Intelligence Squared Debate - Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the World?

reply to post by spellbound

Because I want to make more people aware of Jesus.

But people (even atheists) are fully aware of jesus and many are fully aware of the multitude of jesus s (plural jesi ?). They become aware of this character by reading the bibles, needless to say they reject them based on critical investigation.

Or if you do not believe in Jesus, to follow His principles.

Millions of people do in fact live in a similar manner, the things the jesus character was practicing and teaching are not unique to this character as we can see from our Buddhist friends.

If the world did what Jesus said we would not have wars or any other suffering.

Perhaps not as more than a few of his "alleged sayings" conflict with common decency I would imagine that they could be accredited to later scribes, we simply do not know, as there was no eye witness testimony or corroborative evidence.

By the way you still haven't clarified why it's impossible to love everyone.

So, when I speak of Christians I'm talking about people that subscribe to the idea that the bibles give a true account of events and characters contained within them.

I've noticed that that sort of definition is especially popular among those who profess the atheist faith.

Biblical focus, also called sola scriptura, is a feature of Protestant Christianity, and not universal there (Anglicans, for example, seem to debate this doctrine among themselves). The majority of living Christians (whether accounted by self-description, or by profession of the Nicean Creed) are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Eastern Rite Catholic.

These churches supplement Biblical study mainly with Tradition (in the East, Holy Tradition), which cashes out largely as non-canonical early church writings, plus later commentaries on the entire Christian deposit of faith.

It is a little strange to have a thread about Roman Catholics that defines them as non-Christian. That ends the game before it begins, since their own standard of goodness is rooted in being faithful to the Christ as they understand him.

Whatever floats your boat, of course.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Now there's a challenge! why dont you try, I's sure Moocowman would be up for it.

Actually I have in the past on ATS offered to become an xtian for 6 months, I informed my close friend who is a devout xtian that I was willing to give it a go for a couple of weeks.

The first hurdle was, where's the benefit why on earth should I want to live like someone that is no happier than me ?

Perhaps I'm just too thick to get it, dunno matey seems a very complicated way to think and live.

reply to post by eight bits

I've noticed that that sort of definition is especially popular among those who profess the atheist faith.

How the hell do you manage to construe that, not believing something is in fact believing something without requiring any evidence ?

reply to post by spellbound



Buddhism -is- a religion.

The same link also says that some "scholars" do not believe "Buddhism Dharma" to be a religion. Whatever.

The word religion - means "back to the origin". Buddhism started with Siddhartha Gautama, a Hindu, who sought enlightenment and "achieved it." He then started talking about the ways that Hinduism wasn't fulfilling enough and would explain how everything is "supposed to be".

I would like to point out that Buddhists worship the image of Buddha. That...seems religious. Not to mention very bad.

Religion wars... how absurd.

Careful not to lump Jesus with Buddhism. Do some REAL research into what it is to be a Buddhist.

Careful to listen to people who claim that Christianity is not a religion, because it is. It is a way of getting "back to the origin" through Christ. The origin being God, YHWH, of course.

Careful to listen to people who claim that Jesus was simply a moral teacher. If Jesus had only been a moral teacher, He probably would have wanted to stick around and preach longer and wouldn't have handed himself over to the Romans silently. He would have kept rambling on even as He was being taken away. He would have tried and tried and tried. But, simply enough, He didn't have to try. He had a PURPOSE. It is not a bad thing to attempt to teach morals to people, but His purpose was to FULFILL THE LAW. Read up on Jewish law and you'll understand that He wasn't just some goodie-two-shoes running amuck splitting fish to the last of their half-lives and curing cancers. These are things He did partially because He had compassion and He was compelled to do this things when presented with the opportunities... but MAINLY because He needed to show how He was sanctified. To a world full of spiritually and PHYSICALLY blind and deaf and dumb people, this was going to require some miracle work.

Does the Catholic church know what it's doing? Yes. Does it know that it is against Jesus? Absolutely. It says right there in our lovely and unamended Bible (unlike the many amendments the Vatican makes for its own holy documents), that the Kingdom of Heaven is already here, but we just cannot see it. I would like to point out also that the term VATICAN does not mean NEW JERUSALEM. Nor does it make sense for Jesus to rule out of the VATICAN, a country to itself.

As far as anyone having difficulty figuring out who the follower's of Christ are, if one is a follower of Christ, you WILL know. You won't have a doubt. You will feel an overwhelming sense of defensiveness, which people predictably allow to interfere with their sense of reasoning, and you will attempt to discredit that person until they are nothing but an evil memory. You might think they're really nice or really mean, but you'll never think that they're just a cool person. You might think that they're really smart or really dumb, but you'll never think that they're just clever. You will most definitely think that they are either extremely calm or extremely insane. But you will never think that they are just sane.

If you want to determine who is a follower of Christ, don't go based on denominations, or which Scripture they credit more, or human opinion. Check out their integrity. Make sure they are not bowing down to other people as a means of keeping peace, because that is NOT what Jesus did. He kept peace with silence, not kissing ass. Check out their fortitude. How much crap can they take without getting offended. How much does it take to make them run away? How much can you be wrong before they have to tell you that they are right?

If you want to determine who is a follower of Christ, you WILL know. But, if you are just saying that you want to determine who is a follower of Christ to simply get many people to make mistakes which would be easy to take advantage of in order to shut them down, then you seek not truth, but the glorification of your own intelligence, which ironically is not yours, but given to you.

If you truly seek the truth, you will find it. Those who have found the truth can see right through you. It's a very scary thing when you realize it. That everything that you've said and been so sure of... the people who really know, they know that you don't know. And a lot of the times, they just watch. Even beyond that, God is always watching, and He is wiser than us all so much that we're about as smart as a bat without sonar.

The Catholic church is very transparent. It's an abhorrence. The people who work for the Catholic church are VERY smart because they are able to say, "this is wrong" and "this is right" and they are correct 95% of the time... but, all it takes is to lead people to believe that the other 5% of stuff is okay when it's not, and they've got the whole denomination of believers by the gonads.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO LOVE EVERYONE. I love everyone. I may want to smack people, but that doesn't mean I don't love them. Jesus definitely wanted to smack people a few times. He chucked some tables, anyhow. God destroyed whole cultures. That doesn't mean He doesn't love his children, but that He had to do what He had to do in order to preserve what was left of His creation. If I ever have a child that is incredibly evil and does nothing but destroy and eventually starts to grow up into a completely selfish piece of crap, I will go as far as I can within my legal power to end that child's reign of terror. Now... maybe in not too long, it'll be illegal to hinder my child, which is ironic, because now I'm hindered from doing good while he runs amuck...Let's HOPE it doesn't get there.

Love is the most important thing. That does not mean that it is the ONLY thing. Logic, reason, compassion, and resolve are important. Just be wary of what you believe to be logic...



I had to take out erroneous information.
[edit on 11/17/2009 by TarzanBeta]

[edit on 11/17/2009 by TarzanBeta]

[edit on 11/17/2009 by TarzanBeta]

reply to post by woodwardjnr


You know what?

I don't care if Moo does or doesn't believe.

reply to post by TarzanBeta

God destroyed whole cultures. That doesn't mean He doesn't love his children, but that He had to do what He had to do in order to preserve what was left of His creation.

Wow, kind of a bizarre thing for a supposedly omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent/ (did I miss any omnis?) being to be doing don't you think ?

What exactly was this (omni everything ) god trying to preserve that which it created from ?

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

You know what?

I don't care if Moo does or doesn't believe.

Now you don't care about me, women !!

What's got into you Spellbound, I got an ex wife that taps her foot like that, stop it pleas I miss you already

reply to post by eight bits



You can keep the divide going with all those labels and terms and whatever you want to say.

The point is that the Bible that we have to day is the BIBLE THAT WE HAVE TODAY. Deal with it. As long as it is what we have to go on, that is what us Christians will go on. If there is ever a true and valid reason, which seems highly unlikely, that there will need to be brought to a light a certain text that is an anomaly and that there is proof from an earlier dated text to show that anomaly, which could only be a mistake in translation or transliteration, then we would tackle that. But, the people who have been transcribing these texts for thousands of years have been VERY painstaking in the process.

A lot of people say, "but, people make mistakes." Well, first of all, don't forget your mistake in thinking that you're NOT making a mistake by arguing against the Bible in order to discredit the existence of God. Secondly, I work. I do my job. I make a mistake VERY RARELY. How many people here make mistakes at their job on a regular basis? Why? Are you bored? Lazy? Are they real mistakes? Do you know what happens to someone who makes too many mistakes at a job? Demotion... Loss of job... etc? And that's for a job you don't even WANT! Now, imagine that you have taken it upon yourself to do this task, something that not only do you believe in, but you enjoy. You enjoy the learning, you enjoy being a part of the history of the transition of these documents from one culture to another. You enjoy sharing what you believe to be the best information on the planet. You want to make sure it's PERFECT. When you do not feel obligated, but you actually want to do something, you make even less mistakes. How many of you, when you go back and look at the thread that you just typed, find mistakes and correct them? How many leave their spelling errors? Not like posting on ATS is THAT important, but some people even hold that their threads on ATS are important and make sure that everything is correct in order that they do not sound like a complete fool.

EVEN MORE SO THE PEOPLE WHO TRANSCRIBED THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE VERY TEXTS THEY BELIEVE WERE WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO WERE SPIRITUALLY GUIDED BY THE VERY GOD THEY WORSHIP.

In short, if you believe that the Bible is full of mythology and mistakes, then SHOW the proof. It is more believable that people did a good job because people like to do a good job at their work. It is a lot less believable that a shoddy job would be more-or-less peer-reviewed and allowed to circulate - and beyond that, that someone would feel compelled to find a hiding spot for the infamous Dead Sea Scrolls, if in fact they were such shoddy pieces of work.

More history is proven from the Bible than any other "religious" text. It's not ALL proven, but there is enough evidence for me to suffice, if even I needed evidence other than my ability think and be honest.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by TarzanBeta

 

God destroyed whole cultures. That doesn't mean He doesn't love his children, but that He had to do what He had to do in order to preserve what was left of His creation.

Wow, kind of a bizarre thing for a supposedly omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent/ (did I miss any omnis?) being to be doing don't you think ?

What exactly was this (omni everything ) god trying to preserve that which it created from ?

Um... no, that's not bizarre at all. If you have a sense of justice, it makes sense. Your second question I cannot figure out exactly, but I think you're asking what was God trying to preserve...?

God created everything. God created the earth. The earth did nothing to deserve being overrun with poisonous people. The angels did nothing to deserve having to watch this planet be overrun with vile, selfish people. God did nothing wrong to deserve watching his children be a bunch of evil, pathetic, murderous, treacherous, whorish, sneaky, little rats all the time. The people were not listening. They had no regrets. They had no shame, no humility. They were a disgrace to their Father. Completely ABSURD! After countless days of letting people get away with what they were doing, finally He says, "NO MORE!" Crap, I would, too.

People are slowly advancing toward that stage again, too. I see it and it's very disturbing that people are becoming so disgusting. There's barely any true respect anymore, but simple politics to preserve some semblence of social health for our decomposing world.

I had to correct spelling errors.

[edit on 11/17/2009 by TarzanBeta]

reply to post by TarzanBeta


If u look closely at Buddhism you will find Bhudda is a teacher not a god.....

Originally posted by loner007
reply to post by TarzanBeta

 

If u look closely at Buddhism you will find Bhudda is a teacher not a god.....

If take a step back and look, you will find that the image of Bhudda is worshipped. Regardless of whether anyone claims that Buddha is a "god" or not, the act of worship denotes one's worthship over one's self. Making something higher than yourself, on a regular basis, is a ritual. For that ritual to be of any importance, you must believe that it is doing something for you, or that it is something you must do. For it to be something that you must do, that means it is something that is guiding you, which is bigger than you, or before you. For something to be before you, it must be closer to the origin than you are. If you are doing this for a PURPOSE, you are seeking to connect with your own personal beginnings.

It's a religion dude.

I just wanted to add that I am higher and more important than a piece of gravel. Or, as some people would refer to it, a sculpture.

Just curious... that same image that people pray to (I know, it's just a 'visual-aid'), would you allow it to be destroyed to save a stranger?

[edit on 11/17/2009 by TarzanBeta]

reply to post by TarzanBeta

quote from a buddist site

The Buddha. This is a title for those who have attained Nirvana. See also the Tathāgata and Gautama Buddha. The Buddha could also be represented as a concept instead of a specific person: the perfect wisdom that understands Dharma and sees reality in its true form. In Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha can be viewed as the supreme Refuge: 'Buddha is the Unique Absolute Refuge. Buddha is the Imperishable, Eternal, Indestructible and Absolute Refuge.'[95]

How the hell do you manage to construe that, not believing something is in fact believing something without requiring any evidence ?

("The hell?" Interesting choice of words, no?)

It took a moment to figure out what your reply had to do with my post. If you object to my in-passing use of the phrase atheist faith, then allow me to clarify. I undertand faith to be the claim of personally justified categorical belief about some supernatural question.

It is my impression that you profess to know, or to believe with a practical certainty, whether or nor God exists. That is a supernatural question.

If your views are otherwise, then please accept that my remark doesn't describe your views. It does describe the views of at least one of speakers mentioned in your original post, Mr Hitchens, who is a well-known evangelist of the faith in question.

However, if I was correct about your views, and you simply dislike plain words, then that is too bad. The usage is both polite and accurate. Who calls a spade a spade calls atheism a faith.

reply to post by loner007


Okay, so these guys attained "enlightenment", huh? Says who?

Meaning, did someone have to be enlightened before them to be able to tell them, "Oh, you've reach enlightenment!" No? Oh... so... then, someone just climbs under a tree for a -really- long time and says, "I GET IT! Holy Moley, it was right there the whole...psshhh. Can't wait to tell people 'bout it." Hmm...

Sorry to break it to you, but if someone is truly "enlightened" in the way that Buddhism claims, then who judges that these days? Who do you stand before to claim that you are enlightened? Can I walk around and just tell people, and therefore, I am? Or, do I just simply know for myself that I am enlightened. Well, if that's true, then how do we know of these guys who were supposedly "enlightened"?

God is true. God makes sense. God is the origin. From God came all things. God is the original. God is the Enlightener. God is the Indestructible. God is the refuge. GOD. Not the pope. God.

reply to post by moocowman


so what's your point, stephen fry's a good speaker?

it's not difficult to convince a group of people that have never needed the help of the catholic church or catholic organisations that it is not a force for good in the world, especially if that group of people are in a country that has spent a good chunk of its recent history persecuting catholics.

how about, instead of worrying about the morality of everybody else, like some puritanical 16th century bishop, you examine weather or not you are a force for good or ill in the world. as far as i can see, you seem to spend a lot of your time spreading your hate around to other people, do you think hate is morally superior?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by TarzanBeta

Um... no, that's not bizarre at all. If you have a sense of justice, it makes sense. Your second question I cannot figure out exactly, but I think you're asking what was God trying to preserve...?

Er no, I was simply observing that in order to preserve there needs to be the potential for loss.

If your god is the creator of all that there is then loss is simply impossible and preservation obsolete.

reply to post by pieman

Well Hi Pieman nice to see you too

as far as i can see, you seem to spend a lot of your time spreading your hate around to other people, do you think hate is morally superior?

There you go doing the hate thing again, I don't hate anybody my friend I don't know why you persist with this false idea.

No ones done any hating on this thread so far so why on earth are you trying to drum it up?

you examine weather or not you are a force for good or ill in the world.

Let's see, xtianity claims that the jesusyahweh god created "Everything" therefore there can be nothing that is not crated by this god.

Christianity also claims that "only" good comes from this particular god , so logically if this god created everything, that would include little old me, and as only good can come from this god then obviously I am a force for good.

There you go Pieman that should clear up your problem, well done for scriptures eh, the answers are obviously all there, I didn't even have to think about it.

reply to post by TarzanBeta


Buddhism is not a religion. There is no superior being that revealed himself to Gautama who then told others about it. There are gods and while they are very powerful they are not
all-powerful. No one god is in charge of the universe, although some of them think they are. This, from Buddhist prospective, is an illusion.

That being said, people constantly are turning Buddhism into a religion because of their propensities. That's fine, no one is going to hell for this. But just because people keep making a religion out of Buddhism it doesn't mean it is one. People will make a religion out of anything. Blame it on the "worship" gene that the pseudo-scientists get all exited about.

Even if there was such a gene, why is everyone sure "worship" is not a genetic disorder?
A genetic disorder to ensure our minds stay enslaved to whoever created the human species?





[edit on 17-11-2009 by tungus]