Its a form of Christianity anyway, there are thoasands of different ways or worshipping the Jewish teacher, but in the end, as long as your holy book is the BIble and you believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, then your a Christian, and since God hasn't come out and said "Um your wrong, actually I meant to say this.."etc.

At 1/29/10 11:49 PM, Warforger wrote: Its a form of Christianity anyway

It's not like all these little club definitions matter anyway.

Who the fuck cares if you're a "real" worshiper of Thor or not? No one gives a shit what you want to be called for your own special brand of crazy.
"Oh no I'm an Egantillian, I believe Jesus was born from a man's anus on a Sunday, had 15 apostles and died in a Karate tournament. DON'T YOU JUDGE ME".

If you believe in Christ, let's say you're a Christian. There.

Of course it's debatable if Mormons believe in Christ or not. I guess it starts to be something else eventually.

I mean I can say I believe in Christ, except he's a dinosaur from Zabulon who rode into our troposphere on a comet to teach asians how to use gunpowder... That's not really.. Jesus... as is understood by most people.

At 1/29/10 11:56 PM, poxpower wrote: Of course it's debatable if Mormons believe in Christ or not. I guess it starts to be something else eventually.

My understanding was they did...I mean, wasn't it Jesus that was supposed to have given the Gold Plates to Joseph Smith? But Mormons do pretty much almost constitute another branch of the Judeo Christian family since they differ from everybody else in just about every conceivable way (especially a fundamentalist Mormon).

At 1/29/10 10:10 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:

At 1/29/10 03:05 PM, Saxturbation wrote: It seems that what it comes down to is numbers. Christianity basically rules the religious world, I mean seriously it's huge.

If you include Christian off-shoots like Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism (etc...) then yes, it is the biggest. However as a Christian I can tell you with authority that these are not denominations of Christianity but are different religions. They may have the same roots but all too often they are corrupted. When you take that into account Islam comes out on top, and it's also probably the most dangerous and hateful religion.

I do count those as Christian. I mean they all believe that God is god and Jesus Christ was the savior, regardless of their specific rules and beliefs. And also Islam has its own denominations that split it into separate groups yet they are one.

If we counted different groups as certain religions there would be way too many religions to count.

At 1/29/10 11:49 PM, Warforger wrote: Its a form of Christianity anyway, there are thoasands of different ways or worshipping the Jewish teacher, but in the end, as long as your holy book is the BIble and you believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, then your a Christian, and since God hasn't come out and said "Um your wrong, actually I meant to say this.."etc.

Well... it gets worse. First I don't mean to sound hostile or on the other hand overly defensive, I only care about the truth.

There are as you say thousands of ways that people have come up with to worship Christ but a very small percentage actually involve what He taught. Many go well beyond what He taught, taking His teachings to extremes or ritualizing them to the point that they lose their meaning or pervert them beyond recognition. Others leave huge chunks out. Some "Christian" denominations or cults (as it sometimes becomes) don't actually believe he died on the cross. Some early Gnostics believed he "only appeared to hang on the cross" but didn't actually die for our sins (among many other blatently false teachings). There are scores of "forbidden gospels" that were written many decades after Christ actually lived and died that attempt to remove His deity and/or His accomplishment.

Which leads us to the next issue. It is well known that the Bible has many different versions but what is not well known is that many of them say different things. You can find Christ in all of them but many of the "modern translations" change things around or leave them out completely to try and diminish His deity and/or accomplishment. The Latin Vulgate (which is many centuries old) and the Douay-Rheims Bibles (those are Catholic versions) are among the most corrupt, protestants however use equally corrupt version such as the 'American Standard Version' the 'New International Version' and many more. In fact there are entire lines of Bibles. The lines that most of the "modern translations" and the Catholic versions use are derived from ancient gnostic bibles which were specifically altered to remove the deity of Christ. The Textus Receptus line (or 'received text'), from which the King James Version is derived remains the least corrupted with only a handful of small translation errors which are well known.

I am not saying people who use any of the 'corrupted' Bibles are not Christian, in fact many of them are but simply ignorant of the errors they are reading through. My point is that people who say they follow Christ or the teachings of the Bible aren't necessarily Christians. The lines of corrupted Bibles leave room for false doctrine and in some cases leave room to deny the deity of Christ and/or His accomplishment. Sometimes people will say they believe in Christ but change who He is to benefit their own artificial doctrine.

And just for fun lets go through some comparisons to illustrate what I'm talking about:

King James Version (KJV) - Matthew 18:11 ["Son of Man" is a title used of Christ in the New Testament]
New International Version (NIV)- Matthew 18:11
Oops, looks like somethings missing, lets see if you can spot it... :P

KJV - Luke 4:4
NIV - Luke 4:4
This time only part of the verse is missing.

KJV - Luke 2:14
NIV - Luke 2:14
This time they added to the verse...
The Douay-Rheims version alters this verse by saying "Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will."

I hope this was informative :)

I have a notebook with over a hundred of these listed and there are hundreds more that I don't have listed. If anyone wants more examples I'd be happy to oblige.

-----------

At 1/30/10 01:07 AM, Saxturbation wrote: I do count those as Christian. I mean they all believe that God is god and Jesus Christ was the savior, regardless of their specific rules and beliefs.

This is what I'm currently arguing, that this is not necessarily so.

And also Islam has its own denominations that split it into separate groups yet they are one.

Indeed... and I don't know enough about Islamic denominations to argue this point further. However unless I'm mistaken (which is very possible) they all believe in the same 'god' Allah and that Mohamed was his prophet. This is in contrast to different 'Christian' religions where they may use the same names but have different attributes associated with God essentially changing which god they believe in. Perhaps Islam has the same problem though... Still, Islam would seem like a more logical target for atheists. However as you kind of implied it probably has more to do with personal reasons why most atheists go after Christianity. I just don't think it has much to do with size, at least not directly.

At 1/30/10 01:57 AM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: My point is that people who say they follow Christ or the teachings of the Bible aren't necessarily Christians.

I could have sworn pox already addressed this.

But I'll toss myself in here too.

"Christian" is a parent group. Representing any particular brand of Christianity as wrong (to varying degrees) by refusing to acknowledge it as part of the parent group is semantic and self-righteous bullshit.

Hu Jintao created the universe, end of discussion.

Americans always have to debate while China reaches its conclusions quickly!

At 1/30/10 07:21 AM, ChinaGrounds wrote: Hu Jintao created the universe, end of discussion.

Americans always have to debate while China reaches its conclusions quickly!

kind of makes you wonder how the great leap forward didn't kill even more people.

At 1/30/10 02:38 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: I could have sworn pox already addressed this.

But I'll toss myself in here too.

"Christian" is a parent group. Representing any particular brand of Christianity as wrong (to varying degrees) by refusing to acknowledge it as part of the parent group is semantic and self-righteous bullshit.

I don't mean to be anal about this but were talking about two things here. You are talking about 'the label of Christianity', I'm talking about 'the meaning of Christianity'. From your point of view I can see where this would be semantics but understand that it's the meaning behind the label that is the reason for the label in the first place and using the label to describe a religion without the meaning is false labeling.

To put it a different way, there are "Christian" religions out there that are either ignorant or that blatantly lie by using that label. These religions are not truly "Christian" because they don't have the meaning behind the label to back it up. If you want to group all these together that's up to you, just know you wont get very far in understanding Christianity until you recognize the deception of grouping all "Christian" religions together. There is a very big, very important, essential separation there.

At the risk of making this post entirely too long... One of the reasons this is important is because people who claim to be Christians and shoot up abortion clinics are not really Christians despite using (and subsequently corrupting) that label.

At 1/30/10 01:36 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: I don't mean to be anal about this but were talking about two things here. You are talking about 'the label of Christianity', I'm talking about 'the meaning of Christianity'. From your point of view I can see where this would be semantics but understand that it's the meaning behind the label that is the reason for the label in the first place and using the label to describe a religion without the meaning is false labeling.

but then again the meaning is used to justify the label whether or not the meaning and label are the same as others, i.e. Mormonism; their meaning behind their calling themselves Christian may not match the more common interpretations but they chose to self-label themselves according to how they identify themselves. thats not fals labelling.
for one group to say it has the rights to the true meaning of Christianity over another is extremely bigotted.

Atheism Vs. Theism Topic....
Excuse me for bringing this into the conversation but have you guys ever been introduced to Buddhism?
To most people who don't know jack shit about Buddhism: Don't be afraid, its not a religion.
Buddhism is actually Science of Mind. It's a philosophy.
-philo = love
-sophy = wisdom
So Yes, Buddhism is definitely a philosophy.
It teaches to live in the present moment, and to not even waste time and effort trying to learn where we came from or who or what may have made or created us. Whatever the story of our creation may be, it is still irrelevant to the present moment of our lives.
I'm not exactly what you may call a Buddhist... (I believe real buddhists are monks, and only monks)
But I have attained enlightenment through Buddhism and I learned and teach the philosophy.

So what are Atheists View on Buddhism (Buddhism is the answer to all your problems)?
And what are Theists View on Buddhism (Nope, there is no divine being in Buddhism)?

At 1/30/10 02:47 PM, Creek wrote: Atheism Vs. Theism Topic....
Excuse me for bringing this into the conversation but have you guys ever been introduced to Buddhism?
To most people who don't know jack shit about Buddhism: Don't be afraid, its not a religion.

i'd love to know where you get your info from.
re%u22C5li%u22C5gion
-noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Buddhism is actually Science of Mind. It's a philosophy.
-philo = love
-sophy = wisdom
So Yes, Buddhism is definitely a philosophy.

most religions are based on philosophies and the seeking of "wisdom".

It teaches to live in the present moment, and to not even waste time and effort trying to learn where we came from or who or what may have made or created us. Whatever the story of our creation may be, it is still irrelevant to the present moment of our lives.

not really, considering how past actions will determine our ability to see beyond the mirage of reality.
you may want to reread your philosophy.

At 1/30/10 01:36 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: I don't mean to be anal about this but were talking about two things here. You are talking about 'the label of Christianity', I'm talking about 'the meaning of Christianity'. From your point of view I can see where this would be semantics but understand that it's the meaning behind the label that is the reason for the label in the first place and using the label to describe a religion without the meaning is false labeling.

Yes well...

Your dichotomy doesn't even use parallel terms, and later on you seem to decide that 'label' by convention of your dichotomy no longer is inherently false. Unless you're just being redundant for emphasis when you say "false label." And then on top of that still decide to ignore hierarchy.

... so don't worry. You're not being anal. I am.

recognize the deception of grouping all "Christian" religions together.

Is the kiwi a bird? Yes. Yes it is.

Why won't you recognize that Christianity is not itself a denomination of Christianity? And that denomination solves EXACTLY the problem you're talking about?

Oh right...

and subsequently corrupting

... because it's self-fulfilling semantic bullshit for the sake of self-righteousness. You flatten the hierarchy to invent a semantic problem, so you can juggle semantics to come out the only "true" one. Or. As the only true one via a flattened hierarchy, you must maintain that the hierarchy is flat.

It's contrived disassociation. It's abusing a label to say "we are not like them." It's disingenuous because, by convention of "you are both Christians," it's not even being said that you are exactly the same (like for instance that you'll go shoot up abortion clinics). And this get's us back to self-fulfilling garbage, as you seem to have decided that that's what it must mean.

There can be more than one. This isn't the highlander.

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/29/10 01:28 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 1/29/10 12:41 AM, TransparentPresence wrote:

...One would conclude that the atheist denounces the existance of the supernatural because it is something the atheist really fears, because the supernatural is something that the atheist cannot control.

And the natural? Do you consider people to be natural, or supernatural?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no. For thousands of years religion has been an excuse for hatred, genocide, conquests and suffering

As well as the vehicle for compassion, love, peace and empathy.

Yes, but you don't need religion to have compassion, love peace and empathy, religion motivates people to extremes, so its responsible for what was listed above, true you don't need religion to have hatred, genocide, conquest and suffering, but it sure as hell does that.

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

be it the back and forth massacres of Christians and Muslims in the Balkans, to the Nazi's and the Holocaust, religion has been the source for the deaths of countless people. If these people are "happy" let me know.

They are. Why wouldn't they be?

funny

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Your argument is pretty similar to the "I know God is real, so I don't need to prove it", its saying that just because atheists are thinking differently then religious people that they are wrong and just because its a long handled tradition its true.

It's true to believers. If you don't believe it to be true, does it then become false?

Whoa, so If I believe I'm banging Jessica Alba and nuking Japan while deleting the internets by dividing by 0 its true to me? Damn I should do this more often.

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Your forgetting that the tooth fairy and santa claus are no more plausible then God

Are the tooth fairy and santa claus fake to children who believe? And if their parents embody every tangible aspect of either, does that then make their parents "fake" and invalid?

Do they go into there homes in real life take there teeth, provide them with money and presents in real life? If not then there not real no matter how much you believe.

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

and keep in mind people have killed themselves because they'll never see the James Cameroons Avatar world, obviously people will believe anything there raised to believe.

We are products of our environments, yes, though your assertion that people will believe anything there [sic] raised to believe is stupendously moronic.

Um yah
http://images.google.com/images?q=God%20 hates%20fags&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&r lz=1R1GGGL_en___US345&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N &hl=en&tab=wi
This is not including the remaining Nazi's out there.

Now they can change there minds later on, but really at least half the time it doesn't happen.

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

The post used no evidence to prove he is real because there isn't any, and like I've constantly restated in this thread, if I make up a religion it is no more valid then Christianity.

Valid, or real?

Both. Like I said, the Force has had no trouble recruiting members (the Star Wars Force) as well as Scientology (created by a science fiction writer).

At 1/30/10 02:47 PM, Creek wrote: To most people who don't know jack shit about Buddhism: Don't be afraid, its not a religion.
Buddhism is actually Science of Mind. It's a philosophy.
-philo = love
-sophy = wisdom
So Yes, Buddhism is definitely a philosophy.

**Philos, sophia. Sorry, if I don't correct those, my professors will cry in their sleep.

And no, it's a religion.
Confucianism is a philosophy.
Pragmatism is a philosophy.
Existentialism is a philosophy.

Buddhism is a religion.
Sikhism is a religion.
Christianity is a religion.
Shinto is a religion.

While there is a certain degree of crossover between philosophical tenants and religions tenants, Buddhism has definitely crossed that border.

And as Sol said, they all purport some stance of wider Truth, Light, or Wisdom.

At 1/29/10 10:27 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/29/10 10:19 PM, Warforger wrote: as long as they believe the core beliefs.

Mormons fall pretty damn far though

Roman Catholicism was just the brand of Christianity that survived. There are extinct sects that make Mormons look normal, and Catholics look batshit insane. Bottom line, they ALL fall pretty damn far, to the point we may wonder whether we're even talking about the same tree.

Notice that before Nicaea, there's just big ???? as to what composed Imperial Christianity.
That said, after Nicaea, Roman Catholicism is the "closest" branch to what we, as far as can be told, is the "real" Christianity.

At 1/16/10 10:50 AM, Grizzli wrote: My biggest problem with religion, is not the idea of god, worshiping Him, yadda yadda yadda. Its the
corruption of the Church, and the political immunity that goes with.

God I am so sick of this argument. Fred Phelps is a BAPTIST for FUCK'S SAKE!
You know? Westboro BAPTIST Church? The God hates gays people?
Bush? Methodist.
Clinton? Methodist.
Nixon? He was a fuckin Quaker (explains quite a few things actually).
How about those KKK fucks? Protestants.

No, the "good ol' Catholic" boys we have are Bill O'Reilly and JFK. Only two I can think of anyways.

Yes, Crusades, Inquisition, non-involvement against Nazis, touching little boys. I know, I know.

But if your biggest complaint is that the RCC is corrupt, then you're in need of rehabilitation....preferably the kind involving electroconvulsive therapy.

Catholics are nuts.....but it's the Protestants you need to watch out for. Unless you're English, in which case, you need to watch out for Catholics (because the IRA are all good ol Catholic boys.)

:Notice that before Nicaea, there's just big ???? as to what composed Imperial Christianity.
That said, after Nicaea, Roman Catholicism is the "closest" branch to what we, as far as can be told, is the "real" Christianity.

That should read "TO the 'real' Christianity".
Damn, that's a really big typo....

I damn sure don't want to insinuate the claim that Roman Catholicism is the "correct" path of Christianity. If anything, I'm claiming the true path is long gone.

At 1/30/10 09:11 PM, Imperator wrote: Yes, non-involvement against Nazis I know, I know.

Hitler and the Nazi's were strongly Christian, Roman Catholic to be precise. I looked up if HItler and the Nazi's were Atheist or Christian a while ago, all sources which said he was Christian orginated from German sources, speech's, photo's and even Mien Kampf, while the source saying Athiest was a book, written in Oxford Britain, in 1941, its obvious he was a radical Christian.

At 1/30/10 01:40 PM, SolInvictus wrote: but then again the meaning is used to justify the label whether or not the meaning and label are the same as others, i.e. Mormonism; their meaning behind their calling themselves Christian may not match the more common interpretations but they chose to self-label themselves according to how they identify themselves. thats not fals labelling.
for one group to say it has the rights to the true meaning of Christianity over another is extremely bigotted.

Jesus Himself said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

This at first seems pretty simple, it's pretty much Christianity summed up in a single verse (there's more of course, but this is an essential). The trouble comes when people try and change things around. Maybe they'll take this allegorically so they can choose their own path (like my crazy aunt). Or maybe they'll keep the name Jesus Christ but change His attributes around making Him less than He really is. That way you can fool people into thinking they are following Christ but really they are following some made up deity that shares the same name.

Regardless of how they distort it the result is always the same, something different than what they began with. Or something different than Christianity. I simply don't acknowledge that the definition for Christianity can be expanded to accommodate the distortions. If that makes me a bigot then so be it.

-----------

At 1/30/10 03:45 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: ... so don't worry. You're not being anal. I am.

I'm very sorry that you seemed to have taken offense to my response, I'm only trying to help you understand why everyone who labels themselves as 'Christian' is not really a Christian. I harbor no ill will toward you personally. I just wanted you to know :)

... because it's self-fulfilling semantic bullshit for the sake of self-righteousness. You flatten the hierarchy to invent a semantic problem, so you can juggle semantics to come out the only "true" one. Or. As the only true one via a flattened hierarchy, you must maintain that the hierarchy is flat.

It's contrived disassociation. It's abusing a label to say "we are not like them." It's disingenuous because, by convention of "you are both Christians," it's not even being said that you are exactly the same (like for instance that you'll go shoot up abortion clinics). And this get's us back to self-fulfilling garbage, as you seem to have decided that that's what it must mean.

There can be more than one. This isn't the highlander.

First of all, I'm not being smug or arrogant about this, unwaivering yes but please don't think I'm being self-righteous when I'm being a realist.

Anyway, we aren't talking about a 21st century little league soccer game where "everyones a winner just for trying". Either you win or you lose - either you are right or you are wrong. Either you are a Christian or you are something else despite how close you may come or how similar you may seem. (Yeah, I know it took a while for that analogy to come full circle. :P ) You may group us all together and that's your business but look closer and you are going to find glaring differences.

Furthermore I am not inventing anything, I am only pointing out the reality that labeling yourself a Christian does not make you a Christian. There is no room within the definition of Christianity to accommodate people who don't fit the original definition. So yes, there can be only one!

---

I do understand what you and SolInvictus are saying and I will admit that I mostly just don't like it. However it does take away from what it means to be a true Christian. Ultimately it doesn't matter for me personally because I know for myself who and what I am, but I'm sick of the ignorance of someone arguing against Christianity when they mean Catholicism or some other offshoot religion / cult. Christianity is indeed an entity unto itself, I'm just trying to shed the parasites (so to speak).

At 1/30/10 10:42 PM, Warforger wrote:
Hitler and the Nazi's were strongly Christian, Roman Catholic to be precise.

The start.

in 1941, its obvious he was a radical Christian.

The end.

It's always good to start a paragraph with "X=y" and then talk for a while....then by the end of the paragraph say "yeah, so as I was saying, X=/=y". Oh wait, no it's really, really not.

If he's a radical Christian, that's one thing. If he's Roman Catholic (dunno where you heard that, cause Hitler executed quite a few Roman Catholics), that's another.

But let me just say you're the first person I've heard to refer to Hitler and Nazis at large as Roman Catholic.....And that's not a compliment.

Most complaints I hear are over Pius' lax statements and stance against the Holocaust, and the Vatican's general lack of action (the Vatican saved about 400 Jewish people). "Blind eye" is what I hear, not "Hitler was a Roman Catholic".

Would LOVE to see a source for that, if only for the pleasure of destroying it.

At 1/30/10 11:00 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: I'm very sorry that you seemed to have taken offense to my response, I'm only trying to help you understand why everyone who labels themselves as 'Christian' is not really a Christian. I harbor no ill will toward you personally. I just wanted you to know :)

Because ill will specifically toward me is the only thing that could possibly be frustrating about talking to you.

Listen. We get your point. We're on the next step here: evaluating it.

Anyway, we aren't talking about a 21st century little league soccer game where "everyones a winner just for trying". Either you win or you lose - either you are right or you are wrong.

Which is an IRRELEVENT DILEMMA to calling Catholisism a form of Christianity.

Either you are a Christian or you are something else despite how close you may come or how similar you may seem. (Yeah, I know it took a while for that analogy to come full circle. :P ) You may group us all together and that's your business but look closer and you are going to find glaring differences.
[...]
There is no room within the definition of Christianity to accommodate people who don't fit the original definition. So yes, there can be only one!

So I'll ask again...

Why won't you recognize that Christianity is not itself a denomination of Christianity? And that denomination solves EXACTLY the problem you're talking about?

I mean... did you get the kiwi thing at all?

Furthermore I am not inventing anything, I am only pointing out the reality that labeling yourself a Christian does not make you a Christian.

No. You're doing a bit more than that.

It's going to be hard to communicate with you if you're not honest.

I do understand what you and SolInvictus are saying and I will admit that I mostly just don't like it.

So what? We should let you make shit up and agree with it while you feed it to us because otherwise you'd feel uncomfortable? You didn't say, "Hey guys, I don't like the world is like A and not B." You said, "Hey guys the world is like B, not A."

At 1/30/10 11:00 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Jesus Himself said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

this is what Jesus himself said, related to us through convention.

At 1/28/10 08:46 PM, Grizzli wrote: I didnt mean that, i meant that there have been alot of people who have said "God doesnt exist because of this this and this, so (insert arrogant remark here)".

Oh. Who in this thread has done that?

At 1/30/10 11:40 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/30/10 10:42 PM, Warforger wrote:
Hitler and the Nazi's were strongly Christian, Roman Catholic to be precise.

The start.

in 1941, its obvious he was a radical Christian.

The end.

It's always good to start a paragraph with "X=y" and then talk for a while....then by the end of the paragraph say "yeah, so as I was saying, X=/=y". Oh wait, no it's really, really not.

If he's a radical Christian, that's one thing. If he's Roman Catholic (dunno where you heard that, cause Hitler executed quite a few Roman Catholics), that's another.

But let me just say you're the first person I've heard to refer to Hitler and Nazis at large as Roman Catholic.....And that's not a compliment.

Most complaints I hear are over Pius' lax statements and stance against the Holocaust, and the Vatican's general lack of action (the Vatican saved about 400 Jewish people). "Blind eye" is what I hear, not "Hitler was a Roman Catholic".

Would LOVE to see a source for that, if only for the pleasure of destroying it.

Hahahahahaha
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/hitler_c ardinal4.jpg

At 1/31/10 03:10 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/30/10 06:31 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no. For thousands of years religion has been an excuse for hatred, genocide, conquests and suffering

As well as the vehicle for compassion, love, peace and empathy.

Yes, but you don't need religion to have compassion, love peace and empathy,

Thank you for helping to refute your own erroneous claim. Hatred, genocide, conquests and suffering are all agents seperate from religion. Power is the true source of all those negative (and positive) things. We all have the power to fulfill any of these; recognizing God may help a more beneficial fulfillment. Or hurt it.

It's up to you. Think about it.

Yes, the problem is that religion motivated hatred conquests and genocide, yes there could be genocide hatred and conquests without religion, but religion sure has caused alot of it, or at least been a tool.

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

be it the back and forth massacres of Christians and Muslims in the Balkans, to the Nazi's and the Holocaust, religion has been the source for the deaths of countless people. If these people are "happy" let me know.

They are. Why wouldn't they be?

funny

Not really. Arguing from the ridiculous isn't very effective either. Just so you know..

.....What?

At 1/31/10 03:10 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: It's true to believers. If you don't believe it to be true, does it then become false?

Whoa, so If I believe I'm banging Jessica Alba and nuking Japan while deleting the internets by dividing by 0 its true to me? Damn I should do this more often.

Have you ever ejaculated to pictures of others? Watched people being bombed and noticed companies crashing? They happen, ya know.

Thank you for completely missing the point.

At 1/31/10 03:10 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Your forgetting that the tooth fairy and santa claus are no more plausible then God

Are the tooth fairy and santa claus fake to children who believe? And if their parents embody every tangible aspect of either, does that then make their parents "fake" and invalid?

Do they go into there homes in real life take there teeth, provide them with money and presents in real life? If not then there not real no matter how much you believe.

So if your parents perform the roles of tooth fairy and santa claus, yet don't fit your preconcieved notion of a fat man crawling through a chimney or a flying tooth collector, the reality is never really there?

If what you say is true (and it isn't), then Jim Carrey ceased to exist when he starred as the Grinch Who Stole Chirstmas.

No, the parents did the actions, but the parents are lying to there children that he exists, its just really cool to see a fat ass wobble his way down the chimney looking like a robber and instead of stealing, eats food in exchange for giving presents, or some sparkly bitch getting your teeth (what would she want with that?) and paying you as though she were a prostitute.

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

and keep in mind people have killed themselves because they'll never see the James Cameroons Avatar world, obviously people will believe anything there raised to believe.

We are products of our environments, yes, though your assertion that people will believe anything there [sic] raised to believe is stupendously moronic.

Um yah

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Tell me with a straight face that the people in those pictures are going to turn atheist or to another religion in the future, because that sure as hell is not very viable.

At 1/29/10 08:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

The post used no evidence to prove he is real because there isn't any, and like I've constantly restated in this thread, if I make up a religion it is no more valid then Christianity.

Valid, or real?

Both. Like I said, the Force has had no trouble recruiting members (the Star Wars Force) as well as Scientology (created by a science fiction writer).

I don't think you quite understand what valid or real really mean. And I'm not the guy to try to teach you. Sorry.

Valid as in, there beliefs make as much sense as yours and should be treated as such, and real as in if its really fucking there, using your logic just because someone believes in something its there for them, but when I bring up new religions which are also insane you laugh at them and tell me there false because they haven't been around for as long as the more widespread ones.

At 1/31/10 12:51 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Which is an IRRELEVENT DILEMMA to calling Catholisism a form of Christianity.

It is relevant, just bear with me...
To be Christian is to have a personal relationship with God, to be saved, to have faith, to believe in Him and His word. There are some individuals in Catholicism who qualify but this is not inherently taught in their doctrine, therefore Catholicism is not Christian, it simply does not qualify. The problem is that Catholicism lies and deceives people into thinking they are Christian on the basis that they believe in Christ. However there's more to it than that, you actually have to follow His teachings (along with the above mentioned conditions). For example, the Bible teaches that salvation is through faith and not works, this is one of the most basic and fundamental principles of Christianity that Catholicism itself ignores.

To use an analogy, if you take a car and gut the interior leaving only the frame and wheels but no functionality as a car, and fill it with... tuna (or whatever) do you still have a car? Well it looks like a car from the outside and you even have someone trying to sell it to you as a car but look closer and your going to smell the rotten fish and quickly realize it is a deception.

So I'll ask again...

Why won't you recognize that Christianity is not itself a denomination of Christianity? And that denomination solves EXACTLY the problem you're talking about?

Because there would be no truth in that statement.

You cannot change essential biblical doctrine around and still be left with Christianity. You cannot Change the definition of Christianity or what it means to be Christian and still be left with Christianity. You cannot add to it or take anything away and still be left with Christianity. It is a very narrow, singular path, it is one truth and one way. I am talking about the meaning behind Christianity, the Label has been abused and used to deceive well intentioned, would be followers of Christ. I don't like that so I am arguing against all these pretend, parasitic "Christian" religions being Christian in the first place.

I mean... did you get the kiwi thing at all?

Yeah, it was cute :) Refer to car analogy though.

It's going to be hard to communicate with you if you're not honest.

...?
Could you please point out where I have seemed to contradict myself so I may clarify?

So what? We should let you make shit up and agree with it while you feed it to us because otherwise you'd feel uncomfortable? You didn't say, "Hey guys, I don't like the world is like A and not B." You said, "Hey guys the world is like B, not A."

I said "mostly". If I didn't not like it then I wouldn't care and wouldn't be here debating what I am. That was a brief explanation of my motives not a confession of making something up... Quite to the contrary, I am trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, I thought understanding my motives might be helpful. Sorry for the confusion.

-----------

At 1/31/10 01:16 AM, SolInvictus wrote: this is what Jesus himself said, related to us through convention.

Actually historical documentation preserved through multiple lines of biblical texts, verifiable through archaeological discoveries (I speak primarily of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Convention has only been a tool in preserving the text containing the recorded words of Jesus Christ (among other things).

At 1/30/10 11:00 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Jesus Himself said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

The big book says he did. Outside of the Bible what do we have to back any of that up really? Even the big book doesn't always agree on what he said. Not to mention the big book is written after Paul's version of Christianity takes root (the one that makes Jesus God as a man...prior to that he was a rebel leader trying to stake a claim to the Throne of David, or so I've read). That's the problem with this kind of quotation. We don't have unimpeachable sources that Jesus said these things.

This at first seems pretty simple, it's pretty much Christianity summed up in a single verse (there's more of course, but this is an essential). The trouble comes when people try and change things around. Maybe they'll take this allegorically so they can choose their own path (like my crazy aunt). Or maybe they'll keep the name Jesus Christ but change His attributes around making Him less than He really is. That way you can fool people into thinking they are following Christ but really they are following some made up deity that shares the same name.

It's still Christianity because the central tenant is a belief in Christ's divinity and that he is making a place for you in his Father's Kingdom after death. You're splitting hairs like Bach said and making it to where your definition is the correct one, but any one you don't like isn't. Just because you perceive it to be radical (and in truth it may be radical) doesn't mean it's something different but with the same name. Christianity has always been a rather fractal religion. The biggest reason Roman Catholicism was invented was because Emperor Constantine realized he had converted to a religion that did not in fact have one voice, and if he was to be Emperor and make his religion official, it HAD to have a single voice. So he did that, then The Protestants looked to reform it and that movement has become fractal as way. But as long as they still keep the central points about Jesus then they are in fact Christians. Just because you don't like them doesn't exclude them, it is a bigoted viewpoint to think or say otherwise. Just because it's your truth, does not make it THE truth.

Regardless of how they distort it the result is always the same, something different than what they began with. Or something different than Christianity. I simply don't acknowledge that the definition for Christianity can be expanded to accommodate the distortions. If that makes me a bigot then so be it.

See above about how just because something is you're truth, doesn't make it the truth. You're truth anyway is a distortion and a differentiation of what Christianity began as, so already you've changed the definition to fit a distortion (and no, just because it's been a couple thousand years doesn't absolve you of the fact that you're being a hypocrite right now in saying you can't accept the distortions of others when you're beliefs depend on a fundamental distortion to begin with).

Also, what you're doing is very much self-righteous. "My way is the right way, if I don't agree with it, it's the wrong way" how is that NOT self-righteousness?

You know, I always thought Hitler operated under the guise of being a Christian so he could revive the old pagan Norse religion after they won WWII. Himmler, Hitler, and other Nazis displayed great interest in the occult, Himmler in particular believing that children conceived in Nordic cemeteries would be imbued with the souls of heroes buried there, and published a list of "suitable" cemeteries to conceive children in. The Nazis also sought out Astrologers(considered heretical to Christian dogma) to predict Allied troop movements and had a few theories that are not consistent with Christianity's main accounts and claims of the universe, such as the World Ice Theory(incompatible with the biblical account of creation) and that the Aryan race came to Earth on a comet(incompatible with the biblical account of the creation of man).

From the use of Nazi and Nordic symbols and runes to the revival of ancient German rituals, it's safe to say the Nazis were anything but truly Christian.

At 1/31/10 04:52 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: From the use of Nazi and Nordic symbols and runes to the revival of ancient German rituals, it's safe to say the Nazis were anything but truly Christian.

Come on, this is stupid. Does Catholics qualify as Christian? What about Lutherans? What about Mormons? What about any other sect of Christianity except your own?

There have been tons of modifications to Christianity throughout the ages. Why should this particular modification be skipped as not being true Christianity? From what I've read, Hitler never messed up the core message of Jesus, saying that he was one of many ways to salvation, or that he wasn't really the son of God. The additions you speak of are very minor.

If Hitler's brand of Christianity doesn't qualify as Christian because of some runes and other symbols being used, then YOUR Christianity doesn't qualify either, since you celebrate pagan holidays like Easter and Christmas. Congratulations, you are a fake Christian.

At 1/31/10 04:04 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: therefore Catholicism is not Christian,

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Just out of interest, ThunderBoltLegion - have you read the bible in its original Hebrew/Greek? You keep talking about this idea that any alteration makes it 'not Christianity'. Well, believe it or not, you are reading a TRANSLATION, which will inevitably be different from the source text, even if the translator did a perfect job (some concepts just don't translate completely). That's assuming that they did a perfect job, and didn't re-interpret any of the things that they said. That's assuming that they weren't human. And they were. If you want to understand God and are TRULY a Christian, I suggest you start learning some hebrew.

And don't tell me you have more important things to do. This is God, we're talking about. To you, this should be the most important thing in the world. After all, it would be terrible to live your life based on something that clearly isn't the word of God (or even close).