Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Drifting away from the Church
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7036		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  Cephas [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:13 am ]
Post subject: 
Original sin has been erased after baptism BUT cvhirldren who have died before baptism are probably let in on account of innocence BUT it is entirely up to God to decide.

And although he has died for forginess of original sin we must still choose that path, CHOOSE IT, which is why purgatory, like Hell exists as consequence of choice.
Author:  iamtheparty [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:42 am ]
Post subject: 
My mum raised me a Catholic but by around the age of about 14 I really lost all my faith. It had been slipping for years after I started questioning why religion had to make me feel bad about things I enjoy. The clincher was when it occured to me that, under Christian law, my dad was going to hell for being an atheist, even though he's a really really good person. Just seemed kinda crappy after that.

Don't get me wrong here, you can believe whatever you want, but it all just sounds like fairy-stories to me now.
Author:  Trev-MUN [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
iamtheparty wrote:
My mum raised me a Catholic but by around the age of about 14 I really lost all my faith. It had been slipping for years after I started questioning why religion had to make me feel bad about things I enjoy. The clincher was when it occured to me that, under Christian law, my dad was going to hell for being an atheist, even though he's a really really good person. Just seemed kinda crappy after that.

Don't get me wrong here, you can believe whatever you want, but it all just sounds like fairy-stories to me now.


Takes us right back to my post.

All I really have to say is, speaking from an agnostic or plain theist stanpoint, it's a little fallacious to deny existence of the divine just because you disagree with one religion's viewpoints or laws--or for that matter, a denomination of Christianity's viewpoints and laws. If I understand what Gidley went through, that's what he did until he sat down and evaluated things again.
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:06 am ]
Post subject: 
iamtheparty wrote:
My mum raised me a Catholic but by around the age of about 14 I really lost all my faith. It had been slipping for years after I started questioning why religion had to make me feel bad about things I enjoy. The clincher was when it occured to me that, under Christian law, my dad was going to hell for being an atheist, even though he's a really really good person. Just seemed kinda crappy after that.

Don't get me wrong here, you can believe whatever you want, but it all just sounds like fairy-stories to me now.


That's the problem, every religion screws every other religion and says they're going to hell. That's a fundamental problem with religion in general, can't we all just get along?

Hehe, you said "fairy-stories". That's so British :p .
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Cephas wrote:
Original sin has been erased after baptism BUT cvhirldren who have died before baptism are probably let in on account of innocence BUT it is entirely up to God to decide.

And although he has died for forginess of original sin we must still choose that path, CHOOSE IT, which is why purgatory, like Hell exists as consequence of choice.

But you still have yet to establish by Scripture or sound reasoning that purgatory does indeed exist. I contend it does not, since Scripture makes absolutely no reference to it, and there's no reason to assume that Christ's sacrifice is insufficient to forgive our sins. You might want to study up on the writings of Sts. Athanasius and Augustin.

Racer_X, Lahi, you're still operating under a false assumption. The issue isn't whether children can or cannot be held accountable for sins, but whether or not the power of sin is at work in them from the moment they are born. Psalm 51 clearly states that it is, unless you can point to any Scripture that says otherwise. Ergo, original sin. But if the question is, "What happens to unbaptized babies?" then the answer is simple: it's up to God to determine that, not us. We can only trust in his mercy for them, even as we can only trust in his mercy for us.

Back to Tor's question from earlier: if Christ died to forgive our sins, why is there such a thing as original sin? Something I failed to mention: Christ's crucifixion is sufficient for forgiveness and cleansing from sin, but that crucifixion must be applied to the life of the individual Christian. Romans 6 explains one way this takes place (which, btw, is why we Lutherans believe so strongly in the Sacrament of Baptism). Holy Communion is another. The preaching of God's Word yet another. Once again, we are back to the means of grace being the way in which Christ's atoning sacrifice is made manifest in our own lives, working to forgive us, cleanse us, and reconcile us to God.

But as far as other religions go, Jesus did say, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes unto the Father except by Me." If he is indeed telling the truth, then how can we faithfully trust and serve him without simultaneously excluding those who do neither? It's an interesting conondrum, and one that has yet to offer me a decent answer.
Author:  Trev-MUN [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
That's the problem, every religion screws every other religion and says they're going to hell. That's a fundamental problem with religion in general, can't we all just get along?


It's a fundamental problem with anything that so much as deals with one's beliefs about the divine, whether they think something's there or not. And I feel many people are not getting the bigger picture when they say that about religion. (e.g. Jello B, others who called religion a weakness on that thread)

To wit, there are many, many atheists I've seen who try to push the myth that religion is inherently bad, violent, and hateful. The band "Bad Religion" even made a song called "Atheist Peace."

The reality is, atheism hardly frees you from religious intolerance. It just takes a different form--where a religious person might consider you going to hell, condemned to suffer, or what not, an atheist will tell you you're a caveman, insane, mentally ill, mindless, a sheep, or other attacks on your intelligence and worth as a human being.

In fact, many atheists I've seen--especially people like Richard Dawkins (who called religion a virus of the mind)--are easily the godless equivalent of Jack Chick, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Fred Phelps. Atheists have slaughtered MANY religious people for no other reason than intolerance of their beliefs, as evidenced here. And that's only one instance. In China, you can't really take high level careers in either economical or political fields unless you are a member of the party, and to be a member of the party you have to be atheist. Therefore any single religion in China barely passes 1% of the population (and explains why atheism is one of the highest ranking "religious beliefs" of the world*).

People only think atheism is peaceful/calm/tolerant/pacifist/tame because atheists do not dominate the rest of the world--currently, only countries that are or have been Marxist-Leninist (which called for atheism as the official belief and suppression of religion) are majorly atheist. Therefore, it's all about percentages--if there were more atheists, there would be more ghastly things you'd hear concerning what atheists do to others who don't share their denial in God. Thus you only hear about the executions, the mass murdering, the oppression against rleigion in places where atheism was forced into dominance.

So far you only hear the, uh, "bible burners" (for lack of a better witticism to describe atheist versions of "bible thumpers") here in the West, but that may yet change--atheism has grown a lot in Europe, for instance.

... Wow, I just left a huge loaf of unpainted toast. I had a reason for going into a tirade though, Prof--just trying to keep your mind balanced on the situation, by showing you how people without religion have behaved towards those who have it.

Still, I'm sorry for the grossly off topic rant here. I mean, my intent was on topic, but I delved into a lot of random stuff.

* Interesting fact I've uncovered by looking into religion and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has had several notorious periods of oppressing the religious and forcing atheism down its subjects' throats, including mass executions of clerics (right after the Bolsheviks won the Russian Revolution), and less hostile methods of persuasion with the Society of Godless Workers and the like. They managed to make 60% of the population atheist with this, with the rest of the 30% belonging to the religious. When the Soviet Union fell and religious freedom returned, this reversed--now atheism is around 30%. Even the current president of the Soviet Union, Vladmir Putin, converted from atheism to Russian Orthodoxy back in the early 1990s.

OKAY! OKAY! I'LL STOP! *gets to painting that toast*
Author:  Cephas [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
It is true that I cannot prove everything and yes i will try to find sufficient answer but I can only give proof form the lives of the Saints (i.e. those who were allowed to view purgatory)
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cephas wrote:
It is true that I cannot prove everything and yes i will try to find sufficient answer but I can only give proof form the lives of the Saints (i.e. those who were allowed to view purgatory)

1. Are they to be trusted above the teachings of Sacred Scripture? That was one of the points Luther contested in the Reformation, and one in which I would prefer to stand by him. While I have great respect for men like Aquinas, Francis, Dominic, etc., I would be hesitant to attribute them with infallibility. In other words, the saints can be mistaken; the Scriptures cannot.

2. Which saints? It is my understanding that the idea of purgatory did not surface until about the 7th century or so. To the best of my konwledge, the great saints of the early church (like Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Augustin, etc,) did not acknowledge such a place. If anything, I would think that the idea of purgatory would go against the teachings of Augustin and Athanasius, who both attributed salvation to the incarnation, sacrificial death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who alone is able to atone for sins due to the fusion of his divine and human natures.

However, for the sake of preserving the main topic of this thread, I will post a copy of this post in the thread labeled "Catholicism" and we can continue our discussion there.

TOAST PAINT
Author:  Jello B. [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Trev-MUN wrote:
I feel many people are not getting the bigger picture when they say that about religion. (e.g. Jello B, others who called religion a weakness on that thread)

To wit, there are many, many atheists I've seen who try to push the myth that religion is inherently bad, violent, and hateful. The band "Bad Religion" even made a song called "Atheist Peace."

The reality is, atheism hardly frees you from religious intolerance. It just takes a different form--where a religious person might consider you going to hell, condemned to suffer, or what not, an atheist will tell you you're a caveman, insane, mentally ill, mindless, a sheep, or other attacks on your intelligence and worth as a human being.


Umm... *cough*
Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Jello B. wrote:
Trev-MUN wrote:
I feel many people are not getting the bigger picture when they say that about religion. (e.g. Jello B, others who called religion a weakness on that thread)

To wit, there are many, many atheists I've seen who try to push the myth that religion is inherently bad, violent, and hateful. The band "Bad Religion" even made a song called "Atheist Peace."

The reality is, atheism hardly frees you from religious intolerance. It just takes a different form--where a religious person might consider you going to hell, condemned to suffer, or what not, an atheist will tell you you're a caveman, insane, mentally ill, mindless, a sheep, or other attacks on your intelligence and worth as a human being.


Umm... *cough*


Yeah... Jello is one of the good guys. He's never called me dumb for having faith, unlike some athiests I've known.
Of course, if he did, I could just beat him up. I'm bigger than him :mrgreen:
Author:  Jello B. [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
Jello B. wrote:
Trev-MUN wrote:
I feel many people are not getting the bigger picture when they say that about religion. (e.g. Jello B, others who called religion a weakness on that thread)

To wit, there are many, many atheists I've seen who try to push the myth that religion is inherently bad, violent, and hateful. The band "Bad Religion" even made a song called "Atheist Peace."

The reality is, atheism hardly frees you from religious intolerance. It just takes a different form--where a religious person might consider you going to hell, condemned to suffer, or what not, an atheist will tell you you're a caveman, insane, mentally ill, mindless, a sheep, or other attacks on your intelligence and worth as a human being.


Umm... *cough*


Yeah... Jello is one of the good guys. He's never called me dumb for having faith, unlike some athiests I've known.
Of course, if he did, I could just beat him up. I'm bigger than him :mrgreen:


Ahh, thanks, StrongRad. You're one of the good ones, too. You've never condemned me to Hell and called me a sinner(Which is crap, anyway. A soul is like Windows. You can't have a perfectly clean installation for more than five minutes.).

And somehow I think that even if you were my size you could still beat me up :mrgreen:

ImageImage
Author:  Trev-MUN [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hm. I suppose it wasn't obvious that I was talking about the "fire and brimstone" types, wasn't I? I figured that, since it was obvious that there are tolerant religious people, it would be a given that I was talking about the "fire and brimstone" religious zealots--and therefore comparing what militant atheists do in kind.

Keep that in mind guys, I'm talking about the zealot fundie atheists. I've met atheists before who, despite believing there is no god, don't seek to belittle others or coerce them into being godless, or view religion as a weakness of humanity that must be let go. I have a lot of respect for, say, Isaac Asimov, who (as I understand) was atheist but felt that genuine religious beliefs weren't harmful. Gorbachev's another atheist I have respect for, because he was paved the way for freedom of religion in Russia after decades of the Soviet Union imposing atheism through various methods.

That said, yes, I did see the post Jello B made here. On the other hand, Jello B has made posts like this and this.

That gives me the impression that while he won't do anything to stop people from choosing a non-atheist path or actively attack them, he still thinks all religion is a blight to some degree that must be purged for humanity to improve. He is not tolerant of religion, he just won't try to stop people or make the brash, hateful remarks people like Richard Dawkins do.

Therefore I feel that he's not a good guy as far as religious tolerance goes. He's just a 'passive bad guy.' Therefore, he has to be shown the rest of the story to realize that religon isn't any more of a blight than his own beliefs--to put it very bluntly, that there are people who agree with his beliefs and are part of the problem, just like the Jack T. Chicks are.
Author:  Jello B. [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Trev-MUN wrote:
That said, yes, I did see the post Jello B made here. On the other hand, Jello B has made posts like this and this.

That gives me the impression that while he won't do anything to stop people from choosing a non-atheist path or actively attack them, he still thinks all religion is a blight to some degree that must be purged for humanity to improve. He is not tolerant of religion, he just won't try to stop people.


I realize that some of those things I said in that thread were kind of uninformed. Obviously I can tolerate religion if I try to help people with religious problems.

Trev-MUN wrote:
Therefore he's not a good guy as far as religious tolerance goes. He's just a 'passive bad guy.' And he has to be shown the restof the story to realize that religon isn't a blight--to put it very bluntly, people that agree with his beliefs are part of the problem, just like the Jack T. Chicks are.


Wow, I'm a bad guy. And part of the problem, no less. What are you trying to prove? That Atheists are worse than religious people, or that religious people are pure and Atheists are horrid beings?
Author:  Trev-MUN [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Wow, I'm a bad guy. And part of the problem, no less. What are you trying to prove? That Atheists are worse than religious people, or that religious people are pure and Atheists are horrid beings?


Actually, no, I'm not. What I'm trying to do is level the playing field, if you didn't notice. You kept saying in previous posts (and making some snarky jabs such as "Ohnoes, here comes Trev-MUN!" and "Ever heard of the Crusades?") that religion has caused needless death--that religious people, or at least religions themselves are "the problem."

I'm trying to show that atheists have done much of the same thing, for the same reasons--that religious intolerance is a problem that plagues us all. People have used atheism and theism of all brands to justify killing someone, or taking their rights away, or treating them like second class citizens and preventing them from advancing in society.

You probably replied while I was adding that extra paragraph in (I tend to post and then continue editing as better words come to mind), but please read what I said about making a difference between atheists and militant (aka fundie zealot) atheists.
Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
*opens fire hose*

TAKE THAT FLAME WAR KINDLING!!!

:-)

So, yeah.. Trev, I will admit that there are more than a handful of athiests who seek to remove every trace of religion from the planet. Fair enough. Perhaps Jello is in that group.
There are Christians, Mulsims, Jews, etc that seek to remove all traces of atheism from the planet.


However, I don't think I've ever seen him make a statement the says something along the lines of "Let's just stop this discussion. I'm right and you know it. I mean, come on, you're a christian, how smart can you be?" (I've gotten that one before...)

When he does THAT, I will count him among the ranks of the "bad guys"..
Author:  Jello B. [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
So, yeah.. Trev, I will admit that there are more than a handful of athiests who seek to remove every trace of religion from the planet. Fair enough. Perhaps Jello is in that group.


I don't seek to remove religion, just the bad things that go along with it.
Author:  Trev-MUN [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hey look--as inflammatory as my post two spaces back was, calling Jello a passive bad guy, I'm not trying to pick a fight with him. I was, basing off what remarks he's made in the past, sizing him up for what he is when it comes to religious intolerance.

StrongRad wrote:
So, yeah.. Trev, I will admit that there are more than a handful of athiests who seek to remove every trace of religion from the planet. Fair enough.


Trust me dude ... the places I've gone, it would scare you what some atheists want done. Jello B is very mild compared to them, that's why I said he was a 'passive bad guy'--at most he agrees with them that religion is a Bad Thing, according to his past posts (not counting the ones he just posted!).

But he still has--or had, considering what he's saying now--those same beliefs. Which is why I sought to bring some additional facts to light, to show religious intolerance is a problem every group has to deal with.

When he was confronted with facts initially, he snarked in response. Twice. Now he admits he was uninformed to a degree--and I'm still learning new things myself, but what I have seen from the history books clearly demonstrates something I've felt for a long time--that no one group is free from religious intolerance, and can use their beliefs (or disbeliefs) to attack others.

I was hoping I could get Jello B to see it. His most recent posts though, maybe he finally does. So maybe he's not even a bad guy after all.

Quote:
There are Christians, Mulsims, Jews, etc that seek to remove all traces of atheism from the planet.


Yeah, I know, and I'm not happy about that either.

Quote:
[He's never said anything like] "Let's just stop this discussion. I'm right and you know it. I mean, come on, you're a christian, how smart can you be?" (I've gotten that one before...)


Yeah, see, things like that really get me mad. I've encountered a few atheists like that too, one openly admitted to being narcissist and assumed he won the argument and "proved" that theists are incapable of reason, that atheists are the only intelligent people.
Author:  StrongRad [ Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Jello B. wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
So, yeah.. Trev, I will admit that there are more than a handful of athiests who seek to remove every trace of religion from the planet. Fair enough. Perhaps Jello is in that group.


I don't seek to remove religion, just the bad things that go along with it.


You and me both, man...

As I said in a very early post in this thread, I think religion is a strength (because it pulls people together to do a lot of good), but it's also a weakness (because some exploit the strong emotions that come with religion for evil means)..
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:40 am ]
Post subject: 
Seems I remember mentioning somebody who made a lifetime career of that. Maybe you've heard of him: Martin Luther?
Author:  StrongRad [ Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:49 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Seems I remember mentioning somebody who made a lifetime career of that. Maybe you've heard of him: Martin Luther?


Oh Dids, you and your crazy stroies about Martin Luther.. :p

You know, before I took religious studies, I always wondered what his beef was with the Church... After that, I can't blame him. Indulgences WEREN'T the only thing, but, yeah, I can see me wanting to leave the Church if they were essentially saying "if you want to go to heaven, you can, as long as you give us money " (Did Scientology break off from that?).
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:42 am ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
Didymus wrote:
Seems I remember mentioning somebody who made a lifetime career of that. Maybe you've heard of him: Martin Luther?


Oh Dids, you and your crazy stroies about Martin Luther.. :p

You know, before I took religious studies, I always wondered what his beef was with the Church... After that, I can't blame him. Indulgences WEREN'T the only thing, but, yeah, I can see me wanting to leave the Church if they were essentially saying "if you want to go to heaven, you can, as long as you give us money " (Did Scientology break off from that?).


Let's please not even come NEAR touching Scientology, seeing Tom Cruse being the psuedo-religious zealot makes be gag a bit.
Author:  Didymus [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didn't John Travolta play L. Ron Hubbard in a movie or something?
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Didn't John Travolta play L. Ron Hubbard in a movie or something?


IMDB knows
Author:  Cephas [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:40 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Cephas wrote:
It is true that I cannot prove everything and yes i will try to find sufficient answer but I can only give proof form the lives of the Saints (i.e. those who were allowed to view purgatory)

1. Are they to be trusted above the teachings of Sacred Scripture? That was one of the points Luther contested in the Reformation, and one in which I would prefer to stand by him. While I have great respect for men like Aquinas, Francis, Dominic, etc., I would be hesitant to attribute them with infallibility. In other words, the saints can be mistaken; the Scriptures cannot.

2. Which saints? It is my understanding that the idea of purgatory did not surface until about the 7th century or so. To the best of my konwledge, the great saints of the early church (like Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Augustin, etc,) did not acknowledge such a place. If anything, I would think that the idea of purgatory would go against the teachings of Augustin and Athanasius, who both attributed salvation to the incarnation, sacrificial death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who alone is able to atone for sins due to the fusion of his divine and human natures.

However, for the sake of preserving the main topic of this thread, I will post a copy of this post in the thread labeled "Catholicism" and we can continue our discussion there.

TOAST PAINT




The church has had ample time to review these miracles so I can only trust their judgement.
Author:  Didymus [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've already Painted the Toast, Cephas. Please continue discussion on this topic in the Catholicism thread.
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/