The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[DieselDaisy]

Yes, the Catholic Church has remained neutral on the subject of the shroud, therefore it is quite possible to believe the Shroud is ''a load of old bollocks'' and not have your orthodoxy challenged - as I'm sure many do. 

[SoulMonster]

40 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Well as far the shroud of turin goes, for one, it's never been a church approved miracle. 

And that's the thing. You are just bullshitting when you claim to respect science. You only respect it so far as it supports your religious delusions. There is no equivalency here. To you, science is about confirming religious beliefs. And then it is all good and well. But as soon as it doesn't, you reject it. So a false equivalency. 

42 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I still dont understand why so many atheists like to spend time trying to "debunk" religion? Dont you have anything better to do with your time. 

Eh, no?

[Iron MikeyJ]

👍

[Sosso]

I still dont understand why so many scientists like to spend time trying to "debunk" that the earth is flat? Dont you have anything better to do with your time. 

[Dazey]

11 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Well as far the shroud of turin goes, for one, it's never been a church approved miracle. For two, the carbon dating that was used on it was flawed to begin with. The piece they cut to test was from the edge of the shroud, which the edges had been used to display it for centuries. So even if it were authentic, it was tied together with fabric that was available from the time it was discovered, and for centuries after. Which will of course have an impact on the carbon dating that was used. In order to get an authentic sample (that hasn't been tampered with by over the years), you would have to cut a piece out of the actual image. Which the church just isnt willing to do, because if deemed authentic, they would have cut a piece from the face of Jesus, effectively ruining it. Which that's a risk they are not willing to do, just to satisfy nonbelievers. 

Which I'm sure that answer wont satisfy you, and that's fine. But that IS the reason why further dating hasn't been done on it. Plus there are other aspects to the shroud that remain "shrouded" in mystery, but I digress... But again, it doesn't really matter because it isnt an approved miracle. Beyond that, God doesn't want to show himself fully to mankind until the 2nd coming. He wants humanity to have FAITH not proof. He wants us to CHOOSE him by our own free will. If we do so out of FACTS or out of proof it effects our free will. Which I know, you will just dismiss this all, and that's fine. 

I still dont understand why so many atheists like to spend time trying to "debunk" religion? Dont you have anything better to do with your time. As others have said, I dont like U2, but I'm not going to go to a U2 page and bash U2. I have better things to do...

Yeah, but people aren't using U2 as an excuse to prevent science being taught in schools and to restrict women's access to reproductive dominion over their own bodies. It's a minor difference I'll grant you but a significant one nonetheless.  

Personally I'd be happy to debunk  U2 as well though.  

[spunko12345]

11 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

As others have said, I dont like U2, but I'm not going to go to a U2 page and bash U2. I have better things to do...

I genuinely have done that.

[DieselDaisy]

9 hours ago, Sosso said:

I still dont understand why so many scientists like to spend time trying to "debunk" that the earth is flat? Dont you have anything better to do with your time. 

Science choked as a discipline when they didn't find any Martians with ray guns. Since then it has all been a load of boring crap.

[soon]

Such small minded and stero-typed projections of what a Christian is. A blend of bigotry and paranoia that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and his Way.

[Iron MikeyJ]

31 minutes ago, soon said:

Such small minded and stero-typed projections of what a Christian is. A blend of bigotry and paranoia that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and his Way.

To be honest, I SERIOUSLY doubt than most of the people here have actually read the Gospels for themselves, let alone the bible as a whole. They may say "I've read them," but to be quite Frank, I think they are lying. Or at very least portions were read to them, as a child or what have you. Which they probably got distracted at points, and their minds wandered (which is easy to do). 

Even if you want to deny that Jesus IS the Son of God, and just view him as a human, I find it very difficult that so many people couldn't at least take inspiration from the things he said. We have this tendency in our society right now to put the words of Buddha and others on this pedastool, and go to them for insight. But Jesus, so many out right reject. He was and IS the wisest of them ALL. Just from a humanistic stand point, his lessons are greater than any others you can study, at least that's how I feel. 🤷‍♂️

[SoulMonster]

32 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

To be honest, I SERIOUSLY doubt than most of the people here have actually read the Gospels for themselves, let alone the bible as a whole. They may say "I've read them," but to be quite Frank, I think they are lying. Or at very least portions were read to them, as a child or what have you. Which they probably got distracted at points, and their minds wandered (which is easy to do). 

Even if you want to deny that Jesus IS the Son of God, and just view him as a human, I find it very difficult that so many people couldn't at least take inspiration from the things he said. We have this tendency in our society right now to put the words of Buddha and others on this pedastool, and go to them for insight. But Jesus, so many out right reject. He was and IS the wisest of them ALL. Just from a humanistic stand point, his lessons are greater than any others you can study, at least that's how I feel. 🤷‍♂️

I don't think you have read the entire bible. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, soon said:

Such small minded and stero-typed projections of what a Christian is. A blend of bigotry and paranoia that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and his Way.

Has anyone here talked about "what a Christian is"? 

I thought the recent discussion was about Atlantis and how Mikey only likes science when it confirms his religious beliefs,but maybe I missed something? 

[DieselDaisy]

In Mygnr atheist terms, for ''atheism'' read ''anti-Christian'' and for ''anti-Christian'' (for a large part) read ''anti-Catholic''. You never see much aggression - or even interest - shown towards Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam, and only slightly more vehemence shown in the direction of the Protestant denominations.

[Lio]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

In Mygnr atheist terms, for ''atheism'' read ''anti-Christian'' and for ''anti-Christian'' (for a large part) read ''anti-Catholic''. You never see much aggression - or even interest - shown towards Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam, and only slightly more vehemence shown in the direction of the Protestant denominations.

This is true. And as a catholic, I don't recognize myself or other catholics I know in the description I read here by other catholics/christians OR atheists. Just goes to show we're all human beings and nothing is black and white.

We're not taught religion here the way they are in the US, that's clear. We're taught an entirely different approach to the Bible. On the forum it seems to be treated as either the literal word of God, or a ridiculous book for morons used only to subjugate the ignorant masses.

[EvanG]

I'm not sure why I haven't deregistered from the Catholic church yet, it's not like I ever considered myself a Catholic. I guess I'm a very lazy person.

[soon]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

In Mygnr atheist terms, for ''atheism'' read ''anti-Christian'' and for ''anti-Christian'' (for a large part) read ''anti-Catholic''. You never see much aggression - or even interest - shown towards Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam, and only slightly more vehemence shown in the direction of the Protestant denominations.

... And by "Protestant" read "Protestant and Third Way Radical Reform players like Anabaptists"

j/k your point is very true.

54 minutes ago, Lio said:

This is true. And as a catholic, I don't recognize myself or other catholics I know in the description I read here by other catholics/christians OR atheists. Just goes to show we're all human beings and nothing is black and white.

We're not taught religion here the way they are in the US, that's clear. We're taught an entirely different approach to the Bible. On the forum it seems to be treated as either the literal word of God, or a ridiculous book for morons used only to subjugate the ignorant masses.

As a Christian poster on the forum, I trust you would be happy to hear that I don't fall into either categories regarding the Bible.

There is however a poster who isn't above repeated accusations about how people frame the Bible. Makes it up out of thin air - its very odd, yes. Even the one time recently when an agnostic was accused of being a 'word of God' literalist . But it seems that you and I share a common ground about what Scripture is. Yay!

Edited November 11, 2018 by soon

[arnold layne]

I would like to hear @DieselDaisy about my gripes with Christianity as I admire his historical knowledge about this...

...but I can't seem to believe the Jesus superpower stuff. I read bits of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that really hit me hard a few years ago. It's crazy that these stories thousands of years old are very relevant today. So there's without a doubt some valuable stuff in the Bible (I am talking about Jesus' parables).

But my question is, and it seems obvious (but to me it isn't), what were the original authors trying to accomplish? What is a hyperbole and what isn't? Was this book written to control the masses?

I just think there's a lot of historical events that are way overlooked when studying the Bible and that's a whole issue in itself. 

Perhaps I am rambling like a lunatic but it's a real problem with me.

Edited November 11, 2018 by arnold layne

[EvanG]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

 So if anyone ever implies or outright claims that I hate all Catholics or Christians or religious folks generally - then just know that they're being petty and lying(not very good Christian behaviour) because it simply isn't true at all

Man, when you criticize or ask valid questions regarding any religion, you'll always get some of those testy, whiny religious fanatics upset. I'm not saying every religious person is like that, but plenty are. Just laugh at it.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, arnold layne said:

I would like to hear @DieselDaisy about my gripes with Christianity as I admire his historical knowledge about this...

...but I can't seem to believe the Jesus superpower stuff. I read bits of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that really hit me hard a few years ago. It's crazy that these stories thousands of years old are very relevant today. So there's without a doubt some valuable stuff in the Bible (I am talking about Jesus' parables).

But my question is, and it seems obvious (but to me it isn't), what were the original authors trying to accomplish? What is a hyperbole and what isn't? Was this book written to control the masses?

I just think there's a lot of historical events that are way overlooked when studying the Bible and that's a whole issue in itself. 

Perhaps I am rambling like a lunatic but it's a real problem with me.

The gospels are (historic) biography, albeit with a component for religious edification. 

[SoulMonster]

I don't know. To me, Catholicism is a fairly distant denomination of Christianity. If I were to criticize a denomination it would in many ways be more natural to choose Lutheranism, since I was grown up in a Lutheran Church and we don't have many Catholics here in Norway. But I try to make any criticism against Christianity of a more general nature so it pertains to all denominations. More likely I criticize theism and not Christianity or any particular forms of theism, both because I don't really feel like singling any one out and because I tend to view all specific theisms and denominations and cults as just symptoms of an underlying breach of logic which is the real problem here. This acceptance of a supernatural agent without any proper evidence. This need to conclude on the basis of nothing but childhood beliefs, scriptural evidence, and a desire to have some kind of protection and false sense of meaning. This need to get answers to questions that are either unanswerable or shouldn't be asked. I find it dismaying that humans fall into that intellectual trap again and again. And then it doesn't really matter whether it manifests itself in a belief in, say, Allah, prayer or homeopathy, or whether it results in the rejection of evolutionary theory, the round earth, or the beneficial effect of vaccines --- it is equally irrational.

So in a strictly intellectual sense all irrational beliefs are equally bad. To me, believing that Jesus died for our sins is as ridiculous as believing in resurrection. I mean, there is just as much evidence for either, zero, so they are equally improbably. But then many of these irrational beliefs tend to envelope themselves in various trappings, like the dogmas and rituals of religions, and then, of course, they are not equally bad because then they tend to affect human behavior in many more ways. And if I were to single any one religion out, then hands down Islam is the worst we have today. It by far has the most negative effect on human kind today when we look at how easily it becomes an impediment to progress, both socially and scientifically, when taken its size into account. But the reason why we aren't discussing Islam here is of course that no one brings it up. What is the point of lots of guys agreeing that we don't believe in Allah? I am not particularly fond of such echo chambers. So I will keep on criticizing theism in general, because there are plenty of theists here, and then, I guess, Diesel will keep on thinking I talk about Catholicism. Or soon will think I talk about Christianity. I guess that's where the shoe hurts.

[Iron MikeyJ]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think you have read the entire bible. 

I have never claimed that I have. Which having said that, I HAVE made sure to be properly educated in regards to scripture before talking about it, otherwise you prove yourself to be a hypocrite imo. 

So I will say I am currently in the midst of a weekly bible study, but I haven't gotten to anything in that study that I haven't already read. 

Even though you didnt ask, I can tell you what I HAVE indeed read; Matthew, Mark, John, Revalations, Genesis and Exodus. I have also read partially (almost fully or only portions of) Numbers, 1st Kings and Luke. I would also like to point out that I hear 1 OT reading, 1 Psalm, 1 NT reading, and 1 Gospel reading every Sunday at Mass. Which some weeks we go more often than just on Sunday. 

Beyond the actual Canon of scripture I have also read the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch), alot if not most of St. Faustina's diary, I have also read roughly 10 chapters from the book Mystical City of God (which was written by a mystic nun). I have also read the Didache (which is a first century document that is considered to be THE teaching of the 12 Apostles).

Not to mention I also spend a fair amount of time weekly researching aspects of my faith, in an attempt to learn something new. 

So all things considered I do feel I have a pretty strong understanding of my faith, but I fully admit I have more work to do, and more lessons to learn. 

Which I want to be clear, I am not saying these things in order to be boastful. I am telling you (and others) for transparency. I make no claims to be a biblical expert, I'm just trying to learn all that I can. 

I also spend quite a significant portion of my days spent in prayer and meditation (but I dont really want to talk about that, doing it for attention is against Jesus' commandments). It's just too personal, too important, I just can't really talk about that, I'm sorry. 

[soon]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know. To me, Catholicism is a fairly distant denomination of Christianity. If I were to criticize a denomination it would in many ways be more natural to choose Lutheranism, since I was grown up in a Lutheran Church and we don't have many Catholics here in Norway. But I try to make any criticism against Christianity of a more general nature so it pertains to all denominations. More likely I criticize theism and not Christianity or any particular forms of theism, both because I don't really feel like singling any one out and because I tend to view all specific theisms and denominations and cults as just symptoms of an underlying breach of logic which is the real problem here. This acceptance of a supernatural agent without any proper evidence. This need to conclude on the basis of nothing but childhood beliefs, scriptural evidence, and a desire to have some kind of protection and false sense of meaning. This need to get answers to questions that are either unanswerable or shouldn't be asked. I find it dismaying that humans fall into that intellectual trap again and again. And then it doesn't really matter whether it manifests itself in a belief in, say, Allah, prayer or homeopathy, or whether it results in the rejection of evolutionary theory, the round earth, or the beneficial effect of vaccines --- it is equally irrational.

So in a strictly intellectual sense all irrational beliefs are equally bad. To me, believing that Jesus died for our sins is as ridiculous as believing in resurrection. I mean, there is just as much evidence for either, zero, so they are equally improbably. But then many of these irrational beliefs tend to envelope themselves in various trappings, like the dogmas and rituals of religions, and then, of course, they are not equally bad because then they tend to affect human behavior in many more ways. And if I were to single any one religion out, then hands down Islam is the worst we have today. It by far has the most negative effect on human kind today when we look at how easily it becomes an impediment to progress, both socially and scientifically, when taken its size into account. But the reason why we aren't discussing Islam here is of course that no one brings it up. What is the point of lots of guys agreeing that we don't believe in Allah? I am not particularly fond of such echo chambers. So I will keep on criticizing theism in general, because there are plenty of theists here, and then, I guess, Diesel will keep on thinking I talk about Catholicism. Or soon will think I talk about Christianity. I guess that's where the shoe hurts.

Last time you addressed why you speak about Christianity almost exclusively, the reason you gave was that "that's the theism I know most about." Glad to see that you have unburdened yourself of the notion that you know about Christianity.

Your presuppositions about how and why one encounters Christ remain as imagined as ever.

 

[DieselDaisy]

17 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know. To me, Catholicism is a fairly distant denomination of Christianity. If I were to criticize a denomination it would in many ways be more natural to choose Lutheranism, since I was grown up in a Lutheran Church and we don't have many Catholics here in Norway. But I try to make any criticism against Christianity of a more general nature so it pertains to all denominations. More likely I criticize theism and not Christianity or any particular forms of theism, both because I don't really feel like singling any one out and because I tend to view all specific theisms and denominations and cults as just symptoms of an underlying breach of logic which is the real problem here. This acceptance of a supernatural agent without any proper evidence. This need to conclude on the basis of nothing but childhood beliefs, scriptural evidence, and a desire to have some kind of protection and false sense of meaning. This need to get answers to questions that are either unanswerable or shouldn't be asked. I find it dismaying that humans fall into that intellectual trap again and again. And then it doesn't really matter whether it manifests itself in a belief in, say, Allah, prayer or homeopathy, or whether it results in the rejection of evolutionary theory, the round earth, or the beneficial effect of vaccines --- it is equally irrational.

So in a strictly intellectual sense all irrational beliefs are equally bad. To me, believing that Jesus died for our sins is as ridiculous as believing in resurrection. I mean, there is just as much evidence for either, zero, so they are equally improbably. But then many of these irrational beliefs tend to envelope themselves in various trappings, like the dogmas and rituals of religions, and then, of course, they are not equally bad because then they tend to affect human behavior in many more ways. And if I were to single any one religion out, then hands down Islam is the worst we have today. It by far has the most negative effect on human kind today when we look at how easily it becomes an impediment to progress, both socially and scientifically, when taken its size into account. But the reason why we aren't discussing Islam here is of course that no one brings it up. What is the point of lots of guys agreeing that we don't believe in Allah? I am not particularly fond of such echo chambers. So I will keep on criticizing theism in general, because there are plenty of theists here, and then, I guess, Diesel will keep on thinking I talk about Catholicism. Or soon will think I talk about Christianity. I guess that's where the shoe hurts.

You'd have liked Frederick the Great. He was scurrilously anti-Christian in his correspondence with people like Voltaire (Frederick was probably an atheist although he never bothered categorically saying so), although he hated just about everything to be honest except omnipresent homosexuality and rococo palaces. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

@Oldest Goat

@EvanG

I would be HAPPY to answer any questions about Christianity or Catholicism more specifically that you might have. I will be completely honest with you, in regards to everything, at least from my perspective or from my understanding anyways.

I know the Pope and the Vatican is a BIG deal to a lot of people, they just can't seem to get passed that part of Catholicims. Which is unfortunate, and NOT the point of our faith. The Pope and the Vatican are NOT Catholicism, they are a part of it, yes. But not NEARLY as important part of it that many people think they are. Honestly I can go days, weeks, and months and not think about them much at all. 

What most people dont understand is the MAIN purpose of the Pope is really only for a final decider of issues within the church. That's what separates Catholicims from any other religion on the planet, we have 1 person that CAN settle any dispute. That's the whole "infallibility" that people get hung up about. It doesn't mean he is ALWAYS right (to be honest plenty of popes have made lots of poor decisions). But if the Pope makes a decision, we are just to accept it. It's really to protect the church. If 2 protestant pastors disagree about something, who is right? Who is wrong? It divides the congregation. We dont have that problem, if it gets all the way to th e Pope (which it usually doesnt), whatever he declares is it, period. 

To many people though, the Vatican and Papacy becomes a distraction from what the Church TRULY is, it's the mystical body of Christ. It's the laymen (and women) that are the really important aspect of the church. It's your Parish that's the most important thing you should be worried about and protect, not the Vatican. 

Do these scandles cause problems for everyone, yes without a doubt. The unfortuante reality is evil HAS worked it's way into the Catholic church, but that doesnt mean the Catholic church is evil. Evil has spread its wings into every aspect of life, the Catholic church is no different. I feel these scandles are doing exactly what the devil wants, they are keeping people away from God. Catholicims and Christianity as a whole are on the decline. They also serve as a distraction to keep people focused on the priests or the Pope or the Vatican instead of God. So that's exactly what I do during those times, I refocus on what's REALLY important. I go to Jesus, I pray, I (try my best) to follow his commandments, I try to be humble, I try to act and speak with charity, I try to be a positive example in a world of negative ones. 

I also think about the words of Peter "Where else would I go Lord?"

[SoulMonster]

41 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I have never claimed that I have. 

Well isn't that ironic. 

42 minutes ago, soon said:

Last time you addressed why you speak about Christianity almost exclusively, the reason you gave was that "that's the theism I know most about."

That's true, too. 

But again, I tend not to play favorites, and instead criticise the underlying flaw of all theisms. 

[SoulMonster]

28 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You'd have liked Frederick the Great. He was scurrilously anti-Christian in his correspondence with people like Voltaire (Frederick was probably an atheist although he never bothered categorically saying so), although he hated just about everything to be honest except omnipresent homosexuality and rococo palaces. 

Why would I have like such a negative person?