| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/29/2009 09:18:49 AM · #876 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
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. |
I'm still not sure you understand what tolerance really means. More from the site you linked:
"Unfortunately, when we compare the beliefs of one religion to another, or compare one religion's beliefs with scientific observation, some people feel that we are criticizing their belief system, and are thus not religiously tolerant. That is their belief. They are certainly entitled to it. We disagree with it.
As noted above and on our home page, we specifically define religious tolerance as extending religious freedom to people of all religious traditions, even though they differ in their beliefs and/or practices. In turn, we define religious freedom giving liberty for people to:
Believe, worship and witness (or practice freedom from belief, worship and witness), as they wish;
Change their beliefs or religion; and
Associate with others to express their beliefs
Within reasonable limits, to try to convince others to adopt their beliefs.
We feel that comparisons of beliefs and criticisms of practices that hurt others is allowable within the limits of religious tolerance.
In North America, religious intolerance still exists, but it tends to take a non-lethal form:
Statements by Rep. Bob Barr and Governor G. Bush that Wiccans should not enjoy the same religious rights as others on army bases.
Prohibition by school boards of religious jewelry: Crucifixes for Roman Catholics, Pentacles for Neopagans, Stars of David for Jews, etc.
Religiously based campaigns mounted by religious groups to limit or reduce the rights of gays and lesbians." |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 09:19:00 AM · #877 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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. |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
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. |
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.... |
No, I am not kidding. I think a Catholic uses their faith as moral guidance when it comes to decision making on a wide range of issues.
I also think an atheist, or a Muslim, or a buddhist, or any other faith can also make perfectly moral decisions, so I do not think that a discussion of a politicians faith is relevant when it comes to making political decisions. I would be very comfortable having a well qualified ___________ (insert belief system here) as my representative in government. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 09:29:29 AM · #878 |
| So you believe that morals are completely separate and distinct from religion. You, sir, have a very interesting position. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 10:54:42 AM · #879 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by Louis:
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? |
So your saying that aborted humans were never human beings? What do you think a human being is? |
I assume you read what I wrote. It's quoted above. They were never actualized human beings, so the point of discussing whether or not they could have been angels or demons, or whether they may just possibly have owned a house by age twenty and driven a Ferrari 458, or whether they would become the village's most renowned baker, is a rather pointless exercise. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 11:34:50 AM · #880 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
Over the years? You say that as if it happened this century.
I'm sure the church owned and sold slaves in the first century.
The Inquisitions happen in 1184, 1478, and 1542.
Reforms were made in 1567 to canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.
The crusades are from the first century and were done to fight off Islam who was killing/conquering Jerusalem, Africa, and Spain.
And women were subject to Taliban-level restrictions? That's a new one for me. I goto church every Sunday and I'm not seeing it.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2009 11:44:44 AM · #881 |
| If you think reform has ended and the church has ossified into what it will be until the end of time, I think you are mistaken. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 12:11:11 PM · #882 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The Inquisitions happen in 1184, 1478, and 1542. |
Umm....no.
This from a site on Reformation....interesting reading.....
//www.reformation.org/holoc24.html
This reign of Catholic terror lasted for centuries. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and yes, even children were murdered...burned alive at the stake. Simply because they dared to disagree with the Holy Catholic Church or with her Popes.
This Vatican terror officially ended less than two hundred years ago. As recently as 1762 a Protestant pastor was condemned to death in France. Why? Simply because he was a Protestant! By whom? By the Catholic Church! Yes, by that same church which now pretends to love her "dear separated brethren."
Indeed, in Europe torture was still enforced by all the Tribunals of the Holy Inquisition until the last century, the Pope being forced to abolish it only in 1816.
It was Napoleon, who entered Madrid in 1808, who was to abolish the Inquisition. When the Spanish Parliament in 1813 declared it incompatible with the Constitution, the Vatican protested. Super-Catholic Ferdinand VII restored it in 1814, with the full approval of the Church. The Holy Inquisition was finally suppressed by the Liberals in July, 1834.
Originally posted by Nullix:
And women were subject to Taliban-level restrictions? That's a new one for me. I go to church every Sunday and I'm not seeing it. |
Yeah, okay.....
From the Catholic News Agency.
"London, England, Jun 17, 2008 / 02:16 pm (CNA).- The Times of London reported this week that the Anglican Church is facing a new crisis with 500 priests threatening to leave if women are ordained bishops.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2009 12:18:27 PM · #883 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
though I do have issues with those that insist on imposing their ideals on me. |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I hope you dont misunderstand me... I am not trying to do this. I am comfortable with my beliefs and am not trying to convince you to change yours... honestly. |
I don't think that you are. I also don't think you realize how much pressure is exerted on people outside these sects when members of the faith encounter them.
I cannot even begin to tell you how often I have been quite literally backed into a corner with some fervid believer who thinks that I need his/her form of salvation.
And often one has to get all but hostile and confrontational to get away from them. To people like me who don't know the subtle differentiations between some of the sects, it's hard for me NOT to be uncomfortable around an awful lot of people of faith because I never know how far an innocuous religious converstion might go.
I live on top of a mountain where it takes 30-40 minutes round trip to go to the store for milk & bread, and it's the last road in the township to be plowed. You wanna guess how often I have people knocking on my door to try and save my soul? You'd be astonished! It's almost as if my geographic location indicates to these people that we're lost.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2009 12:39:25 PM · #884 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
Over the years? You say that as if it happened this century. I'm sure the church owned and sold slaves in the first century. |
First century? The Catholic Church supported the slave trade until the 1500's (as in, "most of its existence"). The church didn't officially condemn slavery until 1890 (decades after abolition), and the moral legitimacy of slavery was not denounced until 1965.
Originally posted by Nullix:
And women were subject to Taliban-level restrictions? That's a new one for me. I goto church every Sunday and I'm not seeing it. |
At times women have been barred from even speaking in church, required to wear veils, and forbidden to wear pants. They were discouraged from working outside the home or getting an education. This sort of treatment is straight out of the Taliban playbook. The ordination of women as priests continues to be taboo to this day as the church does not consider women fit for leadership. There is much that you aren't seeing. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 12:47:31 PM · #885 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
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. |
Why do believers always try to avoid answering this question? Is it out of embarrassment?
I asked a similar question earlier in the thread, because I'm genuinely curious about what form this communication takes. I've never experienced it, so I'd like to hear from someone who claims to have communicated with God.
Put simply, do you hear God's voice in your head? - Or does he have some other way of communicating with you? |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 12:56:10 PM · #886 |
Originally posted by JH:
Put simply, do you hear God's voice in your head? - Or does he have some other way of communicating with you? |
thyPhone? ;-) |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 01:18:17 PM · #887 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by Louis:
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? |
So your saying that aborted humans were never human beings? What do you think a human being is? |
I assume you read what I wrote. It's quoted above. They were never actualized human beings, so the point of discussing whether or not they could have been angels or demons, or whether they may just possibly have owned a house by age twenty and driven a Ferrari 458, or whether they would become the village's most renowned baker, is a rather pointless exercise. |
I did read it..... and I have no idea what you mean by actualized human beings. A zygote formed by the fusion of human egg and human sperm is alive (the cells are alive), and it is human (the genetics and development is human, not any other animal). I think you were referring to personhood. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 01:20:27 PM · #888 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't think that you are. I also don't think you realize how much pressure is exerted on people outside these sects when members of the faith encounter them.
I cannot even begin to tell you how often I have been quite literally backed into a corner with some fervid believer who thinks that I need his/her form of salvation.
|
Please do not put words in my mouth. I am simply defending my faith, not attacking any others. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 01:22:20 PM · #889 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
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. |
Why do believers always try to avoid answering this question? Is it out of embarrassment?
I asked a similar question earlier in the thread, because I'm genuinely curious about what form this communication takes. I've never experienced it, so I'd like to hear from someone who claims to have communicated with God.
Put simply, do you hear God's voice in your head? - Or does he have some other way of communicating with you? |
No... I do not hear voices in my head. I will not elaborate because it is personal, as everyone's faith is. My experience is unique to me, as everyones experience is unique to them. Just as everyones faith is unique to them. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 01:30:52 PM · #890 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
A zygote formed by the fusion of human egg and human sperm is alive (the cells are alive), and it is human (the genetics and development is human, not any other animal). |
So is a skin cell. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 01:51:47 PM · #891 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
A zygote formed by the fusion of human egg and human sperm is alive (the cells are alive), and it is human (the genetics and development is human, not any other animal). |
So is a skin cell. |
A skin cell does not make another human. At no time in human history has a human been created from a skin cell.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:01:42 PM · #892 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
A skin cell does not make another human. At no time in human history has a human been created from a skin cell. |
That wasn't in question. A skin cell is alive (the dermis anyway) and human. Pending further research announced yesterday, your contention that humans cannot be created from skin cells might not even be true. ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-10-29 14:03:04. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:05:32 PM · #893 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
A zygote formed by the fusion of human egg and human sperm is alive (the cells are alive), and it is human (the genetics and development is human, not any other animal). |
So is a skin cell. |
A skin cell does not make another human. At no time in human history has a human been created from a skin cell. |
That may not be true for long....
But seriously, at the early stage of development, when the sperm just fused with the egg, it's nothing more than a growing mass of self-replicating cells, and so is a cancer..... so at what point does it stop be a growing mass and becomes a "person"? When the brain form? when the heart starts beating? when it looses its tails (yes, its tail)?
|
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:05:45 PM · #894 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
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. |
Why do believers always try to avoid answering this question? Is it out of embarrassment?
I asked a similar question earlier in the thread, because I'm genuinely curious about what form this communication takes. I've never experienced it, so I'd like to hear from someone who claims to have communicated with God.
Put simply, do you hear God's voice in your head? - Or does he have some other way of communicating with you? |
No... I do not hear voices in my head. I will not elaborate because it is personal, as everyone's faith is. My experience is unique to me, as everyones experience is unique to them. Just as everyones faith is unique to them. |
Okay fair enough.
I'll throw it out there; Could any believers please try to explain how god communicates with them? - There are only a number of things our senses can detect; sight and sound being the most obvious. But if there is some sort of feeling or emotion that comes into play when god communicates with you, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
Message edited by author 2009-10-29 14:06:02. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:17:57 PM · #895 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't think that you are. I also don't think you realize how much pressure is exerted on people outside these sects when members of the faith encounter them.
I cannot even begin to tell you how often I have been quite literally backed into a corner with some fervid believer who thinks that I need his/her form of salvation.
|
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Please do not put words in my mouth. I am simply defending my faith, not attacking any others. |
What are you talking about?
Please explain to me how speaking of my experience has anything to do with implying you do any of what I spoke of above.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:19:10 PM · #896 |
Originally posted by JH:
I'll throw it out there; Could any believers please try to explain how god communicates with them? - There are only a number of things our senses can detect; sight and sound being the most obvious. But if there is some sort of feeling or emotion that comes into play when god communicates with you, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. |
Don't hold your breath.
When you ask this question you usually get ignored or attacked.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:25:08 PM · #897 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JH:
I'll throw it out there; Could any believers please try to explain how god communicates with them? - There are only a number of things our senses can detect; sight and sound being the most obvious. But if there is some sort of feeling or emotion that comes into play when god communicates with you, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. |
Don't hold your breath.
When you ask this question you usually get ignored or attacked. |
Possibly because as soon as someone opens up and shares something like this they get shut down. "That's crazy. I've never experienced anything like that. How do you know it was God?" Blah blah blah. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:40:07 PM · #898 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JH:
I'll throw it out there; Could any believers please try to explain how god communicates with them? - There are only a number of things our senses can detect; sight and sound being the most obvious. But if there is some sort of feeling or emotion that comes into play when god communicates with you, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. |
Don't hold your breath.
When you ask this question you usually get ignored or attacked. |
Possibly because as soon as someone opens up and shares something like this they get shut down. "That's crazy. I've never experienced anything like that. How do you know it was God?" Blah blah blah. |
I know it'll look like I'm swithcing side here, but I have to agree with  DrAchoo here. When faithful people feel/know/think (pick your own verb) God communicate with them, it's usually by sign, what most atheist see as coincidence. So when they talk about it, they are often met with sarcasm and moquery. But then again, most of those people (I said MOST, not all) react the same way when people of other or no faith relate their experiences.
Message edited by author 2009-10-29 14:41:08. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:44:53 PM · #899 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Possibly because as soon as someone opens up and shares something like this they get shut down. "That's crazy. I've never experienced anything like that. How do you know it was God?" Blah blah blah. |
Absolutely. The whole WORLD is full of folks who can't wait to trivialize and "xplain away" your experiences...
R. |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 02:45:35 PM · #900 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"How do you know it was God?" |
The rest is unnecessary, but that part is a fair question, and really the whole point of asking, no?
Message edited by author 2009-10-29 14:46:17. |
|
