Every single time I hear somebody say "May the Force be with you" in any context, thefirstthought that jumps into my head is a reflexive "And also with you."
To this day, I could make it through a proper mass without error. I even remember the different versions of the Hallelujah. -_-
I could make it through most of a mass. Not an old-school Catholic mass, but I could do 95% of a more contemporary one.
It was really weird going to my grandfather's funeral a few months back. It was a full Catholic mass, and sitting there watching it through the lens of the skeptical atheist that I am now, it all seemed ridiculous to me. The half-sung blessing over the eucharist, the ringing bells, the call-and-response...I'm convinced that nobody can actually believe in all this jazz because it's just too crazy.
Every single time I hear somebody say "May the Force be with you" in any context, thefirstthought that jumps into my head is a reflexive "And also with you."
To this day, I could make it through a proper mass without error. I even remember the different versions of the Hallelujah. -_-
I could make it throughmostof a mass. Not an old-school Catholic mass, but I could do 95% of a more contemporary one.
It was really weird going to my grandfather's funeral a few months back. It was a full Catholic mass, and sitting there watching it through the lens of the skeptical atheist that I am now, it all seemedridiculousto me. The half-sung blessing over the eucharist, the ringing bells, the call-and-response...I'm convinced that nobody canactuallybelieve in all this jazz because it's just too crazy.
Oddly enough, I agree. Catholicism is ridiculous. Mostly because none of it is in the Bible. Some guys made it up afterwards...Granted, I know you all think the Bible was made up by them anyways, but still, the problem is that they claim that these things are in the Bible, or that the Bible proves you should do this, when it doesn't.
Yes. I'm a terrible, biased person. We'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. They are based solely on the Bible. Catholicism has the Pope, who can come up with new stuff whenever he wants.
We'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.
They 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.
Catholicism 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?
We'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.
They 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.
Catholicism 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.
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? Also, weren't you talking about how proud you were that you're not a blind follower?
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 story is better than another person's FSM story. You might like your story better, but one does not have any more objective value than the other.
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.
Haha! Silly people and your silly religious indoctrination. As much as y'all put hippies down, my hippie parents raised me to believe or not believe in whatever I wanted and never took me to religious institutions except as a learning experience.
Haha! Silly people and your silly religious indoctrination. As much as y'all put hippies down, my hippie parents raised me to believe or not believe in whatever I wanted and never took me to religious institutions except as a learning experience.
Haha! Silly people and your silly religious indoctrination. As much as y'all put hippies down, my hippie parents raised me to believe or not believe in whatever I wanted and never took me to religious institutions except as a learning experience.
The purpose this post serves is?
The same purpose as every other similar post. There's no point in arguing about it, so just drop it.
A lighthearted "nanner-nanner" to Rym (and other forum goers) for still being able to recite mass and a silly dig at him for his perpetual degradation of hippies. I didn't realize I entered the "serious business" portion of the Internet. To quote the cartoon Link, "Excuuuuuuuuse me, Princess!" :P
EDIT: It wasn't meant argumentatively, just a razz at the other nonbelievers.
A lighthearted "nanner-nanner" to Rym (and other forum goers) for still being able to recite mass and a silly dig at him for his perpetual degradation of hippies.
The long-haired nudist degrades hippies? That's like Malcolm Reynolds degrading cowboys.
The same purpose as every other similar post. There's no point in arguing about it, so just drop it.
I suppose. I often wonder where all that tolerance they speak of is?
Ummm... nothing I said was derogatory. You can ask Rym and Scott themselves that I have gone round for round with them defending people of faith, even when I do not personally agree with the people I am defending. If you guys want to read negativity into my post, then feel free. If it offended you, I am entirely perplexed as it was pretty clearly aimed at people that: 1) Would prefer not to have gone through religious indoctrination, and 2) Often insult hippies.
EDIT: It's cool. We all get caught up in stuff. The No-God knows that I have. ^_~
My sister left for work with the Chees-Its. THE ENTIRE BOX OF CHEES-ITS. Damn it woman, get a sandwich baggie or something; I need some crackers with my sandwich.
My sister left for work with the Chees-Its. THE ENTIRE BOX OF CHEES-ITS. Damn it woman, get a sandwich baggie or something; I need some crackers with my sandwich.
Comments
It was really weird going to my grandfather's funeral a few months back. It was a full Catholic mass, and sitting there watching it through the lens of the skeptical atheist that I am now, it all seemed ridiculous to me. The half-sung blessing over the eucharist, the ringing bells, the call-and-response...I'm convinced that nobody can actually believe in all this jazz because it's just too crazy.
We'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. They are based solely on the Bible. Catholicism has the Pope, who can come up with new stuff whenever he wants.
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.
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.
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'll post pictures and the tale of its creation in the beer thread later in the day.
EDIT: It's technically in Rensselaer, not East Greenbush. It's actually closer to North Greenbush.
How do you not see the ditch?
I didn't realize I entered the "serious business" portion of the Internet.
To quote the cartoon Link, "Excuuuuuuuuse me, Princess!" :P
EDIT: It wasn't meant argumentatively, just a razz at the other nonbelievers.
EDIT EDIT: And you should know the internetz is alwyz ser1ouz buz1nezz. :P
EDIT: It's cool. We all get caught up in stuff. The No-God knows that I have. ^_~
back the fails...
THE SODA JUST ATE $2 OF MINE!!! GRRRRRRR