-->
@Mopac
Self declaration is not proof of identity.
So you aren't a christian, cleared that up.
Those Battling 45,000 Denominations
Posts
Total:
308
-->
@Mopac
Interesting fact, Jesus said "blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God"
Jesus never said that.
-->
@Castin
As long as there are atheists and secular left-wingers, it won't surprise me to see Christians generally getting along.
Is there some meaning in this?
-->
@RoderickSpode
If you did interview some patrons at an Alabama roadhouse one weekend night at 0100, and one person gave you his drunken confession that he's a member of the First Baptist Church of Mobile, but does not believe God exists, is that man a Christian or an atheist?
I'm not sure why you're asking this question. If he doesn't believe in any god, he's by definition an atheist. If someone says they don't believe in god, that's what they're called. Now, if someone says they're a Christian, I call them a Christian. That seems fair, right? What right do I have to say well you SAY you don't believe in god, but you do it differently than I do...you go to church, therefore your atheism is invalid (even as it might be totally true and they go there for some sense of community, or for family obligations, or out of fear of ostracization, etc).
Except what Christians like you and Mopac do, is you hear them say they're Christian, decide you either don't like whatever they think Christianity is (maybe it's stoning virgins, maybe it's accepting gay people, YMMV), so they're NOT Christians. You don't like that the Christian may discriminate against Muslims, and you say "Well they only SAY they're Christian, they're NO TRUE CHRISTIAN, therefore they're not in my club and I'm still cool." You guys know that's exactly what no true Scotsman is, right? Then you say, WITHOUT HEARING THE CONFESSION THAT THEY'RE AN ATHEIST, that statistics are flawed because the people who sit in your pews aren't REAL Christians. RIght?
The thing with your ratio-scenario is that it only shows that since there are more Christians, there's more likely to be more involved in a brawl. That doesn't suggest atheists are more moral. In other words, if the majority of those who attended the little league game were atheists, then more than likely most involved in the brawl would be atheist, right?
I made no suggestion that atheists are more moral, just that statistically, they are less likely to be involved in brawls. Because there are less of them. By ratio. This is how math and statistics works, dude. If you had a little league game in America, specifically in Colorado, where the MAJORITY of the attendees were atheist, you'd have what's called a statistical anomaly. I'd bet at least 60% of the people in that brawl were identifying as Christian, based on data. You're hoping most of them were atheists, because it makes Christians look as bad as those rioting buddhists, running roughshod over Asia, I guess?
-->
@disgusted
As long as there are atheists and secular left-wingers, it won't surprise me to see Christians generally getting along.Is there some meaning in this?
They can view atheists and secular left wingers as a common persecutor, and at least have that around which to congeal. If you take us out of the mix, Castin is implying that the Christian sectarianism would eventually become a bigger problem, because they wouldn't then say "Well, at least we ain't those atheists!"
-->
@croweupc
Nothing practical about a marriage ceremony but people do it because it represents something. Who cares if it bothers you.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
First I would like to point out that this is a debate site. I am making arguments about why I don’t believe.
Marriage is a contract, not a magical belief. I am not against ceremonies or practices, I am arguing about the usefulness these practices have for a Deity. If there is a Deity able to create the entire Universe, why care so much about how we worship and serve? Also, the Bible shows a God with human emotions, and this doesn’t make any sense for a Deity. Why are you selling out your life to a book written by ancient superstitious people?
-->
@croweupc
I don't have a ceremony for my car loan or mortgage. The marriage ceremony is still done to show others a commitment which is what those two things do for a Christian. Again no one says you have to do shit so why do you care what religious rituals people engage in. Show me a set of myths were a god has no emotions?
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not sure why you're asking this question. If he doesn't believe in any god, he's by definition an atheist. If someone says they don't believe in god, that's what they're called. Now, if someone says they're a Christian, I call them a Christian. That seems fair, right? What right do I have to say well you SAY you don't believe in god, but you do it differently than I do...you go to church, therefore your atheism is invalid (even as it might be totally true and they go there for some sense of community, or for family obligations, or out of fear of ostracization, etc).
I'm asking the question because I knew you were trying to lure me into an NTSF accusation.
Except what Christians like you and Mopac do, is you hear them say they're Christian, decide you either don't like whatever they think Christianity is (maybe it's stoning virgins, maybe it's accepting gay people, YMMV), so they're NOT Christians. You don't like that the Christian may discriminate against Muslims, and you say "Well they only SAY they're Christian, they're NO TRUE CHRISTIAN, therefore they're not in my club and I'm still cool." You guys know that's exactly what no true Scotsman is, right? Then you say, WITHOUT HEARING THE CONFESSION THAT THEY'RE AN ATHEIST, that statistics are flawedbecause the people who sit in your pews aren't REAL Christians. RIght?
Wrong!
I think what you do Ludo is, you take a common theme or argument you allegedly see theists make, and assume I'm one of them. This has happened
quite a bit. No Ludo, I DO NOT do that. Now if you can provide evidence of this, fine. Sometimes I get accused of putting words in someone's mouth, but I generally will provide a quote they made that gave me an impression of "X". Or, I have one in mind ready to provide if I feel it needs it.
As far as flawed statistics, I have at times challenged some of the claims and conclusions based on the statistics. Not the statistics themselves.
So from now on, whenever you make a claim like you just did, I'm going to ask for a quotation of mine to prove your claim.
I made no suggestion that atheists are more moral, just that statistically, they are less likely to be involved in brawls. Because there are less of them. Byratio. This is how math and statistics works, dude. If you had a little league game in America, specifically in Colorado, where the MAJORITY of the attendees were atheist, you'd have what's called a statistical anomaly. I'd bet at least 60% of the people in that brawl were identifying as Christian, based on data. You're hoping most of them were atheists, because it makes Christians look as bad as those rioting buddhists, running roughshod over Asia, I guess?
First off, I couldn't care less whether or not the participants in the brawl were Christian or atheist. Secondly, I basically agreed with your post about statistics, so I'm not sure what you're correcting me on. You're pretty much just trying to give me a lesson on something I pretty much just acknowledged in my last post. What you bet on though is absolutely meaningless to me.
But......I'd still like a direct answer to my question. Forget about anomolies.
If the majority of the people at that little league game were atheists, then statistically the majority of the brawlers would most likely be atheists, right?
This whole line of dialogue right now is the result of myself referring to Buddhists in Asia that contradict what seems to be a common view amongst
westerners that Buddhists are peaceful, non-condemning, etc. The reason why I didn't defend 2 of those accusatory claims you made was because there was no need to. I know there are, for example, Christian con-artists. The person I was communicating with seemed to be claiming Buddhism is superior to Christianity because of issues like con-artistry, religious intolerance, fear/manipulation, etc. So I proceeded to point out the error in this thought, if that was that person's thought.
You saw my post, apparently didn't bother to read the dialogue. All you saw was my reference to Buddhist bad behavior, and you read it as a Christian attacking Buddhism. Like I said in another thread, if I or any theist mentioned Adolph Hitler without any direct relation to Christianity, your automatic knee-jerk reaction would be to refer to Hitler's Catholicism no matter how out of context it would be to the conversation.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The last sentence is why I have no specific God/god/gods belief.
I am not personally part of the LGBT community. With that said, many Christians (not all) want to restrict rights simply because it goes against their religious beliefs. If religious beliefs were personal, it would be fine, but often times it is not. I get there are differences of opinion, but we share this space on Earth. I like to bring up how others would feel if someone with differing beliefs were to legislate them. Would you like it if you were forced to adhere to someone else’s beliefs? If you don’t do this, cool. But too many do and this is why I am on this site defending my position not to believe. I am open to proof if someone actually had any, but so far I have seen no definitive proof of God. I take no issues with Pantheism, or Deism, as neither make specific god claims or tell people what to do and how to think.
-->
@croweupc
I don't care why you believe or don't. I care you want to tell people who do what their rituals should or shouldn't entail. You take no issue with spiritual atheists, go figure.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You don’t want to hear opposing views, why are you on a debate site?
-->
@croweupc
I am on a religion forum of a debate site because I fucking practice one.
-->
@Mopac
That is a very protestant idea, but it is not what we Orthodox believe.
Nor Catholics, I presume. Personally I think that it's just self-evident that the Bible is open to interpretation.
I like the interpretive individualism of Protestant thought, with the emphasis on anti-authoritarianism and believing what feels right to you rather than what a mega-church says is right. And I like the practice of baptizing when you choose to be saved rather than at birth, before you can make choices.
But I also like the more educated self-control of the orthodox churches, where you'll rarely see religious snake handling or two-bit televangelists or Christian Science organizations telling people to stop using modern medicine. The price of freedom of thought is you are free to be more ignorant.
-->
@Castin
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."
"...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee."
-->
@Castin
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
-->
@Castin
Protestant churches aee based on The New Testament.
The Orthodox Catholic church wrote and compiled The New Testament. It is oura to interpret, as ours is the church descended from the apostles, and our Aoostolic succession is still valid because we didn't violate the councils as the Latin Church did.
It is a part of our Holy Tradition. Protestants got it all backwards.
-->
@Mopac
"I predict that in the future... there will be people with different ideas! Beware them! BEWAAAAAARE..."
That was just something Paul wrote anyway. But in all seriousness, Christians ignoring the original meaning in favor of eisegesis that conveniently condones their lifestyle is definitely a thing, so I won't say Paul was wrong about the problem. The issue is always who gets to decide what the original meaning was. The authors of the Bible are not still around to tell us, and simply reading their words is not enough to eliminate all gray areas and wiggle room.
-->
@Castin
I like the interpretive individualism of Protestant thought, with the emphasis on anti-authoritarianism and believing what feels right to you rather than what a mega-church says is right. And I like the practice of baptizing when you choose to be saved rather than at birth, before you can make choices.
I don't think you are right about 'the interpretive individualism of Protestant thought'. Catholicism recognises two sources of religious authority - the Bible and the Church . Protestantism tends to 'scriptura sola' so the protestant church has no power to add or take away from what is in the text.
What protestantism does not do is give individuals the right or power to interpret scripture as they see fit. Under protestantism there is a correct interpretation and determining the correct interpetation remains firmly in the hands of the Church, not the individual believer. The only difference is that the Cathlolic church does not have justify everthing with chapter and verse as it claims to have independent authority.
-->
@Castin
That is why we have the apostolic church, the writings if the church fathers, the ecumenical councils, etc.
See, to Protestants there was what was written in The New Testament... thousands year gap... boom! Today!
The faith doesn't change, we know what we believe. The church has never stopped existing. And the Orthodox is particularly conservative. Every Bishop's mission is preserving the faith uncorrupted. You can't do that in a church with a supreme pontiff who can infallibly declare something and corrupt the whole church.
Out of these 45,000 denominations, do you know which ones claim apostolic succession?
4 of them.
The Orthodox Catholic Church is the original church. Every other church broke away, and the proof is in studying church history.
The so called "Oriental Orthodox" broke away because of the heresy of monophysitism. Currently they claim to be Miaphysites(this is technical stuff, but it matters). There is actually a lot of progress mending this schism, so hopefully in 100 years or so we will be in proper communion(it's a slow process ironing out the kinks).
The Roman Catholic Church which forfeited their Orthodoxy after altering the creed of the church without an ecumenical council(something condemned by the ecumenical councils themselves). They claim the Pope has dictatorial powers over the entire church which was NEVER accepted by the church.
The Anglican Church which broke away from Rome because their King didn't like being told how to conduct his married life.
Because the bottom three broke away from the church, their Apostolic succession is technically null and void.
So really, there is only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as the creed ststes, and that is The Orthodox Catholic Church.
That being the case, we know the God we worship, the heterodox do not.
-->
@keithprosser
It is hard to make broad statements about protestant churches because anybody who fills out the proper government paperwork can start a church.
Its anarchy
-->
@Castin
The authors of the Bible are not still around to tell us, and simply reading their words is not enough to eliminate all gray areas and wiggle room.
I doubt they'd all agree if they were around. I think the nt would be even less consistent if deciding what was canon was not in the hands of Paulines. i think only James represents a non-Pauline perspective.
Ja 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
I think that is shows a very practical, this-worldly attitude that is more Judaic than the more abstract and next-world orienation of the Hellenised Paul. James emphasises works for their on sake - Paul emphasises faith as the key to personal salvalation.
The rabid anti-semite Martin Luther hated the book of James and called it an epistle of straw, but (as is plausible) james was the brother of jesus it might be closer to what Jesus actually taught.
btw ML was not a nice person. He wrote of the Jews
"Jews are a base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth. They are full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."
That was 400 years before Hitler!
-->
@keithprosser
You have no idea what you are talking about. You'd be better off confessing your ignorance and getting a real education.
(Not talking about Martin Luther, but everything else)
-->
@Mopac
What exactly do you think I got wrong?
-->
@keithprosser
Your contrsst between Paul and James.
A very protestant, even Lutheran understanding!
-->
@Mopac
History shows that the Catholics kicked the Orthodox out, you've got it backwards again.
-->
@keithprosser
This faith/works dichotomy is a western theological perversion.
We Orthodox understand thst faith and works are united in faithfulness.
The works come from faith!
And it is an abominable heresy to say that faith is simply belief, and all one needs to do is believe in one's head.
Faith without works is dead as James put it. What that means is that if you have no works to show for it, you don't really have faith!
And yes, the church acts as a father to the fatherless, even a mother. We also take care of widows. We take remaining unspotted from the world very seriously.
And I am not saying to boast, only to make it clear that this is very personal to me and not simply something I throw money at the church to do... I get paid to help the hearing impaired(I'm married, otherwise I would join a monastery in a heartbeat). When I am not doing this, I go around helping people, primarily the homeless. My whole life is dedicated to helping people because by the grace of God that is what my faith puts a drive in me to do. Even in my everyday life, I am resolved to see Christ in everyone, and love them no matter how obscured that image may be in them.
And believe it or not, I am here also out of love, certainly not because I enjoy being mocked and reviled!
-->
@Mopac
That's why you walk around in long black dresses with funny hats, they're not invisibility cloaks everybody can spot you.We take remaining unspotted from the world very seriously.
-->
@Mopac
Your contrsst between Paul and James.A very protestant, even Lutheran understanding!
You wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about. You'd be better off confessing your ignorance and getting a real education.
However, the stark contrast between James and Paul is not the product of my ignorance, profound though that is. The most glaring differnce is in their attitude to justification by works or by faith.
Jas 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Jas 2:17: "...faith apart from works is dead."
Paul writes:
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Gal 2:16 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.
-->
@Mopac
This faith/works dichotomy is a western theological perversion.We Orthodox understand thst faith and works are united in faithfulness.The works come from faith!
Had you said first that instead of saying I was ignorant and in need of education I would have more respect for you.