The Message of Christianity

[Tipsy]

There's a lot of criticism of what Christianity is teaching and, more importantly, what it should be teaching. Simple question: What do you think the Christian message and how well is it followed by Christians.

Don't just go out and copy some definition, link me to something, or something like that; I want your opinion.

[gf4444]

As a Christian, I take Christianity to mean: Follow Jesus, Love Him, and Believe in Him. Do as He would do, which is pretty much everything against our human instincts (pray for enemies, forgive people, etc.)

How well is it followed? IT'S NOT. Christians are the worst example for Christianity. We (as a community) have screwed up the message.

[torrid mind]

The message of some christians- Live your life by my morals and you will be saved you poor poor soul.

Don't get me wrong, Its great to be a good person, I just don't appreciate it when someone tells me how I should feel about certain issues and then says it's because "god" wants it. How do you know what this supposed god wants you to feel? Oh right, because its in a book. How silly of me, please forgive me O lord for questioning your reign!
okay okay.

For all I know, there is some greater being, I'm just not banking on it. I would rather be the best person I can be while I'm alive, and not because I'm afraid I will have to answer to the big man when I die.

I would just like to end this post with a little quote.
God is the only being who, in order to reign, need not even exist. - Charles Baudelaire

[Trojan]

Christianity is an excuse to start wars, as well as every religion is. People kill each other because their god is greater than someone else's god.

[B~E]

Originally Posted by gf4444

As a Christian, I take Christianity to mean: Follow Jesus, Love Him, and Believe in Him. Do as He would do, which is pretty much everything against our human instincts (pray for enemies, forgive people, etc.)

That, and its a belief system that you have to live individually. Its stricly betrween you and God, you dont have to live up to any man-made institution or group.

[Uncle_Vanya]

Christianity to me is still a big political tool, you got people like Pat Roberts telling people what their political beliefs should be. Modern Christianity is still bent on influencing events in the secular world same as it was in the middle ages it is simply that now it doesn't have the same type of power as it used to, that is to collect taxes, wage war and assemble armies under its banner. More so Christianity is also used to distinguish one group from the other, most racists are in their own mind true Christians. I don't have much positive things to say about religion.

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by B~E

That, and its a belief system that you have to live individually. Its stricly betrween you and God, you dont have to live up to any man-made institution or group.

I agree. As a christian I do not wish to worship in a man made church. I feel closer to God when I am enjoying the outdoors. Fishing, hunting, etc.

[AZN_FLEA]

YES. thats when i feel good about God too. whenever i enter a church i feel troubled because all these christians arent actually christians(like me (sadface)).

God feels most wonderful when i think of him alone instead of going to church or whatnot.

i think the message of christianity should be to "be yourself and live truthfully," all this christian bull**** just dirties the name. the political influence its trying to have just isnt there. they dont have the muscle they used to have. they should look like and be the enlightenment from shallow scientific knowledge to higher knowledge.

[Tipsy]

Right, so why exactly does receiving the Eucharist, the most important reason for going to church, make you feel less close to God and/or troubled? There's a lot of things that can be debated, but Jesus was pretty specific when he said "do this in remembrance of me" when he broke bread.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Christianity to me is still a big political tool, you got people like Pat Roberts telling people what their political beliefs should be. Modern Christianity is still bent on influencing events in the secular world same as it was in the middle ages it is simply that now it doesn't have the same type of power as it used to, that is to collect taxes, wage war and assemble armies under its banner. More so Christianity is also used to distinguish one group from the other, most racists are in their own mind true Christians. I don't have much positive things to say about religion.

Why exactly shouldn't religion influence secular life? Should they spending money to feed, clothe, and shelter? Should they not be speaking out against violence, from genocide in Dar Fur to abortion at home? Should they stop providing quality education to people who couldn't otherwise get it because of their income and where they live? Should they stop taking care of pregnant women and orphans? The list goes on. What exactly is the secular world they should stay out of? If the government wants to go to war with a country, Iraq for example, should churches just ignore it because a secular government wants to do it? Or should they speak out against it? Why exactly shouldn't religion and every other factor that influences the values of individuals not be involved in the secular world?

And you accuse religion being responsible for many things that they teach against. I'll use my church as an example. People always bash the Catholic church for wars. Please show me how the teachings of the Catholic Church, the ones that teach violence in the name of religion is wrong, teach that violence in the name of religion is justified; it's not a modern change either. One of the more prominent writers about 'just war' and violence in the name of religion being wrong was St. Augustine - he lived in the 4th century. Or how it is meant to divide people, when the name Catholic even means universal and has since Peter has been open to everyone.

[Vadriel]

Tipsy, the Church is bashed for such things because of the one fatal flaw it has: it's ideals are wonderful, but its followers are human.

Humans are by nature manipulators who will bend reality in their minds to suit their viewpoints and desires. "It's all in how you look at it." What's right and what's wrong? Cannibalism is a way of life to some people, an atrocity to others. What it is to you depends on what you feel it should be, and how it resonates with your own worldview and interests. Same applies to the teachings of the Church.

In principle, religion is a glorious thing that should be making our world so much better. In practice, it's a blight upon our world, a man-made scourge that gives people the freedom to interpret it however they choose and call upon it as an undeniable backing for any selfish and closed-minded actions they feel they must perform. Wars aren't started over Christianity because the Bible says to do so...they're started by people reading whatever they want into the Bible and misquoting/manipulating its doctrines to suit their agendas --and they likely don't even realize they're doing it.

God is different for everyone. To some, he is everything good in nature...to others, he is the bond between all of his children...for yet others, he's an arrogant, self-righteous overlord with a thirst for vengeance. For still others, he's a fictional fabrication invented to control the desperate masses who needed something to believe in during a dark time and were far easier to manipulate when they adhered to a system that favored those already rich and in power. He's all of these things, and none of them.

Faith is a journey of the self. What it is depends entirely on what you feel it to be. At its best, it's a ballast for your life...it stabilizes your existance in a world of turmoil and grants you the ability to be at peace with our chaotic reality and to grow as a person...it gives you something to believe in, a curing hope that can steady a shaky existance into something that makes you happy.

At its worst, it's a devious and conniving tool used to forward personal agendas. It's self-justification for anything you desire to do. It's crowd control, it's a means to personal gain, it's support for any atrocity you deem necessary. Religion didn't dictate what Hitler did, but it enabled him to garner support. The Crusades were quite similar, needless wars that served their purpose best as a means for those in power to gain more power, through dominance of territory and trade routes as well as the squishing of any who would oppose their right to dominate.

Faith, like the swords of its Holy Knights, is double-edged. It can connect or alienate, it can promote either unity and tolerance or segregation and fear. How it affects your life is up to you...but in reality it affects all of us.

My view on religion in general, but most dramatically applied to Christianity, is that it's a wonderful thing that should take its place in everyone's life...in moderation. I have yet to see extensive religious zeal have any positive result. Whether it's as drastically destructive as a war (such as what's going on right NOW between the USA and the Middle East, because this is indeed a holy war), or just as infuriatingly irritating as those persistent and aggravating proselytizers that show up on your doorstep and doggedly hound you to join their "club" with threats of eternal damnation hidden in the guise of altruitic concern, overdoing religion just doesn't turn out well.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Respect your fellow man. Believe in a greater good. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. These are what should be taken from religion, not jealous insecurity and the forced need to belong to something larger than yourself. When "Jesus says to love one another" turns to "In the name of God, we must fight," Christianity goes horrible astray.

It's a personal journey, faith is. Let it be as such.

[Gimmi]

Blind your followers and kill the rest.
Hard to say christianity has any sort of noble past what with all of the crusades and so on

[Uncle_Vanya]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

Why exactly shouldn't religion influence secular life? Should they spending money to feed, clothe, and shelter? Should they not be speaking out against violence, from genocide in Dar Fur to abortion at home? Should they stop providing quality education to people who couldn't otherwise get it because of their income and where they live? Should they stop taking care of pregnant women and orphans? The list goes on. What exactly is the secular world they should stay out of? If the government wants to go to war with a country, Iraq for example, should churches just ignore it because a secular government wants to do it? Or should they speak out against it? Why exactly shouldn't religion and every other factor that influences the values of individuals not be involved in the secular world?

Have you ever listened to crazies like Pat Robertson?

And you accuse religion being responsible for many things that they teach against. I'll use my church as an example. People always bash the Catholic church for wars. Please show me how the teachings of the Catholic Church, the ones that teach violence in the name of religion is wrong, teach that violence in the name of religion is justified; it's not a modern change either. One of the more prominent writers about 'just war' and violence in the name of religion being wrong was St. Augustine - he lived in the 4th century. Or how it is meant to divide people, when the name Catholic even means universal and has since Peter has been open to everyone.

Who cares what they teach? If they teach the opposite of what they do that just makes them hypocrites as well as powermongers. The Catholic church has started the crusades and that was the fault of the church as a whole not just the pope that was there at the time, what about the Inquisition? What about common people being taxed by the church? What about the church keeping a lock on the knowledge during the dark ages? You can deny that all of this happened, but it did, its your church's history and it forever shall be a part of its legacy.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Have you ever listened to crazies like Pat Robertson?

I have. However, there are more Catholics out there than all Protestant (crazies and noncrazies alike), so we can at least look at over half of Christians not following crazy leadership.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Who cares what they teach? If they teach the opposite of what they do that just makes them hypocrites as well as powermongers. The Catholic church has started the crusades and that was the fault of the church as a whole not just the pope that was there at the time, what about the Inquisition? What about common people being taxed by the church? What about the church keeping a lock on the knowledge during the dark ages? You can deny that all of this happened, but it did, its your church's history and it forever shall be a part of its legacy.

It matters what they teach because the Church says your suppose to follow the word of God, not the words of man. You follow the teachings in the Church, not the hierarchy. And please expand upon them being hypocrites, because they teach the morals of God and then state that they, like everyone else, are sinners like everyone else.

For the inquisition, I'll assume you're talking about the Spanish one since that's the one most commonly talked about. I fail to see how the Church is to blame for what was started by Isabel and Ferdinand, not the Church, run by lawyer, not clergymen, and was established for political unity within Spain. Simply put, the Church teaches that you follow what they have taught for 2000 years, not what any man or government says.

For taxation, the Church was the legitimate government back in the day, and taxation is a power of government. I can't fault them for not following a philosophy of government that didn't come around until the enlightenment.

I don't see how the Church operating catechetical schools, schools in monasteries (for laymen), cathedral school, chantry schools, guild schools, hospital schools, and city schools suppressed knowledge. How teaching clergy and laymen alike theology, agriculture, philosophy, the classics, astronomy, and so forth suppressed knowledge.

I don't say that anything that what you said didn't happen, just that the Church has no need to hide from truth.

Originally Posted by Vadriel

Tipsy, the Church is bashed for such things because of the one fatal flaw it has: it's ideals are wonderful, but its followers are human.

That's not its' flaw - it's why it exists. The Church is a teaching institution; it spreads the word of God so that it's followers can attempt to better themselves. Religion is not the actions of the followers, it is the religion.

Originally Posted by Vadriel

My view on religion in general, but most dramatically applied to Christianity, is that it's a wonderful thing that should take its place in everyone's life...in moderation. I have yet to see extensive religious zeal have any positive result. Whether it's as drastically destructive as a war (such as what's going on right NOW between the USA and the Middle East, because this is indeed a holy war), or just as infuriatingly irritating as those persistent and aggravating proselytizers that show up on your doorstep and doggedly hound you to join their "club" with threats of eternal damnation hidden in the guise of altruitic concern, overdoing religion just doesn't turn out well.

Here's an example then; Benedict using his extensive religious zeal to speak out against the war in Iraq. In other words, against "what's going on right NOW between the USA and the Middle East". Or, as I told Kuzmich earlier, we can go back to the earliest person I can think of who had the same message of extensive religious zeal that violence in the name of God is a sin, St. Augustine who lived 1700 years ago. Or perhaps the extensive religious zeal that lead Jesuits to give up their lives and travel to the far east to teach the knowledge of the west (and I mean non-religious knowledge).

Originally Posted by Vadriel

Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Respect your fellow man. Believe in a greater good. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. These are what should be taken from religion, not jealous insecurity and the forced need to belong to something larger than yourself. When "Jesus says to love one another" turns to "In the name of God, we must fight," Christianity goes horrible astray.

That's what the Church teaches.


Note: I realize that what the interpretation of the Bible, whether or not God exists, and so forth is open to debate, however it isn't relevant to this debate. So when I state things like that, realize it is in order to keep the response as brief as possible, not for any other reason.

[Uncle_Vanya]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

It matters what they teach because the Church says your suppose to follow the word of God, not the words of man. You follow the teachings in the Church, not the hierarchy. And please expand upon them being hypocrites, because they teach the morals of God and then state that they, like everyone else, are sinners like everyone else.

Thats a bit self-serving, "Do what I say, not what I do, especially what that one guy at the top says, he is infallible." And lets not pretend that the church had some sort of wide spread humanitarian aspect to it during the dark ages, it wasn't, it was all about getting lands and power and making sure that people are ignorant enough to follow your every word.

For the inquisition, I'll assume you're talking about the Spanish one since that's the one most commonly talked about. I fail to see how the Church is to blame for what was started by Isabel and Ferdinand, not the Church, run by lawyer, not clergymen, and was established for political unity within Spain. Simply put, the Church teaches that you follow what they have taught for 2000 years, not what any man or government says.

Except that if you didn't follow what they said they'd have you killed. Don't tell me about Catholicisms tolerance for other ways of thought, its non existent. The pope was also infallible, how does that fit in?

For taxation, the Church was the legitimate government back in the day, and taxation is a power of government. I can't fault them for not following a philosophy of government that didn't come around until the enlightenment.

Oh yes, selling pieces of paper that would guarantee you a spot in haven I am sure was in line with its own teachings, so was oppression of the common man I bet. Its not that the Church is the only one that did this that annoys me most, everyone did this, that was the way of life, but the thing is that you are trying to say that the Church's hands are clean after all the blood, the pain and the suffering it unleashed upon this world, and thats nonsense of the highest order.

I don't see how the Church operating catechetical schools, schools in monasteries (for laymen), cathedral school, chantry schools, guild schools, hospital schools, and city schools suppressed knowledge. How teaching clergy and laymen alike theology, agriculture, philosophy, the classics, astronomy, and so forth suppressed knowledge.

What? You are going to try to debate that the Church did not attempt to suppress knowledge? Really now? You're being rather silly, yes the Church suppressed knowledge for the simple reason that it is easier to manipulate an illiterate fool then a literate one. The church essentially lost most of its political power after the printing press was introduced, mass production of books lead to higher literacy, literacy lead to people being able to pursue other ways of thought, the greko-roman ways of thought. Once that was there Church's power crumbled, it no longer had a monopoly on knowledge.

I don't say that anything that what you said didn't happen, just that the Church has no need to hide from truth.

Then why are you attempting to present the Church as something pure then obviously its as dirty as any other tyrannical empire.

That's not its' flaw - it's why it exists. The Church is a teaching institution; it spreads the word of God so that it's followers can attempt to better themselves. Religion is not the actions of the followers, it is the religion.

Religion's legacy is laid down by the actions of its followers like it or not that is the general consensus.

Here's an example then; Benedict using his extensive religious zeal to speak out against the war in Iraq. In other words, against "what's going on right NOW between the USA and the Middle East". Or, as I told Kuzmich earlier, we can go back to the earliest person I can think of who had the same message of extensive religious zeal that violence in the name of God is a sin, St. Augustine who lived 1700 years ago. Or perhaps the extensive religious zeal that lead Jesuits to give up their lives and travel to the far east to teach the knowledge of the west (and I mean non-religious knowledge).


That's what the Church teaches.

As I said, the do what I say, not what I do policy the Church has employed for so long is hypocritical in itself. The Church is not a religion, its a hierarchial structure like a gov't or a corporation it needs to maintain its own economy, it needs to address its expansionist national policies, etc.

Btw, I am Kuzmich and I remember the last time we had this debate.

Europe was at one time one of the most backwards places on earth, only after it has shed down the choking grasp of the Church did the renaissance began. If a religion looses power civilization rises, it has always been like this.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Thats a bit self-serving, "Do what I say, not what I do, especially what that one guy at the top says, he is infallible." And lets not pretend that the church had some sort of wide spread humanitarian aspect to it during the dark ages, it wasn't, it was all about getting lands and power and making sure that people are ignorant enough to follow your every word.

It's more like "try your best to follow the example of Jesus Christ." So, how is providing education to even those who can't afford it promoting ignorance and a non-humanitarian effort?

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Except that if you didn't follow what they said they'd have you killed. Don't tell me about Catholicisms tolerance for other ways of thought, its non existent.

Your statement is in conflict with Catholic teachings. I'll quote the Catholic Catechism as Catholic teachings are a good source for looking up Catholic teachings:

Catechism Passge 1935
The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.

And as for killing:
Catechism Passge 2258
Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."

So what you've said misrepresents Catholic teaching and the Spanish Inquisition was done by the Isabel and Ferdinand and carried out by lawyers, neither of which are the Church.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

The pope was also infallible, how does that fit in?

The pope still is infallible, it's just no one ever looks at what papal infallibility is. I'll quote wikipedia: "...the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation." And even at that, there have only been seven uses of papal infallibility in 2000 years:

"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

Within the Middle Ages only there were only three uses of papal infallibility, which had to do with Christ and the beatific vision. Exactly what harm are you saying papal infallibility has done?

[quote=Uncle_Vanya;1540404]Oh yes, selling pieces of paper that would guarantee you a spot in haven I am sure was in line with its own teachings,so was oppression of the common man I bet. Its not that the Church is the only one that did this that annoys me most, everyone did this, that was the way of life,
Or it wasn't:

Indulgentiarum Doctrina, 8
"...unfortunately the practice of indulgences has on occasion been improperly applied. This has been either through "untimely" and superfluous indulgences which humiliated the power of the keys and weakened penitential satisfaction or it has been through the collection of "unlawful profits" which blasphemously took away the good name of indulgences..."

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

but the thing is that you are trying to say that the Church's hands are clean after all the blood, the pain and the suffering it unleashed upon this world, and thats nonsense of the highest order.

The people in the Church may not be clean, as it is pretty obvious no one is, however the institution and its teachings are.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

What? You are going to try to debate that the Church did not attempt to suppress knowledge? Really now? You're being rather silly, yes the Church suppressed knowledge for the simple reason that it is easier to manipulate an illiterate fool then a literate one.

Feel free to provide any examples to support your assertion and I'll be glad to discuss them.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

The church essentially lost most of its political power after the printing press was introduced, mass production of books lead to higher literacy, literacy lead to people being able to pursue other ways of thought, the greko-roman ways of thought. Once that was there Church's power crumbled, it no longer had a monopoly on knowledge.

And the Church actively tried to prevent this how?

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Then why are you attempting to present the Church as something pure then obviously its as dirty as any other tyrannical empire.

Because every event you talk about did happen you try to twist it to discredit the Church, rather than seeing it as individuals sinning. I happen to think not blaming the Church is based in truth so a discussion of it will either change what you believe or what I do, either situation improves one of us.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Religion's legacy is laid down by the actions of its followers like it or not that is the general consensus.

So if the Church openly says one thing and the followers openly disobey, the Church is responsible? I would think the actions of the Church would set the legacy of the Church.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

As I said, the do what I say, not what I do policy the Church has employed for so long is hypocritical in itself.

It's not "do what I say, not what I do." It's "do what I do"; it's "try your best to follow the example of Jesus Christ."

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

The Church is not a religion, its a hierarchial structure like a gov't or a corporation it needs to maintain its own economy, it needs to address its expansionist national policies, etc.

Neither I nor the Church will deny that the Church is a hierarchical institution that preserves itself and tries to expand. It is completely in line with Church teaching, in fact, it's teaching state that is is commanded by God to spread his word across the world.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Btw, I am Kuzmich and I remember the last time we had this debate.

Those last quotes in my last post were directed at Vadriel (though I gladly responded to your responses to them), I know who you are . I don't think we ever finished our debate either. Who knows, we might bring some activity to the AS.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Europe was at one time one of the most backwards places on earth, only after it has shed down the choking grasp of the Church did the renaissance began. If a religion looses power civilization rises, it has always been like this.

You mean like the people who used religion to justify liberal theory?

[Vadriel]

When I used the phrase "extensive religious zeal," my original inclination was to say "
excessive" rather than "extensive..." but I imagined it was too judgmental a term and too loosely based on individual interpretation as to what defined "excess." Using religion as a manner of backing a nonviolent protest against war and violence isn't excess, it's invoking the pacifist doctrines of Christianity. As such, I don't even consider it to be extensive...by the term "extensive," I was refering to the many people who take religion too far and begin to use it as an excuse to serve their own selfish goals in an extreme manner.

And I'm sorry, but "follow the word of God, not the word of men" is absolute bullpooky. How many people have an original copy of the Bible (in the originally written language) and are capable of reading it? The far-and-wide majority of Christianity's followers are trusting the in words of the Church of old, using their "faith" to blindly trust that the very institution that served as the most powerful dominating social structure loyally portrayed every message in perfect synchrony to the original intent.

Not even getting into the argument that there is NO evidence whatsoever that the original writers of the Bible were indeed granted visions from God that instructed them to write it down in His exact wording. As with much of Christian lore, you have to just forget logic and "have faith." Meaning "I know this doesn't make sense and anyone with a 3rd Grade logic level should have a hard time believing it, but just forget about that and believe in what I tell you." Even taken at its most grounded logical possibility, the most advanced and powerful religion in the world was founded on the hallucinations of poverty-stricken, likely unhealthy peasants oppressed by the Roman Empire.

Several of the doctrines in the Bible (or at least how they're interpreted from the Bible) are unbelievably self-serving and corporate/capitalist in nature. "Spread the word of God" is just a more altruistic-sounding way of saying "conquer all peoples and unite them under our common banner." Not a whole lot unlike Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan's individual sweeps across Eurasia. Violence in the name of peace isn't an uncommon concept used by powerhungry rulers throughout history.

Christianity only prospers because of when it was introduced. Look at scientology's plight right now...it's absolutely ludicrous-sounding and is being blasted from every angle, but it's actually more logical and scientifically likely than anything Christianity has ever put forth as God-given fact. What's the difference? Christianity appeals to more people and came at a time when the world needed something to believe in.

Oh, and it's not like it's unique. It's just one of a hundred other religions that popped up during the Roman oppression. The other "cults" were all squashed out into nonexistance, their followers exterminated. Christianity's followers were just a bit more crafty and dodgy, and eventually the Roman government decided to accept it as a genuine religion rather than attempt to continue extermination. Not surprising considering how good it obviously was at keeping its peoples in line, at a time when Romans were having a measure of difficulty managing all its conquered peoples.

Christianity isn't even anything special...it's Judaism if someone said "hey, suppose it actually happened more like this?" "What if Jesus really WAS the Savior and son of God?" Just like Islam is essentially Christianity under the supposition that Mohammed didn't die during his banishment into the desert.

And don't throw a bunch of pacifist, hippie Bible quotes at me as a means to validate your religion's ideas. I've said before that Christianity is great, it's Christians that are a poison to our society. All the wonderful ideology in the cosmos doesn't replace the fact that the vast majority of its followers either don't really understand it or simply don't care and use it as an excuse to live their lives however they so choose.

This discussion is pointless anyways. It doesn't really matter. Arguing with Tipsy is like arguing with any other Christian. It's always dodging the questions that you're not equipped to answer, and turning to out-of-context scripture or unfairly literal interpretations of said scripture, and resorting to the blind and unjustifiable argument: "Just have faith."

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Vadriel

When I used the phrase "extensive religious zeal," my original inclination was to say "
excessive" rather than "extensive..." but I imagined it was too judgmental a term and too loosely based on individual interpretation as to what defined "excess." Using religion as a manner of backing a nonviolent protest against war and violence isn't excess, it's invoking the pacifist doctrines of Christianity. As such, I don't even consider it to be extensive...by the term "extensive," I was refering to the many people who take religion too far and begin to use it as an excuse to serve their own selfish goals in an extreme manner.

I'm pretty sure that's called 'not being religious' rather than being excessively religious. It may sound like a matter of semantics, but if a religion says to do one thing and a person does another, you can't blame the religion for that.

As a side note, the Church is not pacifist, it teaches in self-defense force is justifiable.

Originally Posted by Vadriel

And I'm sorry, but "follow the word of God, not the word of men" is absolute bullpooky. How many people have an original copy of the Bible (in the originally written language) and are capable of reading it? The far-and-wide majority of Christianity's followers are trusting the in words of the Church of old, using their "faith" to blindly trust that the very institution that served as the most powerful dominating social structure loyally portrayed every message in perfect synchrony to the original intent.

The legitimacy of the Bible was what I had hoped to avoid with the note I put at the end of my post: "Note: I realize that what the interpretation of the Bible, whether or not God exists, and so forth is open to debate, however it isn't relevant to this debate. So when I state things like that, realize it is in order to keep the response as brief as possible, not for any other reason." It's legitimacy is irrelevant as this is a discussion of it's usage in the world, something that is not an article of faith, but of fact.

When I say "follow the word of God, not the word of men", I mean to follow the 2000 year old teachings that form the basis of Christianity rather than contemporary clergy. That means the message is a singular, constant message to be followed. This challenges the idea that the teachings of the Church can be manipulated and changed to serve selfish interests as they are thoroughly defined in volumes of the Church's teachings (the most modern copy being the catechism) and expanded upon in articles written by scholars (which have been translated from their original languages and into English).

As to how many people have an original copy of the Bible? Off the top of my head, I can say that thousands of scholars around the world have published copies of the Latin Vulgate in Latin (the text of a Bible dating from the 4th century). So who are we trusting with modern copies of the bible? Scholars from around the world, secular and religious, pro-Christianity and anti-Christianity. I'd say text dating from 1700 years ago that you can buy copies of on amazon.com in the original Latin isn't secreted knowledge hoarded and manipulated by the Church. There are older Bibles out there as well, I just happen to not know them off the top of my head to use as examples.

Originally Posted by Vadriel

Several of the doctrines in the Bible (or at least how they're interpreted from the Bible) are unbelievably self-serving and corporate/capitalist in nature. "Spread the word of God" is just a more altruistic-sounding way of saying "conquer all peoples and unite them under our common banner." Not a whole lot unlike Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan's individual sweeps across Eurasia. Violence in the name of peace isn't an uncommon concept used by powerhungry rulers throughout history.

Except for the fact that belief in Christianity is voluntary and forced conversions are taught as immoral. You speak of taking quotes of out context, however you are doing it yourself. Spread the word of God yes, but you must also respect the dignity of man. I quoted the catechism for a response to Kuzmich, but the important part for this goes "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of...religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design."

Originally Posted by Vadriel

Not even getting into the argument that there is NO evidence whatsoever that the original writers of the Bible were indeed granted visions from God that instructed them to write it down in His exact wording. As with much of Christian lore, you have to just forget logic and "have faith." Meaning "I know this doesn't make sense and anyone with a 3rd Grade logic level should have a hard time believing it, but just forget about that and believe in what I tell you." Even taken at its most grounded logical possibility, the most advanced and powerful religion in the world was founded on the hallucinations of poverty-stricken, likely unhealthy peasants oppressed by the Roman Empire.

...

Christianity only prospers because of when it was introduced. Look at scientology's plight right now...it's absolutely ludicrous-sounding and is being blasted from every angle, but it's actually more logical and scientifically likely than anything Christianity has ever put forth as God-given fact. What's the difference? Christianity appeals to more people and came at a time when the world needed something to believe in.

Oh, and it's not like it's unique. It's just one of a hundred other religions that popped up during the Roman oppression. The other "cults" were all squashed out into nonexistance, their followers exterminated. Christianity's followers were just a bit more crafty and dodgy, and eventually the Roman government decided to accept it as a genuine religion rather than attempt to continue extermination. Not surprising considering how good it obviously was at keeping its peoples in line, at a time when Romans were having a measure of difficulty managing all its conquered peoples.

Christianity isn't even anything special...it's Judaism if someone said "hey, suppose it actually happened more like this?" "What if Jesus really WAS the Savior and son of God?" Just like Islam is essentially Christianity under the supposition that Mohammed didn't die during his banishment into the desert.

Christianity may not be true. It may not be unique. It may not be special. All of those are debates in and of themselves. All of it is irrelevant to the basic thesis I'm challenging you on: "In principle, religion is a glorious thing that should be making our world so much better. In practice, it's a blight upon our world, a man-made scourge that gives people the freedom to interpret it however they choose and call upon it as an undeniable backing for any selfish and closed-minded actions they feel they must perform."

Originally Posted by Vadriel

And don't throw a bunch of pacifist, hippie Bible quotes at me as a means to validate your religion's ideas. I've said before that Christianity is great, it's Christians that are a poison to our society. All the wonderful ideology in the cosmos doesn't replace the fact that the vast majority of its followers either don't really understand it or simply don't care and use it as an excuse to live their lives however they so choose.

Then wouldn't you say that they need to be more religious rather than blaming religion for causing the problems you see in them?

Originally Posted by Vadriel

This discussion is pointless anyways. It doesn't really matter. Arguing with Tipsy is like arguing with any other Christian. It's always dodging the questions that you're not equipped to answer, and turning to out-of-context scripture or unfairly literal interpretations of said scripture, and resorting to the blind and unjustifiable argument: "Just have faith."

Please, show me any question I have dodged. Please, show me anywhere that I have quoted the bible to make my point. I quote the Catholic Catechism, a systematic breakdown of everything taught by the Church that is so thorough that it can in no way be misinterpreted. I also have nowhere turned to "just have faith." In fact, in the note at the end of my first post designated at you I conceded that the legitimacy of the Bible, the existence of God, and other such articles of faith are open to debate and irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing the use of religion, specifically Catholicism, in the world; this is a matter that not only can, but must be debated empirically as it does not rely on faith or opinion, but on empirical data. I have done none of the things you accuse me of.