www.ditl.org

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:50 pm**

Rochey wrote:What about the Inquisition, who tortured and executed hundreds who didn't follow the Bible to the letter?

Actually, the Inquisition tortured and executed thousands who DID follow the Bible to the letter - just not the Dominicans' Bible. And people who fell under the definition of "witch" - which definition was arbitrarily and maliciously created by Fr. Spengler in Malleus Maleficarum in order to include everyone who didn't follow Dominican dogma...

Don't forget the pogroms... or the colonization of Asia, Africa, and of the New World...

Of course, Peabody meant (I hope) "believe in Jesus" to mean "truly follow and practice his teachings." Wearing a cross on your tabard while you slaughter thousands of innocents does NOT make you a Christian by this standard.

What about all the people in third world countries who have never heard of christianity? Or people who live in countries where they'd be killed if they were christians? They didn't choose anything. What would happen to them?

One of my biggest problems with Orthodox Christianity - the Catholic rites, Eastern orthodox, and the more conservative Protestant sects - is the idea of original sin, and the subsequent idea that an infant will not be allowed into their heaven if it dies before baptism. And succeeding from this belief come all the rule-bendings of convenience. Catholicism is a mystery religion - it has priests, who are able to perform things that the laity is not, such as transubstantiate the host and perform rites such as baptism or extreme unction (last rites.) But, if an infant is dying, well then we don't need a priest because it's inconvenient. If someone is dying suddenly, well, then anyone can hear their confession because it's inconvenient to get a priest in time.

If you don't need a priest in every situation, then you don't need one in any situation, and should logically do away with the idea of extreme unction or original sin.

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:05 pm**

Peabody wrote: It means submitting ourselves to him, and trying our best to follow God's dictates, and to persevere in our faith until the end of our lives.

Okay, but my examples with Hitler and the crusaders still stand. Both also submitted themselves to their god, and both followed God's dictates.

It may be that even people who have never heard of Christ can be saved through him...but we just don't know. This has been a point of contention among Christians for a long, long time. But really, it doesn't concern us; God will save who he deigns to save, and we just have to trust in him, and try to reach as many people with the Gospel as we can.

Okay. But why does believing in Jesus/God have to be necassary even for people who have heard of him? What if the nicest, kindest person on the planet was a buddhist, or a muslim? Why should he not get into heaven? Sure, he worships the wrong guy, but why does that matter at all? I try my best to help people and look out for those in need, but I am not a christian. Does this mean I'm going to hell? And if so, do you not think that's rather unfair?

Mikey wrote:Actually, the Inquisition tortured and executed thousands who DID follow the Bible to the letter - just not the Dominicans' Bible. And people who fell under the definition of "witch" - which definition was arbitrarily and maliciously created by Fr. Spengler in Malleus Maleficarum in order to include everyone who didn't follow Dominican dogma...

I know, I was just stating the obvious ones.

Of course, Peabody meant (I hope) "believe in Jesus" to mean "truly follow and practice his teachings." Wearing a cross on your tabard while you slaughter thousands of innocents does NOT make you a Christian by this standard.

I hope he meant that too. But that still leaves a lot of room for unpleasent people to get in. Have you read the Bible? There's a lot of unpleasant stuff in there.

Wearing a cross on your tabard while you slaughter thousands of innocents does NOT make you a Christian by this standard.

Actually, the Bible does encourage the slaughter of thousands.

One of my biggest problems with Orthodox Christianity - the Catholic rites, Eastern orthodox, and the more conservative Protestant sects - is the idea of original sin, and the subsequent idea that an infant will not be allowed into their heaven if it dies before baptism.

Agreed. The whole idea of original sin is nonsensical. Why should I be punished for something that was done at the start of time? Why should some kid who was just born be sent to hell for no reason?

If someone is dying suddenly, well, then anyone can hear their confession because it's inconvenient to get a priest in time.

A question; why do you even need to confess to a priest at all? Isn't God supposed to be omniprescent? Shouldn't he also be able to hear your thoughts? Wouldn't he know whether or not you were sorry, without needing to consult the local priest?

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:30 pm**

Rochey wrote:Actually, the Bible does encourage the slaughter of thousands.

You're right - that's why the Commandment says "...shall not murder," rather than "...shall not kill." But what I said was "thousands of innocents."

Agreed. The whole idea of original sin is nonsensical. Why should I be punished for something that was done at the start of time? Why should some kid who was just born be sent to hell for no reason?

I believe unbaptised infants go to Limbo rather than Hell, but your thinking is correct.

A question; why do you even need to confess to a priest at all? Isn't God supposed to be omniprescent? Shouldn't he also be able to hear your thoughts? Wouldn't he know whether or not you were sorry, without needing to consult the local priest?

Because Catholicism is a religion based in orthodoxy - it is a mystery religion, with a clearly-defined division between laity and clergy.

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:35 pm**

Because Catholicism is a religion based in orthodoxy - it is a mystery religion, with a clearly-defined division between laity and clergy.

Then, Judaism doesn't have such clearly-defined roles? Judaism is a religion I've been planning to study in more detail for some time.

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:00 pm**

Mikey will tell you, that if you ever wanted to convert to judaism, it is rather arduous and not recognised by many of that faith, for whatever reasons

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:22 pm**

Tsukiyumi wrote:Then, Judaism doesn't have such clearly-defined roles? Judaism is a religion I've been planning to study in more detail for some time.

No, it really doesn't. The word for a Jewish cleric - "rabbi" - translates literally as teacher. A rabbi is hired by a congregation and presides over the religious ritual and education of the congregation by virtue of the fact that he (or she, depending on the sect and particular synagogue) has more education in the field than anyone else. However, there are no rites in Judaism like those of Catholicism which need to be performed by a cleric anointed by G-d. In fact, when I was a kid, I led certain liturgies to fill in for my rabbi, and in my old synagogue, members of the congregation still continue to do so.

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:24 pm**

wow that is cool, and admirable, to dispense with the notion of a rigid hierarchy in that manner, very egalitarian

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:25 pm**

Okay, but my examples with Hitler and the crusaders still stand. Both also submitted themselves to their god, and both followed God's dictates.

Excuse me, but I don't think that murdering millions of innocent Jews in cold blood exactly fits in with the spirit of "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me." So I think I have answered you.

Okay. But why does believing in Jesus/God have to be necassary even for people who have heard of him? What if the nicest, kindest person on the planet was a buddhist, or a muslim?

Because even the nicest, kindest person on Earth is still a sinner, a breaker of God's laws, and thus deserving of damnation. The only way to attain salvation is through Christ.

I hope he meant that too. But that still leaves a lot of room for unpleasent people to get in. Have you read the Bible? There's a lot of unpleasant stuff in there.

Well, how many 'unpleasant people' do you know who are atheists? Bhuddists? There are jerks in every religion, but that does not disprove the entire religion. Believing in a religion does not mean justifying the actions of anyone else who also happens to believe the same things...

Agreed. The whole idea of original sin is nonsensical. Why should I be punished for something that was done at the start of time? Why should some kid who was just born be sent to hell for no reason?

Actually, original sin is the most evident and obvious Christian doctrine. It merely says that we are by nature corrupted and prone to sin...is there really anyone here who doesn't believe that? If you don't, just take a look at the news...it's not exactly rocket science. As for unbaptized babies going to hell; what happens to such children has long been a point of contention. But again; we just don't know. They're in God's hands, and that's good enough for me.

Because Catholicism is a religion based in orthodoxy - it is a mystery religion, with a clearly-defined division between laity and clergy.

Well, what would you rather it be based upon? Heresy? All Orthodoxy means is right thinking. As for confessing to a Priest instead of to God; basically, its because we're limited creatures, and most people would not get the same effect just confessing to God as they would to a Priest. The Priest here stands in for God, and allows us to focus our minds better. In other words; its not because of God's limitations; its because of ours.

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:36 pm**

Hey Peabody
I admire your convictions but remember that Hitler was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people from soldiers to civilians, and some of those were jews, but not all, it would be an injustice to assume that those perished souls who are deceased because of hitler, were all of the same ethno-religious background.

Ps Rochey, yes hitler was initially a catholic, and stalin was in a seminary to be a man of the cloth at one point, and lets not forget rasputin the mad monk, but we both could easily counter that with examples of despots and tyrants who have been at the helm of genocides, who have not related it to religion, for example pol pot and the killing fields of cambodia

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:39 pm**

Captain Peabody wrote:murdering millions of innocent Jews

I always correct the narrow-minded members of my own faith when they say this, so I guess I have to say it here. There were 13 million murder victims of the Holocaust, not 6 million. 6 million of them happened to be Jewish, is all.

Actually, original sin is the most evident and obvious Christian doctrine. It merely says that we are by nature corrupted and prone to sin...is there really anyone here who doesn't believe that?

Yes! I don't believe that - as you said, it is a Christian doctrine.

Well, what would you rather it be based upon? Heresy? All Orthodoxy means is right thinking.

I am not attacking Catholicism, or any other faith - in fact, I like Catholics so much I married one. All I meant was that ritual in Catholicism is nearly as important - in some parishes, as important or more so - as intent and personal faith. I also wished to denote the need for an ordained clergy to perform sacraments, the performance of which is denied under normal circumstances to laity.

Here's an example: you miss Church one Sunday, or holy day of obligation, for no very good reason. You can't take mass, because you can't transubstantiate the host - you need a priest to do that. Next Sunday, you go to confession to confess missing church last Sunday. Even if you're not really sorry about it, you have confessed, so you are now able to take mass once again.

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:46 pm**

Religions are such dicotomies, they can inspire tremendous affection, yet also can provoke utter contempt.
Clearly as a religion is man-made,or divine-but-interpreted-by-man, it can generally only be a pallid reflection of anything preterhuman, and more likely is a cracked mirror of ourselves.
Some people who are areligious, humanist,communist,atheist,agnostic etc, are in a sense 'religious' at least to the dogma or delineations of their belief system

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:50 pm**

Granitehewer wrote:Ps Rochey, yes hitler was initially a catholic, and stalin was in a seminary to be a man of the cloth at one point, and lets not forget rasputin the mad monk, but we both could easily counter that with examples of despots and tyrants who have been at the helm of genocides, who have not related it to religion, for example pol pot and the killing fields of cambodia

And how does that change the fact that religion has been directly responsible for a lot of deaths? The Crusades, various pogroms, the Holocaust, the Arab-Israeli wars, 9-11, etc. The list goes on and on.

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:52 pm**

ignore this, my post got duplicated!

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:59 pm**

Granitehewer wrote:because very often, with introspection, religion was not the real determinant factor but merely a tool utilised to opiate and to further lure the masses, when other agendas and bias were at work, socio-economic and my point wasn't to say that religion wasn't responsible for genocides, but that genocides were also conducted by the non-religious, so it wasn't the sole remit of the religious as you'll appreciate with your historical acumen...

Posted: **Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:36 pm**

I always correct the narrow-minded members of my own faith when they say this, so I guess I have to say it here. There were 13 million murder victims of the Holocaust, not 6 million. 6 million of them happened to be Jewish, is all.

Um...I don't believe that I mentioned any specific figures; I just said 'millions of Jews,' which fits either six million or 13 million. And yes, GraniteHewer, you are correct that the Jews were not the only groups to suffer from the Holocaust.

Yes! I don't believe that - as you said, it is a Christian doctrine.

Okay... I still think that of all the Christian doctrines, this is the one with the most total support for it... but whatever.

I am not attacking Catholicism, or any other faith - in fact, I like Catholics so much I married one.

Fair enough, considering I'm not Catholic anyway...

All I meant was that ritual in Catholicism is nearly as important - in some parishes, as important or more so - as intent and personal faith. I also wished to denote the need for an ordained clergy to perform sacraments, the performance of which is denied under normal circumstances to laity.

Well, in my view at least, the ritual is there mainly for our benefit. If there is a set liturgy, it helps us to focus better on God than if we were just engaged in private prayer (which is nonetheless central to a Christian life). As for the presence of ordained clergy, this is emphasized more or less depending on what denomination you belong to. Most Protestants believe in a "priesthood of all believers," meaning that while ordained clergy are necessary for the organization of the Church, they are not innately 'better' or 'holier' than the laity. I'm somewhat ambiguous about the issue myself.

And how does that change the fact that religion has been directly responsible for a lot of deaths? The Crusades, various pogroms, the Holocaust, the Arab-Israeli wars, 9-11, etc. The list goes on and on.

Well, by the same token, disputes over land has caused even more wars; yet I don't hear anyone railing against the dirt...
But really, basically, the people of the past thought religion something important enough to fight about. You don't, because you don't believe that religion is important. Now, I'm certainly not condoning any of the atrocities that have been commited in the name of religion, but neither should we simply use them to discount all religion and all religiousness.

www.ditl.org

Picards mistakes