What do you mean by "on its own"?
Poor Catholic Church ...always the victim
#91
Posted 06 June 2006 - 09:50 PM
What do you mean by "on its own"?
Great Quotes Of The 21st Century/Cobnat gets serious!
Ron Paul At AntiWar.com/A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded/Death By Quotes/AntiWar/Early Justin Raimondo articles/In Defense Of Yoshiro Mori By Justin Raimondo/Vox Popoli
Evil Happens/This Is A Knife!/Minorities, too!/
AYBABTU/Che Guevara Action Figure!/Strange Humour
#92
Posted 07 June 2006 - 01:37 AM
True.
And a little more...
That alone should prove my point, but let's get into detail anyway.
It's true, people always find it difficult to distinguish between a mere philosophy and a religion when it comes to Taoism. Daojiao, however, consists of the belief in gods, ghosts and other spirits and adds the philosophical elements to that. So there, they believe in a higher power. It's assumed that there are about 8 million taoists, the numbers of those who actually practice daojiao must be even smaller, so you've got a point, I guess.
Not since they tried to explain things logically with midichlorians, no.
Nope. Buddhists believe in a certain order, a certain system of thought. They believe that they'll be reborn into yet another episode of pain if they cannot escape the circle of Dharma (supernatural thing number one) and reach Nirvana (supernatural thing number two). The philosophy of Buddhism is the way to achieve this, much like the ten commandments and Jesus' teachings are supposed to be the way to heaven for Christians. There's always a philosophy surrounding a religion, but it's not all there is.
Uhh... yes.
Edit: Added "Jesus' teachings" in order to prevent people from accusing me of making Christians Jews once again.
This post has been edited by Gobbler: 07 June 2006 - 01:40 AM
Quote
#93
Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:27 AM
The Pharaohs of Egypt were supposed to be living gods, but I think in this case, the people really did believe it.
#94
Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:46 AM
I know if I was a devout follower of a great spiritual leader who had been executed, I would be willing to go to some length to make sure his message lived on, including faking a resurrection, either by jacking the corpse and having everybody go and look at the empty tomb, and/or by claiming to have seen his ghost, or even the man himself in flesh.
I actually don’t have any problems with the apostles claiming to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Apparitions are a pretty common phenomena. Its possible the story tellers embellished a bit, and that Tomas did not stick his hands in the wounds of Christ. Its possible that all persons claiming to have seen Jesus after his death were all just hysterical, or all willing to lie to keep Christianity alive. Who really knows for sure.
#95
Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:05 PM
I actually don’t have any problems with the apostles claiming to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Apparitions are a pretty common phenomena. Its possible the story tellers embellished a bit, and that Tomas did not stick his hands in the wounds of Christ. Its possible that all persons claiming to have seen Jesus after his death were all just hysterical, or all willing to lie to keep Christianity alive. Who really knows for sure.
I agree that it is a possible explanation, but is it plausible?
Personally, I find mass hysteria or mass conspiracy theories are a stretch. Either way, many of these first hand witnesses would have had to keep a hoax with them through persecution and on to painfully bloody graves. What sort of personal gain could they have gotten out of the hoax while they lay on the chopping block as the executioner approached?
I just don't have a good answer.
#96
Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:51 PM
PM me, we'll talk.
#97
Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:01 PM
Personally, I find mass hysteria or mass conspiracy theories are a stretch. Either way, many of these first hand witnesses would have had to keep a hoax with them through persecution and on to painfully bloody graves. What sort of personal gain could they have gotten out of the hoax while they lay on the chopping block as the executioner approached?
I just don't have a good answer.
You did notice that people were plenty stupid back then, right?
Edit: Still are, even.
This post has been edited by Gobbler: 07 June 2006 - 04:23 PM
Quote
#98
Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:14 PM
Taoism, while devotional, was...
no, wait...
i said i wasn't going to baited into this... accept my glib interpretations and lazy abreviations or don't. i don't really care... we're so off topic.
but good old wikpedia would have us beleive that a blockbuster video membership was religious invlolvememnt...
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#99
Posted 08 June 2006 - 02:03 AM
Quote
#100
Posted 08 June 2006 - 09:16 AM
-"Presbytrian is [not] a religion." Sorry, couldn't help myself with the lame reference from the movie, Fools Run In - (Which I can't stand btw since my college roommate watched it every day which is the only reason I even know that line!)
Um… isn't that exactly what you are, a freak who feels rejected by society or is rebelling against mainstream religion by turning to some whacked out hippie new age worship of rocks and trees? Eariler in this tread one of your responses was that you didn't like priests telling you, "Well, you just have to have faith." and that you are an extreme religious fanatic. Well, that's fine but really as I see it you do have faith, it's just that you've chosen to put it into the wrong things. Instead of staying strong in the faith in Jesus you've decided to worship false idols. You also say that you aren't a sheep and aren't part of anyone's flock, and yet as much as you don't want to believe it you are. You are the lost black sheep, and do you know what happens to the sheep that wanders away from the flock? The shepherd breaks the sheep's legs so that it never leaves again.
One more thing, yes the world is a beautiful multicolored place, full of different thoughts and ideas, it would be pretty boring if it wasn't, but there is black and white, good or evil and there are no greys in between. You either choose one or the other and you make your choices and you live with the consequences.
#101
Posted 08 June 2006 - 10:37 AM
This post has been edited by Gobbler: 08 June 2006 - 10:37 AM
Quote
#104
Posted 08 June 2006 - 12:51 PM
For example, there is the whole complexity of "the lesser evil"
For mother-theresa, only working 95% her ass off to help the poor instead of 110%, every day could be a sin, where as for an abusive alcoholic, giving up on drinking once could be a major victory. True, within grey there are degrees of black and white; "helping people is good, hurting people is bad" but really those statements are incredibly large generalizations found all the time.
Take the way you dress for example. Lets say for the sake of example that making yourself into a sex object is wrong, but it degrades you into an object instead of a human being.
There are a lot of grey areas involved because what was conservative now was really racy back in victorian times. Marilyn Monroe's outfits may have given our grandfathers boners but she doesn't even phase us now.
Also, toplessness doesn't seem to do anything for those guys down by the equator.
So where there may be black and white with the rule "don't become an object" - either you do or you don't, there is plenty of grey in the application.
#105
Posted 08 June 2006 - 01:30 PM
1. The resurrection was documented 30 years after its alleged occurrence. I say it never happened. Christianity spread successfully outside the Jewish world, and slowly within it. Quickly it got to where the Jewish diet was dropped, and writers claimed that the reason was that God had told Peter "secretly" that it was ok. So all the stuff about "it must be true, because these guys were eyewitnesses and the facts could have been corroborated by folks in the affected area" is weak. Fact is, the documents came well after the fact, were written by men who were not eyewitnesses, were read by folks well outside the affected area (in a different language, no less), and believed by folks unable to seek out any further evidence. The spread of Christianity is a product of good advertising by people of Faith. There is no evidence however of any genuine Divine inspiration.
2. Abbey, in another thread I suggested that we didn't have enough evidence to show that pagan people made human sacrifices. To show your erudition, you then cited sources to show that they had. Now that Jordan says they did, you ask him to prove it. This is yawn-worthy. You believe that pagans sacrificed humans, and you believe that you can prove it. Askig Jordan to prove it is simple contrariness.
3. The Catholics of late have made much of the passage "in my father's house there are many mansions." It is a belief spread among Catholic missionaries that conversion to Catholicism is not necessary to avoid fire and brimstone. Catholics don't believe that anyone not exposed to Catholicism, say if they live in a part of the world not in contact with a Catholic missionary, will burn in hell for all eternity. This is a general Christian belief, and it fuled the "white man's burden" that was self-appointed by Anglican warlords and eventually American colonials. It is no longer a Catholic belief however. Catholics do try to spread the word of God, and specifically Catholicism, but they talk more of sin and using God to guide you, etc. They don't go on about "one way" and heresy. Catholics see Protestants as separated brethren, no longer as heretics. Catholics haven't accused anyone of heresy in about 200 years. In that case, too, it was really the Inquisition and not the Catholic Church at all. Catholics last accused someone of heresy in the time of Shakespeare (Giordano Bruno, executed in 1600 for a collection of heretical beliefs including Copernicanism and (probably more important) an unlimited universe with innumerable inhabited worlds). Info per wikipedia.
4. This conversation started because the Catholic Church doesn't like the Da Vinci Code. Poor poor Catholic Church, that folks might say things about them. I see it that it is their duty to their stockholders to protect their brand name from infringement. Even in this thread, whgen other beliefs are challenged and questioned, proponents rise to the call and defend their faith (yes I mean you, Abbey). I wouldn't say that questioning this reportedly bad film (haven't see it) and worse book (reviews critique remedial English and limited scholarship) shows that the Church is defensive or sensitive. Responding to irreligious claims that include the name of Catholicism is simply their duty to their constituency. I haven't heard of any threats at excommunication or auto de fe. Any general attacks on Catholics regarding this film are the prejudices of the attackers; they're not based on anything the church itself has said or done.
5. I'm with Jordan on modern paganism being a load of baloon juice. It's little more than nationalism, really, followed by folks who can trace a blood line to folks who believed the stuff in the old days. It's no stranger or less strange however than any other faith, except as abbey says when they wear corsets and think their life is a roleplaying game. Any religion I followed wouldn't involve fake Middle English or multi-sided dice. I dare say that modern paganism has more nerds than any other religion (I don't include Jedi, for reasons I hope are obvious). The burden of proof is still there howveer. Show me the ghosts, or allow me to see the direct line between one dead being and its reincarnated self. Or, you know, SOMETHING. My hand into the wounds, so to speak. Otherwise, you got as much as the rest of them, a cute little storybook with pretty pictures and funny names.