This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
That's not the point. The point is that you believe in God on faith, but disregard other equally valid concepts on faith (True story: I know someone who believed that unicorns existed but had been driven to extinction until she was seventeen, it was a childhood assumption that stuck and nobody ever got into the situation to tell her any different).
It's not used to show there's not enough evidence to believe in God, it's used to show why the burden of proof lies on the believer, simply because of the ridiculousness of the alternative.
That is faith. To demand evidence for something that someone has faith in, is as ridiculous as that person demanding proof from you to the contrary of their faith.I found
this article
tonight and was wondering how others might feel about it or what opinion they may have of the decisions made.
For me, it bothers me slightly because it seems to formulate a double standard on the requirements of priesthood.
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "double standard". Break it down for me. What about their joining the catholic church raises thoughts of double standards to you?
Post by
FatalHeaven
I found
this article
tonight and was wondering how others might feel about it or what opinion they may have of the decisions made.
For me, it bothers me slightly because it seems to formulate a double standard on the requirements of priesthood.
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "double standard". Break it down for me. What about their joining the catholic church raises thoughts of double standards to you?
Because they are married. Generally speaking, priests must be unmarried and celibate.
Post by
MyTie
Because they are married. Generally speaking, priests must be unmarried and celibate.
So the church put requirements on others that it didn't put on them? Why does that bother you?
I dunno. I see nothing in the Bible that requires celbacy. In fact, the Bible explicitly requires bishops to be married (
1 Tim 3:2
). So I don't buy anything from the Catholic Church, as it deviates from Christianity so severely. But, from my studies, most "churches" do.
Post by
FatalHeaven
So the church put requirements on others that it didn't put on them?
Why does that bother you?
Because I don't like double standards. If the catholic church is going to allow already married men to become priests then current priests should be allowed the same right. But they aren't. I'm not catholic and this doesn't affect my faith personally; I'm just saying it's slightly bothersome. I'm sure for people of catholic faith that there are some who are appalled.
I see nothing in the Bible that requires celibacy.
Maybe there isn't; but it IS in the catholic faith. No church, regardless of denomination should have double standards imo.
Post by
Magician22773
Both men said their conversions mark a success in the church’s goal of allowing married Episcopal priests to join the Catholic priesthood, one laid out by Pope John Paul II in 1981.
Im am pretty much with MyTie on the Catholic Church....and most other "churches" for that matter. I believe in God, and His word alone. It is one thing to "interpret" the Bible....as in translate it from ancient language into current dilect, but it is another thing to add to it, or focus on a small part of it, and design a religion around it. In the end, they worship God, and they believe in Christ, so I can't say that they are "wrong", but we have different ideas on how to worship. I believe in
Sola scriptura
, or "by scripture alone" as opposed to Catholics " Sacred Tradition and the episcopacy".
But, as for your article.....the Pope said it was OK, so, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, it is OK. Right or wrong, he makes the rules, and if he said its cool, than from a Catholic standpoint, it is.
Post by
MyTie
Maybe there isn't; but it IS in the catholic faith. No church, regardless of denomination should have double standards imo.
I'm not going to carte blanch say all double standards are wrong. I think there needs to be a reason for a double standard. I think men should be allowed to do certain kinds of work that women aren't, for instance. But double standards without reason, I hate that. I don't think women are to be preachers. It says in the Bible that women are to be silent in the Church. I believe the Bible. So there you go.
In the end, they worship God, and they believe in ChristI admire their will, but not their accuracy. I believe if someone truly believed in Christ, they would work a lot harder to make sure they were following His teachings. The problem is, they are not only failing at following in their own lives, but they are teaching it incorrectly. That's a big big problem in my book.
Post by
gamerunknown
I'm sure for people of catholic faith that there are some who are appalled.
Not if they've been paying attention to Church politics for the past
three decades
. It's not really a double standard either: once one becomes a priest, one cannot become married. Actually seeking a marriage partner would distract from the duties (according to dogma, at any rate) of priesthood. However, if one converts in from a state of sin, no such issue. Likewise, it's not really a double standard to state that one can only get to the father through the Son
except in cases where one has never heard of the Son
(though it may be special pleading).
I'd appreciate it if people would just say "Some atheists say X about religious people" instead of "Atheists say X about religious people".
Better yet, citing examples of their claims.
Hitchens on Falwell or Dawkins on claiming labelling children is worse than child abuse would be interesting points to debate.
persecution
My politics teacher pointed out the first voyagers were escaping economic oppression.
from a purely scientific stand point, homosapiens are by far the dominant and most intelligent species on our planet.
This Lewontin segment
on metaphors is well worth watching, as he takes umbrage with some forms of dominionism.
I believe in God, and His word alone.
Do you pray in public?
Post by
Adamsm
persecution
My politics teacher pointed out the first voyagers were escaping economic oppression.
I'd suggest he goes back and re-reads his history book then; the original crew of the Mayflower may have been escaping from economic issues, but they were also running from religious persecution, which was the primary reason for leaving England to start their own colony.
Post by
Magician22773
Do you pray in public?
Matthew 6:5 teaches us not to pray so that we will be seen by others. It was meant to show that prayer should not be used to glorify ourselves, but to glorify God.
Post by
gamerunknown
the original crew of the Mayflower
Not the original
voyagers
(should have said original successful settlers, to be fair).
Post by
MyTie
Do you pray in public?
Matthew 6:5 teaches us not to pray so that we will be seen by others. It was meant to show that prayer should not be used to glorify ourselves, but to glorify God.
I love how you can see this coming a mile away. The other out of context one is Matt 7:1. We've actually gone over these verses, maybe a dozen times on off-topic, during the years I've been here.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'm not going to lie, I have seen the same people ask the same questions 6-7 times, even after getting a response. Not, like, follow up and try to dispute the response, but just kind of wait a month and start over. Granted, there are particular questions I have seen that I haven't seen what I'd consider a satisfactory response to, or any response, but I do wish that the debate wouldn't keep getting reset to an earlier point by re-asking the same questions over and over, rather than finding new ones, asking questions about the response, or pursuing the questions that were never answered.
Post by
MyTie
I'm not going to lie, I have seen the same people ask the same questions 6-7 times, even after getting a response. Not, like, follow up and try to dispute the response, but just kind of wait a month and start over. Granted, there are particular questions I have seen that I haven't seen what I'd consider a satisfactory response to, or any response, but I do wish that the debate wouldn't keep getting reset to an earlier point by re-asking the same questions over and over, rather than finding new ones, asking questions about the response, or pursuing the questions that were never answered.
Your point could be extended to the general discourse of all of the world, about all topics. People argue about the same things with the same people for years and years...
Post by
gnomerdon
not entirely true, people change. just like how i've gained 1 inch of waistline this year. =D
Post by
gamerunknown
I ask the same question each time because it's a matter of interpretation and context. Like the opinion of Jesus on gay marriage or abortion. He never spoke of those issues, but Jesus reaffirms the commandment not to murder and a foetus is alive. He also claimed marriage should be between a man and a woman for life, with the only possible exception being if the wife commits adultery. If a woman divorces and remarries for any other reason, then she's in a perpetual state of adultery.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I ask the same question each time because it's a matter of interpretation and context. Like the opinion of Jesus on gay marriage or abortion. He never spoke of those issues, but Jesus reaffirms the commandment not to murder and a foetus is alive. He also claimed marriage should be between a man and a woman for life, with the only possible exception being if the wife commits adultery. If a woman divorces and remarries for any other reason, then she's in a perpetual state of adultery.
Right, but if they already told you what their interpretation is, what is the point of asking again if they do those things, if they have already explained 6 times why their interpretation allows or instructs them to do those things? Why not talk about why you disagree with their interpretation, rather than ask the original question again as though they never gave you an answer? It just seems to bog down the conversation and keep it from moving forward.
Post by
MyTie
I ask the same question each time because it's a matter of interpretation and context.
It is not a matter of interpretation. It isn't. I'm tired of the Bible being portrayed as some sort of white background that people can interpret their opinions onto. It is decidedly NOT the case, and even includes stories of people getting in trouble with God because they interpreted His will to be something that He didn't say.
Christianity is not fluid. It is the teachings of Christ, and those He empowered. That is the extent of it. We have those teachings written down, and they are definitive. You cannot say "This is what Christianity means to me" and more than you can say "This is what 1+1 means to me" and fill in your opinion. You can say "My religion takes certain elements out of Christianity", but it becomes just that, out of Christianity, not some sort of form of Christianity.
Post by
Orranis
That's not the point. The point is that you believe in God on faith, but disregard other equally valid concepts on faith (True story: I know someone who believed that unicorns existed but had been driven to extinction until she was seventeen, it was a childhood assumption that stuck and nobody ever got into the situation to tell her any different).
It's not used to show there's not enough evidence to believe in God, it's used to show why the burden of proof lies on the believer, simply because of the ridiculousness of the alternative.
That is faith. To demand evidence for something that someone has faith in, is as ridiculous as that person demanding proof from you to the contrary of their faith.
Alright, that's fine. The unicorn argument isn't used against people who simply say they have faith, but ones who argue that you cannot dismiss a concept due to lack of empirical evidence and that it rests on the shoulders of non-believers to disprove God exists.
Edit: MyTie, while I agree to an extent, the problem is that the Bible is made up in large amount of analogies or parables along with confusing and difficult translations which different people will inevitably interpret differently.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##sas148##DELIM##We've asked that the Unicorn comparison be set aside in this thread. Please don't discuss it further. Thank you.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Those are two separate concepts.
A) You cannot dismiss a concept based on lack of empirical evidence.
There are plenty of generally held concepts that there is no visible or empirical evidence behind. Most people believe that there is something special or more valuable about a human life than an animals. While many people will dispute this in a way that they lean towards not killing animals either, not many people will claim that human life isn't inherently valuable, making murder inherently wrong. There is no proof of what makes it valuable, in an abstract sense- but most people believe that there is a right and wrong associated with killing people beyond practical concerns. Without empirical evidence. To claim that you can't call the idea that humans have a right to life valid, just because you can't measure what it is that gives them the right, or prove they have it, would make most people think you're either making arguments for the sake of debate you don't believe, or that you're a nut. It's a completely valid argument that you can believe something is right, or true, or important without any measurable evidence that it is. When it comes up in non-religious discussion, no one asks for proof for every single thing you believe, every moral you stick to, every idea you have.
B) It rests on the shoulders of atheists to disprove God.
If someone has faith, then they do not require proof. For you to argue that they should not believe something that they have faith in, it stands to reason that you should have to provide some evidence to shake their faith. If I have faith that my husband isn't cheating on me, and you think I shouldn't, I would ask what evidence you had that he was. If you couldn't provide any, then I wouldn't have any reason to lose faith. If an atheist is telling someone they should not have faith in something, it stands to reason that the person would ask for a reason, some evidence that their faith is misplaced. I don't understand why that would be such an unreasonable question. I mean, it's unreasonable to expect someone to disprove something intangible, but it's not unreasonable to expect that someone should not demand you stop believing with no proof of why. The question isn't designed to get a solid answer from the atheist- it's designed to show the atheist how their reliance on evidence doesn't have a part in the conversation.
The Unicorn analogy makes a false assumption- that faith operates on the same principles as science- any concept that meets X standards of proof must be true, or is likely enough to be true that it will be considered a sound theory. Faith has no such standards. Just because I believe in one religion, doesn't mean I must then believe in all. Just because I believe my husband isn't cheating, doesn't mean I have the same faith in yours. Just because I believe human life is valuable, doesn't mean I consider meat murder. Faith doesn't happen because they settle on a lower standard of proof for what they believe- it happens because they have decided they feel strongly enough about certain ideas, people, etc. that proof doesn't need to enter into it. You don't have to agree, but the arguments you use to try and dissuade them, by their nature, show that you don't understand what the concept of faith is.
@MyTie- I do have to say that, having read the bible, there ARE passages that people interpret differently. Language is like that. You can write a sentence meaning one thing, and the words could also mean something else when looking at it from a certain point of view. There are things that are laid out plainly, but there are also things that could mean several similar things.
Post by
Atik
I ask the same question each time because it's a matter of interpretation and context.
It is not a matter of interpretation. It isn't. I'm tired of the Bible being portrayed as some sort of white background that people can interpret their opinions onto. It is decidedly NOT the case, and even includes stories of people getting in trouble with God because they interpreted His will to be something that He didn't say.
Christianity is not fluid. It is the teachings of Christ, and those He empowered. That is the extent of it. We have those teachings written down, and they are definitive. You cannot say "This is what Christianity means to me" and more than you can say "This is what 1+1 means to me" and fill in your opinion. You can say "My religion takes certain elements out of Christianity", but it becomes just that, out of Christianity, not some sort of form of Christianity.
But there are tons of stories and metaphors throughout the bible whose meanings aren't entirely clear.
Would Big-G get mad about you misunderstanding the meaning of some vague passage because there are hundreds of different things it could mean?
What makes the way various churches interpret these stories correct, and everyone else's ways wrong?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.