Religion

[philpot123]

philpot, nothing I said suggested that Christianity was a purely spiritual religion or that "not of this world" meant only in a spiritual sense. I think you misunderstood me.

Then I apologize!

[Princess Artemis]

No worries, philpot : ) For Kelkelen's call for clarity: part of what I was talking about was the dangers of theocracies (defined as unholy mixtures of state and religion)--that's why I brought up Christian Dominionism. Christianity was never meant to be a state religion, an excuse for the state to control people. There can only be one king--and, he says his kingdom is not of this world. I certainly don't think that means 'inapplicable to daily life', otherwise I wouldn't have brought up Amish and Mennonites, whose Christianity very thoroughly informs their daily lives. They just happened to be well-known Christian groups that aren't bothering the state a great deal and the state doesn't bother them much.

 

I'm still bumbling around myself figuring out how one lives in two kingdoms at once :/

Edited March 26, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[philpot123]

No worries, philpot : ) For Kelkelen's call for clarity: part of what I was talking about was the dangers of theocracies (defined as unholy mixtures of state and religion)--that's why I brought up Christian Dominionism. Christianity was never meant to be a state religion, an excuse for the state to control people. There can only be one king--and, he says his kingdom is not of this world. I certainly don't think that means 'inapplicable to daily life', otherwise I wouldn't have brought up Amish and Mennonites, whose Christianity very thoroughly informs their daily lives. They just happened to be well-known Christian groups that aren't bothering the state a great deal and the state doesn't bother them much.

 

I'm still bumbling around myself figuring out how one lives in two kingdoms at once :/

They generally live as if separate from the "worldly" governments around them though. If they had their choice, the government would simply not interfere and they would deal with their issues how they see fit. And ya know, it works pretty well for them in a way, they have a sort of theocracy. As did the early colonial governments. There have been theocracies that have prospered... It's an interesting issue for sure.

[Princess Artemis]

There are some issues for sure with he Amish, but yeah, over all, it does work pretty well for them. That's a different sort of deal than, for instance, the Holy Roman Empire, or what Dominionism would like to do to the US, or a state hijacking a religion for its own ends.

 

I'm not against theocracies totally, it's just that the vast majority of them really don't work and they're not good for the religion involved.

[VAwitch_myrrhibis]

I learned something about another religion tonight. I met a guy who is studying to be a priest and is engaged to be married - apparently Eastern Orthodox Catholic priests may remain married if ordained after marrying. I had thought all Catholic priests, Roman or Orthodox, had to be celibate.

 

That's part of the re-unification, or at least friendly co-existance, that the RCC & EOC are attempting. Eastern Orthodox priests have always been able to marry while priests; you just can't rise to the highest levels in the priesthood (Bishops, and the Bishops that head the Synods (or jurisdictions, for a reference point) if you are married. You can be Bishop if never married, or you became a widower after joining the priesthood (My childhood Priest, Father Basil, was a widower & became Bishop in NY if I recall correctly).

 

EOC & RCC are not too dissimilar, even after all this time. Names for some things are different, and the biggest change in doctrine is that the Pope is not recognized as God's Voice on Earth. He is the voice of the faith, so to speak, but not 'superior' to the other Bishops as Christ is considered the head of the church by the EOC.

 

Although I always have found it amusing (once I'd left the EOC) that Pascha (EOC Easter) always happens the week after Passover, but Easter doesn't always do the same.

[darkdrake]

I think religion helps people.

I'm not very religious but there is one thing I believe: people can believe in anything the face feel good or makes you happy I don't know all religions of the world but all religions give something to look forward and this is a beautiful thing <3

I just think that after death there is another life where he doesn't remember anything about the previous...

The religion is a nice topic to talk about! Congratulations for the idea

[TikindiDragon]

That's part of the re-unification, or at least friendly co-existance, that the RCC & EOC are attempting. Eastern Orthodox priests have always been able to marry while priests; you just can't rise to the highest levels in the priesthood (Bishops, and the Bishops that head the Synods (or jurisdictions, for a reference point) if you are married. You can be Bishop if never married, or you became a widower after joining the priesthood (My childhood Priest, Father Basil, was a widower & became Bishop in NY if I recall correctly).

 

EOC & RCC are not too dissimilar, even after all this time. Names for some things are different, and the biggest change in doctrine is that the Pope is not recognized as God's Voice on Earth. He is the voice of the faith, so to speak, but not 'superior' to the other Bishops as Christ is considered the head of the church by the EOC.

 

Although I always have found it amusing (once I'd left the EOC) that Pascha (EOC Easter) always happens the week after Passover, but Easter doesn't always do the same.

Incidently I know Anglican Priests that have converted to Catholicism (owing to issues in the Anglican community currently) are also 'allowed' to be married assuming they were married before their conversion. They can't rise to the rank of Bishop, though, unless they become widowed.

[7Deadly$ins]

I think religion helps people.

I'm not very religious but there is one thing I believe: people can believe in anything the face feel good or makes you happy I don't know all religions of the world but all religions give something to look forward and this is a beautiful thing <3

I just think that after death there is another life where he doesn't remember anything about the previous...

The religion is a nice topic to talk about! Congratulations for the idea

If you don't remember anything about the first life, are you still really "you"? Unless you're referring to reincarnation.

[ring123456789]

I'm an Atheist :L. As long as religious people don't bother me, i'm fine with them. I find those Who still believe the earth is only a few thousand years old very arrogant however and thats the one thing i cant tolerate.

[philpot123]

I'm an Atheist :L. As long as religious people don't bother me, i'm fine with them. I find those Who still believe the earth is only a few thousand years old very arrogant however and thats the one thing i cant tolerate.

Arrogant? Really?

 

The whole "6,000 years" thing is completely ridiculous considering even Christians who believe in a relatively young earth have nothing to base that off of except Biblical genealogies that often skip hundreds of years of generations. But considering there are quite a few people who pose legitimate questions to the "3 billion years" date, I think it's rather demeaning to call them arrogant. I disagree with you, but I don't call you arrogant for not accepting my beliefs based on the things that convince me. Why don't we talk about the facts instead of declaring ignorance or arrogance. That would be more constructive.

[Kai]

There are exactly zero legittmate questions for the Earth being anything less than a few billion years old.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Kai

[loudwhitenoise]

This is something completely unrelated, but it made me think: warning for language http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html (<---viewpoint:athiest)

Edited March 31, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Princess Artemis]

So...the egalitarian Atheist Apocalypse has Equality heralded by an able-bodied white dude? Lolz.

 

(Just a comment on the comic, just the comic : )

Edited March 31, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Kelkelen]

So...the egalitarian Atheist Apocalypse has Equality heralded by an able-bodied white dude? Lolz.

 

(Just a comment on the comic, just the comic : )

Heck, the whole thing is heralded by 4 able-bodied white dudes! Maybe the author/artist didn't read enough of those Politically Correct Fairy Tales, growing up.

[Darth Krande]

A few weeks ago I asked here whether it's 'right' to write a fanfic to the Holy Bible, because the characters are not fictious, and I feared that I wouldn't be able to keep it in-character.

Yesterday I wrote it..... http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7975189/1/

What do you think?

[LevanJess]

Well, I'm not religious, in fact I barely think about religion. I say I'm Agnostic. I just don't know where to stand and I'm fine with religion not being a big part of my life. But I'm cool with anyone who thinks differently!

[philpot123]

There are exactly zero legittmate questions for the Earth being anything less than a few billion years old.

The relatively young age of both the largest desert on earth and the largest reef on earth come to mind.

[Kai]

The relatively young age of both the largest desert on earth and the largest reef on earth come to mind.

I'm not going to do work for you so if you want anything more than this link you'll have to explain more http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

[philpot123]

I'm not going to do work for you so if you want anything more than this link you'll have to explain more http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

Ah yes, I've read around that site quite a bit. One thing in particular I find funny. In relation to a creationist argument about short period comets lending weight to a young earth by their mere existence, the author of the page says

 

"Sorry fellas, but if you want to use this comet argument it is up to you to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Oort Cloud and other sources don't exist!"

 

Really? That's like me saying "The inside of this watermelon is blue before you cut the skin. Prove me wrong." Shifting the burden of proof is completely ridiculous. I could claim anything I wanted, say "prove me wrong" and keep you busy for years trying to find evidence that what I claim isn't true. Not to mention the fact that it's effectively impossible to "prove" something either way.

 

There are two sides to every issue, and there are knowledgeable scientists who have problems with the accepted age of the earth, and there are reasons for that.

 

I'm not really equipped to debate this entire topic, but blanket statements like yours without any reasonable discussion kill conversations like this before any actual discussion has happened. The whole thing can be very entertaining, civil, and informative otherwise.

[Slaskia]

The relatively young age of both the largest desert on earth and the largest reef on earth come to mind.

That would only be proof of a 'young' earth if the climate never changes and he plates didn't shift. There's evidence of multiple ice ages throughout the earth's history, along with evidence continents were in different places millions of years ago (look how nicely South America and Africa fit together for instance).

 

BTW, wouldn't this line of discussion be more suited to its own topic? Its not really 'religious' in nature....

[Kai]

Ah yes, I've read around that site quite a bit. One thing in particular I find funny. In relation to a creationist argument about short period comets lending weight to a young earth by their mere existence, the author of the page says

 

"Sorry fellas, but if you want to use this comet argument it is up to you to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Oort Cloud and other sources don't exist!"

 

Really? That's like me saying "The inside of this watermelon is blue before you cut the skin. Prove me wrong." Shifting the burden of proof is completely ridiculous. I could claim anything I wanted, say "prove me wrong" and keep you busy for years trying to find evidence that what I claim isn't true. Not to mention the fact that it's effectively impossible to "prove" something either way.

 

There are two sides to every issue, and there are knowledgeable scientists who have problems with the accepted age of the earth, and there are reasons for that.

 

I'm not really equipped to debate this entire topic, but blanket statements like yours without any reasonable discussion kill conversations like this before any actual discussion has happened. The whole thing can be very entertaining, civil, and informative otherwise.

What killed this discussion was your offhand mentioning of two phenomenon that may or may not exist.

[Awdz]

I went to a Maundy Thursday service last night and the minister mentioned in his sermon that it was not clear if Jesus was actually celebrating the Last Supper on the day of the Passover or the day before. I think that's the first time I've heard a minister actually say that in a service and I like that he made us think.

 

I love Easter. Far more than Christmas, I think of it as the highlight of the church year. These last few days leading up to it are so dark (spiritually/emotionally) it makes the celebration even more wonderful.

 

Happy Passover to all who celebrate it, and Happy Easter to all who celebrate that!

 

Zombie comments aside, what do others think of the celebrations at this time of year?

[philpot123]

There is going to be a "Trans-Faith Forum" at a local college. Not a debate, a panel of representatives from each of the particular faith background groups represented on campus all being asked the same questions in turn by a moderator so people can hear answers from different worldviews. I believe the confirmed representatives are protestant, catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, and various brands of atheists. I'll definitely be going to that.

[earwig]

There is going to be a "Trans-Faith Forum" at a local college. Not a debate, a panel of representatives from each of the particular faith background groups represented on campus all being asked the same questions in turn by a moderator so people can hear answers from different worldviews. I believe the confirmed representatives are protestant, catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, and various brands of atheists. I'll definitely be going to that.

That actually sounds interesting, would you mind reporting back anything interesting they said?

[Silens]

Arrogant? Really?

 

The whole "6,000 years" thing is completely ridiculous considering even Christians who believe in a relatively young earth have nothing to base that off of except Biblical genealogies that often skip hundreds of years of generations. But considering there are quite a few people who pose legitimate questions to the "3 billion years" date, I think it's rather demeaning to call them arrogant. I disagree with you, but I don't call you arrogant for not accepting my beliefs based on the things that convince me. Why don't we talk about the facts instead of declaring ignorance or arrogance. That would be more constructive.

I agree with the statement of "arrogance" and would even open it up to a more broad scope of things. Religious theists say "We have no evidence for the existence of god. But there is a god. Not only that, it's our god! This god in this book and every other theist is wrong!" and then you get extremists who extend that arrogance as using their belief system to justify killings.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Silens