Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:EDIT: I have deleted a post by Efarrer as offensive to those who believe the Bible.

1. Lets move off the gay issue on the thread. Its extremely divisive and will get the thread closed.
2. Lets also leave off posts deriding religious tracts. What you may think is a simple opinion can, in fact, be deeply offensive.

Is there any way I could see this post I wrote?

I really don't recall saying anything offensive on this matter. I've said plenty on other threads but I really don't remember saying anything offensive on this thread. Given that I am a Christian and do believe in the bible I find it hard to believe that I would have said something of that nature deliberatly.

Elessar wrote:
More importantly to this point (also answering a point by generalgrog) let me explain more fully. Christians must, to my mind (and I don't think there's an argument I could have misinterpreted, the Bible is pretty clear) believe that everyone is born a Sinner, hence the concepts of Original Sin, and being Born Again. Now, I know some churches don't have the Born Again thing in their creeds, fine, but Original Sin is cast in stone (lol)

So it is. However, just because there was an original sin it does not follow that all successive generations of men bear the guilt of that sin. This is a central tenet of the Catholic faith, as well as Eastern Orthodoxy.

Also, there are some restoration churches that deny original sin altogether. The Disciples of Christ are the one with which I'm most familiar, but I know there are others as well.

Elessar wrote:
Given that everyone is born a sinner, they need to repent before they can be admitted to Heaven - this much, again, is a given. My, admittedly a little contentious, point is that anyone who does NOT repent befroe their inevitable death, MUST therefore go to Hell, tragic as the individual circumstances may be. This seems, to me, to be a particularly cruel thing to visit upon beings created {and loved} by God (I wouldn't even subject my dice to eternal torment!) but it seems fairly clear.

Repentance need not be cruel, or painful. The Catholic practice of confession is pretty much the perfect example of a kind of penance which is not overly difficult to pay.

Indeed, but Hell most certainly is.

Elessar wrote:Indeed, but Hell most certainly is.

Of course, if you're Catholic you can't go to Hell until you pass the white throne without accepting JC as your lord and savior. I don't know about you, but if I see a white throne after its all said and done I'll be in a very accepting mood.

Hell yeah! (Pun fully intended, and I apologise!)

Ozymandias wrote:

Hordini wrote:How much of that is actually in the Bible though, and not just in Catholic doctrine?

A lot of Medieval Catholic doctrine doesn't come from the Bible. Well, at least not directly. This is still true in Catholicism and other Christian sects, for example, it never says in the Bible that priests have to be celibate (or really even talk about priests...).

Yeah, I know. That's why I asked, and one of the main reasons I'm not Catholic.

I actually got asked by my Catholic father-in-law what I was giving up for lent the other week.

My usual reply was the joke about giving up religion.

Although you really can't give up what you never had. I've NEVER believed. I cannot fathom how it works. I've never understood it (belief/faith). Yes, I've read the bible (and other related works). It still made no sense.

It's like people raised with faith can't understand how you can be happy without it.

Celibate ... That reminds me of the joke about a spelling mistake.

"... It's supposed to be 'celebRate!"

Hey man, I went to Catholic school for 12 years (was raised Lutheran). I know more about Catholic doctrine than my "Catholic" wife.

I don't know. I was "raised with faith" and I can understand how people can be happy without it. It's not really that strange of a concept, I don't think.

I recently became Catholic because it gives me a sense of purpose and belonging. All my life, I've been the greasy outsider nerd. The church is a wonderful community that's really improved my life.

Sadly, my family isn't religious. My mother and half-brother were at first really angry when I told them I wanted to be religious. Mum's OK with it now, she understands why I wanted it, but my brother seems to hold to the belief that Christians are xenophobic loonies.

chromedog wrote:
It's like people raised with faith can't understand how you can be happy without it.

I think for a lot of people its really just a matter of misunderstanding. Faith is virtually a requirement for peaceful existence, but that faith doesn't have to relate to any sort of conventional god. For example, a committed individualist might have faith in the sanctity of individual rights. Faith ignores evidence, but it does not necessarily relate to obviously metaphysical topics. Those are just the most common forms of it, most likely because they're also the easiest to defend.

Just found this on the BBC website, apparently the BNP are claiming to be a Christian party now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7978981.stm

Some background for those outside the UK, the BNP (British Nationalist Party) are the UK's far-right party, whose central policy is the creation of an all-white Britain. Their leaders have repeatedly been recorded making racist statements, and their core voters are generally working class, undereducated and ignorant. They prey on these easy targets through vicious smear campaigns, misleading propaganda and outright lies to make inroads towards political legitimacy, but are widely regarded (rightly so) as a bunch of daft racists.

The fact that they claim to represent Christian values makes even me, a fairly staunch atheist, absolutely incandescant. The audacity to state that Jesus would vote for them (a Jew from the Middle-East no less...) is staggering. Doesn't the Bible say all men are born equal? What morons.

Greebynog wrote:Just found this on the BBC website, apparently the BNP are claiming to be a Christian party now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7978981.stm

Some background for those outside the UK, the BNP (British Nationalist Party) are the UK's far-right party, whose central policy is the creation of an all-white Britain. Their leaders have repeatedly been recorded making racist statements, and their core voters are generally working class, undereducated and ignorant. They prey on these easy targets through vicious smear campaigns, misleading propaganda and outright lies to make inroads towards political legitimacy, but are widely regarded (rightly so) as a bunch of daft racists.

The fact that they claim to represent Christian values makes even me, a fairly staunch atheist, absolutely incandescant. The audacity to state that Jesus would vote for them (a Jew from the Middle-East no less...) is staggering. Doesn't the Bible say all men are born equal? What morons.

I guess it's less 'Christian' in the sense of living according to the teachings of Jesus, and more 'Christian' in the sense of we're a Christian nation and good and these people coming here from overseas are Muslims and not like us at all.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I recently became Catholic because it gives me a sense of purpose and belonging. All my life, I've been the greasy outsider nerd. The church is a wonderful community that's really improved my life.

Best possible answer.

Sadly, my family isn't religious. My mother and half-brother were at first really angry when I told them I wanted to be religious. Mum's OK with it now, she understands why I wanted it, but my brother seems to hold to the belief that Christians are xenophobic loonies.

Which is more than a little ironic, no?

The bible doesn't say all men are born equal, thats the US Constitution. The bible even acknowledges that people are different and we shouldn't attack them for being so.

I"m pretty sure the Bible talks a lot about how God loves everybody, and nobody is too far gone for salvation, but as for being created equal? Nope.

There's even the famous line, Matthew 26:11: "The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me." The point was the Jesus came for spiritual, and not temporal reasons, but it's a pretty clear acknowledgment of inequality.

Greebynog wrote:Just found this on the BBC website, apparently the BNP are claiming to be a Christian party now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7978981.stm

Some background for those outside the UK, the BNP (British Nationalist Party) are the UK's far-right party, whose central policy is the creation of an all-white Britain. Their leaders have repeatedly been recorded making racist statements, and their core voters are generally working class, undereducated and ignorant. They prey on these easy targets through vicious smear campaigns, misleading propaganda and outright lies to make inroads towards political legitimacy, but are widely regarded (rightly so) as a bunch of daft racists.

The fact that they claim to represent Christian values makes even me, a fairly staunch atheist, absolutely incandescant. The audacity to state that Jesus would vote for them (a Jew from the Middle-East no less...) is staggering. Doesn't the Bible say all men are born equal? What morons.

I read the link that you pasted but I didn't see anything that showed them wanting to create an all-white Britain.
I'm not defending them, I'm just curious, because from your description it reminded me of certain groups over here in the U.S. like Neo-Nazi, white power groups. But I didn't see any of that kind of rhetoric in that news blurb.

I am definately conservative but am pretty much apolitcal. Although I do vote, and usually my vote goes to the party that upholds my values. Admittedly I am uncomfortable, whenever I see phrases like "Who would Jesus vote for" etc. I wonder if Jesus would have even partook in the political process.

Also the fact that they have the term "nationalist" in their party name is kind of scary.

GG

generalgrog wrote:I read the link that you pasted but I didn't see anything that showed them wanting to create an all-white Britain.
I'm not defending them, I'm just curious, because from your description it reminded me of certain groups over here in the U.S. like Neo-Nazi, white power groups. But I didn't see any of that kind of rhetoric in that news blurb.

That article isn't the complete story of the BNP, as it's just a news piece written for a British audience so it assumes some background knowledge.

You're welcome to read about the BNP all over the place. They're pretty open in wanting to not only stop immigration, but get all non-white folk to leave (no matter how many generations they'd been in Britain). In terms of policy they're pretty similar to the run of the mill angry working class racist parties you get all over the place. In the US, though I don't think any party of that type has ever tried to assume a respectable appearance, whereas the BNP regularly present a more pleasant public face.

OK I did some digging and from I what I see they are definately close to being Neo-Nazis, or the very least fascists. They appear to promote the Neo Nazi heretical view of Christianity called "Identity".

I try to stay up to date on these groups as I'm a white american and my wife is of Indian(from India) decent.

It's interesting that the BNP appears to have won some local elections in some places? That's a scary group there.

GG

Local Council Elections.

You give a scumbag a council estate steeped in paranoia and unemployment, and it's easy to engender an extreme right vote in your favour.

generalgrog wrote:OK I did some digging and from I what I see they are definately close to being Neo-Nazis, or the very least fascists. They appear to promote the Neo Nazi heretical view of Christianity called "Identity".

I try to stay up to date on these groups as I'm a white american and my wife is of Indian(from India) decent.

It's interesting that the BNP appears to have won some local elections in some places? That's a scary group there.

GG

Yes, they even have some suppporters here in Northern Ireland, who seem to be ignorant of the geographical fact that we are in "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" when they put their "Keep Britain British" "Repatriation, not Race War" (as if those were the only options!) stickers in public places. Are you familiar with Louis Theroux? Youtube should have some clips of him interviewing the BNP rank and file, it's enough to crush faith in humanity.

Greebynog, no nowhere does it say people are born equal, quite the opposite in fact.

Cheese Elemental: While I respect that you yourself chose to become Catholic, if it was simply a sense of community you required, I believe it possible, if not necessarily as likely, you could have found it through other means. I say this to point out that organised religion does not have a monopoly on togetherness. I'm sure we all are aware of this, but in the interests of this being a reasonable debate, it's important to be clear. Also, I don't think its a shame your family aren't religious, simply beacause, as you made your choice, so have they, and I think you should respect it, especially in the case of your mother, whom the Bible is very particular about respecting. I'm not insulting you, but I don't think it's fair of you to judge their choices - as I avoided judging yours.

dogma wrote:I think for a lot of people its really just a matter of misunderstanding. Faith is virtually a requirement for peaceful existence, but that faith doesn't have to relate to any sort of conventional god. For example, a committed individualist might have faith in the sanctity of individual rights. Faith ignores evidence, but it does not necessarily relate to obviously metaphysical topics.

I understand you so far, however I take issue with the definition of faith here. I feel you are mistaking faith for belief in your example. As you said, faith ignores evidence - it not only does not require evidence, but it ignores it in favour of the preferred conclusion. I could not and would not choose to live my life in such a way, but I feel that anyone who makes such a choice once they are old enough to understand the difference has every right to, and I would defend that right, even though I may think they are an idiot. Obviously this depends on the person. Belief does not require evidence, but will be changed by evidence to the contrary. The clearest example I can think of is when we (as a race) thought the world was flat. We believed this with absolute certainty, to the point where it resembled faith. But, as soon as Columbus reported discovering the Americas, the European world changed. Suddenly, the edge of the world wasn't just over the horizon, with a neverending waterfall like in Narnia (could be wrong, while since I read Voyage of the Dawn Treader) but we lived on a globe. With this newfound evidence, the belief was gone. To bring your example into the equation, I would suggest that a committed individualist might believe in the necessity of Human Rights, of their central importance of a civilised, modern society. I prefer not to use the word sanctity, due to its religious connotations.

Those are just the most common forms of it, most likely because they're also the easiest to defend.

This I genuinely am confused by. Do you mean metaphysical topics are easy to defend? If so, how?

Actually, according to Wikipedia, most educated people in the Western world have known that the Earth is round since the 3rd century BC.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Actually, according to Wikipedia, most educated people in the Western world have known that the Earth is round since the 3rd century BC.

This may be true, I've never heard it before and would have to read up on it. However, Wikipedia once told me "I am Jon Bon Jouvi's brother, and I am the real Bon Jovi. I am going to kill him dead." It's a valuable resource, just not always RaW (I have deja vu )

Hold on, I'll look it up in my QI Book Of General Ignorance....

4th Century according to the QI Team. It is thought that it wasn't until the 19th Century that a claim the world was flat came about, when Washington Irvings semi-fictional 'The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus' incorrectly suggested that Columbus' voyage was to prove the world was round. Which it wasn't. Indeed, according again to the QI book, Colombus theorised the world was Pear Shaped, and about a quarter of it's size.

Interestingly, nor did Columbus ever set foot on mainland America, with the closest he came being the Bahama's, probably the small Island of Plana Cays. He remained to the day of his death, convinced he had reached India.

I love QI me!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:It is thought that it wasn't until the 19th Century that a claim the world was flat came about, when Washington Irvings semi-fictional 'The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus' incorrectly suggested that Columbus' voyage was to prove the world was round.

I forgot that they tell that to kids. In school no less.

Damn! I actually own that book too...

I knew he never set foot on US soil etc, and that he was looking for another route to India that didn't involve travelling around the Cape of Good Hope...damn.

Apologies then.

New example - Galileo, and the whole Earth moves around the Sun thing. Church said no, he said yes, blah blah blah, now we know it's true. Until you debunk this and I'm forced to find an example that isn't from 2am memory

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hold on, I'll look it up in my QI Book Of General Ignorance....

4th Century according to the QI Team.

Was it by then that it was widely known or was that the time it was discovered?

Indeed, according again to the QI book, Colombus theorised the world was Pear Shaped, and about a quarter of it's size.

Interestingly, nor did Columbus ever set foot on mainland America, with the closest he came being the Bahama's, probably the small Island of Plana Cays. He remained to the day of his death, convinced he had reached India.

God dammit, why hasn't someone taken this guy's holiday away from him yet?

Elessar wrote:Damn! I actually own that book too...

I knew he never set foot on US soil etc, and that he was looking for another route to India that didn't involve travelling around the Cape of Good Hope...damn.

Apologies then.

New example - Galileo, and the whole Earth moves around the Sun thing. Church said no, he said yes, blah blah blah, now we know it's true. Until you debunk this and I'm forced to find an example that isn't from 2am memory

Nothing so far, but interestingly, contrary to popular belief, the Moon does not orbit the Earth. They orbit each other around a common centre of gravity around 1,000 miles below the surface of the Earth. This means the earth makes three different rotations. Around the Sun, around its own axis, and around the aforementioned point.

Right, I shall now stop buggering about with interesting nuggets of information and return the thread to it's point. Apologies all.

I remembered that one from the book! Thanks for being unable to shoot down another example.

Elessar wrote: I understand you so far, however I take issue with the definition of faith here. I feel you are mistaking faith for belief in your example. As you said, faith ignores evidence - it not only does not require evidence, but it ignores it in favour of the preferred conclusion. I could not and would not choose to live my life in such a way, but I feel that anyone who makes such a choice once they are old enough to understand the difference has every right to, and I would defend that right, even though I may think they are an idiot. Obviously this depends on the person. Belief does not require evidence, but will be changed by evidence to the contrary.

I think your mistaken in saying that belief does not require evidence. To draw on the example you present below:

We thought the Earth was flat because we had clear evidence that the ground was flat. It appeared that way. Without countermanding evidence, in this case direct observation of the Earth's curvature, there was no obvious reason to suspect that the Earth as a whole was especially different from the Earth as viewed in part. Belief becomes faith when it begins to ignore evidence that overwhelmingly countermands the body of knowledge which had justified the belief. Another, traditionally secular, example would be the continued existence of Communists in spite of the disaster that was the Soviet Union.

Elessar wrote:
The clearest example I can think of is when we (as a race) thought the world was flat. We believed this with absolute certainty, to the point where it resembled faith. But, as soon as Columbus reported discovering the Americas, the European world changed. Suddenly, the edge of the world wasn't just over the horizon, with a neverending waterfall like in Narnia (could be wrong, while since I read Voyage of the Dawn Treader) but we lived on a globe. With this newfound evidence, the belief was gone. To bring your example into the equation, I would suggest that a committed individualist might believe in the necessity of Human Rights, of their central importance of a civilised, modern society. I prefer not to use the word sanctity, due to its religious connotations.

He might, yes, but he also might believe in their sanctity. I've heard such statement uttered by people more than knowledgeable enough to understand their implications. To reinterpret your critique: it would be possible for a committed Theist to believe in the value of God without necessarily committing to a faith in his existence. Similarly, one can so vehemently deny the value of faith that he becomes entirely prone to it. For example:

An idiot, on another forum, that I used to be fond of baiting used to say something along the lines of 'falsify the doctrine, falsify the God'. I refer to him as an idiot because virtually every major religion features a principle which explicitly separates earthly promulgation from the nature of God (Brahma, Nirvana, whatever you want to call the thing that lends ultimate meaning) himself. He ignored clear evidence of this tendency in order to apply his attacks, which were really limited to fundamentalism, to religion as a whole. He was a committed Atheist who was absolutely certain that religion was responsible for all of man's ills, so certain that he exhibited religious behavior in his desire to prove it. The very behavior that he deplored.

Elessar wrote:This I genuinely am confused by. Do you mean metaphysical topics are easy to defend? If so, how?

That's what I was getting at, yes. The reason they are easy to defend is that they are inherently unfalsifiable. You can cast doubt on a metaphysical conclusion. You can disparage its believers. But you cannot prove that its wrong. Really, the only requirements for a metaphysical defense are stubbornness, and creativity.