09-14-2008, 07:06 PM | #181 | |||
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 102
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's where I'm coming from in our worlds wide collection of Theological standpoints. Quote:
__________________
Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up. Thoreau. Last edited by D.Sullivan : 09-14-2008 at 07:09 PM. |
|||
09-14-2008, 07:08 PM | #182 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 102
|
Whoops, sorry. Double post.
__________________
Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up. Thoreau. Last edited by D.Sullivan : 09-14-2008 at 07:09 PM. |
09-15-2008, 02:40 PM | #183 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Coffee, all you really do is to soundly refute the doctrine of the impeccability of the clergy.
Unfortunately, that's not a teaching the Church holds, or has ever held, so all it actually amounts to is one big ad hominem. I see no reason to bother responding to ad hominem. I am quite familiar with debate and argument, I've done it roughly twenty hours a week for the past three years, and all I've seen is fallacy. "Deitas, deitatis" is "godness". That proves my point.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
09-15-2008, 04:14 PM | #184 | |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." |
|
09-15-2008, 04:19 PM | #185 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 102
|
Quote:
I think in many cases the this is true. If the Church didn't actually tell people to go out and bomb abortion clinics, then it's doctrine can't be held accountable for what it's followers may do. But, if I'm not mistaken, we're talking about the Catholic Church here, and when it comes to the Catholic Church, , it DOES preach that it's clergy is nothing but virtuous. According to the Catholics, the only way to God is through the Pope and his Clergy, and if it turns out the Clergy isn't to be trusted, if it turns out they're a bunch of hypocrites, it's actually reflective of a very big flaw in the Church's philosophy itself. Not just it's members. Besides, if I say the Bible proclaims it to be just to stone an adulteress, and you say that's ok because no one in the Church does that, what I'm I supposed to take the Church to mean, exactly? What exactly is the Church if not it's members nor also it's teachings?
__________________
Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up. Thoreau. |
|
09-15-2008, 04:21 PM | #186 |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
I couldn't agree more.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." |
09-16-2008, 05:23 AM | #187 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
Quote:
The Catholic Church has never preached its clergy is nothing but virtuous- indeed, many of the institutions and practices of the Church were set up precisely because of the knowledge that the clergy, being human, were as likely as any to fall into sin. Any Catholic will acknowledge that there have been bad priests, and bad Popes. I believe that the doctrine is that the Church as a whole cannot be led into error on matters of doctrine. And people can still find salvation and God outside the Church if they fall into the category of those suffering from "invincible ignorance"- this is a specifically Catholic term, referring to those who have not heard the teaching of the Church, or receive it through such a distorted lens as to make it unbelievable. Quote:
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
||
09-16-2008, 02:39 PM | #188 | ||||
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 102
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But it's not cool to be Christian outside of the Catholic Church? is that correct? Quote:
I think Jesus should get the last word on things. Thanks for your reply, GrayMouser.
__________________
Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up. Thoreau. |
||||
09-16-2008, 05:07 PM | #189 | |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|
09-16-2008, 06:03 PM | #190 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Interesting essay:
Are Religion and Peace Compatible? by Gerald McDermott This was the question I was asked to address at an inter-faith gathering. I was the lone Christian speaker on a panel that also featured a Muslim, a Buddhist, and a rabbi. I started by saying this is the wrong question. Yes, I told them, we've all heard the truism, "More blood has been spilled in the name of God than anything else." As the poet Sean O'Casey put it, "Politics has slain its thousands, but religion has slain its tens of thousands." These statements inspire us to vow, "Never again! We will work to make sure religion is not responsible for violence yet again!" But is it true, I asked, that religion has done more than anything else to inspire violence? Not really, I replied. The fact of the matter is that while this may have been true before the 20th century, it no longer is, after the bloodiest century in human history. Now, we must say, after a sober look at the historical record, that irreligion has done far more to inspire killing than religion ever has. The French Revolution, long before the 20th century, initiated a sad pattern of irreligion persecuting faith. In this case the persecution was in the name of the so-called Religion of Reason, and turned into a bloodbath. Between 2000 and 5000 priests who refused to swear before the altar of Freedom were executed, as well as dozens of nuns, and countless lay people. Many others died in prison. All told, 18,000 were executed on the guillotine, in the name of revolution dedicated to the extermination of Christian religion. But this was a drop in the bucket compared to the atheistic totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. In 1999 a team of French scholars published the mammoth tome, The Black Book of Communism, from Harvard University Press, which was the first systematic compilation of the deaths resulting from various communist regimes in the twentieth century. Their research was possible only because of the opening up of archives in former totalitarian states after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. These scholars found that atheistic regimes killed 25 million people in the former Soviet Union, 65 million souls in China, and 1.7 million human beings in Cambodia. They didn't even bother with the as-yet uncalculated hundreds of thousands of deaths from more recent atheistic regimes-North Korea, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah These numbers, taken together, dwarf the extent of violence in all of history's religious wars and inquisitions and witch burnings put together. The numbers aren't even close. So the question ought not to be whether religion and peace are compatible, but whether irreligion and peace can coexist. And the questions ought not stop there. The next question should be not about religion generally but religions in particular. Does it make any sense to talk about religion in general? The "great world religions" see the basic human problem differently and have very different solutions. Despite what we often hear, they are not all climbing the same mountain, but different mountains. They don't have the same goal. For example, they don't even agree on whether there is a god. The Buddha, for example, was for all practical purposes an atheist. He said there were various gods and demons, but that none of them could help us get to where we needed to go. None was a Creator of any sort, or in short what we call God. Philosophical Buddhists, and philosophical Hindus and Daoists all agree there is no god-that is, a personal Being--and certainly not one who created the world. They see nothing in the same way as do those religions that believe there is a personal god. And even those Hindus and Buddhists and Daoists who do believe in personal gods disagree on the chief god and how to reach that god. So there is no one thing that all the religions have in common-even belief in a god or higher power-which would be required for us to believe there is such a thing as religion-in-general. The real question, then, is which religion we are talking about when we talk about so-called religion and peace. For even within religions, there are huge differences. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his Regensburg address, there are destructive and diseased forms of religion, and other forms that are constructive and healing. We Christians must concede that there are diseased forms of Christianity, such as that which captured the holy city of Jerusalem during the Crusades and indulged in a bloodbath of both Muslims and eastern orthodox Christians. But there was also Martin Luther King's Christianity that taught non-violent resistance to violence, in the name of Jesus Christ, and led middle-class white America to a reconsideration of race. And there was the Christianity of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador, who condemned terror and death squads, defending the rights of poor peasants against powerful landowners. For that he was shot through the heart while saying Mass on 24 March 1980. When we speak of Islam, are we talking about Sufi Islam, which tends toward peace? Or Wahhabi Islam, which suggests that non-Muslims and certain other Muslims should be killed? And what about Hinduism? Are we talking about the militant brand which denies religious freedom to Muslims and Christians, and sometimes kills them? Or that peaceful and constructive brand of Hinduism that Mahatma Gandhi developed? A third question we need to ask is whether peace is always the best thing. I suspect that most black slaves in America in 1860 believed that continued peace between a free North and defiant South was a threat to their freedom. And that Jews being held in Hitler's concentration camps in 1944 would not have felt comforted by talk of a sudden peace which would have left Hitler's killing machinery intact. Or that the thousands of Christians and others being tortured in North Korea today, and perhaps even millions of their oppressed and impoverished fellow citizens, believe that continued peace with Kim il-Sung is not the best thing for their own welfare. In situations like these, those who call for peace at any price are regarded by victims of murderous regimes as complicit in the evil of those murderous regimes. Don't get me wrong, I said to this mixed group. I am not saying that peace is bad, and that religion should not make peace. What I am saying is that at certain times and places, when egregious evil has the upper hand, peace is not always the greatest good. I concluded with five summary assertions: 1. When thinking about religion and peace, we need more critical thinking and fewer simplistic platitudes. 2. We should realize that irreligion can be just as dangerous as religion, and that hostility to religion in fact has been more destructive in history than religion itself. 3. We should ask not about religion in general and peace in general, but rather about which religion and which brand of each major world religion. 4. We should also be asking about which kind of peace. For the wrong kind of peace can sometimes encourage radical evil. 5. As a Christian, I believe that God has planted within each of us a desire for truth, beauty and goodness. But there is also within us an evil self-obsession that is never extinguished. That is why religion is often a mixture of good and bad. It is also why we should distinguish between those religions which recognize that capacity for evil (and so do not kill God's prophets) and those which don't. The religions that acknowledge their own tendency to be corrupted are also those that want to restrict secular government from getting too much power-power that is often used to destroy true peace. Most of the speakers and the audience that night did not like my suggestions that some religions foment war, and that peace is not always the best thing. Most seemed to agree with the rabbi, who was of a modernist Reform bent. She said she "emphatically" disagreed with my contention that religion-in-general doesn't exist, and insisted that evil comes not from religion but from politics. The Buddhist spoke of world peace that would result from Buddhist principles. When I objected to the general consensus that conversion should always be ruled out of inter-religious dialogue, and proposed that non-coercive religious persuasion should be permitted, most in the audience and on the panel erupted in anger. Only the Muslim, who was a Sufi, agreed that evangelism should be allowed. One person in the audience reported, to the enthusiastic agreement of most, that only Christianity tries to convert others. I was the only one to disagree, explaining that Islam and many other religions also proselytize. This inter-religious gathering was like many others I have joined. They demonstrate remarkable inter-religious ignorance, and sometimes they help dispel a bit of that ignorance. But mostly they illustrate what few seem to realize today, that the world religions point to different gods and teach very different things. ---Gerald McDermott is Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College. His most recent books are The Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions (Baker Books) and Understanding Jonathan Edwards (Oxford University Press, Nov. 2008). http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=8976 What do you think of it?
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
09-16-2008, 07:34 PM | #191 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 102
|
Quote:
__________________
Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up. Thoreau. |
|
09-17-2008, 01:56 AM | #192 |
Entmoot Attorney-General,
Equilibrating the Scales of Justice, Administrator ♎ Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,891
|
Whoa Sullivan, take it easy on the quote button
It's an interesting article, Inked. I too believe that the question "are religion and peace compatible" is the wrong question to ask. I would be careful to separate religious and irreligious conflict and compare the two to see which is worst. On the global stage, religion and politics are intertwined. All religiously inspired wars have been political as well. And the other way around, "irreligious" violence might not be inspired by religion per se, but by worldviews and policies that people treat like religion (forms of communism, cult of personalities etc.) The author of the article says: We should ask not about religion in general and peace in general, but rather about which religion and which brand of each major world religion. I'd say we should also include which ideologies, which policies for these are equally important for and associated with peace as any religious concern.
__________________
An unwritten post is a delightful universe of infinite possibilities. Set down one word, however, and it immediately becomes earthbound. Set down one sentence and it’s halfway to being just like every other bloody entry that’s ever been written. ☻ |
09-26-2008, 01:48 AM | #193 |
The Ñoldóran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mishawaka, IN
Posts: 2,050
|
Came across this quiz, and thought it was quite interesting.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html My top 5 results: 1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Liberal Quakers (95%) 3. Neo-Pagan (92%) 4. New Age (88%) 5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (87%) What about everyone else? The results were pretty good for me, as I consider myself a combination of Quaker and Pagan...
__________________
Then Celegorm no more would stay, And Curufin smiled and turned away... ~The Lay of Leithian |
09-26-2008, 03:03 AM | #194 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (98%) 3. Liberal Quakers (94%) 4. Secular Humanism (81%) 5. Reform Judaism (80%) This is uncannily accurate for an on-line quiz. Good find!
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
09-26-2008, 04:29 AM | #195 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
100% secular humanist- no surprises there
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
09-26-2008, 05:21 AM | #196 |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (91%) 3. Liberal Quakers (78%) 4. Nontheist (75%) 5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (67%) Sounds reasonable, no real surprises, except that 'Liberal Quakers' is something I never even have heard of. And I find it rather scary that 'Scientology' still got 38%.
__________________
We are not things. |
09-26-2008, 06:36 PM | #197 |
The Black Númenórean
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,773
|
Gyah, I'm a buncha things. What the hell is a liberal quaker?
1. Liberal Quakers (100%) 2. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 3. Neo-Pagan (88%) 4. New Age (84%) 5. Secular Humanism (84%) 6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (82%) 7. Mahayana Buddhism (68%) 8. Reform Judaism (63%) 9. Taoism (62%) 10. Theravada Buddhism (59%) 11. Orthodox Quaker (58%) 12. New Thought (57%) 13. Nontheist (54%) 14. Bahá'* Faith (54%) 15. Scientology (49%) 16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (42%) 17. Sikhism (41%) 18. Jainism (38%) 19. Orthodox Judaism (35%) 20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (30%) 21. Hinduism (30%) 22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (29%) 23. Islam (28%) 24. Seventh Day Adventist (26%) 25. Eastern Orthodox (20%) 26. Roman Catholic (20%) 27. Jehovah's Witness (18%) |
09-26-2008, 06:57 PM | #198 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
LOL.
I'm having trouble seeing you as a Quaker, of any stripe. They're a traditional "Peace Church" and they worship silently.
__________________
That would be the swirling vortex to another world. Cool. I want one. TMNT No, I'm not emo. I just have a really poor sense of direction. (Thanks to katya for this quote) This is the best news story EVER! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26087293/ “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”...John McCain "I shall go back. And I shall find that therapist. And I shall whack her upside her head with my blanket full of rocks." ...Louisa May |
09-26-2008, 07:17 PM | #199 |
The Black Númenórean
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,773
|
...I do worship silently. My relationship with God is between me and God, and no one else. I do try to be peaceful. Notice the key word try. But what's a Liberal Quaker to begin with?
*twitch. I keep wanting to call it quacker* |
09-26-2008, 07:33 PM | #200 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
I have a lot of Quaker friends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker
__________________
That would be the swirling vortex to another world. Cool. I want one. TMNT No, I'm not emo. I just have a really poor sense of direction. (Thanks to katya for this quote) This is the best news story EVER! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26087293/ “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”...John McCain "I shall go back. And I shall find that therapist. And I shall whack her upside her head with my blanket full of rocks." ...Louisa May |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Science | ayarella | General Messages | 804 | 04-13-2012 09:05 PM |
muslims PART 2 | Spock | General Messages | 805 | 02-03-2011 03:16 AM |
Theology III | Earniel | General Messages | 1007 | 07-02-2008 02:22 PM |
Theological Opinions | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 992 | 02-10-2006 04:15 PM |
REAL debate thread for RELIGION | Ruinel | General Messages | 1439 | 04-01-2005 02:47 PM |