This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Fail of your Day Religious Argument: July 30th 2009

edited July 2009 in Everything Else
Forked from Fail of your Day thread:
Posted By: Axel-of-the-KeyPosted By: RymPosted By: Axel-of-the-KeyWe're MORE reasonable than Catholicism, because we don't blindly say "We've decided this." Our viewpoints have been defined for many centuries, (more, if you believe in the religion) and have not changed.
Posted By: Axel-of-the-KeyThey are based solely on the Bible.
There's some dissonance there. The Bible was not a defined text, and it was translated and altered constantly for a long time. Much of it was written long after the era when Jesus supposedly lived by a number of different writers, and the consolidation of the body of work left out countless pages of equally plausible text. If you say you believe in the "Bible," then you'd better define exactly which specific version of it you ascribe to.
Posted By: Axel-of-the-KeyCatholicism has the Pope, who can come up with new stuff whenever he wants.
This statement alone belies your understanding of Christian history. Most of the tenants of modern Christianity arose from the Orthodox church, which had a patriarch and similar power structures. Anything that came from these debates and councils is equally accountable to the "We've decided this" argument. So, do you hold to those tenants, or do you go back even earlier? At what point is it no longer arbitrarily defined by the people who wrote it?
I utilize the New International Version, primarily, which to my understanding, has gone back to much of the older Greek Orthodox translations for the New Testament, and straight back to the Hebrew text for the Old Testament. Granted, I understand this is similar to the Pope. However, it is not new. It cannot be redefined now. Their may be arguments over translation, but this edition does a good job of pointing out discrepancies.

The Pope is still around. The Pope can still change things. The Church has been around since within a few centuries of Jesus' death, and texts from back then are often studied in order to improve our modern understanding of the Bible. The Pope is not an ancient source, he is a constant source of change.
In some ways, Catholicism is almost like a cult, more about following the person who tells you about the beliefs than actually having your own individual interpretation of those beliefs. That's another reason why it's more acceptable-Because I choose to interpret the words differently than some others. It is open to interpretation, but not super loose interpretation.I can't interpret something out of the Bible. If it was said, it was important, and must mean something similar to its original function. However, this still allows for things like granting Homosexuals equal political rights. If you want to hear my argument on that, it is very long, but I do believe they should be granted equal marriage rights, just not in the way most people suggest. No, I do not advocate Civil Unions.

Remember, paragraphs are your friend. Walls of text are not.
«13

Comments

  • We're MORE reasonable than Catholicism, because we don't blindly say "We've decided this."
    No, you've obviously come to your conclusions based upon the scientific method, experimental data, and peer-reviewed research.
    Our viewpoints have been defined for many centuries, (more, if you believe in the religion) and have not changed.
    . . . and that's desirable, persuasive, and reasonable in what way, exactly?
    They are based solely on the Bible.
    Which of its many versions, edits, and iterations?
    Catholicism has the Pope, who can come up with new stuff whenever he wants.
    You had best back off of the criticism there, buddy. Your religion, whatever it is, has absolutely no inherent worth that places it above Catholicism (or any other religion you care to name) in any way. You're just saying that your Sky Man is better than another person's FSM.

    Can Superman beat The Hulk in a fight? That's the level of debate you're dealing with if you're seeking to show that your religion is better than anyone else's.

    Edit: Rym beat me to a lot of this. I obviously cannot type as fast.
  • You had best back off of the criticism there, buddy. Your religion, whatever it is, has absolutely no inherent worth that places it above Catholicism (or any other religion you care to name) in any way. You're just saying that your Sky Man is better than another person's FSM.
    I'm not saying our God is better than theirs. We believe in the same God. I am simply stating that the idea of a Pope, or even Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests, who are above the normal human and have supposedly more understanding of the Bible is a bad idea. The Bible is open to everyone's interpretation. But in Catholicism, the Pope's interpretation is final. Why should he have any more say than me? Or someone else? A pastor may get up and preach, but he is not saying that you should listen to him. He is simply providing his interpretation in the hopes that you find it helpful. Catholicism claims that you must use the Pope's interpretation or you are not going to Heaven. Who said this? Why the Pope of course! It's like a dictatorship.
    Also, my church is non-denominational. I don't really believe in other denominations at all, but Catholicism is the one that bothers me the most. I will admit that other denominations have problems as well, and they have to do with the political aspects of a Church. A Church must distance itself from those kinds of things.
  • I did have paragraphs, I just forgot to put a space between them. But you can see where I press enter and start a new line. I'll just remember to put spaces there from now on.

    Sorry, that was unrelated, I just felt a need to point that out.
  • edited July 2009
    Catholicism claims that you must use the Pope's interpretation or you are not going to Heaven. Who said this? Why the Pope of course! It's like a dictatorship.
    How is your religion more reasonable than this? You've said that you're relying on a strict interpretation of a supposedly centuries-old text to decide how to get to heaven. That's not like a dictatorship at all.

    Face it: Your "interpretation" is a story. The Pope's "interpretation" is a story. They're not even good stories. They both have about as much inherent value as The Phantom Menace. Arguing over which story is better is like arguing over whether The Phantom Menace is better than The Clone Wars. They're both stories with poor dialogue and wooden acting. One is not any better than the other.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited July 2009
    Which fork of Christianity are we talking about today?

    Edit: added more coding humor
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • Catholicism claims that you must use the Pope's interpretation or you are not going to Heaven. Who said this? Why the Pope of course! It's like a dictatorship.
    How is your religion more reasonable than this? You've said that you're relying on a strict interpretation of a supposedly centuries-old text to decide how to get to heaven.
    But it is constant, at least now that we have good recording skills. The wording and structure of the Bible may change, but its inherent message does not.

    It's the difference between these two situations:

    A pastor walks up in front of the attendees of the Church service and says, "From now on, you must all wear clown's noses to go to Heaven. If you don't wear this clown nose 24/7, you will go to Hell. I have realized that this is the truth." People would kick him out and make him go away, because has has no basis.

    The Pope walks in front of a crowd of people and tells them the same thing. Every Priest, Bishop, and Cardinal will follow him, and so will a lot of people. More will follow over time.

    I know you believe that all Religion is based on a manmade idea, but at least it is based on something that is written down and widely accepted. The Pope is one man, who changes every time he dies. Therefore, their ideas, which are now considered religious law amongst Catholics, are accepted as Religious fact. A religion should base itself upon its religious texts, not anything else. Nothing new should come out of religion besides interpretations. Completely new ideas or laws for no reason is, again, like a cult.
  • A religion should base itself upon its religious texts, not anything else.
    What support do you have for this statement? It's just a bald assertion.
  • Nothing new should come out of religion besides interpretations.
    When you get arrested for making a burnt offering to Yahweh, don't ask me for help.
  • A religion should base itself upon its religious texts, not anything else.
    What support do you have for this statement? It's just a bald assertion.
    The Bible says that God is absolute law. Everything he says overrides what anyone else says.

    Catholicism says that the Pope is law. Apparently he knows more about God than anyone else for some reason, and can create extra-Biblical ideas.

    Therefore, Catholicism is not obeying the Bible, which is what the religion is supposed to be based on. It is not following a tenet of Christianity, but still they claim to be Christians. As far as I'm concerned, they have blatantly broken one of the single most important Biblical rules for a millennium and gotten away with it. The Pope said to fight the Crusades, not God. The Pope said to continue killing Homosexuals, even though Jesus said to love sinners. The Pope has done terrible things time and time again with no Biblical basis. A religion that claims to be based on the Bible and the love of God has a human in charge. Therefore, I believe Catholicism has failed at being Christians. It something else entirely. Again, a cult.
  • edited July 2009
    The Bible says that God is absolute law. Everything he says overrides what anyone else says.
    The only problem is that he's never said anything.
    The Pope said to fight the Crusades, not God.
    How do you know?
    The Pope said to continue killing Homosexuals . . .
    When, exactly? Maybe this is why that "change" that you deride is necessary.
    The Pope said to continue killing Homosexuals, even though Jesus said to love sinners.
    Are homosexuals sinners?
    Therefore, I believe Catholicism has failed at being Christians. It something else entirely.Again, a cult.
    That's not the definition of a "cult." Here is the definition of a "cult." Your religion is a "cult" per this definition.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited July 2009
    Catholicism says that the Pope is law. Apparently he knows more about God than anyone else for some reason, and can create extra-Biblical ideas.
    God talks to the pope and tells him what to do. God's word is absolute as you say, but I haven't heard him say anything lately. So what's wrong with following the guy he supposedly told what to do?
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • Hey, Axel, do you keep Kosher? Do you take your mildewed shower curtain to a priest and stone women who punch a dude in the nuts? Nah, didn't think so. You religion is just as interpretive as Catholicism.

    Now if you were a Hasidic Jew, then you'd have an argument. They keep the laws to the letter, and all have to agree on it.
  • Catholicism says that the Pope is law. Apparently he knows more about God than anyone else for some reason, and can create extra-Biblical ideas.
    God talks to the pope and tells him what to do. God's word is absolute as you say, but I haven't heard him say anything lately. So what's wrong with following the guy he supposedly told what to do?
    Because it's not his guy, because like most religions, his is the one and only way. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
  • Catholicism says that the Pope is law. Apparently he knows more about God than anyone else for some reason, and can create extra-Biblical ideas.
    God talks to the pope and tells him what to do. God's word is absolute as you say, but I haven't heard him say anything lately. So what's wrong with following the guy he supposedly tell what to do?
    God didn't say in the Bible that he was going to talk to one guy. God said he was going to speak to us all through his words. God doesn't come down and talk to people individually anymore. God's word speaks to you through the Bible. I know you think that concept is stupid, but it's all I've got.
    The Bible says that God is absolute law. Everything he says overrides what anyone else says.
    The only problem is that he's never said anything.
    I will explain this time and time again, but people don't listen. Within the confines of my religious beliefs, I know that the Bible is God's best way of communicating with us. Often times, it and prayer are the only ways. Why would God allow one of the most important parts of our Religion to be corrupted? I believe that God has a hand in the world's events, and wouldn't have allowed for that to happen.

    Also, you completely ignored the rest of my argument. You are trying to turn this into a religious debate about whether or not God exists. I don't want to have one of those, really. I just want people to understand that Catholics are breaking one of the essential rules of Christianity, and therefore I don't understand why they are still considered Christians, and why the are still considered as a basis of what all Christians are like.
  • edited July 2009
    It something else entirely.Again, a cult.
    Actually, you guys are the cult, you little splinter-group, you.
    edit: According to Wikipedia,
    Cult definitions coined from 1920 onward[1] refer to a cohesive social group and their devotional beliefs or practices, which the surrounding population considers to be outside of mainstream cultures
    Hard to get more mainstream than Catholicism. I have no idea how reliable it is, but this website has you guys outnumbered 2-to-1.

    I'm not going to defend the pope, because shit knows that popes have gotten away with horrible things throughout the centuries. But really, from a neutral perspective, either idea is equally (in)valid. If I had to choose one to believe, which would I choose? The immutable (but not really) 2000 year old book that knows everything? Or the guy with the direct line to God's bat-phone, who can give us addenda and appendices to cover all the stuff that's come up in the last 2000 years? It's a toss-up, but probably leaning in favor of the bat-phone. But you're locked into one world view, so every other world view is automatically wrong and ridiculous.
    Post edited by Funfetus on
  • edited July 2009
    @Axel: Wait, first you say to follow a religious text closely and then you say "it's just the message that's important!"

    Where do you draw the line? Like, can you believe in God, love, and peace, and the noble sacrifice of Jesus, but be a sex-loving lesbian who doesn't follow many of the other laws? Like, you're a good person and as long as you believe in God and Jesus you are going to heaven? Are you sure that's the message? Then why do Devout Christians always rag on people for all these other "sins?"
    Post edited by gomidog on
  • Hey, Axel, do you keep Kosher? Do you take your mildewed shower curtain to a priest and stone women who punch a dude in the nuts? Nah, didn't think so. You religion is just as interpretive as Catholicism.

    Now if you were a Hasidic Jew, then you'd have an argument. They keep the laws to the letter, and all have to agree on it.
    Again, I've already made this argument, but I will make it again.

    Those rules were PUNISHMENTS. They were how you were forgiven of your sins. They were extra rules God added in order for you to be forgiven of your mistakes of not following the Ten Commandments and other laws.

    Jesus claims that by believing in Him, you are forgiven of your sins. While, as HungryJoe or Andrew or Funfetus or TheWhaleShark will soon point out, Jesus did say that he did not come to change the Religious laws, he also said we would be free of punishment. You don't need to be forgiven twice. Therefore, things that would've otherwise provided forgiveness are unnecessary, as Jesus has provided an alternative route.
    The reason why you can't just do those instead of believe in Jesus, thereby allowing Jews into Heaven, is not because you can't, it's because it's impossible. No one could possibly keep up with every punishment for every sin, because we sin infinitely more times than we realize. Every punishment takes time and effort. We all sin at least a few times every few minutes. Multiply every sin by every punishment and you have more time than is in a human life. It is impossible to achieve those standards, otherwise they would be viable as well. But it doesn't matter, because I believe that Jesus made it easy.
  • edited July 2009
    I thought that was just original sin. It's like "people couldn't get into heaven because of Eve" and then Jesus washed everyone clean of that sin. That's why babies are symbolically baptized.

    So, you can be as bad as you want and still go to heaven if you believe in Jesus? If you kill 100 little girls and then say sorry to Jesus do you not go to hell, but my Japanese Buddhist host-mother goes?

    Besides, what=sin?
    Post edited by gomidog on
  • edited July 2009
    God didn't say in the Bible that he was going to talk to one guy.
    I'm sorry, the last time I looked through the Bibile, there were many. many instanecs of God talking to one guy.
    God doesn't come down and talk to people individually anymore.
    Why not?
    No one could possibly keep up with every punishment for every sin, because we sin infinitely more times than we realize. Every punishment takes time and effort. We all sin at least a few times every few minutes. Multiply every sin by every punishment and you have more time than is in a human life. It is impossible to achieve those standards, otherwise they would be viable as well. But it doesn't matter, becauseI believethat Jesus made it easy.
    This is getting into delusional territory.

    Do we sin every second? How about every fraction of a second? How about every fraction of that fraction? I'll bet I've sinned an infinite number of times just sitting here typing, huh?
    You are trying to turn this into a religious debate about whether or not God exists. I don't want to have one of those, really. I just want people to understand that Catholics are breaking one of the essential rules of Christianity, and therefore I don't understand why they are still considered Christians, and why the are still considered as a basis of what all Christians are like.
    If you say that you think Catholicism is invalid because all religions are invalid, it would be hard to argue with you, but when you say that Catholicism is less valid than your religion, you have a problem. That problem is mainly that you can't prove that your story is any better than ours.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Like, you're a good person and as long as you believe in God and Jesus you are going to heaven? Are you sure that's the message?
    Think about how different Christianity would be if it focused on the things you did right and how you helped your fellow man, rather than making up for your mistakes.
  • Wait, first you say to follow a religious text closely and then you say "it's just the message that's important!"

    Where do you draw the line? Like, can you believe in God, love, and peace, and the noble sacrifice of Jesus, but be a sex-loving lesbian who doesn't follow many of the other laws? Like, your a good person and as long as you believe in God and Jesus you are going to heaven? Are you sure that's the message? Then why do Devout Christians always rag on people for all these other "sins?"
    Yeah, you can. I sin all the time. But I feel bad for it, and Jesus forgives me.

    Devout Christians rag on you about sins because they're stupid and don't realize they have sinned just as much as anyone else. They are bigoted, arrogant, and self-centered.

    Also, I didn't say that it was "just the message" that was important. I said it was most important. Which means smaller things (primarily the punishments you mentioned that I already addressed) can be interpreted so long as the message holds up. Other parts are all important, but the point of the whole Religious text is the message, which claims that God is the ultimate truth. From that, as long as you believe that, following the rest of the parts comes naturally. Following the text closely is not the first focus, but once you believe in God, then it is. I don't know how to explain it well, I'm sorry. It sounds pretty stupid, but then again, you guys think most everything I'm saying is stupid, so that really doesn't matter.
  • Like, you're a good person and as long as you believe in God and Jesus you are going to heaven? Are you sure that's the message?
    Think about how different Christianity would be if it focused on the things you did right and how you helped your fellow man, rather than making up for your mistakes.
    That is a focus of Christianity. Once you are forgiven, it's your job to better the world, because that's what Jesus wants you to do. It's not how you get into Heaven, but it is the life that Jesus wants you to live. It's the life he condones.
  • So, you can be as bad as you want and still go to heaven if you believe in Jesus? If you kill 100 little girls and then say sorry to Jesus do you not go to hell, but my Japanese Buddhist host-mother goes?
    Axel has already agreed that Jeffrey Dahmer is in heaven, and Gandhi is probably in Hell.
  • I'm sorry, the last time I looked through the Bibile, there were many. many instanecs of God talking to one guy.
    To be fair, he said that bible didn't say God only talked to one, not that God had never talked to one guy.
    Why not?
    God probably got tired of people constantly getting what he said wrong.
  • Once you are forgiven
    But there it is again. The assumption that I've done something wrong to begin with. I haven't killed anyone to my knowledge, or otherwise tried to really dick over anyone. What have I done wrong that needs to be forgiven?
  • What have I done wrong that needs to be forgiven?
    Committed adultery in your heart by lusting after women, for one thing. Come on, dude. You're a sinner and you know it!
  • So, you can be as bad as you want and still go to heaven if you believe in Jesus? If you kill 100 little girls and then say sorry to Jesus do you not go to hell, but my Japanese Buddhist host-mother goes?
    Axel has already agreed that Jeffrey Dahmer is in heaven, and Gandhi is probably in Hell.
    Gandhi is not probably in Hell. Gandhi claimed to believe in many religions. He claimed to be Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and Christian and such in many different interviews. I don't know if he accepted Jesus, I don't know if he didn't.

    Also, I don't know that Jeffrey Dahmer is in Heaven either. I know that he could be, just like anyone else could be, but I don't know for sure if he really accepted Jesus or not. Was he really sorry? He might've been. If he was, and he really accepted Jesus, then he is. But I never said you should definitely take his word for it. People are hard (near impossible) to change, so it's doubtful that he was honestly sorry. Gandhi has a better chance of being in Heaven than Dahmer, because he is the kind of person who would've wanted his sins forgiven, unlike Dahmer, who we have no proof of being sorry other than his word. Gandhi has tons of references. I kinda dislike that you misquoted me almost entirely to make me sound like a complete a-hole.
  • edited July 2009
    I'm sorry, the last time I looked through the Bibile, there were many. many instanecs of God talking to one guy.
    To be fair, he said that bible didn't say God only talked to one, not that God had never talked to one guy.
    This is what he said:
    God didn't say in the Bible that he was going to talk to one guy.
    I say that he pretty firmly established the precedent of talking to only one guy because he did it all the time.

    Axel, do you think God talks to YOU? Do you hear his voice? What does it sound like? Does he tell you what to do? Does he tell you who is a sinner and who deserves forgiveness? Did he tell you that your religion is a cult?
    What have I done wrong that needs to be forgiven?
    Committed adultery in your heart by lusting after women, for one thing. Come on, dude. You're a sinner and you know it!
    Apparently, you sin many times a minute.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • You are trying to turn this into a religious debate about whether or not God exists. I don't want to have one of those, really. I just want people to understand that Catholics are breaking one of the essential rules of Christianity, and therefore I don't understand why they are still considered Christians, and why the are still considered as a basis of what all Christians are like.
    If you say that you think Catholicism is invalid because all religions are invalid, it would be hard to argue with you, but when you say that Catholicism is less valid than your religion, you have a problem. That problem is mainly that you can't prove that your story is any better than ours.
    To expound, that's the main issue with believing any religion at all. You can't demonstrate that one is any more or less valid than any other. Remember the last time I argued this with you and I walked you from Christianity to paganism? It's all indistinguishable, because it's all based on faith, and faith is an inherently personal matter. Ergo, nobody's faith is any more or less valid than anyone else's faith.
  • What have I done wrong that needs to be forgiven?
    Committed adultery in your heart by lusting after women, for one thing. Come on, dude. You're a sinner and you know it!
    You forgot the green for your sarcasm.

    Technically, pretty much everything is a sin. Obviously, not everything good, but...

    If you can drive, and someone suddenly rushes ahead of you in a lane-merger so that they can be in front of you, and you get pissed off and curse them in your head, that's a sin. I know, you feel like you have every right to be mad, but that's a sin. As small as it is, it is one sin that separates you from God. And that's the part that bothers people, and turns them away.
This discussion has been closed.