Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

teh religious debate thread

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Jakeman, Apr 3, 2002.

  1. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Why shouldn't we critisize past practices of white people? For the same reason, and that's why I use it as an example -> because we were never affected by such circumstances.

    --Haite
     
  2. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    white people did bad stuff in the past, so did religious groups (or more people did bad stuff in the name of religion). your point?

    //edit: and i never said we shouldn't criticise past practices of white people.
     
  3. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Now we're getting into an area of opinion rather than fact. You say we should judge based on past circumstances, whereas I say we shouldn't. I can't argue for or against either with factual evidence, so there's no point in trying.

    I addressed your original arguement having to do with the Church... so I'll take the next one, if anyone has something they would like to bring up.

    --Haite
     
  4. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    aroo?

    i say we judge. <- end of sentance . where are you getting this You say we should judge based on past circumstances? jake no say that.

    i say, that was messed up about the charging people to confess thing. wouldn't you agree? a little quick to defend anything about your religion are we? i can understand that, but surely you don't think your religion is infalable. seeing the flaws in religion is a good way to better understand it. unless you do believe religion is infalable in which case i would have a hard time arguing.

    it is fair to judge certain things based on those things' past history in some circumstances... but if we're talking about like thousands of years ago... erm, yeah.
     
  5. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    There are three things I need to cover in this reply, the following:

    --Group 1--

    There are several things I believe on infallability, all of which are contained in official Catholic creed,

    1) the Pope is infallable on matters of faith and morals,
    2) all the Bishops together when in union with the Pope are infallable on matters of faith and morals,
    3) no individual or group is infallable on any matters other than the aforementioned.

    --Group 2--

    You're drawing a hazy line on this judgement issue,

    This could be taken to explicitly mean that we should judge based on past circumstances to which we had no privy.

    --Group 3--

    Yes, I am quick to defend anything about my religion for two reasons,

    1) there are a lot of Catholics who don't know jack about their religion's creed, code or cult (the three parts to any religion) beyond what's said at mass. They know hardly any church history or any deep theological concepts which are core to Catholic belief. Other religions have us totally outclassed in terms of zeal, so ya, I try to get out some things every Catholic should know.

    2) There are so many misconceptions about the Church and her teachings, and they're only getting worse with recent events...

    --Haite
     
  6. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    No no no, don't stop. I say I believe the Church is infallable, so try and trap me. Prove me wrong with fact. What I was looking for was someone to point out a passage from the Bible or something that would prove Catholics are hypocritical or something. I don't want to argue belief, you can't do that, I want to argue Church "fact" based on evidence...

    --Haite
     
  7. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    so by those standards...

    "i never said we shouldn't kill people" could be explicitly taken to mean we should go out and kill everyone we see. wOOt! :D

    i think a better word would be could. you're talking in what ifs except not phrasing them as such. i don't think that's going anywhere.

    how do you know the church is infallable? keep in mind i am going on the assumption that fact is not fact until it is proven to be so. in the other religious debate i got involved in on another forum they kept saying "well, prove to me god doesn't exist. if you can't then... and then they would imply that made them right but not say it." that's the bassackwards approach IMO. something is not fact because it cannot be disproven.

    example: is a person guilty of a crime because we cannot prove his innocence? (the answer is no... i hope ;) )

    of course where religion is concerned (on both sides of the argument) the words "proof" and "fact" don't live up to their ideal meanings.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2002
  8. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Saying "I never said we shouldn't kill people" sounds very much in favor of murder :bonk:, yes it is a very explicit statement. Of course it must be differentiated from an implicit statement ("We should commit genocide"), which is where the coulds and the what ifs come in.

    I can't prove anything to you then. I could quote scripture, or papers and treatises by Saints and theologians that back me up, but you'd always say "How do you know they were right / divinely inspired?". For all you know they'd just be supporting themselves by promoting their church. I guess the only solid evidence is how "it all" fits together, with the continuity from the Old Testament into the New and everything. How a hundred different authors could all write a story that fits together is beyond me, but to arguments like that it's all just circumstance.

    --Haite
     
  9. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    i agree with you there. considering i don't believe the bible (old, new, whatever) to be a factual document. i must first believe that or there isn't really anything that can convince me. the same is true for you i assume?... i can't disprove your beliefs for the reason that your references aren't accepted by me to be factual. if we don't have a common ground then we can't effectively argue this.
     
  10. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    I don't know how to prove the authenticity of the Bible. I could get back to you on it, but it's not really relevant to me defending Catholicism. If you really want me to I'll see what information I can come up with to proving it's existance. This is more defending the entire concept of deism than just refuting what arguments, for example, a Mormon would have against Roman Catholicism.

    --Haite
     
  11. Strader

    Strader Peasant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    "i don't believe the bible (old, new, whatever) to be a factual document."

    I didn't really want to get into this much but... That is incorrect. Many archaeologists have discovered time and time again that the historical locations and timings of the Bible are indeed factual. Now if you were to say that you don't believe much of the Bible, in regards to spiritual matters, then that would be more open to debate.

    By the way I am not Catholic, I merely label myself as a Christian. Perhaps the Catholic Bible is different but I know that my Bible (NIV) says not to bow down to "graven images" and yet many Catholics do so when praying to various "Saints". Just curious as to why this is allowed...
     
  12. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    Um, no. Only God is infalable. The Pope and his bishops are humans just like everyone else.
     
  13. charlybrown

    charlybrown Peasant

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    6
    Market Rating:
    0
    Well, It's a hot dicussion...... :...:
     
  14. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    yes, that's what i'm saying. i should have elaborated on that. a book can be based on true events, places, people, etc but that does not necessarily make it true. i think the bible is historical fiction.

    regarding the whole infallable thing. i believe no one is infallable (including god seeing as how i don't believe in god). we make due to the best of our ability. our knowledge is based on probability. the answers change as we learn more.
     
  15. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    St. Thomas Aquinas says, "Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err" (Quodl. 9:8:16).

    No difference, although some Protestant versions omit several books of the Bible, including but not limited to Ecclesiastes, mainly because they disproved Martin Luther's teachings. I personally have a copy of the NIV Bible.

    --Haite
     
  16. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    It's a teaching of the Catholic Church. I remember a passing comment that you were Protestant, which denomination I forget, but it doesn't really matter does it since the Pope isn't the head of your church?

    --Haite
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2002
  17. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    To clarify, I said the Pope and the Magisterium are infallable on matters of faith and morals, that's where the infallability ends, they're not always right, and the Magisterium must be in union with the Papacy to be infallable.

    --Haite
     
  18. dapork

    dapork Peasant

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    1
    Market Rating:
    0
    not sure if someone said this already, but if god is always the same and all powerfull why does the way people believe and worship change dramatically over time?
     
  19. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    religion is adaptive to the current state of things. that's my answer at least.

    take science for example. science was the enemy of religion back when it was becoming mainstream. but now religions say science was invented by god and he wants us to study our environment. conflict solved.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2002
  20. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    Ha, actually the natural and physical rules studied by science were defined by God in creation. Science is just the study of something.
     

Hitometer: 54,592,594 since 1995