If you're going to tell me that he doesn't wish his predecessor hadn't made that speech I'm going to expect you to prove it. Benedict is well known for being doubtful about evolution but there isn't much point in him trying to claim John Paul was wrong. I doubt it's worth the fight for him. 

Oh come now, did you seriously just ask me to prove a double negative? Ratzinger was in a better posistion to stop the Church acknowledging evolution when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith then he would have been as pope. The office wields great power in the hierarchy of the Vatican, as it defines and codifies what the church believes.

I coud also point out his openly epoused belief that Roman Catholicism must be the religion of reason. The condom thing is not exactly his fault, nor the fault of John Paul II. If you want to trace that one back, that particular doctrinal problem goes back to shortly before Vatican II, and it was regarded as a maverick decision at the time. Being a rather conservative organization, unfortunately, once it's been said it's hard to take back.

[karajorma]

And as NGTM-1R alluded to, the Pope wouldn't, and indeed really couldn't, just snap his fingers and say, "We don't support evolutionary theory now."  The Church has for some time now viewed scientific research as a means of learning more about God's creation, and it's in that light that it accepted evolutionary theory in the first place.  Even if Benedict did have personal misgivings about the subject, he couldn't renege on that declaration, since it would undermine that entire sentiment.

Which if you notice is pretty much what I said. If he could repeal it he would.

The condom thing is not exactly his fault, nor the fault of John Paul II. If you want to trace that one back, that particular doctrinal problem goes back to shortly before Vatican II, and it was regarded as a maverick decision at the time. Being a rather conservative organization, unfortunately, once it's been said it's hard to take back.

Yet it is an example of the Church openly contradicting science in order to further their own aims. Which you tried to claim hadn't happened since the Renassiance.

If people are too stupid to realize what's actually been stated on the matter, then that's their own problem;

When it's the priests who don't realise it's the Church's problem though, right? I'd go further than that though and say that if there are a significant number of Catholics who believe in Young Earth Creationism that is also the Church's problem too. It was the Church who taught them the wrong information in the first place after all.

[Mongoose]

And as NGTM-1R alluded to, the Pope wouldn't, and indeed really couldn't, just snap his fingers and say, "We don't support evolutionary theory now."  The Church has for some time now viewed scientific research as a means of learning more about God's creation, and it's in that light that it accepted evolutionary theory in the first place.  Even if Benedict did have personal misgivings about the subject, he couldn't renege on that declaration, since it would undermine that entire sentiment.

Which if you notice is pretty much what I said. If he could repeal it he would.

What exactly are you basing that on, though?  Just because he has misgivings, he would automatically want it repealed?  Unless you've talked to the guy personally or something, I'm not sure how you can make that determination.

If people are too stupid to realize what's actually been stated on the matter, then that's their own problem;

When it's the priests who don't realise it's the Church's problem though, right? I'd go further than that though and say that if there are a significant number of Catholics who believe in Young Earth Creationism that is also the Church's problem too. It was the Church who taught them the wrong information in the first place after all.

Where are these large numbers of priests who don't realize this concept; were we even talking about priests in the first place?  And who stated that the Church was the one distributing the wrong information about the topic in the first place?  Putting those questions aside, I'm curious as to what sort of venue could be used to teach the proper doctrine, outside of those people who attended Catholic school as kids.  The Mass isn't exactly conducive to a "let's talk science!" sort of environment, and that's the only place you'd be able to convey a message to decent (or maybe not-so-decent nowadays) numbers of people.

[Qent]

I'm curious as to what sort of venue could be used to teach the proper doctrine, outside of those people who attended Catholic school as kids.  The Mass isn't exactly conducive to a "let's talk science!" sort of environment, and that's the only place you'd be able to convey a message to decent (or maybe not-so-decent nowadays) numbers of people.

I guess I was lucky that the Catholicism-evolution issue got brought up independently both in my Catechism class and an ordinary biology class back at the community college. Both times I heard pretty much what Mongoose said about it.

[TrashMan]

And if Benedict could repeal that, you know he would.

Any proof of that?

[Davros]

And it came to pass that Saint Victor was taken from this place to another place, where he was lain upon pillows of silk and made to rest himself amongst sheets of muslin and velvet. And there stro-ked was he by maidens of the Orient. Full sixteen days and nights stro-ked they him, yea verily and caress-ed him. His hair, ruf-fled they and their fingers rubbeth they in oil of olives and runneth them across all parts of his body forasmuch as to soothe him. And the soles of his feet lick-ed they and the upper parts of his thigh did they anoint with the balm of forbidden trees. And with the teeth of their mouths, nibbleth they the pointed bits at the top of his ears. Yea verily, and did their tongues thereof make themselves acquainted...with his most secret places.

For fifteen days and nights did Victor withstand these maidens, but on the sixteenth day he cried out, saying, "This...is fantastic! Oh...this is terrific!" And the Lord did hear the cry of Victor. And verily came He down and slew the maidens. And caused their cotton wool buds to blow away, and their Kleenex to be laid waste utterly. And Victor, in his anguish, cried out that the Lord was a rotten bastard. And the Lord sent an angel to comfort Victor for the weekend. And entered they together the jacuzzi.

[Nuclear1]