An unexpected religious conversation...

10/28/2009 09:11:20 PM · #851

Originally posted by VitaminB:

If some choose to go about their lives without organized religion, let them.

If you can convince the Christians to respect this, then you'll really make some progress.

10/28/2009 09:16:00 PM · #852

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
If some choose to go about their lives without organized religion, let them.

If you can convince the Christians to respect this, then you'll really make some progress.

I would love that. I don't think anyone should be pushed into any belief system. Spiritually and religion should be deeply personal.

10/28/2009 09:22:58 PM · #853

Here is a good source for anything religious/non-religious:

Religious Tolerance

Louis

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/28/2009 09:29:08 PM · #854

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by Louis:
Since those zygotes or whatever never turned into actual human beings, the point is rather moot, isn't it?

All depends on when you say life begins.

Arguing that you've potentially aborted Einstein isn't moot if you consider when life begins? I don't understand.

10/28/2009 09:34:44 PM · #855

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by Louis:
Since those zygotes or whatever never turned into actual human beings, the point is rather moot, isn't it?

All depends on when you say life begins.

Arguing that you've potentially aborted Einstein isn't moot if you consider when life begins? I don't understand.

To say that a zygote resulting from an human egg and human sperm is not human is scientifically incorrect. The zygote is completely human. The argument I think you were alluding to is when personhood begins. When does a human zygote become a person? Catholics say it happens at conception. Scientifically, this is also a very discernible moment.

Louis

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/28/2009 09:37:08 PM · #856

No. You said woe betide humanity for all the aborted Einsteins and Mother Theresas. I said the argument is moot, because all the aborted zygotes, fetuses--all the aborted humans, if you prefer--were never actualized human beings, were they?

10/28/2009 09:57:56 PM · #857

Originally posted by Louis:

So your saying that aborted humans were never human beings? What do you think a human being is?

10/28/2009 10:35:27 PM · #858

Originally posted by VitaminB:

assuming that all the worlds people lived by catholic ideals, we wouldnt have people like Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot.

Ahem... Hitler WAS Catholic!

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Your argument that if God wanted to create a great person could not be stopped would suggest that all abortions are bad or evil people. I find that very hard to believe. I do not believe that God directly manages everything that happens.... if God did, then it would be impossible to explain why "God lets bad things happen to good people."

The argument itself does not suggest that all abortions happen to bad people. The assumption that humans could prevent God from creating great people requires excuses to explain such results. The same goes for any given deity that fails to deliver expected results. When a church is leveled by a tornado, prayers yield nothing, or a good person dies young, God "must have something special in mind," "called them home," or "God doesn't interfere in the affairs of men (free will)." If the results are favorable or bad things happen to bad people, THEN God is assumed to intervene or micromanage... even though that conflicts with the negative explanation.

10/28/2009 10:50:13 PM · #859

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
assuming that all the worlds people lived by catholic ideals, we wouldnt have people like Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot.

Ahem... Hitler WAS Catholic!

So whats your point? I am saying that if people lived by catholic ideals. If you think Hitler lived by Catholic ideals then you really don't understand Catholicism.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
Your argument that if God wanted to create a great person could not be stopped would suggest that all abortions are bad or evil people. I find that very hard to believe. I do not believe that God directly manages everything that happens.... if God did, then it would be impossible to explain why "God lets bad things happen to good people."

The argument itself does not suggest that all abortions happen to bad people. The assumption that humans could prevent God from creating great people requires excuses to explain such results. The same goes for any given deity that fails to deliver expected results. When a church is leveled by a tornado, prayers yield nothing, or a good person dies young, God "must have something special in mind," "called them home," or "God doesn't interfere in the affairs of men (free will)." If the results are favorable or bad things happen to bad people, THEN God is assumed to intervene or micromanage... even though that conflicts with the negative explanation.

I have never believed that God micromanages people. I am saying that because people have abortions, that is potentially robbing us of good or great people. God gave us free will, and our free will results in the destruction of life. I'm not sure where excuses come into play here?

I think that when people say stuff like God "must have something special in mind," "called them home" about a tragedy it is because of their own discomfort when talking about death. Offering condolences to another in a time of loss can be difficult and awkward.

10/28/2009 11:54:06 PM · #860

Originally posted by VitaminB:

I am saying that if people lived by catholic ideals.

Sorry, that doesn't work either since Catholic ideals have changed radically over the years. At times the church itself has officially owned and sold slaves, murdered dissenters (Inquisistion), engaged in extortion (indulgences), genocide (Crusades), and subjected women to Taliban-level restrictions. Not so far removed from Hitler after all!

Originally posted by VitaminB:

I am saying that because people have abortions, that is potentially robbing us of good or great people.

And also bad or evil people. You can't have only one.

Originally posted by VitaminB:

I think that when people say stuff like God "must have something special in mind," "called them home" about a tragedy it is because of their own discomfort when talking about death. Offering condolences to another in a time of loss can be difficult and awkward.

Comfort for a believer must be wrapped in an excuse for God allowing such a thing to happen since the first question is often, "Why?" If something extraordinarily good happens (winning a lottery), then God is assumed to intervene. If something bad happens (abduction, rape, torture), then God doesn't intervene and it's free will. The faithful would never say that the decision to buy a lottery ticket was free will or that God caused someone to be tortured. In a war between Catholics and Protestants, the winner assumes divine intervention and the loser assumes free will or a "test of faith." The very nature of God must be described in contradicting terms to fit a given situation or the whole concept fails.

10/29/2009 12:19:07 AM · #861

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
I am saying that if people lived by catholic ideals.

1. Sorry, that doesn't work either since Catholic ideals have changed radically over the years. At times the church itself has officially owned and sold slaves, murdered dissenters (Inquisistion), engaged in extortion (indulgences), genocide (Crusades), and subjected women to Taliban-level restrictions. Not so far removed from Hitler after all!

Originally posted by VitaminB:
I am saying that because people have abortions, that is potentially robbing us of good or great people.

2. And also bad or evil people. You can't have only one.

Originally posted by VitaminB:
I think that when people say stuff like God "must have something special in mind," "called them home" about a tragedy it is because of their own discomfort when talking about death. Offering condolences to another in a time of loss can be difficult and awkward.

3. Comfort for a believer must be wrapped in an excuse for God allowing such a thing to happen since the first question is often, "Why?" If something extraordinarily good happens (winning a lottery), then God is assumed to intervene. If something bad happens (abduction, rape, torture), then God doesn't intervene and it's free will. The faithful would never say that the decision to buy a lottery ticket was free will or that God caused someone to be tortured. In a war between Catholics and Protestants, the winner assumes divine intervention and the loser assumes free will or a "test of faith." The very nature of God must be described in contradicting terms to fit a given situation or the whole concept fails.

1. While there have been periods in the church's history that contradict the churchs teaching, doesnt mean what the church is teaching is wrong. You will not find the church condoning such practices today. We have to understand that the church is run by humans, who inherently are not perfect. The ideals put forth by the church through its teaching do not condone slavery, murder, genocide, restrictions to women equivalent to the taliban etc.

If we go back to my original argument... which was simply a thought experiment of what would happen if the church's ideals were lived by everyone, i listed the benefits. I don't think anyone can argue that the would would not be a better place.

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Now, lets play a thought experiment. What if everyone on the planet followed the churches teaching of what ought to be:

No sex until marriage:
There would be a virtual end to sexually transmitted infections.
There would be less jealousy in relationships as people will not question the sexual activities of their spouses past partners.
There would be no pregnancies out of wedlock, and therefore, much fewer unplanned pregnancies.

No abortions:
With no abortions, many people who would otherwise have died in utero would have a chance at life. Perhaps the next Einstein, Ghandi, or M.L. King Jr.

As an idealist, these are some ideals that would make the world a much better place. As a realist, I could argue that it would be virtually impossible to get everyone on board with these ideals. But, just because 'the ideal' is almost impossible to attain, doesnt mean it should be abandoned.

2. I don't disagree. I'm sure you can argue that abortion has rid us of bad people and good. But just because abortion can also rid us of bad people, doesn't make it a good thing because it also rids us of good people. And, if one were to argue, that most people are inherently good, then abortion (assuming abortion doesn't discriminate) rids us of more good people than bad.... and we could always use more good people.

3. If you want to believe that comfort for a believe must be 'wrapped in an excuse', your a free to believe that. I am a believer. I do not need comfort wrapped in an excuse, I do not question 'Oh God, why?', I do not credit God for all the good things in my life, nor do I blame God for the tragedies. Buying lottery tickets is free will, when bad things happen its because of free will.

I'm not sure what inspires your intolerance for anything Catholic, or anything religious. I am not bothered by your atheism, nor would I argue why anyone should not be atheist. Why then do you seem so intolerant against Catholics?

10/29/2009 01:08:41 AM · #862

Originally posted by VitaminB:

While there have been periods in the church's history that contradict the churchs teaching, doesnt mean what the church is teaching is wrong. You will not find the church condoning such practices today.

Umm... the point is that the church's teaching has changedâ�� OFFICIALLY. All of those evils were perfectly consistent with the church's teaching as the infallible word of God at the time, so you'd have to specify WHICH ideals would make the world a better place, and even by today's standards "better" would be in the eye of the beholder. Your utopia could be a Muslim's hell on earth (and I don't mean the Taliban).

Originally posted by VitaminB:

But just because abortion can also rid us of bad people, doesn't make it a good thing because it also rids us of good people. And, if one were to argue, that most people are inherently good, then abortion (assuming abortion doesn't discriminate) rids us of more good people than bad.... and we could always use more good people.

Like guns or broccoli, it's not a good thing OR a bad thing. It's just a thing. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot (just three individuals) probably killed more good people than all the world's abortions combined, so "more good people than bad" is a moot point.

Originally posted by VitaminB:

I am not bothered by your atheism, nor would I argue why anyone should not be atheist. Why then do you seem so intolerant against Catholics?

I suggest you look up that word. Refusing to accept what you believe is NOT intolerance. I'm only pointing out logical or literal absurdities, and I do the same for UFOs and ghosts. I'm sure if you had this debate with a believer in Greek gods, he'd feel just as persecuted when you chuckle at the idea that lightning bolts are magic weapons hurled by gods or that the earth is supported on the shoulders of a strongman, but you probably couldn't care less what he believed and would still accept him as a regular guy. Intolerance comes into play if you refused to serve "those people," physically abused them, or sought to exclude them from public activities or basic rights (as often demonstrated with different races, cultures, women and gays). What if you pointed out to a faithful 10 year old that reindeer can't possibly fly, and there's no such thing as elves or a town at the North Pole... does that make you intolerant of kids who believe in Santa Claus? Of course not! Now imagine if that kid became king and decreed that anyone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus will be forbidden from participating in Christmas. Who's really demonstrating intolerance?!

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 01:26:32.

10/29/2009 01:24:25 AM · #863

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
While there have been periods in the church's history that contradict the churchs teaching, doesnt mean what the church is teaching is wrong. You will not find the church condoning such practices today.

Umm... the point is that the church's teaching has changedâ�� OFFICIALLY. All of those evils were perfectly consistent with the church's teaching as the infallible word of God at the time, so you'd have to specify WHICH ideals would make the world a better place, and even by today's standards "better" would be in the eye of the beholder. Your utopia could be a Muslim's hell on earth (and I don't mean the Taliban).

I think I did outline WHICH ideals in my post.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
But just because abortion can also rid us of bad people, doesn't make it a good thing because it also rids us of good people. And, if one were to argue, that most people are inherently good, then abortion (assuming abortion doesn't discriminate) rids us of more good people than bad.... and we could always use more good people.

Like guns or broccoli, it's not a good thing OR a bad thing. It's just a thing. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot (just three individuals) probably killed more good people than all the world's abortions combined, so "more good people than bad" is a moot point.

You grossly underestimate the amount of people who are aborted. The total for this year alone could be estimated at 34 million, and the total since 1922 is estimated at 900 million.
//www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp339.html

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
I am not bothered by your atheism, nor would I argue why anyone should not be atheist. Why then do you seem so intolerant against Catholics?

Refusing to accept what you believe is not intolerance. I'm only pointing out logical or literal absurdities, and I do the same for UFOs and ghosts. If you were to have this debate with a believer in Greek gods (yes, some still exist), I'm sure that person would feel persecuted or that you don't "tolerate" him when you really couldn't care less what he chooses to believe. You probably regard the stories as ancient myths and might point out the silliness of concepts like throwing lightning bolts or a god holding up the world on his shoulders. Intolerance comes into play if you refused to serve "those people," physically abused them or sought to exclude them from public activities or basic rights (as often demonstrated with different races, cultures, women and gays). Suggesting that I'm intolerant of theists is akin to saying you're intolerant of kids who believe in Santa Claus because you regularly point out that reindeer couldn't possibly fly.

It certainly come across as intolerance to me. I'm not asking you to accept what I believe. I am asking you to respect that others do believe. Even in your reply above it seems that you are alluding to religion as equivalent to UFOs and ghosts.

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 01:24:43.

10/29/2009 01:41:08 AM · #864

Originally posted by VitaminB:

You grossly underestimate the amount of people who are aborted.

Maybe, but then I only listed three bad people, not the total. ;-)

Originally posted by VitaminB:

It certainly come across as intolerance to me. I'm not asking you to accept what I believe. I am asking you to respect that others do believe.

See my edited post.

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Even in your reply above it seems that you are alluding to religion as equivalent to UFOs and ghosts.

You betcha. You'd probably put Zeus and Odin in the same class, too, but just because you don't believe in them doesn't make you intolerant of people who do. I'm perfectly fine with people believing or not believing whatever they like... as long as they allow others to do the same.

10/29/2009 06:24:14 AM · #865

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
You grossly underestimate the amount of people who are aborted.

Maybe, but then I only listed three bad people, not the total. ;-)

Originally posted by VitaminB:
It certainly come across as intolerance to me. I'm not asking you to accept what I believe. I am asking you to respect that others do believe.

See my edited post.

Originally posted by VitaminB:
Even in your reply above it seems that you are alluding to religion as equivalent to UFOs and ghosts.

You betcha. You'd probably put Zeus and Odin in the same class, too, but just because you don't believe in them doesn't make you intolerant of people who do. I'm perfectly fine with people believing or not believing whatever they like... as long as they allow others to do the same.

From the site //www.religioustolerance.org/
To extend religious freedom to people of all religious traditions, and none, even though you probably disagree with their beliefs and/or practices. Having tolerance toward another religion does not require you to endorse that faith group's beliefs; it simply indicates your respect for its right to exist and for its members to hold different beliefs without being being discriminated against.

I would not put Zeus in Odin in the same category as UFOs and ghosts, YOU would. To proclaim that believing in God is equivalent to believing in ghosts and UFOs is disrespectful to many people, and is nothing more than an attempt by you to ridicule them.

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 06:25:22.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

10/29/2009 06:55:58 AM · #866

Originally posted by VitaminB:

I would not put Zeus in Odin in the same category as UFOs and ghosts, YOU would. To proclaim that believing in God is equivalent to believing in ghosts and UFOs is disrespectful to many people, and is nothing more than an attempt by you to ridicule them.

How do you figure that?

I believe that I have seen a UFO, and I know people who would stake their lives on having had communications with ghosts.

Can you say the same of God in your life?

Have you ever seen or communicated with God in a way that would enable you to try and explain your experience competently?

Shannon is merely offering up alternatives and trying to have you see that your belief in God is no more real to you than ghosts and UFOs are to others.

You talk about tolerance, yet you put my sighting of a UFO down as ridiculous.

Where's *YOUR* acceptance/tolerance?

You are pretty much coming across like mmost Christians.......talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

You seem to think your God is "More Right" than my UFO.

Now......convince Shannon of that, and you'll have some credibility.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/29/2009 07:47:30 AM · #867

Originally posted by VitaminB:

I'm curious as to how you would differentiate the concept of a ghost from that of the soul.

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 07:55:05.

10/29/2009 08:21:34 AM · #868

Can you say the same of God in your life?
In my own way.... yes.

Have you ever seen or communicated with God in a way that would enable you to try and explain your experience competently?
The reason for my faith is deeply person, whether or not I can explain it in words to a skeptic does not deny its source. I do not care to explain it.

You talk about tolerance, yet you put my sighting of a UFO down as ridiculous.
Seeing a UFO is different than believing in God. One is seeing a natural/supernatural phenomenon, the other is rooted in faith.

Where's *YOUR* acceptance/tolerance?
I made a post a page or two ago because I found that this thread was becoming decidedly anti-catholic. Even after I made a post trying to outline some of the good that the catholic teaching does, it was followed by more anti-catholic arguments. I never made any comments negating any other belief system. I would also say that believing in UFOs and ghosts are very different than believe in God. UFOs and ghosts are not rooted in faith.

You are pretty much coming across like mmost Christians.......talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

You seem to think your God is "More Right" than my UFO.
Nope... just different. And, seeing as how your only interactions with me are through DPC, and you have never met me in person, I think you are unqualified as to judging whether or not I 'walk the walk'.

The point behind all my posts is that I am asking people to be more tolerant of eachother. It was met with a lot of posts essential picking apart catholics further.

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 08:28:15.

10/29/2009 08:29:14 AM · #869

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
I would not put Zeus in Odin in the same category as UFOs and ghosts, YOU would. To proclaim that believing in God is equivalent to believing in ghosts and UFOs is disrespectful to many people, and is nothing more than an attempt by you to ridicule them.

I'm curious as to how you would differentiate the concept of a ghost from that of the soul.

I personally don't believe in ghosts (but I do not deny another persons choice to believe in them).

10/29/2009 08:32:00 AM · #870

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Immediately below your quote on the religioustolerance site: "Religious tolerance does not require you To accept all religions as equally true. To avoid criticizing actions motivated by religion that harm others. To avoid comparing beliefs of different religions with each other & with scientific findings."

People still worship Zeus, even though Greek gods are openly regarded as fiction in both public and parochial schools. What's the difference? Again, disbelieving in something is NOT intolerance. I fully respect your right to believe whatever you want, and would not stand in your way of holding public office or celebrating religious holidays. THIS is intolerance, and here's a broader view.

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 08:42:37.

10/29/2009 08:50:04 AM · #871

Originally posted by scalvert:

People still worship Zeus, even though Greek gods are openly regarded as fiction in both public and parochial schools. What's the difference? Again, disbelieving in something is NOT intolerance. I fully respect your right to believe whatever you want, and would not stand in your way of holding public office or celebrating religious holidays. THIS is intolerance, and here's a broader view.

I would agree. Both of your examples are religious intolerance, and I would not support either of them. I find it strange that politicians are questioned about their spirituality, as this is a personal thing, and does not affect thier decision making.

10/29/2009 08:54:58 AM · #872

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You talk about tolerance, yet you put my sighting of a UFO down as ridiculous.

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Seeing a UFO is different than believing in God. One is seeing a natural/supernatural phenomenon, the other is rooted in faith.

Really? I also believe God spoke to me once at a time, in a place that it was hard for me to write it off as an imaginary happenstance.

How is that different from my belief that I saw a UFO?

You have these preconceived notions that fly in the face of what you speak.

You have to concede that you cannot possibly do that in order to practice the acceptance and tolerance
you would ask of us.

How is the concept of God any different than ghosts or UFOs if you classify them as supernatural?

Here's the thing......in my case, I know what I believe that I've heard and seen throughout my life. Seeing as how I am pragmatic as well as curious, and to a degree, open-minded, I fully accept that there are many things that I will consider ti be inexplicable. I welcome that rather than rail against it. And I try really hard not to pigeonhole anyone else's beliefs......though I do have issues with those that insist on imposing their ideals on me.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

10/29/2009 08:57:22 AM · #873

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

You've GOT to be kidding!!!!

You don't think a Catholic is biased when it comes to decision making on right-to-life issues?

That's just one quick one.......religious beliefs and spirituality have everything to do with decision making.

You're starting to ramble....

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/29/2009 09:12:09 AM · #874

Yeah... that whole "doesn't impact decision making" doesn't make sense. Unless your spirituality has no bearing on your actions in life, it effects your decision making. If it has no bearing on your actions, you're not spiritual in the first place and you wouldn't be questioned about it. Where are you going here?
Also, you didn't answer my question. You avoided it by saying you choose one but not the other, but neither explained the difference or illustrated what makes you choose one or the other as factual.