Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

And I'd like to point out something for everybody; Victory never responded to my comment about Buddhism being just another extremist cult money making scheme. By his own omission, this should make everyone question his viewpoints on what he considers "extremist" viewpoints if he would not disagree with such a comment.

These situations whens kids are involved become very blurred in the respect that "who is right?" when it's parents vs courts.

An adult can do whatever they want with their body as no court can force you into jack assuming no mental health problems. though when it comes to suicide apparently forcing that person to suffer is the best option in alot of cases...(Apparently wanting to kill yourself in alot of cases means you have a mental health problem to since it's illegal to try and commit it in alot of countries) Hell asisted suicide is just as bad but that's another story.

Obiously if a young childs life is that risk then they most of the time lack the sentiance/knowledge to actually know what's "best" for them so in cases like this i can see how the judge is right.

Now you tell me what if the kid was 16/17 and still forced to get it?(assuming adult age in your country is 18) how can we deecide that child does not know what's best for them?(Because being a drop out and/or bum for a year or two more will obviously give you more life experience and more knowledge to know what's "best")

It's when the kids get older and are almost adults forcing them in these situations to get better is when the "when your an adult you can do what you want" line can become questionable.(While i do agree to it the situation of an almost adult teen being forced is interesting)

At 5/18/09 02:34 PM, Victory wrote: Yeah go on stick a label on me because you disagree with what I say.

It's not a label, it's a fact; you think all religions regardless of intent are extremist cults. That's biased and myopic. Either embrace the fact that you are a bigot or refute it, but don't sit there and give me a non-nonchalant answer as though that were end of the conversation, because all it does is reinforce the asshole image you are perpetuating against yourself.

What is the difference between religious beliefs and 'extreme' religious beliefs/cult beliefs?

In this case, I'm going by the textbook definition of extremist behavior, namely; any behavior that sets you apart from the rest of the group due to the bizarre nature of it. Not even the Mormon's claim this guy's group as theirs, even though part of their beliefs are based on Mormon doctrine, so that ought to give you some semblance of a clue just to how far out there this guy is.

What makes your religions' claims any more accurate?

Not a damn thing.

Happy?

So has Islam. And Christianity. And Judaism.

And what exactly has atheism done to better mankind in the last 100 years, hm? If you're so concerned with the downfall of religion in general, shouldn't you be doing something to actually convince people that atheism is the kinder alternative to Religion, instead of sitting there being an arrogant prick and alienating people against your cause?

http://answers.google.com/answers/thread view?id=54617

The only source you could come up with doesn't even give a firm answer one way or the other as to WHAT the actual net worth is. That's funny.

They take in hundreds of millions of dollars a year; but apparently for no reason at all, according to you.

And yet, you will never see a catholic priest on MTV Cribs, despite all that money. Why is that?

"They believe that it is against the spiritual law to invade the consciousness of another person without their permission."

Then why did they allow their son to partake in the chemo to begin with?

Right, children aren't important at all are they, what really matters here is that the dumbfuck parents learn a lesson.

And they say atheists have a misplaced sense of morality..

And you're solution to the problem is, what, exactly?

Oh that's right, sit around pissing and moaning about religion while offering up no viable solutions or alternatives to the situation, like a typical atheist. Far be it from you to actually try to solve the situation or discuss how it can be handled, everything even remotely related to the discussion of a religious group has to turn into a bitchfest about religion as a whole.

And yes, Buddhists believe in crazy things too:

You realize you just argued my point against you for me, right?

At 5/18/09 03:49 PM, Victory wrote: I'm saying that there is no difference between a cult and a religion.

myopic
-adjective
1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

So basically your only distinction between religion and cult is whether the majority accepts it or not..

That's what characterizes "extremism," does it not? If their viewpoint was practiced by the majority, it wouldn't be considered extreme.

However, in order to classify most organized religions as a "cult" no different from the Nemenhah Band, you will have to show how each individual branch follows the totalitarian rule of a charismatic ruler, in addition to showing how the followers obey said ruler's commands without question. Otherwise, you're argument falls through. Good luck with that.

Exactly. How can you possibly differentiate between the legitimacy of a cult and the legitimacy of a religion, then?

Because in my religion, we have this nice little verse that states "Faith without works is dead," which is the basis for the thought process that "God helps those who help themselves." Yes, pray that you get better, but if you don't take advantage of modern medicine, you're going to die. Yes, you might die even if you GET the treatment, but at least you had faith enough to get up and do something about instead of sitting there in la-la-land going "The Lord shall take care of my every need, I shall not want..."

They on the other hand do not, and this kid is going to die from an easily treated disease because they believed prayer and "healing herbs" will cure their son's cancer.

Atheism has not set out to do anything at all, because atheists do not have a single shared goal.

And thus why atheism will never take hold of society the same way Religion has.

I do this for kicks, I have no desire to convert you.

Then why do you even bother posting if you have no intention of swaying people to your way of thinking? Are you a troll? Do you just like the sight of your own typed up words on screen or something?

Being advised by the founder of this religion to stop the chemotherapy, maybe?

So who's more at fault here, the charismatic leader of the Nemenhah Band cult, or the parents? Because from what I can tell, the parents were FINE with the kid having the chemo to begin with. Should the parents be brought up on child abuse charges, or the leader? Or should he be brought up on charges as an accesory to this act?

End this tradition of indoctrinating young minds before they are capable of thinking for themselves.

Let me rephrase the question; how do you intend to solve this problem in a realistic and timely manner in order to save this kid's life? Do you want the government to go in there Elian Gonzalez style to kidnap the kid and force chemotherapy on him, or what?

Or are you just going to further piss and moan about the evils of religion while offering no real solution and padding your post count, as you've been doing?

YEAH

If you put as much effort into this conversation as you did being a dick, people might take you more seriously.

Meh. Agents of the government often intervene when someone is about to kill themselves. This is just a more abstract form of the same problem.

let him die, if he refuses medical tretment because he thinks that only "natural" ways of healing are acceptable.

eyyoyoyoyoyoyo (grabs crotch)
She iss like this... hehe ok Im done.
Its as simple as this, people have life, we can protect that life to the point of danger, manipulation is not a right idea just to save a life,
let the humans take their own lives, it brings peace you see... war is the fight of one man against another, the opposite is suicide, you have suicide method choice.
"Wise men choose death before war" that qoute didnt go by the obviouse meaning.
Qoutes are memorable for wisdom more than for damndable pride that makes the mind just slightly duller.

I've probably read through this topic 5 times in the past couple days and I just can't be objective about it. No matter what angle I want to take on this subject I just can't seem to overcome how sad this makes me.

Those parents honestly believe that God wants their child to die. If they had their way, he wouldn't have a chance. Up until the last minute they would praise God for His ability to heal the sick without the need of medicine. When his body finally gave out, they would stand firm and claim that it was part of God's infinitely wise plan. God needed their son to die.

I feel sad for the parents who, underneath their stout resolution, are just as scared as any parent with a sick kid. Even though he has a good shot at survival now, that boy has been severely crippled from fully enjoying all the wonderful things that this world, his fellow man, and life has to offer. He'll never be normal socially. His understanding of the world around him has been stunted. He's in an environment that will completely beat his humanity down until every ounce of creativity and rational thought has been squelched.

No, it's not a readily defensible position, I didn't trim it up nice and neat to account for obvious criticisms. I know that and I don't care.

This whole situation just breaks my heart.

At 5/19/09 11:18 AM, Victory wrote: Well the Pope's impact on the African AIDS situation seems to be pretty evident of that.

That's 1 down, and several hundred more to go (and we haven't even started on non-monotheistic religions yet). That is, of course, assuming you can show that the Pope controls all 1.1 Billion Catholics worldwide in a Totalitarian manner.

You've got your work cut out for you, I'll give you that.

So even you admit religion has an agenda!

I admit MY religion has an agenda, but... it's not as if I'm hiding that fact either.

Why does this news come as a shock to you? Have you ever actually researched Christianity, or are you just writing Religion off without ever trying it, like a young child would with vegetables?

I know you aren't going to be swayed by what I say, because your very beliefs are designed to be unarguable. That would be an exercise in futility.

Unless you've noticed, I'm not arguing the merits of my own religion, because I know that they are indefensible to someone as close-minded as you. I'm arguing a point (i.e.; let the kid die) because I didn't feel the need to turn this into another topic about "the evils of religion," of which we already have several of with new ones popping up on a daily basis.

I post because I enjoy debate. It makes me think and question things more when I am presented with compelling arguments.

Well, at least there's ONE thing we agree on.

The parents are responsible for the health of their child.

Agreed, so that's two things...

It isn't this cult leader's fault they are gullible fucks.

If I told you to jump off a tall building, should I be accountable if you do?

So the Pope is an evil bastard for encouraging catholics worldwide to forgo birthcontrol, but this guy is faultless with regards to his own followers? How does that work?

*you

I know you are, but what am I?

*sticks out tongue*

At 5/19/09 06:33 PM, JanusGrayden wrote: Those parents honestly believe that God wants their child to die.

Then why...

1) Did they allow the child to get chemotherapy to believe with?
2) Are treating the child currently with healing herbs and ionized water?

He'll never be normal socially.

At age 13, he's learning disabled and can't read. And you're worried about whether or not he'll ever get laid. My aren't you a humanitarian?

This whole situation just breaks my heart.

Here's some mood music to sooth your nerves....

As of now, it's to be continued...

Stuff like this can get out of hand.

At 5/20/09 07:26 AM, Victory wrote: Catholicism is the largest branch of the largest religion in the world... it might as well do.

But Catholicsm does not represent all Christians, much less all monotheist religions. To take and apply a standard that is clearly impossible to show to all Converse Accident. Plus, you still haven't shown how the Pope controls all 1.1 Billion Catholics worldwide in a Totalitarian manner, much less how he qualifies as a "Charismatic Leader," both of which are requirements for a cult.

Keep in mind that I was raised Southern Baptist, a distinctly PROTESTANT branch of Christianity. I don't believe in the Pope, the Saints, and I sure as hell don't believe in the Preisthood.... in fact, I would love nothing more than to see the Catholic Church take a cue from comedian Christopher Titus and Crucify some of the pedophile priests.

You write off cults as false because they have their own agendas - control and monetary gain.

Because, unless you've failed to notice...

- You have to pay to be a member of the Nemenhah Band
- You have to pay to get the leader recommended healing herbs... from the leader.
- The leader's influence over their lives is so powerful that it implies a Cult of Personality like totality.

None of which the modern Church is guilty of.

Again, have you ever actually studied Christianity?

It is irresponsible of both of them to do both of these things - but ultimately the followers choose to follow, and they are responsible for their own actions.

Then you have no reason to complain about religion.

Unless you've noticed, you hold an Aleister Crowely-esque "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" opinion on personal responsibility; you bitch and complain about religion, but in the end you're like "Whatever, dude." No call for action against those who do harm to society in your mind, nothing.

What's the deal? Are you not as into your irreligion as you would like everyone to believe?

Let 'em die.

At 5/16/09 11:25 AM, poxpower wrote: Except when you're under 18.
Refusal of treatment is a death sentence to the kid and now the parents know it. They have no excuse.

i think her excuse is that she actually believes that God will heal her son himself.

'casue, you know. its not like anywhere in the bible does it say "God helps those who helps themselves." or anything.

Why does god help those who help themselves?

Why doesn't he help people who are unable to help themselves?

At 5/21/09 01:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Why does god help those who help themselves?

Why doesn't he help people who are unable to help themselves?

only when they're special people, in no discernible way, and if he feels like it...sometimes.

At 5/20/09 10:28 PM, homor wrote: 'casue, you know. its not like anywhere in the bible does it say "God helps those who helps themselves." or anything.

You could also say it's because people ask for God to help themselves. God works through other people.

Reminds me of a joke.

A man is in a flood and is going to drown. A boat comes and says they'll help him. The man says, "It's okay, God is going to help me", so the boat goes away. Another boat comes and says they'll help him. The man again says, "God is going to help me".

The man ends up dying and goes to Heaven. He asks God, "Why didn't you help me?". God says, "Well, first I sent a boat to help you and you did nothing. Then I sent another boat and you still did nothing".

At 5/21/09 10:26 AM, Victory wrote: You seem to keep hammering away with this one point about the leader... that's all you've got, right?

You want to call religion as a whole no different than the cult of the Nemenhah Band, I'm going to hold you accountable for that claim. You have one of two options at this point; prove me wrong, or concede defeat and retract your previous statement.

It does not need to breathe down the necks of its every member all the time, because they have more than enough influence to not need to do that.

Then it is not a cult by your own word, because it lacks the Totalitarian regime style to ensure that all their adherents follow their laws to the letter.

Just like Christianity did in it's infancy... the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition? The crushing of dissident.

That wasn't "Christianity," that was... THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

*shock of all shocks*

And if you do your research, you'll find that it didn't start as a true Holy War, it started as a political power-play by the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus; he had just lost much of the Byzantine Empire comprising Asia Minor, and asked for help from the good Christian Knights to help reclaim their Holy Land of Jerusalem from the Muslim invaders.

He over-exaggerated the dangers, and played them for patsies. And look at all the shit it caused.

As for the Spanish Inquisition; the only reason people bring it up is because it was the Spanish Inquisition, the Inquisition itself was a standard procedure for the Catholic (there's that word again) but it had never existed before in Spain.

Not because of it being the truth.

All I told you was how I was raised, not what my beliefs are NOW. >:-D~

What a nice forgiving attitude you've got there. How Christian.

I never claimed to be perfect, and I have as yet to meet any Christian who can.

And why are these priests pedophiles? Because of abstinence.

If I remember right, most of the victims of the Catholic Church Sex Scandal over the years have been boys. So it could be as much about abstinence as it would be about Homosexual Priests trying to suppress their urges.

But I would like to point out something for everyone; the two worst offenders in the Catholic Church's Sex Scandal were Sean Fortune and Brendan Smyth, both Irish priests... not American (although Smyth did cross the pond in his final days).

Ignorance of base human desires in favour of baseless religious dogma..

I think Bill Hicks put it best; "For a religion that advocares the verse 'Be Fruitfull and Multiply,' don't you think they'd be for things that encouraged sexual thoughts? Perhaps a pin-up in the Bible, 'Miss Deuteronomy' or something."

The modern church in your country still pushes through it's agendas in your politics - attempting to institute anti-abortion laws, anti-stem cell research laws, intelligent design pseudo-science..

Have they been successful?

By and large, no.

I don't like people believing in their nonsense, that's for sure, but really they are allowed their own private beliefs. I don't think it's any business of the state, or you, or me, to dictate what people can and cannot believe in. It's only when that goes beyond a private belief - hurting others, indoctrinating children, pushing their agenda, etc. that it becomes an issue that needs to be dealt with.

You can't force religion out of people, like Stalin tried to; it is deliberately designed to be impenetrable to that, and will always come back. The only way to truly defeat it is through argument and contention; promoting disbelief. As the torture scene in Orwell's 1984 concludes: if you turn someone into a martyr, their cause will live forever.

Do you fancy yourself an intellectual for being an atheist? Because the more this conversation goes on, the more I question your actual working knowledge of Religion... all you've done is shown me that you're no different than any other atheist I've seen on here in the last 5 years. Same snide attitude, same beef with religion, same lame speaking points... but no real substance to back up the words I see on screen.

Is atheism among youth a fashionable thing to do these days? Do you just pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged or 1984 and BOOM, instantly convert? What's going on here?

At 5/22/09 03:41 PM, Victory wrote: You ignored all my other points about the truth value of their claims being the same as the truth value of religious claims: such as the one about irrational belief in God:

Because, as I previously stated, there's no point debating the merits of religious beliefs with you.

I ask again: is this point about the leader being totalitarian all you have?

Characterstics of a cult;
- Extremist viewpoints
- Charismatic Leader
- Totalitarian Control of it's members

You have as yet to show that the Catholic Church (or any other branch of Christianity, much less any other monotheistic religion) qualify as a cult or cult like, you've just made post after post of converse accident applying the evils of the Catholic Church to the whole of theistic religion, which is an ignorant viewpoint.

Whatever.

No, not whatever; I am Protestant, protestants founded this country because YOUR MONARCHY sought to make their religion of choice (more often than not Catholicism) the state mandated religion for the populace at large. There is a difference, and if you still want to sit there and blame the whole of Christianity for the actions of the Catholic Church, you're a narrow minded IDIOT.

So.. how exactly does this refute my point?

You brought up the Spanish Inquisition, I showed why it wasn't special; the Inquisition was part of the Catholic Church's political control for centuries before the Spanish had anything to do with it.

I'm betting they aren't much different.

I'm betting you don't know what the average Southern Baptist believes to begin with.

Or you've done the whole "I'm going to change them a little bit so it seems like I've given the matter a great deal of thought and am somehow exempt from criticism!" line.

I don't believe in organized religion.

You're turn.

You follow Jesus Christ, who professed forgiveness as a virtue. One would think you lot would be pretty forgiving.

This of course implies that Jesus Christ would have been forgiving of one of his followers using their position in the Church to sexually abuse children.

Now, does that sound like something somebody who was God Incarnate would look favorably on? Or do you want to try and tell me more about what my religion supposedly says?

In any case, it is an unnatural thing to do to suppress sexuality and it reflects the ridiculous practices of religions.

The only sexuality they suppress is that of their own preists, unless you forgot; they actually encourage unprotected sex, remember?

1
2

"On February 13, 2007, the Kansas State Board of Education approved a new curriculum which removed any reference to Intelligent Design as part of science. In the words of Dr Bill Wagnon, the board chairman, "Today the Kansas Board of Education returned its curriculum standards to mainstream science". The new curriculum, as well as a document outlining the differences with the previous curriculum, has been posted on the Kansas State Department of Education's website.[21]"

You're own link, dude.

In fact, if you go further, you will find that in each of those instances cited, they either abandoned intelligent design altogether, or they make no mention of the material actually being taught. And that's just 10 out of 50 states.

3

That article is over 10 years old, man. Abortion is Legal in Missouri.

4

And... now we've got a President in Charge who lifted that Ban.

Seriously, if your going to make a point, put more effort into researching your point than just that.

Wow, and what have you actually accomplished in five years?

Lets see.... at age 23, I...
- Have a full time job with benefits (full health, dental and vision)
- No college loans to pay off
- about $2,000 in credit card bills
- a car that I am $500 away from having paid off
- no major medical issues to speak of

Whereas, you at age 19 have done.... what?

You talk of atheism as a fashion, but really that's all your religion consists of: what the majority believe in is what justifies your belief.

I talk of atheism as a fashion because the majority of the atheists I've seen on here are all between the ages of 15 and 23. After that, it just kind of wanes off.

>> Everything in today's life gets into obstruction with some beliefs.

People, people, can't we all just agree: Catholicism sucks.

At 5/22/09 08:02 PM, Victory wrote: Scientology's drug rehabilitation programs have gotten people off addictions; I'm sure you would call that a 'merit', and yet you still call them a bullshit cult.

Mainly because they're drug rehab facilities have harmed quite a few people.

By the majority's standards - which means nothing with regards to the truth value of the viewpoints.

Then show me what you think are extreme about modern religious beliefs, and we'll go from there.

So... what else have you got, big boy?

Just waiting on you to prove your point about religion as a whole being a cult.

Because at this point, the only thing you have going for you on that claim is the whole "evidence of belief" thing, which makes your argument a fallacy of four terms (i.e.; Religion in general has no evidence of belief, cults have no evidence of belief, therefore all religions are cults.") That, and the converse accident you made of applying the evils of the Catholic Church to the whole of Religion (not just Christianity, mind you) makes for one very poorly constructed argument.

Oh, and for any other folks following this, yes he did indeed just skip my comeback about the Crusades.

All you did was supply supplementary evidence to my point.

They are the best example to use since they are the largest religion in the world. You expect me to go through every single religion and every sect within... that's a bullshit waste of time and I can't be arsed.

Then concede your point.

You go on to say that you are opposed to organised religion.. what's that about?

The point about being against organized religion was written as an afterthought, I failed to go back and re-edit my post accordingly. I am against organized religion, but still identify with Protestant beliefs and have no love for the Catholic Church (a belief that has been ingrained into me).

Not all of the founding fathers were Protestants. Jefferson and Franklin were deists, for one thing.

A protestant is simply a Christian who does not follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, of which most of the founding fathers were. And even then, I wasn't really speaking of them, more towards the Puritans and the like who came across on the Mayflower.

This is a refutation of my point, how?

It wasn't refutation; it was a clarification. The Spanish Inquisition was only special because it was Spanish, Papal Inquisitions date back as far as the 12th century, a couple hundred years before Spanish Inquisitions started.

You're bringing up the same old speaking points I've seen time and time again, I'm just clarifying them for you.

There, Bible verses teaching that accepting Jesus and praying for forgiveness for sins will all work out magically for you.

Cute. Now let me refer you to the story of John chapter 8 where Jesus famously spoke the line "He that is without sin let him cast the first stone." Notice that when asked about what should be done with the harlot, Jesus remained silent; he did not disagree with the letter of the law. To have done so would have both been his own death (as it would have been Blasphemey), and he would have also been contradicting himself being that the Law was inspired by His word in ephemeral form.

Which means, while Jesus is very forgiving, he would have certainly been in favor of Deuteronomy 22:25's command by law that a rapist (of which Pedophilia can be considered an act of) to be executed forthwith.

Give up while you still can, you are out of your league on this one.

I posted links showing clear attempts to introduce Christian morals and teachings into politics and education, that have all been successful for periods of time. And still Christians in your country are pushing for all these things to be put through.

You posted links showing that these things happened on a small scale, not on the national level and not showing that they were still in effect, rendering your points moot.

What have you accomplished from five years of debating atheists on this board?

I've become very adept at the skill of critical thinking, thanks to them.

Dude, the vast majority of people on this site are between the ages of 15 and 23.

Point taken.

However, I would like to take you to task on one previous point you made that I did not address properly....

I have never believed in God properly at any single point in my life. That's all.

Since you seem so keen on implying that I only believe the way I do because that's how I was raised, I want to ask you something; does the phrase "all my life" imply that you knowingly chose to be an atheist at birth, or was that simply how you were raised?

At 5/22/09 09:56 PM, LaForge wrote: Holy shit, how much time do you two waste on each of your damned posts?

I'll let Bugs Bunny speak for me on this one.

At 5/22/09 10:09 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/22/09 09:56 PM, LaForge wrote: Holy shit, how much time do you two waste on each of your damned posts?

I'll let Bugs Bunny speak for me on this one.

403'D!

Wait, wat?

Deep down all humans know that religion is bullshit (it's like a game people play to cover-up reality). So ultimately, when the life of an individual is concerned, people should stop playing the game for a while, give them treatment and then they can resume the game afterwards and pretend like nothing happened - too easy.

At 5/16/09 12:55 AM, ReThink wrote: I fully agree with the judge's ruling.

Same, I see no reason as to why God would not want him to be cured.

Since you seem so keen on implying that I only believe the way I do because that's how I was raised, I want to ask you something; does the phrase "all my life" imply that you knowingly chose to be an atheist at birth, or was that simply how you were raised?

My father grew up in an extremist Fundamentalist household and shook it off to become an atheist because he's cool like that.

At 5/22/09 10:56 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Wait, wat?

CRAP!

It was the clip of him saying "He don't know me very well, do he?"

At 5/23/09 03:42 PM, Victory wrote: Modern religious beliefs are not extreme because the public accepts them as a legitimate thing to believe in.

I wasn't asking you what society deemed extreme or not, I'm asking what YOU deem as extreme, since your the one putting forth the argument.

Four terms? I see three terms there:

The point being that you've made a faulty syllogism, namely;

Religious beliefs are not backed up by evidence
Cult beliefs are not backed up by evidence
Therefore, all religions are cults.

By claiming that all religions are cults (which is converse accident), you blur the line between what makes a cult uniquely set apart from everybody else, not JUST the extremist beliefs, but the cult of personality surrounding the leader of the cult and AND the totalitarian control over the members.

By your own admission, Religious beliefs in general are not extremist because society does not deem them to be (strike one), there is no centralized figurehead around which a cult of personality for "religion" centers around (strike two), and there is no element of totalitarian control over the members (strike three, you're out).

And by your own in-admission, you show you cannot/will-not show or prove them to be a cult. THEREFORE... you're point, as a whole, is incorrect and indefensible.

No.

You won't even defend your own point when called out on it, you've already conceded.

That seems like quite the contradiction.. you are against organised religion, but still profess belief in the claims of an organised religion. Why?

I said I identified with the beliefs of Protestentism because that's how I was raised; I may hold some distaset for organized religion in general, but I'm going to hold more vitriol for the Catholic Church than I am any other branch of Christianity for the systematic way they have screwed with Biblical Doctrine -- could somebody explain to me where Transubstantiation and Indulgences are mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible? -- and the way they have LITERALLY screwed with the population at large.

Children cannot be pledged for marriage, can they?

Deuteronomy (along with the other 4 of the first 5 books of the Bible) are the core doctrine for the Jewish Talmud, and in Jewish traditions... you become a man at 13 and a woman at 12.

So the concept of an "un-betrothed virgin" being yet a child -- both physically and by the standards set by the local community -- is not out of the realm of possibility.

At 5/24/09 06:44 AM, Victory wrote: I have demonstrated elements of the influence and control that the Catholic Church (the largest religion in the world)

Catholicism isn't the largest religion in the world. Only one President out of dozens was Catholic. If you're referring to religious sects, I'd think Sunnis would be more.

I declare myself out of this futile debate; enjoy getting the last word.

Thank you!

At 5/24/09 06:44 AM, Victory wrote: I disagree with the very notion of 'extremist' but your only response is to keep throwing this definition of a cult at me as though that beats my point - rather than actually addressing my point.

I got your point; that's why I was asking YOU what YOU considered "extremist" about modern religious beliefs.

I used the Pope as an example, and his intervention in the African AIDS crisis as an example of influence. But your only response is to deliberately set me an unreachable goal of going through EVERY religion there is and finding a figurehead.

Because that's what separates a cult from any other branch of religion; a centralized figurehead whom the cult is founded by, which a cult of personality surrounds. Catholicism is the only branch of Christianity (right off the top of my head) that I am aware as having an elected figurehead, but it lacks the strict totalitarian control and cult of personality surrounding said figurehead. If such a cult like status DID surround Catholocism, articles such as these would never have been written.

But your only response is to AGAIN set me an unreachable goal of going through EVERY religion and religious sect there is.

Because your claim was that "All religions are cults," Catholicism does not represent the whole of Christianity, much less the whole of Religious belief in this world. It be like me saying "all atheists are arrogant morons" based off my experiences with atheists on here, or claiming that all atheists are ant-religious crackpots like Michael Newdow and Madelaine Murray O'Hare.... taking the actions of one and applying them to all just doesn't work.