[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm not going to speak for any other specific atheists, but most of us are perfectly happy for people to believe in a god which doesn't involve denying big chunks of scientific evidence that disagree with the bible or other book of choice. Did God create the 'heavens and the Earth' in 6 (Earth) days? No. Did he set off the big bang? I don't know, therefore he could have. Believe in that if you like.

I can't speak for what any other church taught or now teaches.
from Catholic Answers. You can read the quotes from the fathers of the church at the provided link.
Creation and Genesis

Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

To me that's an indication he has problems putting himself in the other person's shoes

Well, that would explain why seemingly logical things to me amaze and surprise him.

[Laminar]

And things he claims are logical are anything but.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

It's funny, you claim that Big Mac is arrogant, yet this paragraph that I have quoted is probably one of the more arrogant posts on this board and completely renegs everything you've said before it.

Thats funny too. I thought the rest of that post was much more arrogant. What have I reneged on exactly? I can't see anything. If I have reneged on something, perhaps I was shown evidence contrary to my original view so I changed it.

Also, I didn't claim Big Mac was arrogant. I just checked. Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote and comment on that instead of imagining it and commenting on your version of my opinion.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I can't speak for what any other church taught or now teaches.
from Catholic Answers. You can read the quotes from the fathers of the church at the provided link.
Creation and Genesis

So you don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, but you are going to be pedantic about my post and respond to my dig at creationism using catholicism. Well to give the catholics credit, they do pretty well these days at not arguing with cosmologists and astronomers. Compared with their track record that is.

Actually they don't tend to argue much with science at all these days, unless you listen to what they tell people in the third world about condoms not protecting them against AIDS.

Other than that, they are pretty modern in their thinking though. Unless anyone has a problem with widespread covering up of child abuse, encouraging overpopulation of the poorest areas of the planet and the tendency to try and make hundreds of millions of people feel guilty for indulging in pretty much anything that might give them any pleasure.

Catholicism: Atheist approved.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Other than that, they are pretty modern in their thinking though. Unless anyone has a problem with widespread covering up of child abuse

As been pointed out many times before, a child has a higher risk of being abused by a teacher than a priest.
Teacher student sex scandals. Updated Daily
And they are just as guilty of covering it up.
Your Courts, Their Secrets | School district ignored warnings, then silenced girls fondled by teacher | Seattle Times Newspaper

...encouraging overpopulation of the poorest areas of the planet and the tendency to try and make hundreds of millions of people feel guilty for indulging in pretty much anything that might give them any pleasure.

That would be Catharism

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

We know it amazes you, and thats a big part of why we both berate and lament your inabilities to debate rationally. We may seem cocksure and arrogant at times, but thats because we are following where the evidence points us. We can back up our beliefs or lack thereof with evidence or lack thereof and logic. And no matter how many times we tell religious people that we will change our world views in a heartbeat when the evidence logically tells us we should, you always choose to ignore that fact and make the comments like you did above about us being cocksure and arrogant. That arrogance comes from us perpetually winning these debates, and religious people simply failing to realise that we have won them. Happens every time.

It is uncommon for me to hear a committed atheist admit to the possibility of changing his or her opinion and becoming religious if evidence warranted it (although there are lists of public atheists who became religious). Most atheists who I know of seem to discount that any such possibility exists. I'll grant that you're more of a moderate atheist (or more accurately classified agnostic) than many based on that statement. On the other hand, you seem to agree with my characterization in the next paragraph when you state, "Some of the Christian opinions I have seen. . . are just as dismissive as atheists are." Also, you may accept your stated arrogance because you think your side is "perpetually winning these debates," but we in the religious camp very much disagree on that point.

To wheel out another ancient point, nobody ever killed anyone in the name of a lack of god.

That's a questionable claim. In truth atheist regimes (socialist and communist) have killed many more people than religious countries have and have brutally repressed free belief in ways that rival the most brutal state religious oppression of minority religions. Godless countries have much worse track records with mass murder even in comparison to Crusades, Inquisitions and Jihad. While religion may not have been the sole driving force behind the murderous campaigns of atheist countries, there often were religious discriminatory components involved in their mass murder.

Newton and the founding fathers were raised to be religious and were brainwashed just like the rest of you.

How open minded of you. You think religious people are brainwashed. If I were to say atheists are brainwashed in a similarly broad fashion, what would your response be? War, you fancy yourself open minded and superior to religious people, but judging from your candid comments you're just as doctrinaire and rigid in your atheism as many whom you criticize for being religious.

If Newton were alive today, I am confident he would be an atheist.

I wonder how you can be so confident about such a thing. Newton spent the last years of his life studying the Hebrew Scriptures trying to calculate the year of the coming of the End of Days. He was very committed to religion. I can't say with certainty what his stance toward religion would have been if he had been born in modern times; I'm not going to go out on a limb on a limb to speculate one way or another, but based on the historical record I think you're making an unfounded assumption as to the answer to that question based on your bias in favor of atheism.

Like it or not there is a correlation between intelligence and atheism.

A researcher who studied that question (according to a Wikipedia article on the subject) said that he didn't think atheists were more intelligent but rather that religion draws more people with lower IQs. It was important enough to the researcher in question to point out that fact. And correlation is not causation.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Would you say that *all* followers in your religion are equally able to admit the possibility that they're wrong in believing in such things, or are they so cocksure that there *is* a divine, souls and judgment in the afterlife?

I can't speak for all my coreligionists or the religious of different camps, but I would assume that a large percentage of religious people polled would at least admit to an infinitesimal possibility that religion could be false. Could you say the same for the atheist movement?

As has already been pointed out, you're painting with a really broad brush here. Speaking only for myself, you might consider me to be one of these "cocksure atheists", but I can only say that I am as yet unconvinced in the matter. Having not seen any evidence of a divine, souls or judgment in the afterlife, I can't say that I believe in such things. When I seen evidence to the contrary, I am more than willing to reevaluate my position.

You're right, in holding up Captain as the model of MacNN atheists I generalized too much. I now see there is more diversity of opinion than I previously saw or expected. I apologize for that inaccurate portrayal.

And, just like that, your position is rendered false (it's quite interesting ... you're like the flip-side of Captain Obvious). Some atheists are going to be cocksure about their beliefs, while some are going to be willing to admit that there's the possibility (however remote) that they're wrong. Just as there's going to be religious followers who hold to a doctrinaire point of view of absolute belief in a divine and are unable to admit even a remote possibility that they're wrong.

I agree with all of that except for me being the flip-side of Captain. I may have generalized too much about him but I've shown that I'm far more tolerant of opposing beliefs than he is.

I agree completely. If you're strongly opposed to a system of belief (such as Atheism or Christianity), then you're being dishonest if you're pursuing a long-term relationship with someone who follows one of those beliefs. Which is exactly what I said earlier in this thread.

Thank you. And thank you for not assuming (like OreoCookie did) that I only hold that standard in one direction against atheists and not against religious.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That sounds rather what you think atheists think than what most of them actually think. The typical claim is `it's very unlikely God (in the Abrahamic sense) exists/there is an afterlife.'

The common definition of atheism I go by is a complete rejection of even the possibility of the divine, whereas agnoticism is doubt over the matter. We may be using the terms differently.

I think respect goes both ways, it's not just whether or not an atheist respects someone who is a theist, it's also the other way around. It's indicative to me that you just view this as a one-way street. In fact, both have to make an effort to meet in the middle.

You jumped to a false conclusion about my views based on a lack of information. I edited that previous post to clarify a point that I wrongly assumed went without saying.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think you've misunderstood that post: I wasn't referring to his claim that in his opinion, atheists are belittling people who are religious, but rather that he merely viewed the situation from the position of the religious person. To me that's an indication he has problems putting himself in the other person's shoes (in this case, an atheist), that he thinks it's a problem of the atheists to be respectful of the opinion of religious people. I think it's a two-way street.

I hope now with this post in mind you'll understand you had an incorrect impression about me.

If I were to make a claim that Big Mac `belittles or makes fun of atheists,' I would make a concrete claim with quote.

Thank you sincerely for that courtesy. I don't belittle or make fun of atheists or agnostics. I actually think it's a very understandable belief system. I can understand why people would choose to believe that materialism and empiricism (physical reality) are the only sources of great truths and that materialism is sufficient to explain reality as we know it. I appreciate the point of view of those who are in that category even though I personally find it to be untenable based on everything I know, and even though it's almost completely out of the realm of the possible beliefs I hold personally (again I say "almost completely" in reference to that remote, infinitesimal possibility I mentioned before).

Often times I say that I find it incredible that atheists believe the way they do, but I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. I think many read it that way, but that's not what I intend. Rather, it's a subjective statement on my part because from my point of view it's nearly impossible at a minimum not to believe in great truths that exist beyond physical reality, which is what I define as minimal religion/spirituality. For me belief in G-d is as obvious to me as belief in my own existence, because of all my knowledge and especially because. . . well, I don't want to be mocked by less respectful members so I'll leave it at that for now. But from a neutral standpoint I understand and respect why atheists and agnostiscs believe the way they believe.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Wait, Big Mac has the time to post in this thread? ...and here I thought he had suspended our discussion because he was busy.

If I wrote that I was too busy to deal with the conversation before, I was very busy at the time. I don't even remember writing that but I have had some more free time in the last few days. Thank you so much for pointing that important matter out, Dakar.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It is uncommon for me to hear a committed atheist admit to the possibility of changing his or her opinion and becoming religious if evidence warranted it (although there are lists of public atheists who became religious). Most atheists who I know of seem to discount that any such possibility exists. I'll grant that you're more of a moderate atheist (or more accurately classified agnostic) than many based on that statement. On the other hand, you seem to agree with my characterization in the next paragraph when you state, "Some of the Christian opinions I have seen. . . are just as dismissive as atheists are." Also, you may accept your stated arrogance because you think your side is "perpetually winning these debates," but we in the religious camp very much disagree on that point.

Its true you often have to press an atheist to admit that there is a chance of god existing. This is because most of us believe it is so incredibly unlikely, it makes winning the lottery jackpot every day for the rest of your life purely with found tickets look more probable. I actually take it as read among fellow atheists that this sliver of a chance has a place in their beliefs. Perhaps that is wrong of me.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's a questionable claim. In truth atheist regimes (socialist and communist) have killed many more people than religious countries have and have brutally repressed free belief in ways that rival the most brutal state religious oppression of minority religions. Godless countries have much worse track records with mass murder even in comparison to Crusades, Inquisitions and Jihad. While religion may not have been the sole driving force behind the murderous campaigns of atheist countries, there often were religious discriminatory components involved in their mass murder.

You've made this particular point better than most tend to, though perhaps a specific example or two would improve it further. That said, the standard rebuttal still applies: I will not claim that atheists never commit crimes, whether its burglary, murder or genocide. I am not aware of any specific case where atheism has been cited by the criminal in their reasoning. I'm not aware of any reasonable argument attributing such a crime to atheism either. In more recent years, the cynic in me wants to say that some things that have been justified through religion (Second Iraq war by George W) actually had nothing to do with religion at all, but it is shameful that such a tactic can still appease so many people who have the access they do to education. You have already cited examples that were entirely and genuinely motivated by religious beliefs so I won't bother adding to those.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

How open minded of you. You think religious people are brainwashed. If I were to say atheists are brainwashed in a similarly broad fashion, what would your response be? War, you fancy yourself open minded and superior to religious people, but judging from your candid comments you're just as doctrinaire and rigid in your atheism as many whom you criticize for being religious.

I'll admit it sounds pretty bad when I put it the way I did. Again, its not a new argument to those familiar with these debates but if you were born in a muslim family, you would be a muslim. If you were born in a hindu family you'd be a hindu. So would I. This is a statistical generalisation of course, some people change or abandon their religion. I will admit that I believed in god as a young child but this was largely because of what I was told in school, not at home, though my parents never sat me down and said "There is no god." I don't ever recall discussing it explicitly with either of them. I just came to my own opinion by myself.
Brainwashing is a harsh sounding term, but if you believe in a god, then of course you are going to tell your children all about him with absolute certainty and conviction. That is conditioning. Which is a nicer word for brainwashing. And its a heck of a lot harder to break free of when everyone around you is singing from that same hymn sheet.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I wonder how you can be so confident about such a thing. Newton spent the last years of his life studying the Hebrew Scriptures trying to calculate the year of the coming of the End of Days. He was very committed to religion. I can't say with certainty what his stance toward religion would have been if he had been born in modern times; I'm not going to go out on a limb on a limb to speculate one way or another, but based on the historical record I think you're making an unfounded assumption as to the answer to that question based on your bias in favor of atheism.

I'll admit this one is not really worth debating. I deliberately used the word confident instead of certain, but maybe thats just what I want to believe. I have studied the man's work more than the man himself, but he invented the scientific method and his logic and insight are pretty much unparallelled. It is my belief that most top physicists are atheists and he is one of the all time best so thats where I'm coming from there.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A researcher who studied that question (according to a Wikipedia article on the subject) said that he didn't think atheists were more intelligent but rather that religion draws more people with lower IQs. It was important enough to the researcher in question to point out that fact. And correlation is not causation.

I'll grant you that one, its not causation. I wouldn't write it off as insignificant either though.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I can't speak for all my coreligionists or the religious of different camps, but I would assume that a large percentage of religious people polled would at least admit to an infinitesimal possibility that religion could be false. Could you say the same for the atheist movement?

As I say above, it is my contention that most atheists will not rule out the existence of god if pressed. They might rule out any specific god, but if you define god as a being who created the universe, or even if you throw in omnipotence they will have to concede they cannot disprove his existence so there is always a chance. Its just good science.


I have found religious people have an odd tendency to distrust atheists. Many of them seem to look upon us as lacking some kind of human element. Its difficult to put my finger on it exactly. I find it very odd. While I am quite cynical in a great many ways, ultimately I see my atheism as faith in humanity over faith in something else. God gets a whole lot of credit from his followers (pretty much all of it in some cases), and he never really gets much blame when things go wrong. People thank god for getting a job, winning a competition, surviving an accident, overcoming an illness but they don't blame him for causing any accidents or illness, or if they lose a competition or job. To me you should be giving yourself credit if you get a job or win a contest of skill. You should be thanking doctors and nurses for treating your injuries and illnesses, as well as all the millions of others who researched the techniques they used, the drugs they administered and even the people who filed the tax returns for all those projects. Billions of man-hours of endeavour that ranged from the brilliant to the mind numbingly mundane and the credit all goes to a being who frankly if he is as wise and omnipotent as he is supposed to be shouldn't really need any of it. (Talk about insecure.)
Again, I cannot speak for any other atheists but I certainly hope I'm not the only one of us who thinks this way.

I criticise religion, and often it seems like I am criticising people for being religious but I want to say this: I will never write somebody off because they believe something different to me. I have to admit, they might drop a little in my estimation for believing certain things, but I wouldn't ever let that affect the way I treat someone. I have friends and family members who are religious, I've had co-workers and customers too. Life is too short to lose friends over opinions like these. Or to miss out on making them in the first place. So consider this a disclaimer to anyone I may have offended already or may yet offend: I may mock your beliefs, but that doesn't mean I don't like you.

[brassplayersrock²]

God... this is turning into another 13th chapel thread.

As I said before regarding the situation the OP is in.

If it works out, good. If it doesn't, then it wasn't meant to be.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

God... this is turning into another 13th chapel thread.

Bad reference, and it's not even applicable.

[Captain Obvious]

I have no contempt for religion. I have contempt for stupidity.

Religion has its place. I said so from the get go. Its a social and psychological necessity. It helps people cope when the reality of the world becomes too much for them and they need comfort. No situation illustrated this principle as clearly as in the days following September 11th.

NYC is arguably one of the most secular cities in the world and in that period you saw attendance of religious services spike to unheard of levels in recent history. A lot of people who normally did not give god a second thought needed a crutch to lean on in the face of fear and tragedy. They found it in the age old go to, religion. Acknowledging the powerlessness of our inevitable mortality is usually harder than escaping into religion. And people as a group tend to go for the easy route. Why face up to everything we know about biology and the physical sciences when you can just shrug it off and claim you're all good since there's an afterlife. I am sure this pattern was similar centuries ago when people saw a solar eclipse and were freaked out by it.

Religion is also excellent at pacifying and influencing the masses. Its proven itself invaluable in that regard all the time in contemporary society. From political to social movements its been a tool to forward agendas that have nothing to do with piety.
Good or bad the people who pulled on those strings to accomplish their goals by trading on other's faith aren't stupid and were probably in more agreement with me about the value of g-d than the biblethumpers in here.

At the end of the day all religions are artificial constructs. The fact that religious canon of law changes over time to suit the best interests of those in power makes that self evident. Beliefs don't evolve because the religious have a new found understanding of their g-d's supposed teachings. They evolve because its no longer convenient to believe the same things as previous generations.

I understand why people defend religion so staunchly. Its a cornerstone in their sense of identity and how they get by day to day. They'd be lost without it and have to find something else to prop them up and define their reason for existing. That's not easy and I for one wouldn't want to see the social chaos that would ensue if the masses were stripped of their religions.

I just see no reason to hold those who are guided to live their lives by religion on some sort of moral pedestal. You are modern day peasants.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I actually take it as read among fellow atheists that this sliver of a chance has a place in their beliefs. Perhaps that is wrong of me.

I don't think this is too far off. I've even heard Richard Dawkins say this.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

I just see no reason to hold those who are guided to live their lives by religion on some sort of moral pedestal. You are modern day peasants.

I look forward to the day - I pray it will be soon - when I see you eat those words, Cap.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I look forward to the day - I pray it will be soon - when I see you eat those words, Cap.

lol

Pray on. I don't see clouds forming over me.
Your g-d isn't going to save you any more than he is going to strike me down.

Or ask Cody how that piety and prayer worked out for her health.

Religion for me is like that ugly tie a relative gave me for a birthday. I'll put it on for show around the right company so I don't offend the relative but I have better tastes.

Furthermore your statement proves you are no less condemnatory than I. You're just more of a hypocrite.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've always wondered about Captain Obnoxious,.

k, so we're doing that now?
fine

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Did God hurt you and take away your sweetie?

Did god save yours?

[Chongo]

John 15:18
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

lol

Pray on. I don't see clouds forming over me.
Your g-d isn't going to save you any more than he is going to strike me down.

Or ask Cody how that piety and prayer worked out for her health.

Religion for me is like that ugly tie a relative gave me for a birthday. I'll put it on for show around the right company so I don't offend the relative but I have better tastes.

Furthermore your statement proves you are no less condemnatory than I. You're just more of a hypocrite.

Funny how you're giving god a male form while talking about something possibly harming you. did you/do you have daddy issues? perhaps brother issues? gasp, did a priest harm you in some way?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

Funny how you're giving god a male form while talking about something possibly harming you. did you/do you have daddy issues? perhaps brother issues? gasp, did a priest harm you in some way?

welcome to Western society where historically the concept of god has always had a masculine identity associated with it. Unless you were stuck in some hippie commune out there I imagine you wouldn't have been immune to that point.

wait... just caught it. You're an Asiaphile. So yeah, Western culture personifies its deities this way wang chung

[subego]

What happened to Cody?

[brassplayersrock²]

arseholes drove her away from these boards.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The common definition of atheism I go by is a complete rejection of even the possibility of the divine, whereas agnoticism is doubt over the matter. We may be using the terms differently.

I think you're using a different definition than what is commonly accepted.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You jumped to a false conclusion about my views based on a lack of information. I edited that previous post to clarify a point that I wrongly assumed went without saying.

I went by what you wrote back then and you just put yourself in the shoes of the religious half of the couple.

And please don't edit your previous posts, make a new one. It's very bad practice and I will not review your old posts for edits to see whether you want to make a new argument or add emphasis to different points. This also makes the whole thread more difficult to understand by others, because my replies (and those of others) may no longer match your `previous' post.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

arseholes drove her away from these boards.

Yeah, her husband was quite the odd one, true.

[subego]

I meant with her health.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It is uncommon for me to hear a committed atheist admit to the possibility of changing his or her opinion and becoming religious if evidence warranted it (although there are lists of public atheists who became religious).

It is equally uncommon for one to hear a committed religious follower to say "But, I might be wrong", although you know that at least one such person exists. If you apply that personal knowledge to other people, you might have a clearer vision of reality.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If I wrote that I was too busy to deal with the conversation before, I was very busy at the time. I don't even remember writing that but I have had some more free time in the last few days. Thank you so much for pointing that important matter out, Dakar.

Actually, you didn't write anything. That's usually the case, however, and since the alternative was to assume you decided to bail from the conversation without comment, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured it was the former.

Of course, you seem to be content to ignore our conversation now that you've returned to this thread, so perhaps I was mistaken.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And his beliefs will matter as much to her as her own?

Yep, that's the point. That's what committed relationships are about.

Welcome.

In her case, since Catholics discourage marrying outside the faith, it's more likely to be a burden or a wedge between them. But he doesn't seem to care about that (we don't know how she feels, maybe she's just using him for her own purposes right now, too).

As for the "extremist" bullsh*t that you closed with, I can only recommend... find a good therapist. With counseling, you should be able to get past most of that.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by finboy 

In her case, since Catholics discourage marrying outside the faith,

That's a huge generalization. Half of my family is Catholic and they could not give a monkey's bottom about who they marry/live or shack up with.

[SpaceMonkey]

Just as one supporting indication of the complete lack of orthodoxy among American Catholics:
98 Percent Of Catholic Women Use Birth Control Banned By Church

I guess hadocon's girlfriend is in the 2%.

[The Final Dakar]

He said she was Roman Catholic. That's an important qualifier.

[Phileas]

Catholic = Roman Catholic.

Unless I've been living under a rock for the last 40 years. Which is not outside the realm of the possible.

[The Final Dakar]

I find the word Roman is used as a qualifier much like other religions use Orthodox, which is to say, more strictly adherent to the rules of the denomination.

I mean, SpaceMonkey used the "American" qualifier in front of Catholic. It's religion, so it's really, really, relative.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

welcome to Western society where historically the concept of god has always had a masculine identity associated with it. Unless you were stuck in some hippie commune out there I imagine you wouldn't have been immune to that point.

wait... just caught it. You're an Asiaphile. So yeah, Western culture personifies its deities this way wang chung

The only major religion with a matriarchal structure is Buddhism. It's not just a western thing.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I find the word Roman is used as a qualifier much like other religions use Orthodox, which is to say, more strictly adherent to the rules of the denomination.

I mean, SpaceMonkey used the "American" qualifier in front of Catholic. It's religion, so it's really, really, relative.

I meant American just a geographic qualifier.

"Roman Catholic" distinguishes Catholics who follow the Pope in Rome versus Catholics who are in the Eastern Orthodox Church (also officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church), as a result of the schism of 1054 AD.

(Of course, each of these groups considers only themselves to be the only true catholic and apostolic Church, so when a member of one says they are "Catholic" there is no real ambiguity. The Roman Catholic Church does not generally refer to itself as "Roman Catholic.").

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

"Roman Catholic" distinguishes Catholics who follow the Pope in Rome versus Catholics who are in the Eastern Orthodox Church (also officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church), as a result of the schism of 1054 AD.

Awesome.

[Chongo]

There are many liturgical rites within the Catholic Church, The Latin rite (aka Roman rite) being the largest. Many of the churches that were part of the "Great Schism" are now in communion with Rome.

# Alexandrian liturgical tradition; 2 liturgical rites

* Coptic Rite
* Ethiopic Rite

# Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition; 3 liturgical rites

* Maronite Rite
* (West) Syrian Rite
* Syro-Malankara Rite

# Armenian Rite; 1 liturgical rite
# Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition; 2 liturgical rites

* Chaldean Rite
* Syro-Malabar Rite

# Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition; 1 liturgical rite

A friend of mine's cousin is a Chorbishop in the Maronite (Lebanese) rite and baptized both of his children, one using the Latin rite, the other using the Maronite rite.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

John 15:18
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.

Do you realize that quoting scripture is pretty much completely meaningless to non-believers?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you realize that quoting scripture is pretty much completely meaningless to non-believers?

I think the more humorous part is I have no ability to decipher the meaning of the post because scripture reads so terribly. In an attempt to enlighten us, he only confuses us further.

Also, it feels random as hell without quoting whoever that's aimed at.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think the more humorous part is I have no ability to decipher the meaning of the post because scripture reads so terribly. In an attempt to enlighten us, he only confuses us further.

Also, it feels random as hell without quoting whoever that's aimed at.

Agreed!

[besson3c]

Do you guys find that the vast majority of bible verses all say the same stuff over and over and over again? One of:

- Believe and you will be saved and go to heaven
- Jesus died for your sins
- God is mighty
- Be a good person

Do you ever find the bible repetitive and/or boring?

[Waragainstsleep]

Thats how scripture works. Repetition is a powerful tool for brainwashing.
Otherwise its all generalisations taken out of context and continually reinterpreted to suit the purposes of whoever is quoting it at the time. Its like astrology or cold reading. Sounds deep, wise and meaningful as long as you don't think too hard about it. Or question it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Thats how scripture works. Repetition is a powerful tool for brainwashing.
Otherwise its all generalisations taken out of context and continually reinterpreted to suit the purposes of whoever is quoting it at the time. Its like astrology or cold reading. Sounds deep, wise and meaningful as long as you don't think too hard about it. Or question it.

[besson3c]

Are you trying to brainwash us by repeating your post?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yep, that's the point. That's what committed relationships are about.

Welcome.

In her case, since Catholics discourage marrying outside the faith, it's more likely to be a burden or a wedge between them. But he doesn't seem to care about that (we don't know how she feels, maybe she's just using him for her own purposes right now, too).

As for the "extremist" bullsh*t that you closed with, I can only recommend... find a good therapist. With counseling, you should be able to get past most of that.

So atheists don't care at all about anybody else's beliefs, but religious people are all totally understanding and tolerant of each others beliefs, even if they are different? Or is that only when they are in a committed relationship?

Good comeback regarding my comments on extremism btw. Beautifully articulate and impeccably reasoned just as I would expect. Why would I need therapy? To work through what exactly? I guess you just didn't understand the point I was making.
I'm not at all surprised you can smell bullsh*t, but the air is nice and fresh where I'm standing.

Welcome.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you guys find that the vast majority of bible verses all say the same stuff over and over and over again? One of:

- Believe and you will be saved and go to heaven
- Jesus died for your sins
- God is mighty
- Be a good person

The second and third are very Biblical, but the other two are not.

For myself, it's in the repetitive stuff that things get interesting. When you see the same story told by a different writer in a different way, you can see how the two religions evolved and changed, which is the most interesting part of religion.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The only major religion with a matriarchal structure is Buddhism. It's not just a western thing.

It's only a small subset of Buddhists who focus on Guan Yin. Most Buddhists have no identification with this
"matriarchal structure" you're going on about. Your statement applies to many more Hindus that Buddhists.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you trying to brainwash us by repeating your post?

Worth a try.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you realize that quoting scripture is pretty much completely meaningless to non-believers?

That reminded me of the 14th Psalm. (written some 3000 years ago. Not that it applies to anyone on this forum )