Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1101

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’d say atheistic atrocities are compounded by the pridefullness of atheists who trivialize the oppressed and murdered, by denying why they were oppressed and murdered under their banner.
[/quote]

Atheist system/people (Soviets, China, etc.) by their very nature devalue the human being. The next step of destroying life by the millions is merely a bureaucratic move. [/quote]

That is simply not true. A religion because it believes in an after life actually has less incentive to minimise suffering in the here and now.

If I let you suffer now, the suffering is good for your soul therefore I am helping you. (Mother Theressa had logic that ran along those lines)

If I go and blow myself up taking with me the enemies of my God then I will get my reward in the afterlife.

Neither of those positions would happen in an atheist society where the greater good of the community is all that should be important. (I know that the greater good argument has been horrifically misapplied however it is not the argument that is wrong.)[/quote]

Mother Theresa’s logic did not run along those lines - where do you get this stuff from? She worked her entire life to help the poor and sick. What she said (and I think this is what you’re referring to) about suffering is: that we can all bear suffering, even the worst suffering imaginable, if we realize that the suffering here on earth will seem but a minor inconvenience, like a brief stay in an uncomfortable motel, compared to the blessedness of heaven.

Her engagement in and with the world and its suffering - like the work of everyone in the Church that precedes and follows her - was only deepened by her faith. Quite the opposite, in fact, to what you’re suggesting.

The Church has performed more compassionate acts than any other group of people on earth. Ever. Bar none. And its members do so because they have the strength to do so; because they have a standard by which to compare present reality; because they are compelled to do so by love. The existence of heaven and heavenly things only furthers and deepens our engagement in the world.

I’d be glad to argue this^ - I do think you’re extremely confused on this matter.

But that’s another topic: what I was saying is that atheist peoples/systems fundamentally devalue the human being. Do I really have to argue that Communism does so? That Communist regimes have not only done so - but thereby proceed in a kind of nightmare logic to deciminate huge mases of people? Do I really have to argue that?

[/quote]

Mother Theressa shunned modern medicine for the people in her care preferring to keep them in a state of suffering that was conducive to the atmosphere she wanted her Nuns to live in. She also supported some pretty horrific regimes and embezzled funds. Not the Saint that the Catholic Church would like to paint her to be.

Large scale communism I agree has some pretty big issues but I don’t think any system can devalue the individual more than the Catholic Church which claims that we are all scum, inherently sinners and should writhe on the ground in joy that God cares enough to give us diseases, hardships and pain saying thank you master, give me more master like some sort of Sado Masochist being spanked by his Dominatrix.[/quote]

That’s a pretty extraordinary claim - will you please provide evidence and - especially - context for that? The medicines - I have no idea. The horrific regimes/embezzling funds - I’ll bet she was trying in very difficult circumstances to care for the sick and needy. The world is a complicated place and sometimes we have to do things that serve a greater good. Anyway, I’ll await the evidence.

As Brother Chris said, she isn’t a Saint. Even Saints, however, are sinners, and are imperfect.

The Catholic Church is the first institution in the world that made the extraordinary claim that each and every human being is precious. More precious than any of us can imagine. Ummmm…I’m not sure about how that squares with the idea that it also thinks we’re scum.

You obviously don’t understand what is meant by a fallen human nature and sin. Too bad - you might actually find it extremely interesting and enlightening.

I guess you’re counting on the “invisible ignorance” loophole. LOL!
[/quote]

I don’t know about the claims of embezzling and corruption, but I do know this - a large number of the problems plaguing Africa could be solved if the population practiced birth control. Yet the Catholic Church still clings to their Byzantine notion that birth control is wrong and as a result is fighting a losing battle against poverty in Africa.

BTW - I thought JP II made Theresa a saint? If not, then I recall that she was put on a fast-track to sainthood.[/quote]

Poverty is not caused by population. That’s simply incorrect.

Being against contraception isn’t “Byzantine” - and I’m not sure why Byzantine, by the way, should be a term of approbation.

And anyway, what does this have to do with Mother Teresa?

1102

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The whole assertion that religious are somehow morally superior or better always makes me roll my eyes because some of the meanest people I have known were also “good Catholics.” By contrast, the most interesting people I’ve met were non-religious of varying degrees. [/quote]

Okay, fair enough. I have precisely the opposite experience.

Have you ever looked into the actual history of the Crusades - I think you’ll be surprised in what it actually consisted. To assert that there they were anything like the atrocities committed in the 20th century by Communist/collectivist/statist regimes is breathtakingly risible.

Regarding the KKK/white supremacists, I suppose any group of people can lay claim to a religion - so what?

Communism (and collectivism/statism in general) is a religion - because there really isn’t any such thing as “atheism.” And exactly right - it had to supress religion in order to subsitute it’s own “religion” - which is a religion that has nothing to do with any transcendant God, but is a form of power and control over masses of people. In other words, a parody of a religion.

Catholics are free to practice yoga. They warn against the philosophies that are interfused with Yoga - first because, well, they’re creepy; second because they’re pantheist and exhibit a huge number of errors; three because given the errors they aer heretical. That’s no difference from the Church teaching that Islam is heretical - because it is.

[quote]
The idea that religious people don’t do bad things because they fear punishment from G-d is laughable as I’ve seen lots of religious people do bad things. And if you think about it, the idea that people only refrain from doing bad things because they fear retribution from some invisible cop is a sad statement about humanity and shows how emotionally immature many people are.[/quote]

No one argues that religious people “don’t do bad things.” They do do bad things. We are all fallen creatures and susceptible to sin. This thing about refraining from sin because of fear of retribution is a ghost in your own mind and has nothing to do with the Catholic faith.

“Atheism” is exactly an ideology. It’s filled to brimming with its own dogmas. It has its priests. It has its conformities. And, as ideologies go, it’s a very old one. There’s nothing new about it. It keeps cropping up as a kind of self-assertion - superbia

However, old as it is - and far older than Christianity - Atheism has never been the source of an enduring culture - because ultimately it’s a dead end.

1103

Please elaborate on the dogmas, priests, and conformities of atheism.

“Religion (from O.Fr. religion “religious community,” from L. religionem (nom. religio) “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,”[1] “obligation, the bond between man and the gods”[2] is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

If we go with this definition of religion, atheism doesn’t count as a religion. It’s simply not believing in a God or Gods. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. When a Christian is asked his or her religion, they say “Christian” not “Monotheist”.

1104

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Poverty is not caused by population. That’s simply incorrect. [/quote]

Seriously? Overpopulation may not be the sole cause of poverty, but having more mouths to feed than available resources for producing food doesn’t help matters. Basic economics.

Perhaps the term “backward” is more appropriate.

[quote]And anyway, what does this have to do with Mother Teresa?
[/quote]

Because her work would have been much more effective had she shown the local people how to use birth control.

1105

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Seriously, what is the issue here?

No system, no society, no organization in the history of the world rivals the bloodiness, the cruelty, the blithe disregard for the sanctity of human life, the sheer number of corpses that were ruthlessly piled up by Communist/collectivist/statist regimes - all of which were explicitly atheist.

Are you actually going to deny this? LOL?

[/quote]

No, not going to deny this at all. But you haven’t established causation, and you won’t be able to establish causation. Your argument goes something like this:

Stalin and Hitler were an atheists. (I’m assuming for the sake of argument that Hitler was an atheist. There is some dispute on this issue.)
Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Therefore, atheists commit atrocities.

This makes about as much sense as

Stalin and Hitler had mustaches.
Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Therefore, people with mustaches commit atrocities.

1106

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
However, old as it is - and far older than Christianity - Atheism has never been the source of an enduring culture - because ultimately it’s a dead end.

[/quote]

Buddhism is a major religion in Japan and Buddhism technically has no God so it can be described as an atheist philosophy. Japan seems to be doing okay.

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that religion is good for society, that does not prove the truth of the religion. Religion sets down certain rules for behavior. A well-ordered society tends to be more successful than one where anarchy prevails. No disagreement there. Which is precisely why I’ve been saying over and over that I, as well as many atheists/agnostics, follow society’s rules and we’re law-abiding citizens. We like living in a society and don’t want to be kicked out or go to prison. We also want people to like and trust us as this is preferable to living with people who hate us or don’t trust us. So, we don’t lie or cheat. The only difference is that we see value in these things for their own sake; we don’t need to fear punishment from and invisible friend who lives in the sky.

1108

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Please elaborate on the dogmas, priests, and conformities of atheism.

“Religion (from O.Fr. religion “religious community,” from L. religionem (nom. religio) “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,”[1] “obligation, the bond between man and the gods”[2] is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

If we go with this definition of religion, atheism doesn’t count as a religion. It’s simply not believing in a God or Gods. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. When a Christian is asked his or her religion, they say “Christian” not “Monotheist”.

[/quote]

What he said. Please tell me these dogmas - I’d like to know myself. The opposite of “atheist” is “theist,” defined as one who believes in a God. What is the dogma of theism? There isn’t one, because theist can describe any religion that is based in belief in a god even though many religions hold radially different views. Christians and Muslims are “theists,” yet many would say that these two religions hold opposite ideologies. So too with atheists. The term atheist simply describes the lack of a belief in a God. That’s it - it ends there. Beyond that, atheists can hold different worldviews. Tell me if I’m wrong, but religious people simply can’t understand how another person can have no religion, so they convince themselves that atheism has to be a religion and has to be an ideology.

1110

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

Anyone can be a murderer, criminal, or despot. I don’t see why you all think these are limited to atheists or agnostics. If you’re going to debate, Sloth, than debate, and stop making these baseless statements.
[/quote]

You should’ve followed the thread. I’ve picked up those doctrinal statements of atheistic belief from atheists.

1111

Communism isn’t a religion…

1112

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The whole assertion that religious are somehow morally superior or better always makes me roll my eyes because some of the meanest people I have known were also “good Catholics.” By contrast, the most interesting people I’ve met were non-religious of varying degrees.
[/quote]

Morality is a side effect of religion and even more so of knowing Jesus. However, I would wager that there are more moral people that are religious than not.

Okay, you got the Crusades. The KKK, they were so far off from being Christians, they could have been saying in the name of Allah, and been about as close. White supremacists, same thing. The Crusades you have because that was about Holy Land, now was it really Christian? I do not know, was it wrong? Probably.

Not really paranoid, looking at yoga and what is considered doing “yoga” by Hindus, yoga comprises one of the six main Hindu schools of philosophy (darshanas). Yoga is part of the Hindu religion, just like taking communion is part of ours.

Yes, and your point? When making an act of contrition, and you do it out of fear, it is only a partial act of contrition. We recognize that some people do things out of fear.

[quote]
Religious people have a tough time with atheism/agnosticism because they’re so used to having an ideology, which is pervasive in religion, that they assume that atheism/agnosticism also has an “ideology.” They then assume that such ideology must be negative or immoral or whatever. Here’s the thing - atheism/agnosticism have no ideology. It is up to the individual to determine how to live his or her life. That’s the point. If anything, ideology for an atheist or an agnostic would simple be this: accept nothing without evidence.[/quote]

Really? Because there is a common theme in the atheist community, which tends to be corrosive to the rest of the community.

1113

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’d say atheistic atrocities are compounded by the pridefullness of atheists who trivialize the oppressed and murdered, by denying why they were oppressed and murdered under their banner.
[/quote]

Atheist system/people (Soviets, China, etc.) by their very nature devalue the human being. The next step of destroying life by the millions is merely a bureaucratic move. [/quote]

That is simply not true. A religion because it believes in an after life actually has less incentive to minimise suffering in the here and now.

If I let you suffer now, the suffering is good for your soul therefore I am helping you. (Mother Theressa had logic that ran along those lines)

If I go and blow myself up taking with me the enemies of my God then I will get my reward in the afterlife.

Neither of those positions would happen in an atheist society where the greater good of the community is all that should be important. (I know that the greater good argument has been horrifically misapplied however it is not the argument that is wrong.)[/quote]

Mother Theresa’s logic did not run along those lines - where do you get this stuff from? She worked her entire life to help the poor and sick. What she said (and I think this is what you’re referring to) about suffering is: that we can all bear suffering, even the worst suffering imaginable, if we realize that the suffering here on earth will seem but a minor inconvenience, like a brief stay in an uncomfortable motel, compared to the blessedness of heaven.

Her engagement in and with the world and its suffering - like the work of everyone in the Church that precedes and follows her - was only deepened by her faith. Quite the opposite, in fact, to what you’re suggesting.

The Church has performed more compassionate acts than any other group of people on earth. Ever. Bar none. And its members do so because they have the strength to do so; because they have a standard by which to compare present reality; because they are compelled to do so by love. The existence of heaven and heavenly things only furthers and deepens our engagement in the world.

I’d be glad to argue this^ - I do think you’re extremely confused on this matter.

But that’s another topic: what I was saying is that atheist peoples/systems fundamentally devalue the human being. Do I really have to argue that Communism does so? That Communist regimes have not only done so - but thereby proceed in a kind of nightmare logic to deciminate huge mases of people? Do I really have to argue that?

[/quote]

Mother Theressa shunned modern medicine for the people in her care preferring to keep them in a state of suffering that was conducive to the atmosphere she wanted her Nuns to live in. She also supported some pretty horrific regimes and embezzled funds. Not the Saint that the Catholic Church would like to paint her to be.

Large scale communism I agree has some pretty big issues but I don’t think any system can devalue the individual more than the Catholic Church which claims that we are all scum, inherently sinners and should writhe on the ground in joy that God cares enough to give us diseases, hardships and pain saying thank you master, give me more master like some sort of Sado Masochist being spanked by his Dominatrix.[/quote]

That’s a pretty extraordinary claim - will you please provide evidence and - especially - context for that? The medicines - I have no idea. The horrific regimes/embezzling funds - I’ll bet she was trying in very difficult circumstances to care for the sick and needy. The world is a complicated place and sometimes we have to do things that serve a greater good. Anyway, I’ll await the evidence.

As Brother Chris said, she isn’t a Saint. Even Saints, however, are sinners, and are imperfect.

The Catholic Church is the first institution in the world that made the extraordinary claim that each and every human being is precious. More precious than any of us can imagine. Ummmm…I’m not sure about how that squares with the idea that it also thinks we’re scum.

You obviously don’t understand what is meant by a fallen human nature and sin. Too bad - you might actually find it extremely interesting and enlightening.

I guess you’re counting on the “invisible ignorance” loophole. LOL!
[/quote]

I don’t know about the claims of embezzling and corruption, but I do know this - a large number of the problems plaguing Africa could be solved if the population practiced birth control. Yet the Catholic Church still clings to their Byzantine notion that birth control is wrong and as a result is fighting a losing battle against poverty in Africa.

BTW - I thought JP II made Theresa a saint? If not, then I recall that she was put on a fast-track to sainthood.[/quote]

The Catholic Church advocates birth control, natural birth control (link: http://nfpandmore.org/ ). Which is actually far superior to that of artificial birth control.

I think Africa’s problems are more directly correlated with their government’s corruption than their birth control. I personally do not believe that Africa is over populated, either way.

No, Pope John Paul The Second did not make Theresa a Saint. She is Blessed Mother Theresa, one step away from Sainthood.
(Side note: The comments about here embezzling and corruption comes from Christopher Hitchens.)

1114

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Poverty is not caused by population. That’s simply incorrect. [/quote]

Seriously? Overpopulation may not be the sole cause of poverty, but having more mouths to feed than available resources for producing food doesn’t help matters. Basic economics.[/quote]

Lawl! Basic economics, so everything that has to do with poverty has to do with economics, how about that is common sense. Basic economics would say that the people would pay more for resources since the resources are more scarce than if they had fewer people.

People have less kids when they have less resources, there is a catch in the system. Maybe it is the corrupt governments that steal and then sell these people’s lands to corporations so they can rape their otherwise virgin lands for minerals.

So you do not agree with it, so it is backwards. Who is more backwards? Someone who follows their instinct to procreate, or someone who sabotages it?

Because her work would have been much more effective had she shown the local people how to use birth control.[/quote]

Um, artificial birth control goes against the Catholic Church’s teachings, and up to 1930’s all Christian’s teachings. I am sorry, G-d does not conform to society, the Father demands its sons and daughters conform to Him. This includes artificial birth control.

1115

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Seriously, what is the issue here?

No system, no society, no organization in the history of the world rivals the bloodiness, the cruelty, the blithe disregard for the sanctity of human life, the sheer number of corpses that were ruthlessly piled up by Communist/collectivist/statist regimes - all of which were explicitly atheist.

Are you actually going to deny this? LOL?

[/quote]

No, not going to deny this at all. But you haven’t established causation, and you won’t be able to establish causation. Your argument goes something like this:

Stalin and Hitler were an atheists. (I’m assuming for the sake of argument that Hitler was an atheist. There is some dispute on this issue.)
Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Therefore, atheists commit atrocities.

This makes about as much sense as

Stalin and Hitler had mustaches.
Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Therefore, people with mustaches commit atrocities.[/quote]

How about this.

Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Stalin and Hitler placed no value on human life, because
Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
Atheism places no value on human life.
Therefore, some atheist commit atrocities because they place no value on life.

1116

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Random thoughts and questions, having slogged through all 45 pages of this mind-boggling discussion:

  1. What if God / Proper Worship genuinely is perceived differently by each and every believer? A bunch of folks looking at, or touching, a multifaceted divine existence from different “locations” might indeed all “see” or “feel” something either slightly or radically different. Maybe you’re ALL right… (Probably sounds pretty dumb to our resident true beleivers, I suppose.)

[quote]

You do understand the use of the parable of the blind man and the elephant right?

Sorry, truth is truth, truth is not relative. Now, G-d is more vast than one person can understand so of course someone might have understanding of G-d different than the next person. However, you have to be prudent in this because this is what created such great heresies as dualism.

Shows respect, comes from the tradition of when writing the name of G-d, YHW, writing it without vowels.

[quote]
3. Do you guys really call us nonbelievers “pagans?” Ouch.[/quote]

No, we call people that do not believe atheists. We call false believers pagans.

1117

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
However, old as it is - and far older than Christianity - Atheism has never been the source of an enduring culture - because ultimately it’s a dead end.

[/quote]

Buddhism is a major religion in Japan and Buddhism technically has no God so it can be described as an atheist philosophy. Japan seems to be doing okay.[/quote]

Eh. Ancestor worship is a large part of Buddhism…

Edit: Oh, and Shinto is polytheistic.[/quote]

Plus, you know Japan has a very strong community factor that pressures people into being above average, as well as they government does not oppress them like African governments tend to do.

1118

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Seriously, what is the issue here?

No system, no society, no organization in the history of the world rivals the bloodiness, the cruelty, the blithe disregard for the sanctity of human life, the sheer number of corpses that were ruthlessly piled up by Communist/collectivist/statist regimes - all of which were explicitly atheist.

Are you actually going to deny this? LOL?

[/quote]

No, not going to deny this at all. But you haven’t established causation, and you won’t be able to establish causation. Your argument goes something like this:

Stalin and Hitler were an atheists. (I’m assuming for the sake of argument that Hitler was an atheist. There is some dispute on this issue.)
Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Therefore, atheists commit atrocities.

This makes about as much sense as

Stalin and Hitler had mustaches.
Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Therefore, people with mustaches commit atrocities.[/quote]

How about this.

Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Stalin and Hitler placed no value on human life, because
Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
Atheism places no value on human life.
Therefore, some atheist commit atrocities because they place no value on life.[/quote]

Wow.

1119

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

As I have stated elsewhere. The group of people who are being nice because they want to be nice and because they are focussed on this life really should be nicer than the group of people who are only being nice because they are told to by an unseen master so that they can get a reward in the next life.[/quote]

LOL. Is that what you think Christianity is? Really? [/quote]

At a very basic and ridiculously simplified level yes that is the case.[/quote]

Not even true “at a very basic and ridiculously simplified level.”

You probably know that. Or maybe you don’t. If case you don’t, by any chance have you ever heard of the term “invincible ignorance”?

[/quote]

At the most basic level the message of God is be nice to each other so that you get to sit by my side in heaven after you die.[/quote]

You missed the other part. Love the Lord your God with all your Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength. The two go hand in hand.

And it is not just being nice, but Love your neighbor as yourself.

1120

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Seriously, what is the issue here?

No system, no society, no organization in the history of the world rivals the bloodiness, the cruelty, the blithe disregard for the sanctity of human life, the sheer number of corpses that were ruthlessly piled up by Communist/collectivist/statist regimes - all of which were explicitly atheist.

Are you actually going to deny this? LOL?

[/quote]

No, not going to deny this at all. But you haven’t established causation, and you won’t be able to establish causation. Your argument goes something like this:

Stalin and Hitler were an atheists. (I’m assuming for the sake of argument that Hitler was an atheist. There is some dispute on this issue.)
Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Therefore, atheists commit atrocities.

This makes about as much sense as

Stalin and Hitler had mustaches.
Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Therefore, people with mustaches commit atrocities.[/quote]

How about this.

Stalin and Hitler committed atrocities.
Stalin and Hitler placed no value on human life, because
Stalin and Hitler were atheists.
Atheism places no value on human life.
Therefore, some atheist commit atrocities because they place no value on life.[/quote]

The real argument is that atheistic argument when it is logically played out can put no value on life since life is irrelevant.

So perhaps it should be re-written as followed

Atheism when followed to its logical conclusion makes life irrelevant
Atheist who follow the concept to its logical conclusion believe life irrelevant
Stalin and Hitler believed life was irrelevant
Therefore they committed atrocities because life was irrelevant