Quote of the week...

[Lueyen]

Let's get something clarified here. The crusades were not a Christian undertaking. The crusades were begun under various Popes and are a Catholic doing. Christianity and Catholicism ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

What was the first Christian Religion, ie the first organized religion to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Saying that modern day Catholicism is responsible for transgressions of the past is the same as saying modern Christianity is responsible because you are laying responsibility based not on current actions and ideals, but in what it has grown out of. Perhaps you aren't blaming modern day Catholicism for mistakes made in the past, but you post seemed like you might be.

Frankly in the context of this threads discussion, an attempt to say that what you call true Christians are not hypocritical to condemn pervers actions done in the name of Islam due to their condemnation of the Crusades misses the real fallacy of the argument. The fallacy is that any modern day Christian is hypocritical in condemning actions taken by radical Islamist, due to various past transgressions done in the name of Christianity. It is just as much an error to lay blame for radical perversions of the Christian faith at feet of all Christians as it is to blame radical perversions of Islam on all Muslims.

IMHO, Catholicism is not Christianty because it distorts the basic gospel message and adds a works-based salvation along with a bunch of other BS that isn't biblical.

Fair enough to an extent, this is the same opinion behind the protestant reformations, however it is just that, an opinion. Catholicism is a Christian religion, that it does not hold to what you feel is the proper way to follow Jesus Christ doesn't change the fact that it is not only a religion that teaches a following of Christ but indeed the first one.

Some Christians of that day would have nothing to do with the Crusades. They were opposed to them. Don't lump them in with the evils wrought by the Popes.

Would be more correct. Incidentally I don't think you'd find many modern day Catholics that would condone the actions taken by the Popes in the Crusades either. Despite the misinformation spread by many other Christian religions, the idea of Papal infallibility applies only in regards to the dogma of Church teaching and faith, not to political actions taken by Popes (ie when it comes to matters of doctrine and faith the Pope is considered to be infallible, but when it comes to matters of political and social actions infallibility is not a mandate).

IMHO the biggest internal problem with Christianity as a whole in modern day is an inability for variations of the faith to recognize the various differences as inconsequential to the common core beliefs. This to me is ironic because those common core beliefs should as a matter of natural process bring those religions together, but instead differences about how faith should be practiced, not faith it's self push them apart.

[Arlos]

The fundamental reason you are missing as to the cause, Leuyen, is because Christianity, at least in its organized and dogmatic form, is at its heart one of the most intolerant religions, ever invented.

Where Lyion fails to grasp is that there is a basic and important difference between Christianity and Christians. CHRISTIANITY teaches blatant intolerance for those who believe differently, behave differently, etc. Individual Christians (reasonably frequently, fortunately) at least partially reject those teachings at the core of the faith and manage to not themselves be overly intolerant.

Look at how many teachings there are in the Bible about how doing thus-and-so is "wrong" or "an abomination" or whatever languaged they used to denote it being contrary to the faith. Homosexuality, paganism, believing in any other god besides the judeo-christian one, all of them are deemed "wrong", among a myriad of other offenses going back to Leviticus, including things as innocuous as eating clams.

Indeed, look at the missionary movement, where these people are SO intolerant that ANYONE out there would have beliefs different than their particular sect of Christianity that they feel compelled to move there to try and force those people to give up their own ways. I would argue, and quite strenuously, that missionary work (as opposed to those genuinely there to help people and ask nothing in return, like the Peace Corps) is one of the more supreme forms of intolerance.

How many people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity, even today? How many abortion doctors, how many homosexuals, and indeed, if you want to look at the "White Christian" groups like the KKK, how many african-americans?

How many people did the Catholic church slaughter for believing in science? How many did they slaughter for believing in Judaism? How many did they slaughter for being Pagan? Hell, how many did they slaughter for being Christian but for reading a thousand year old book slightly differently? Have they ever once apologized? Have they ever once offered reparations? The closest they've come is to admit "Hey, you know, that Galileo guy might've been right", and that was in the latter half of the 20th century. Some Catholic leaders have tried to break away from that mold, John Paul II was one such. The new pope, however, strikes me as the type to gleefuly give the go-ahead for another Spanish Inquisition, were he to have the power.

Now, while I know Lyion and others will decry people for judging all of Christianity by the people that blow up abortion clinics, beat gays to death, etc. But that is where Lyion's hypocrisy is laid bare. He would condemn an entire faith for the actions of fanatics, some of whom are in power in what are effectively theocrasies, regardless of how poorly such actions fit the whole of the faith. Yet what would a KKK-run theocrasy be like? How about one run by one of those conservative Baptist ministers who call for mass sterilization of all homosexuals and for placing anyone with AIDS into concentration camps?

Evil is evil, regardless under which guise it presents itself. Those who beat to death homosexuals in this country because they believe them to be anti-faith have no moral superiority to those who put them to death in the middle east, simply because the ones here happen to be Christian and not Muslem.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Most religions see murder as "wrong" or see extreme contradictions to themselves as "abominations" does that make them all intollerant? In fact from the perspective of a simple moral compass that dictates murder is wrong is one intollerant?

It is the actions carried out by practicioners of most religions that are at fault, not the religious philosophies themselves that are at fault, sort of paying to much attention to a tree and missing the forest situation.

I personally believe that someone can be a Christian and see things in terms of right and wrong, but that does not mandate killing or persecuting those that commit "sin". I do take issue with many various Christian doctries that interpret the idea of spreading the faith to mean preaching to those that do not wish to hear thier message (and obviously trying to force submission to thier ideals). My personal feeling is that if you wish to spread your values, then you do so with the way you live your life by example not by telling others how they should act. I believe this to be one of the messages Christ tried to convey to his followers, one that is lost on quite a few Christian faiths.

In the end:

extremists from any religion are stupid fuckers

[Tikker]

Most religions see murder as "wrong" or see extreme contradictions to themselves as "abominations" does that make them all intollerant? In fact from the perspective of a simple moral compass that dictates murder is wrong is one intollerant?

not really
most see murder of their people as wrong, and murder of "the other religion" as a grand cause to be celebrated for

[Lueyen]

Most religions see murder as "wrong" or see extreme contradictions to themselves as "abominations" does that make them all intollerant? In fact from the perspective of a simple moral compass that dictates murder is wrong is one intollerant?

not really
most see murder of their people as wrong, and murder of "the other religion" as a grand cause to be celebrated for

Again, I think the tree and forest situation applies.

"turn the other cheek"
"love thy enemy as thy self"

... sorry I'm not well versed in the indepth details of most religions but I suspect a general message of peace can be found in most (or at least would hope). The idea occured to me though that in our little NT community we don't seem to have anyone discussing religions besides atheists, agnostics and Christians most of the time... I think it's high time we recruit some Muslims, Buddahists and Sun worshipers... and if any who already frequent this forum are I encourage them to be more vocal about it, it would be interesting 8D.

[Arlos]

Uh, Leuyen, did you miss the fact that I've mentioned I'm Pagan before? Not a sun worshipper no, but no matter how many times Lyion calls me an athiest or anti-faith he still isn't right. I just don't choose to talk about it very often, as it is MY faith, and thus personal, and the one time I DID go into detail, it took less than 60 seconds for the first derogatory and insulting post making fun of what I'd just said to show up.

Besides which, given that I arrived at it through my own process of self-discovery, and didn't get it handed to me by a giant dogmatic machine. So, the intricate details would mean very little to someone else without at least very similar life experiences. In some ways, that makes it akin to more eastern religions, who consider the process of enlightnment to be an indivdual struggle, and what works for one person to proceed upon the path will by no means work for everyone, or indeed anyone else.

I dunno what you THOUGHT I was, but methinks you'll have to alter your worldview somewhat.

-Arlso

[Lueyen]

Leuyen

-Arlso

At least I now know it's not only my name you do it to .

Yes I guess I did miss the mention of being a Pagan, your brief description does sound intriguing. I knew you obviously do not suscribe to any particular Christian doctrine, beyond that I guess I sorta thought you were more of agnostic, mainly because I'd never seen you discuss personal faith and there have been quite a few discussions that would have led there to an extent.

[Arlos]

I was raised Catholic, because both my parents are very devout members of that faith, albeit liberal interpreters of it. (Both believe in birth control and abortion, etc.) I even went (under duress) up through Confirmation before I left for college, but none of it ever resonated or clicked with me at all.

After going away to college (my first time around, I'm now in my 2nd), I went through a few years of agnosticy, but did meet a few pagans, and was always intrigued by the faith. A few years after I left school and came back to California, I met a couple other people in the pagan community, learned a bit more, and they pointed me in the direction of a couple books they felt were worthwhile, and gave me the name and number of someone else to talk to.

Well, when I read about it, it "clicked" basically immediately. All sorts of attitudes and beliefs I already had, and here was a faith that already believed many of the same things. One of the biggest draws is that the only real dogma of paganism (at least of the types I associate with) is that there is NO dogma. A person's faith is seen as intimately personal to them, and is as much a process of personal growth and understanding as it is a path to the divine. Put another way, we all have the spark of the divine within ourselves, and each of us has our own way to get into contact with that which is higher than ourselves.

While there are sects that believe similar basic concepts, and will have rituals with a certain form and structure in common, that's seen as general surface trappings. The real meat of a person's faith is internal to that person, and while other people can help you along your path, you have to walk it yourself, and as a result, the answers you find that work for you are not necessarily answers that work for anyone else. So, how can there be dogma, or the organized inclination to tell people that their beliefs or faiths are "wrong" when everyone recognizes at a fundamental level that there is no one Right True Way?

I dunno, perhaps I am just too independent-minded, but I just can't imagine going back to any faith where someone else tells me what I should believe, how I should interpret, and gives me pre-digested answers to the really meaningful questions about life and existence. *shrug* It's not something I put into words easily, really. Certainly not typewritten ones, which is why I generally don't discuss it on here.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

That and you are too busy attacking those evil Christians, most of your countrymen.

I was raised Catholic, but left the church at 19. I spent over 12 years as an Atheist/Agnostic, so I think I see both sides of the picture. During this time I also disliked organized religion.

The whole basis of modern Catholicism is the personal search for truth. Your parents were cafeteria Catholics, like so many. No wonder your view on Christianity is a bit warped, just as mine was. Case in point

Where Lyion fails to grasp is that there is a basic and important difference between Christianity and Christians. CHRISTIANITY teaches blatant intolerance for those who believe differently, behave differently, etc. Individual Christians (reasonably frequently, fortunately) at least partially reject those teachings at the core of the faith and manage to not themselves be overly intolerant.

This is the antithesis of the bible and what Christianity represents. Your view that good Christians ignore the bible is also completely and abhorrently wrong.

The most important message of the Bible and the New Testament is the golden rule, which is repeated often. It is a message of pure tolerance and love. It is the opposite of how you have wrongfully tried to portray Christianity, just as your limited scope definition of certain old, old events wrongly and narrowly defines it.

Look at how many teachings there are in the Bible about how doing thus-and-so is "wrong" or "an abomination" or whatever languaged they used to denote it being contrary to the faith. Homosexuality, paganism, believing in any other god besides the judeo-christian one, all of them are deemed "wrong", among a myriad of other offenses going back to Leviticus, including things as innocuous as eating clams.

Wrong and intolerant are vastly different things, and I think you confuse the two in your attacks. The Bible is a message of faith. No, it is not 'private' or something that is to be hidden, which I think is your real problem, here. You don't agree with parts of the religion so in an intolerant way, you attack it. I find that amusing.

Also, are you discussing Christianity or Judaism? The New Testament supercedes the Old one in matters of faith for Catholicism.

I'd say you are not independent at all. You rail an in step secular progressive message of hate towards Christians, just like so many others do without bothering to learn and understand what you are railing against.

You are the intolerance you claim to hate.