quote:Because a piece of you lives on forever through your children and their children. For me, if I were an atheist, this would be good enough. The desire to create a better world for your children should be instinctual.
Nonsense. If you are an atheist in the sense that there is no supernatural, no divine, what motivation is there beyond the arbitrary to want to provide a better world for your children? If we all just happened-if our children are just self-aware heaps of tissue and bone, then the devotion and love we feel for them is no more and no less than the devotion and love a beast feels for its offspring. And a beast feels that devotion because its breeding demands it-if its ancestors to the nth degree hadn't felt that way, it would have never been born.
But caring about that requires caring about the betterment of one's species after we die, when if there is no divine, no supernatural, we have zero investment in it. We're not there. We're totally gone. So why care?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Atheist morality is, to a great extent, informed by pragmatism (greatest good for the greatest number). It is also informed by the "Golden Rule" (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). But is also assumes that life is precious, because it's all you got. There is no afterlife to make up for a crappy life here on earth. If you can act in a way that brings the most joy and happiness to the greatest number of people (including yourself), then you are doing something good.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There are any number of things apart from gods that can give you morality. There's the primate sense of justice; children of three have a quite well-developed sense of what is fair, and so do chimpanzees. Then there's enlightened self-interest : I prefer a society with these kinds of laws, and therefore it is in my interest to follow and enforce those laws.
So the first is an evolutionary? argument and the second a philosopical? one. Would the evolutionary argument devolve to, "It behooves me to act morally because I'm more likely to pass on my genes"? Or is the argument more that it's just programmed into us and we can't avoid it? I'm not sure I understand that one.
In the second, the philosophical "enlightened social justice", it seems like sort of a golden rule type argument. Do you think that if you don't behave in that way, that the society will cease to exist? And, importantly, cease to exist while you are living in it? Or is it more about social pressure, i.e. the people I want to associate wouldn't like it if I did X, and would stop associating with me, therefore I will avoid doing X?
quote:There is also the problem of where does morality come from if a god is involved : Is X good because your god says so? Then why can't Y be good because I say so? Conversely, if X is good independent of your god's dictation, then what is the need for the god in the first place? Morality from god is just a variant of morality from the guy with the biggest axe.
I'm not sure how to respond to this; I'll think about it awhile. Actually, I probably won't respond to it, because I'm going home for the weekend and likely this thread will disappear before I'm back at Hatrack. My initial feeling is I can admit that, but with the qualification that the nature of God and the nature of my relationship with him partially precludes the "biggest axe" idea. It's not that I obey because God has the power; it's that I obey because in doing so I become more like Him and His nature is such that I wish to share it. Maybe that's circular (God is good therefore I follow him because I want to be like him because He is good), I'm not sure. Maybe I'll bring it up again some other time.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, this is something distinct and different from the Holy Spirit. I don't know of any other Christianity-based religion that teaches this. That doesn't mean there isn't one, only that I am ignorant of any.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But is also assumes that life is precious, because it's all you got. There is no afterlife to make up for a crappy life here on earth. If you can act in a way that brings the most joy and happiness to the greatest number of people (including yourself), then you are doing something good.
The thing is, this conclusion is in no way a "given". Another person may come to the conclusion that because this life is all they have, their pleasure is most important.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But caring about that requires caring about the betterment of one's species after we die, when if there is no divine, no supernatural, we have zero investment in it. We're not there. We're totally gone. So why care?
Perhaps because we don't believe that "we're totally gone." Even if love is no more than evolutionary impulses and hormonal balances, it's still real and imperative in the same way that a pile of gooey chemicals spread across canvas can be inspiring and photons refracting off water vapor can be beautiful.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course we are (I'll lump myself in even though I'm not dogmatic enough to be an atheist). Our higher standards include community, patriotism, family, self-image, and justice. None of those require a deity or an afterlife. My life and the lives of those around me are improved if I am trustworthy and good. If I choose to break the laws my society has created I will be outcast and will suffer.
Yes Chris, but those standards are also arbitrary-they're based on the choice that, "I will be a good man for no other reason than I want to be a good man," for the atheist. Even the society we live in, which ironically is definitely not arbitrary, at least in the minds of its builders-they largely made their decisions at least partially from a religious perspective.
But you're a clever man, Chris. I think I am as well. Don't you think you and I could devote ourselves to lives of selfish hedonism, maybe even crime, and avoid the punishments society imposes for such activities? If I wanted to, if I devoted myself to it, I could travel to a convenience store a few counties over, study it, plan the effort, and rob it and I think I would avoid ever being caught and punished for the crime. Most crimes go unreported after all, and it's usually the less effective criminals who wind up in prison.
But I don't, for many reasons of course. One of them in fact being the arbitrary choice I described, but there are other reasons.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because a piece of you lives on forever through your children and their children. For me, if I were an atheist, this would be good enough. The desire to create a better world for your children should be instinctual.
Nonsense. If you are an atheist in the sense that there is no supernatural, no divine, what motivation is there beyond the arbitrary to want to provide a better world for your children? If we all just happened-if our children are just self-aware heaps of tissue and bone, then the devotion and love we feel for them is no more and no less than the devotion and love a beast feels for its offspring. And a beast feels that devotion because its breeding demands it-if its ancestors to the nth degree hadn't felt that way, it would have never been born.
But caring about that requires caring about the betterment of one's species after we die, when if there is no divine, no supernatural, we have zero investment in it. We're not there. We're totally gone. So why care?
Maybe its just what you said. Animalistic needs and urges. Our instincts might demand it in order to continue on the human race.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another person may come to the conclusion that because this life is all they have, their pleasure is most important.
Many do. I think it's a selfish way to live, and that person may eventually notice that he or she has few friends and no depth to his or her life. Or not.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But is also assumes that life is precious, because it's all you got. There is no afterlife to make up for a crappy life here on earth.
To someone without any belief in divine or supernatural, any statement beyond, "My life is precious," is arbitrary.
Since I'm about to go to work and won't be here until tomorrow probably, let me make it clear: I think the decision to be a good, honorable, compassionate and courageous person is a noble and worthy thing, whether or not it's arbitrary. And in some ways, sometimes, I think the arbitrary decision-just because one chooses to do so-is the best.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Yet you seem fine just saying, "The Catholic Church is wrong in many ways."
Why is it OK for you to make a single-sentence conclusory post about a 2000-year old church without even bothering to explain yourself?
Hmm you're right, okay I start then.
-The acceptance of pagan festivities - This one is a good one, for example "christmas" was originally the birthday of the sun god. It was getting wildly popular way back, so the church decided to adopt it (ouch.) to keep their popularity (even though the Bible says:
'Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.' James 4,4
Of course if one thinks fundamentally this would only apply to adulterers and adulteresses. It applies to everyone who in turn for popularity, acts against God. I can tell you he doesn't like it when a church decides to adopt a pagan festivity (and more, as time progressed)
-political influence (I don't reckon where but the Bible says somewhere that you must stand for the country [while speaking to churchs] but that doesn't mean the uttermost political influence the catholic church possesses.) In other words, they twist this part of the scripture. -Historical facts about them doing things In the name of God instead of As commanded by God. This scares a lot of people away from God. They look at God as an enemy, thanks to this and see the belief in God as a "brainwash". The pope saluting with Hitler, the newest pope a member of the Hitlerjugend (Note, I am not picking Hitler out as the only man who slayed a lot. Every country had its devastator, even in the ancient rome. We tend to forget this (mainly the ignorant) and go at Hitler like he was the only brutal dictator in the history) Though he's a good example here because he started going into the occult after WWI. See results. My newbie conclusion is to avoid the occult.
-Their arrogance in declaring that "we are your advocate at God" What the hell? Who authorised them? Who on this earth was given the right to call himself my advocate at God? Needless to mention that this doesn't make God popular in the eyes of atheists (historical facts back this up)
These are the mainstream facts I really really don't like about the catholic church. As I stated previously, this doesn't mean that catholics are bad, I just don't like their principles.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Oooh. I'm interested. For me, "the divine that is present in all of us" is a pretty good working definition of the Holy Spirit. I am curious as to how they differ in your theology.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well I do give Catholics a lot of credit for improvement. Anyone correct me I'm wrong but their official doctrine seems to be getting more liberal then most Christians.
Not that I've noticed.
quote:Jesus is the preferred path, but not the only one.
This is not quite what the teaching is. The teaching is there is no salvation outside the Church (as the entity extending through time and space as the Bride of Christ, not a particular building or restricted to a set of living people), but that Jesus and the Church might work to grant salvation outside the context of formal membership in the Church.
Full communion in the Church is considered the "preferred" means to salvation and Christians have a duty to spread this message.
quote:The bible should not be taken 100% literally.
This is neither new, limited to Catholics, nor particularly liberal except on a very few particular issues (creationsim, for example).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you're a clever man, Chris. I think I am as well. Don't you think you and I could devote ourselves to lives of selfish hedonism, maybe even crime, and avoid the punishments society imposes for such activities? If I wanted to, if I devoted myself to it, I could travel to a convenience store a few counties over, study it, plan the effort, and rob it and I think I would avoid ever being caught and punished for the crime. Most crimes go unreported after all, and it's usually the less effective criminals who wind up in prison.
And then I would never be entirely comfortable around others for fear my secret would get out.
I think my desire to be a good man is representative of the fact that I am supremely selfish, so much so that I don't ever want to have to worry about whether anyone would trust me or if there's anything I have to hide from people. I want people to give me the benefit of the doubt and a reputation for honesty and trustworthiness makes that happen. I can't keep track of which people I might have lied to, so it's much easier to just never lie or do anything that requires lying.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why, without any deities, is being good a good thing? Why is it good to want to improve mankind? If there is no divine, then we all just happened-and why then should I feel any loyalty to anyone but myself?
Why should you do this in the presence of a god? I mean, we've agreed that the fear of punishment is not real morality, so what makes 'good' good just because your god says so? I asked this earlier, but you apparently missed it : Does your moral code exist independently of god? If so, why is your god needed? Conversely, if things are good because your god says so, how is that any different from being good because the Emperor says so, or the President, or the Fuhrer, or the little black dog down the street?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: A quote from a famous atheist:
Heh, well when Jesus came he told the townspeople to demolish churchs.
That famous atheist really misunderstands one thing though.
A church can be a wooden hut in the swamp, as long as it is a place for people to gather and pray to God.
INSTEAD WE GOT THE SUPERDUPER GOLDSTATUEWHATTHE?! churches of a certain *cough* *cough* politically accepted church.
This person blames it on belief. Wahoo! Nope, not the people who build them.
Aww shucks I always start replying wildly to these, even if an atheist says something good he (for some reason) puts God as a negative opposition in front of himself/herself. (Nevermind the fact that a lot of his speech is inspired by the Bible itself)
I don't see atheists as enemies for example, even if our beliefs are opposed, I have atheists friends, I don't redicule them, my family is atheist as well.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just get very annoyed when people say things along the lines of, "I can tell you for a fact that God thinks..."
No, you can't. You didn't write the Bible (assuming that we're speaking of a Christian God), and you don't know what the intention of every verse was, and that thing has been translated so many times by so many different people with so many different agendas...
posted
Nor should you be ridiculed for believing. But the questions was why atheists would want to do good, so that's what I'm trying to answer.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nonsense. If you are an atheist in the sense that there is no supernatural, no divine, what motivation is there beyond the arbitrary to want to provide a better world for your children? If we all just happened-if our children are just self-aware heaps of tissue and bone, then the devotion and love we feel for them is no more and no less than the devotion and love a beast feels for its offspring. And a beast feels that devotion because its breeding demands it-if its ancestors to the nth degree hadn't felt that way, it would have never been born.
But caring about that requires caring about the betterment of one's species after we die, when if there is no divine, no supernatural, we have zero investment in it. We're not there. We're totally gone. So why care?
Um, no. Wrong. You cannot stand aside from your own emotions like that. So what if love, say, is only programmed into our brains by our genes? The fact remains that we feel the emotion, and act on it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The acceptance of pagan festivities - This one is a good one, for example "christmas" was originally the birthday of the sun god. It was getting wildly popular way back, so the church decided to adopt it (ouch.) to keep their popularity (even though the Bible says:
'Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.' James 4,4
Of course if one thinks fundamentally this would only apply to adulterers and adulteresses. It applies to everyone who in turn for popularity, acts against God. I can tell you he doesn't like it when a church decides to adopt a pagan festivity (and more, as time progressed)
You say this verse applies to Christmas because you know God doesn't like us celebrating Christmas. Where is your evidence that he doesn't like us celebrating Christmas?
The Church does not formally hold that Christ was born on Christmas; rather, that is the day set aside to celebrate His birth.
quote:political influence (I don't reckon where but the Bible says somewhere that you must stand for the country [while speaking to churchs] but that doesn't mean the uttermost political influence the catholic church possesses.) In other words, they twist this part of the scripture.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
quote:Historical facts about them doing things In the name of God instead of As commanded by God. This scares a lot of people away from God. They look at God as an enemy, thanks to this and see the belief in God as a "brainwash".The pope saluting with Hitler,
What "fake teaching," exactly, does this represent? Are you cataloging things Catholics have done that you don't like or are you supporting your contentions that 1) Catholics ignore the Bible and 2) Catholics have many "fake teachings"?
quote:the newest pope a member of the Hitlerjugend
Saul started out hunting down Christians; history is replete with people who were great sinners becoming champions for God. You're going to have to do better than this, especially since this isn't a "teaching."
quote:Their arrogance in declaring that "we are your advocate at God" What the hell? Who authorised them? Who on this earth was given the right to call himself my advocate at God? Needless to mention that this doesn't make God popular in the eyes of atheists (historical facts back this up)
Could you explain where you got the impression that the Church declares itself "your advocate at God"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Oooh. I'm interested. For me, "the divine that is present in all of us" is a pretty good working definition of the Holy Spirit. I am curious as to how they differ in your theology.
The scriptures upon which the doctrine is based:
From The Book of Mormon:
Moroni 7:16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil;
From the Doctrine and Covenants:
Doctrine and Covenants 84:46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world;
Doctrine and Covenants 93:2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; (Christ speaking)
The idea is expanded on by the prophets and apostles of our church, the idea being that this is a gift from God put within us, it is the thing in us that responds positively to goodness, like the influence of the Holy Spirit.
A similar verse found in the Bible:
John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I just get very annoyed when people say things along the lines of, "I can tell you for a fact that God thinks..."
No, you can't. You didn't write the Bible (assuming that we're speaking of a Christian God), and you don't know what the intention of every verse was, and that thing has been translated so many times by so many different people with so many different agendas...
Whee, I'm a bad Christian.
-pH
Yeah it sounded like a fact, but think about it. A pagan festivity celebrating the birth of the sun god (who was often given human sacrifises, even children) is not a very good thing, even if you just look at it EXCLUDING belief.
So what? It got renamed and thankfully, common sense transformed it into the "day of love".
Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not Catholic, so maybe I'm out of place, but from my POV you're going a bit far with the criticism. More than the matter of content it's the tone. Please try to be more respectful to those of the Catholic faith.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And why is that a bad thing, transforming it into a day of love?
We don't sacrifice babies to the Sun God nowadays (I personally prefer baby seals, anyway). What's wrong with setting aside a day to celebrate and be with family?
Let's hate Thanksgiving, too. I'm sure that whatever day it falls on in a given year, it was once a pagan celebration for some culture somewhere.
posted
I would say exactly like the Holy Spirit. The only difference I am sensing (and it may be because I am interpreting you incorrectly) is that "put within us" almost sounds as if it is a separate thing and I think that the Holy Spirit is part of us. Cool.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In most societies there has traditionally been holidays at the beginning of the new year, in the spring, at the harvest time, and in the winter. You pays your money, you takes your pick.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, I was trying to remember whether you were LDS, because I was thinking along the same lines: "we're all born with the Light of Christ that leads us to recognize good and want to do good even if we don't know God".
I find myself (sort of scarily) agreeing more with the atheists on this thread; it's ridiculous to think that you can't be moral, or want to be a good person, or care about others just because you don't believe in God. If the only reason we care about people is because God said we should, are we only doing it out of fear? I think there's something intrinsic in our natures to WANT to be kind and fair and help others, and that selfishness sometimes drives that out, but it's there from the very beginning. Of course I'd call that something the Light of Christ, as I said, but whatever it is, it's in all of us whether we believe in God or not. So we all have motivation to be moral.
Edited to add: Kmbboots, I understand why you would call that the Holy Spirit but I think LDS believe differently about the Holy Spirit than others do ... so yes, what you mean by the Holy Spirit is probably the same thing.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why should you do this in the presence of a god?
I don't think it is about the existance of God as much as about the immortality of the soul and the idea of eternally regretting ones mortal behavior--which is, BTW, what I believe hell actually is.
quote:Does your moral code exist independently of god?
I believe that the moral code of my religion *comes* from God. I believe that it is very easy to stray from it, lost in my own motivations and the events of life. That is why I believe it is important to frequently return to the scriptures. If I am left to my own self, I will tend to deviate from that moral code.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, at least for those of us in the northern hemisphere, a time of light returning to the earth is a perfect time to celebrate Jesus coming into the world.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate (it is Kate, right?) I guess the difference is that we believe that the Holy Spirit is a part of God and the Light of Christ (as we call it) is a part of us. God put it there, but it is a part of every person born, believer or not.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The acceptance of pagan festivities - This one is a good one, for example "christmas" was originally the birthday of the sun god. It was getting wildly popular way back, so the church decided to adopt it (ouch.) to keep their popularity (even though the Bible says:
'Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.' James 4,4
Of course if one thinks fundamentally this would only apply to adulterers and adulteresses. It applies to everyone who in turn for popularity, acts against God. I can tell you he doesn't like it when a church decides to adopt a pagan festivity (and more, as time progressed)
You say this verse applies to Christmas because you know God doesn't like us celebrating Christmas. Where is your evidence that he doesn't like us celebrating Christmas?
The Church does not formally hold that Christ was born on Christmas; rather, that is the day set aside to celebrate His birth.
quote:political influence (I don't reckon where but the Bible says somewhere that you must stand for the country [while speaking to churchs] but that doesn't mean the uttermost political influence the catholic church possesses.) In other words, they twist this part of the scripture.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
quote:Historical facts about them doing things In the name of God instead of As commanded by God. This scares a lot of people away from God. They look at God as an enemy, thanks to this and see the belief in God as a "brainwash".The pope saluting with Hitler,
What "fake teaching," exactly, does this represent? Are you cataloging things Catholics have done that you don't like or are you supporting your contentions that 1) Catholics ignore the Bible and 2) Catholics have many "fake teachings"?
quote:the newest pope a member of the Hitlerjugend
Saul started out hunting down Christians; history is replete with people who were great sinners becoming champions for God. You're going to have to do better than this, especially since this isn't a "teaching."
quote:Their arrogance in declaring that "we are your advocate at God" What the hell? Who authorised them? Who on this earth was given the right to call himself my advocate at God? Needless to mention that this doesn't make God popular in the eyes of atheists (historical facts back this up)
Could you explain where you got the impression that the Church declares itself "your advocate at God"?
I didn't say he doesn't like people celebrating Christmas, but moreso, that the church made it into a religious festivity to attract the pagans, this dates back to early centuries a.d. Anyway in common knowledge of most people Christmas isn't he "day set aside to celebrate His birth"
Jesus still told not to celebrate his birth. Now it's important to know how merciful and modest he was so it doesn't mean "god shall strike people if they celebrate me!", rather a kind request, a very kind at that one.
For a more localised example when Europe got Christianised our first consecrated king said this: I either take Christianity up or Hungary will diminish from this world.
He wasn't a saint exactly either, so why can he become one, by mere human priests?
He was a good leader, don't get me wrong (his hungarian name was Szent István, Saint Steven in english)
A king saying this around 1000 (circa 1005 years ago) shows how much of a pressure the church had on the countries across Europe.
The fake teachings come from the roots of this church. You must hunt down the ones that don't agree with you, you must turn away from those that don't agree with you. Scientology comes to mind.
Of course they improved over time, DOH. It was a lot easier to burn people when the ability to read was considered "special". Nowadays if they tried another "holy war" it would get them hammered quite fast.
Well, it isn't a teaching, more like a moral standard.
Lets have a happy day, it is only the makeup of my paranoid mind. Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say he doesn't like people celebrating Christmas, but moreso, that the church made it into a religious festivity to attract the pagans, this dates back to early centuries a.d.
And yet you've provided no evidence of this.
quote:A king saying this around 1000 (circa 1005 years ago) shows how much of a pressure the church had on the countries across Europe.
What is your objection, specifically?
quote:The fake teachings come from the roots of this church. You must hunt down the ones that don't agree with you, you must turn away from those that don't agree with you. Scientology comes to mind.
What? Are you saying scientology is Catholic?
quote:They said so.
Please quote a Catholic source for this.
Edit: Posted before BadGuy's post was totally rearranged.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
An aethiest claiming to know what a Christian "really" believes or a Christian claiming to know what an aethiest "really" believes?
I don't know which is worse, but I do know what would be better.
If the Christians and Aetheists and a lot of other folks who believe in other things got together on some, I don't know, forum site, and tried to explain to everyone else what they truly believed based on their church or lack their of. And if the others calmly listened with interest.
I used to know of such a place. It was called Hatrack.
Lets keep it like that. I find it incredible.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Jenna and Beverly. That does make sense.
quote: I understand why you would call that the Holy Spirit but I think LDS believe differently about the Holy Spirit than others do ... so yes, what you mean by the Holy Spirit is probably the same thing.
quote: I guess the difference is that we believe that the Holy Spirit is a part of God and the Light of Christ (as we call it) is a part of us.
That was the piece I was missing. For me the two are kind of mushed together - the part of me that is a part of God. Sort of.
And, yes, I am Kate. (and a woman) (hee)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeez I didn't say the catholic church of today is EQUAL TO SCIENTOLOGY. As you go back in time, they become more and more similar. Disconnection, suppressive people.
The difference is, that thankfully, the catholic church was able to get past this. At least this, but again, they would still do it if it was possible
I made it more easier to read, not perfect, but bear with me. Our ideals are clearly totally different so lets agree to disagree.
I accept that you think I am wrong in every topic I spoke about.
We're both able to continue this arguement but I don't see the point to do so.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BadGuy, There is a big difference between "fake teachings" and "teachings that you don't agree with." Please don't confuse the two.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Lets keep it like that. I find it incredible.
I apologise, next time I will bring my disputes to pms.
quote:Originally posted by camus: BadGuy, There is a big difference between "fake teachings" and "teachings that you don't agree with." Please don't confuse the two.
True, I could've defined it more peacefully and presentable.
At least consider the things I said, even if you're convinced that I am wrong, at least look after it Posts: 21 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan_Raven, I agree. I've always been fascinated by Hatrack being a place where people neither ignore religion nor spout the angry rhetoric famous on other sites, but just explain and listen.
I *heart* Hatrack.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're both able to continue this arguement but I don't see the point to do so.
I'd just like to see you substantiate one freaking thing you've said about "fake teachings" or most Catholics ignoring the Bible.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
