okinrus:
What I meant by judgmental is this: all of us has personal moral code, be it Christian or another, but few of us fulfill everything our code tells us. We might try to, but we don't
.
Well then, Christians aren't trying hard enough, and they better ascribe to try harder before they feel fit to proselytize to people who don't believe their religion. And you certainly shouldn't try to debate me about Christianity when you can't even live the faith.
Tell me what Christian has managed to sell all that they own and give it to the poor for alms.
St. Franscis of Assi.
I said "contemporary" smart ass LOL But I give you points for trying, so here we go on why I don't accept. Though St Francis was certainly a better Christian in that he gave more of a try to be Christ like than others, he still had his failures. (I hate to rank on him here because he is attributed with liberation theology, and it's one of the only redeeming factors Christianity has left.) Yet the atheist in me has to observe that there is actually speculation Saint Francis never even existed! (As is the problem with most saints.) Everything we know of him comes from his supposed followers, and the story of his conversion is pretty outrageous. (Think paul and the road to calvary, visions etc. He did alot of killing too before the conversion. Saint Francis' birth is equally akined to Jesus, being born in a stable, etc.) Regardless of his existence, there are things written about him which are troubling. He is reknown for not respecting bodily integrity and preaching the idea of sado-masochism & self-mutilation to others. He actually asked for forgiveness regarding this prior to his death. He rabidly attacked the idea of females in the church, and though sexism is common place in Christianity, even Christ's apostle of the apostles was a woman. Hence, Assissi helped to further the degregation of women. Francis aided in the holy wars by playing missionary to the Muslims. And his worst crime? Saintly Francis actually helped the inquisition by reporting to the courts, towns in his native europe which were "practicing witchcraft".
The inquisition was the bloodiest time in human history, a relentless persecution of women and the occasional male land owner for the sake of gaining western europe's wealth, land and conversion under the guise of heresy. If you read inquisition reports you shall see the St Francis of Assissi order reported numerous times in giving leads to where officers of the court should bring their murderous hand. Why Francis even armed his friars with the "Malleus Maleficarum" Pope Innocent the third gave him. (For those of you don't know the Malleus Maleficarum is the dreaded witch's handbook that was the guide by which millions of innocent people were tortured and murdered.)
The Franciscans participated in the witch trials in an: initiating, supporting and facilitating function by gathering or manufacturing evidence such as for the Logroño witch tribunal (in Spain), for which they interrupted their preaching crusade to present a "dressed toad" and pots of "witches' salve" as evidence of witchcraft. They were deeply involved in spying out potential witches and reporting them to the authorities. The Franciscans were not beyond forcibly extracting false confessions such as done for instance by the monk Fray Juan de Ladron & Saint Francis of Assissi. Here's a little sample from a book I have: "Inquisition in Spain" by Henningson
"He took part in the witch-hunt in Alava in the capacity of one of the Inquisition's special emissaries. Three women were reported by him after the priest at Larrea, Martin Lopez de Lazarraga, had tied them by the hands and neck, assisted by de Ladron, who then threatened to take the women to the Logroño showcase witch-trial if they did not confess. They did confess but later told de Salazar what happened. Lazarraga had been appointed inquisitorial commissioner and put into the head of one of the women the idea of accusing six uncooperative local priests of witchcraft. At Logroño many people were tortured into admitting anything the monks told them to say. One of the women, Mariquita de Atauri, felt so terribly distressed after denouncing so many innocent people under torture that she drowned herself in the river near her house. The main culprit in extracting the confessions was identified as the Franciscan Fray de Ladron. The still existing records tell of many such cases where the Franciscans were instrumental in extracting confessions and reporting all to the witch-tribunals, complete with samples of witches' ointments and toads. Their involvement in the witch burnings can only be called revolting."
In conclusion, did Saint Francis of Assissi exist? Maybe, but if he did, history does not only have kind things to say about him.
ME: Jesus himself said you can not know him unless you give all that you have to the poor.
Okinrus: I disagree.
How you can disagree I do not know, considering it is right there in scripture!
Christians should give to the poor and needy, certainly. There's a time and place to give everything; there's a time not to. For example, if you gave thousands of dollars to a poor person on the street, how do you know that money will be well-spent on food and not drugs? You don't.
Cop Out! I don't ask a poor person what they are going to do with money I give them. I simply give. I have the excess, that excess can help to aid the existence of another, and hence I give. If I am suspect, then I can donate to a charity where I can be assured it is going to causes I find worthy. There are millions of them out there, so why is this country that is 80% still the wealthiest nation in the world? Why is the Catholic church the wealthiest organization in the world when a vow of poverty is mandatory? The answer is easy enough: greed! Like I said a million times before, people believe for personal reward, but when asked to show the veracity of their belief all of a sudden there is a million and one unchristian reasons to not put their money where there mouth is. I say if you are truly a believer, then prove it: give all you have away, wear a rag, roam the country side and tend to the marginalized. But don't ascribe to argue with me about Christianity when you don't even live what you preach.
True, but Judas, saying that the oil could be better spent, objected to Mary's gift.
Another good point point smart ass, but none the less: What did Jesus tell Judas? That the poor shall be there, but not him. The point is that Jesus had to be annointed, the point is that Jesus was going to die. Hence, the point is that the oil served a greater good in annointing the savior and was an act of love to a dying man. I think if you are dying person accepting a gift from a friend is quite different then allowing others to starve to death because you wish to maintain a quality of life and have longivity as far as the eye can see. How much is oil? How much is a four week hospital stay with the top health physicians in the world? Think about it. There is a huge difference here, and that's the point.
Protestants understand the importantance of good works, also. The debate really is on the origin of good works and how good works affects our faith
I beg to differ, protestants don't see good works as important to salvation, and hence they don't see a reason to committ them. You'll have the occasional that think good works are a natural derivitive of faith, but ther are such a rarity it's a shame.
No, a hypocrite involves a false image, yes, but is different than lying.
Hypocrisy is to do one thing and say another and yes, lying is not the same, but it is still dishonest, for you are give a false or dishonest image. The bottom line is deceitfulness, and both acts contain it.
For example, if I was give to the poor only to maintain some sort of goodstanding with other people, that would be hypocrisy. I, through my hypocrisy, never cared for the poor, and my deeds, while possibly beneficial, nevered merit a good work. Claiming to be a christian is not a good deed, however, and so cannot be hypocritical. Sure, it may be a lie, a half truth, but it's not hypocritical.
I disagree:
-when you proclaim to be a christian, you are proclaiming you follow Christ and the Bible.
-When you do not live out the commands of Christ and the bible, yet still maintain the title, you are giving people you profess to a FALSE image.
=That is hypocrisy.
You can play lexical defintions game all you want, but I'm not buying it, and I doubt any other atheist will. The logic of this statement is very clear and breaks no rules of fallacy.
Moreover, the definition of Christian depends on context also. Informally, I'll use Christian to mean "disciple of Christ," for which Jesus says any on who loves his neighbor as he loves himself, but my theological understanding of the word is different, there I require consent to basic Christian theology.
Great, well to bring up Judas again: He was a disciple of Christ, so is he a good Christian? Did he give a false image in betraying christ? Why yes, I believe he did! And modern Christians are just like little Judas' in my opinion. They sin and sin and ignore, take advantage of the savior's gift. They string up people left and right in the name of their salvation, no different the Judas sold out Jesus. Forgive me, but I'd rather be the honest doubting Thomas then the hypocrite Judas. At least Thomas has a shred of integrity and honesty.
To be a sin, crossdressing requires a sinful motive. That is, unless of course you consider crossdressing in of itself to be the sinful motive and sin.
I prefer consistancy, okham's razor: The bible is sexist, a great majority of it's laws concerning gender role is based on the degregation of women. It makes more sense that the passage concerning women not wearing pants has to do with not allowing women to rise up and present themselves as men then it has to do with cross dressing LOL
Oh, and concerning your definition of hypocrisy derived from the the Catholic Enclopedia, please know, such things with me won't work. The catholics claim Saint Brigid was a literal person and define her as such. They have interpolated to suit their own agenda for two thousand years. They define atheism as the belief that there is no god, when atheism is in actually a lack of belief. Trying to have me use a Catholic dictionary is like me forcing a satanic dictionary on you. Let's try to remain secular as often as possible for the sake of neutrality and common ground. (I assure you, even with the secular webster's you still have a higher ground than I, for he was a rabid Christian.)
The pledge is different from prayer though.
Not to the atheist. I resent having to pledge my allegiance to a God, country and flag. I'd sooner pledge to the earth, to my fellow creatures, to love, to charity, but never to a non existent god, or a government which on the whole tends not to the need of it's people.
I didn say the argument had no merit, but there's got to be some balance.
I think there is balance: You want Christianity in school, go to a parochial, and leave public secular. This provides opportunity without impeding on another's rights.
Now back to your child. I don't she's opposed to some kids singing praise God but to mocking. Rather than reneging on the other children's right, isn't it more reasonable for the children who mocked her to be punished.
She is opposed to singing about God. She doesn't believe in a God and doesn't think she should praise what she doesn't believe. But yes, the fundamental issue is the mocking, which arised from the teacher's actions. I don't like what these kids did, but they are kids. It wouldn't have even been an issue if it wasn't for the teacher. If the school has half a brain they will follow my not so kindly given advice that the teacher ought to be reminded of the first ammendment and the children told religious discrimantion will not be tolerated, and religion should not be a topic of discussion unless it is an educational manner concerning history/sociology, etc.
You could have a case here because having the children "praise the Lord" as part of the lesson-plan is having the school endorse a specific religious belief. But the line must be drawn between the individual and the organization.
I understand this, and that is why I am not informing the ACLU. I'm an advocate through and through, but my time is better spent on causes that bring a greater good. I won't bother persuing this because I think diplomacy can be achieved here. I'm not one to sue or cause a but load of troubles unless what occured is so autrocious that justice must be dealt. I have only sued someone once in my life. It involved a police officer who sexually assaulted me, hopefully, I will never have to tangle with the judicial system again, unless it is to lobby for legislation which I do often.
If a teacher is asked whether he or she believes in God, then the teacher could say yes, saying it was his or her personal belief.
Understandable, but a finer teacher would ommit an answer out of respect for the first ammendment. Even as a theology student I have professors which refuse to proclaim their faith in front of students. I teach part time, and I never reveal to my students what I believe unless they ask privately in a social interaction versus in the class room. I will not stupify students via my position of power. Students look up to teachers and professors as experts in their chosen field, as role models, etc. I would never damage the faith of my students by revealing that I do not believe in that which they are dedicating their lives to understanding. I have studied long enough that I know I am capable of crushing the faiths of others if I were to pound them with the overwhelming facts against Christianity. It is my duty to provide an environment of security, inquisitiveness, creativty and quest for knowledge in my class room. Bringing my personal thoughts into the matter would squelch that environment. Education is my goal, not proselytizing.
Schools sponser dances, football games, and tests., all of ostracize the participants and the non-participants.
Yes they do! Which is why educational institutions like waldorf work so well while our public and parochial schools often fail. Competition, though fun, cliques, though socially rewarding to the participants, can cause a great deal of psychological trauma to the losers and social outcasts. This is why I am against a competitive environment in education. Though I am a competitive spirit, love debate, etc. I still contend that nurturing our young is fundamentally more important than competition when it comes to the success of education.
Me: in fact, god demands the killing and also murders countless pregnant women and infants.
Okinrus: Well, that was because God wanted the Isreals to completely wipe out that tribe.
It wasn't a singular tribe, it was a whole host of people on the way to the holy land, in egypt, in babylon, the non believers, the heathens, etc. And again, murdering infants and pregnant mothers simply because God wants to doesn't necessarily make it moral. For the life of me, I don't understand how you can sweep away the atrocities your deity commits so easily. That is blind, unaccountable faith as far as I'm concerned.
ME: The majority of Christian tradition was pro-abortion
OKINRUS: Although St. Thomas and others adopted the Aristotle's view of the quickening, abortion is condemned by the Didache and the Tertuillian's writing.
But it was also considered just and moral by Saint Augustine. It was accepted law by Catholic doctrine untill 1588 when Pope Sixtus forbids it due to falling membership in papal lands. But in 1591 Pope Gregory XIV rescinds it. And it has been legal since, until the 1940's when the Catholics again started to lose their membership. Why, you can still purchase books prior to that time which talks about herbs catholic women can take to "induce the menses" So out of the 1700 years of Catholicism, only in 67 of them was abortion frowned upon, seems to me as if that is a pretty solid history of favoring abortion.
hmm, don't know whether Paul said that, or whether Paul is referring only to God's laws. There really ought to be no need for interpretation of any religious texts. As murder is wrong, so too should abortion.
Here's the verse: Romans 13:1 "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established. The authorities that exist have been established by god. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves..." on and on it goes. Anyhow, I don't see how abortion is considered murder, and neither do the majorty of people.
Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
First off, a fetus, embryo, etc. does not have personhood. And we could never legislate that either because the red tape would be a nightmare. Not to mention we can not even pinpoint scientifically one momentous occasion in gestation over another. It opens a literal pandora's box which is why we elect birth as the legal requirement for personhood. Second, murder requires premeditated malice. How are we to prove that the mother who aborts has malice against her fetus? Women elect abortion often due to finances, abusive relationships, not enough emotional or physical resources, etc. This does not equate to malice.
I'm a rabid choicer honey, LMAO don't get me started.
I don't Jesus is described as the "King of division".
Why not? He claims to be!
But, from what I can tell, not only is Jesus telling the future--that there would be sufferring--but that he's not one of the false prophets told about in Jeremiah who say "peace, peace when there is no sin."
So you only focus on the Jesus who speaks of love then, not the Jesus who plans to torture the majority of the population for an eternity for the most petty of sins. This is what I mean by selective morality. I'm not berating you, I assure you, but this kind of attitude is what bothers me about Christians. That all the negativity is so easily swept aside so that the faith can continue. There is no accountability, no true love or righteousness, no true desire for compassion.
It seems reasonable for it to be true in the US, being most of the population is Christian. Elsewhere, I can't be so certain. I'd group all of the pagan religions as some sort of sorcery.
Why thanks for allowing me the point! I am curious as to why you consider paganism sorcery however. I see alot of Christians be speculative concerning the ritual of paganism, oddly however, they adopted and employ a great deal of it without even knowing. The concept of wearing white for purity, of blessing candles, of lighting them for prayer, of beaded rosaries, saints, etc. All these things have roots in pagan religions. The rituals of wicca certainly does seem elaborate, but when one realizes that the ritual is only a physical way of raising energy, that it's nothing but a physial manifestation of prayer, all of a sudden the "sorcery" of it isn't so mystical.
Are you a catholic?
