Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Fail of your Day Religious Argument: July 30th 2009
Forked from Fail of your Day thread:
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.
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.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Sorry, that was unrelated, I just felt a need to point that out.
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.
Edit: added more coding humor
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.
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.
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.
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.
edit: According to Wikipedia, 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.
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?"
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.
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?
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? 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.
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.
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.
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? Apparently, you sin many times a minute.
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.