TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- creationism making a comeback in texas
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM Oh and as for your comment about PKC...you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

While I appreciate the kind words I believe that Alex does bring something a little different to the table then I do... I also believe that you are in no way just a poor copy of PKC. Reading the exchanges between the two of you really goes to show how personality conflicts shape discussions though, as you and I have civil conversations on similar topics and Alex and PKCs dealings are normally rather congenial.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Moral Hazard chooses to give the people a lesson, I dont see the point when it comes to people like Capitalizt. It just doesnt work over the internet.

As an aside, I would just like to say that I am very grateful to both Moral Hazard and yourself (sometimes ) for humouring us heathens in the ways of high religion. It can't be easy to wade into a room full of frothing elitists with a predisposition to disagree with your every word, much less know that you shall likely never get them to see your side entirely.

Though I don't think it's possible to 'make believers' out of anyone here (I know full well that was never your intent), I can say that my arguments are never with the intent to persuade you out of your beliefs - nor even test them, really - but to expose them for the greater understanding of people who have entirely different notions of the world - myself being at the top of that list.

What I do find of interest, however, is the fact that both yourself and Moral are from Canada (or live there, at least... right?). I've never lived in Canada before, but I would imagine that the church has a very different role there than in the United States. I mention this merely due to the fact that I have never seen a religious American make an even remotely cogent argument to represent his or her faith/religion. And trust me, Americans feel the need to open their traps when they feel strongly about something. Could this be for the same reason that I despise the church in my country? The enormous Christian lobby in the US deserves much of the hatred it gets - if you ask me, obviously - but I cannot help but wonder how this skews how religion is viewed in general...

quote:

I think Lira, if he were around, would come to my defense about being a ``shit version of Moral Hazard`` though, especially after the pages of debates between Renegade and I that went on for quite some time.

Yeah, but Lira was a bored Buddhist with a hemophilic heart.

quote:

In a thread like this with lots of Dawkins fan boys I decided to just give very basic explanations of stuff where as Moral decided to really get into it.

You're usually the first person in a thread to mention Dawkins' name. Do the icons you suppose people to flock to really bother you so deeply? Or are you just poking at the sceptics? I blame you for neither.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On As an aside, I would just like to say that I am very grateful to both Moral Hazard and yourself (sometimes ) for humouring us heathens in the ways of high religion. It can't be easy to wade into a room full of frothing elitists with a predisposition to disagree with your every word, much less know that you shall likely never get them to see your side entirely. Though I don't think it's possible to 'make believers' out of anyone here (I know full well that was never your intent), I can say that my arguments are never with the intent to persuade you out of your beliefs - nor even test them, really - but to expose them for the greater understanding of people who have entirely different notions of the world - myself being at the top of that list. What I do find of interest, however, is the fact that both yourself and Moral are from Canada (or live there, at least... right?). I've never lived in Canada before, but I would imagine that the church has a very different role there than in the United States. I mention this merely due to the fact that I have never seen a religious American make an even remotely cogent argument to represent his or her faith/religion. And trust me, Americans feel the need to open their traps when they feel strongly about something. Could this be for the same reason that I despise the church in my country? The enormous Christian lobby in the US deserves much of the hatred it gets - if you ask me, obviously - but I cannot help but wonder how this skews how religion is viewed in general...

Thank you for the kind words.

With regard to the last paragraph; I think the fact that both Alex and I are Canadian has less to do with our offering more reasoned positions/arguments then you're used to hearing from Christians then does the fact that we are Roman Catholics. The majority of Christians in the US (especially the vocal ones) come from the Evangelical sects, which tend to take a more literal view of the bible. Unfortunately, for people that take a literal view of the bible the only justification they need for many things is "God says so" or "it's in the bible." These fundamentalist type sects actually teach their adherents not to question what they are taught by their pastors and not to question what is written in the bible (often accompanied by the assertion that questioning God is the height of arrogance, which is vanity, which is a sin). This is a marked departure from Roman Catholicism, which teaches that faith should be challenged, examined, scrutinized, and must hold to reason in order to be considered divine (as God is governed by reason... governed being a very sloppy word choice but I cannot think of anything better right now). The RC commitment to this is so strong that the Vatican employs a great many people to constantly examine and scrutinize elements of the faith against the best information currently available (science, historical records/documents, archeological findings, etc.), to test historical church positions against the theological support, and spends an incredible amount of time and effort trying to disprove reported miracles (both current and historic). It shouldn't be surprising that you would see more reasoned and rational positions/arguments from Alex and I as our tradition teaches us to fully understand and test our faith whereas the traditions of the large and vocal "Christian Lobby" in the US teaches them that the Bible (arguably one of the most complex and difficult to understand collection of books ever compiled) should be taken at it's face value and not questioned.

While I cannot support hating the Christian Lobby in the US, I do agree that they are really their own worst enemy and do far more to denigrate the faith then build it. Sure, they amass great membership numbers, put on a good show (they are very entertaining), and convert a great many people; however, their members are members in a community group styled as Christian rather then in the church, their show is all about filling the seats as opposed to the soul, and they are converting people to a shallow and largely empty facsimile of the faith. The great success of the Evangelical movement in the US is really a great failure of the Christian faith IMO, as blindly following what the charismatic guy in the flashy suit at the front of the arena tells you about God doesn't lead you to truth, fulfillment, or understanding... it distracts you from it. God isn't found in the bright lights, excitement, and noise of an arena full of unquestioning devotees; he is found in the still and quiet of peaceful reflection and contemplation.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt So you admit that whatever you say to defend your nonsensical statements will confirm that you are indeed brainwashed. Thanks for admitting it.

Oh dear.



To Halcyon:

I think I secretly have a crush on Dawkins, it's why I keep mentioning him

As far as the Church and lobbying power is concerned, well, the fact is the 80 million or so Christians in the USA that identify themselves as Evangelical can be very vocal and militant. In fact what they are trying to do is in many regards at odds with scripture in the sense that they are trying to rally the politicians instead of the people.

In many senses that militant wing of politically active Christians enjoys it's fringe status and benefits from it immensely. If the Evangelicals and fundamentalists wanted they could go out on a massive nation wide campaign and recruit tens of millions of supporters because of how aggressive and determined they are, but instead they choose to focus on politics. Politics politics politics. They want to influence those who don't believe in what they believe in, and don't seem too concerned in making them Christians either.

It has always been my belief that if they wanted to succeed, they should start from the bottom and move their way up. That way there would be absolutely no need for them to have this massive political influence and to be pissing everybody off all the time. They should focus more on the American people, use a lot more of that money and do tons of charity work etc, and influence people that way instead of trying to legislate everyone into the faith.

In Canada it's simply a different story. In my province, Quebec, which as you may or may not know has a majority French speaking population (and therefore Roman Catholic), being Catholic played an IMMENSE role in politics and every aspect of a Quebecor's life until Vatican II, and more realistically I'd say about 20 years ago. The entire province was controlled by the Church pretty much and they got up to some bad stuff. Our Arch Bishop used to parade around like a prince and basically if you wanted to get elected as Premier here (Governor) you had to be Catholic no doubt about it. The French Catholic Church here was quite simply a whore and I thank God that things have seriously changed around here. It is unfortunate that many French churches here are now quite empty, but they have noticed a growing trend lately so I hope things have gotten a bit better. It's like night and day in Quebec now, the Church no longer has much influence at all and unsurprisingly it's gaining respect again.

As for the rest of Canada, I am mostly unsure. I believe I remember reading that Catholics are the largest single Church in the country, but that Canada is in fact a protestant nation because of all the protestant churches amounting to more than the Catholic contingency. As far as influencing Canadian politics, well, I cant say that I see it in a day to day basis at all. One of the largest Churches in Canada is the United Church and they are in fact quite liberal and don't seem to complain much about anything. Catholics in Quebec at least, like in the USA, tend to be working class to upper middle class types, and again remain quite reserved about bringing their faith into their politics.

Something else to note is that as Canadians, we automatically hate and despise our elected officials the moment after they are elected, I imagine that plays a big role as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex As for the rest of Canada, I am mostly unsure. I believe I remember reading that Catholics are the largest single Church in the country, but that Canada is in fact a protestant nation because of all the protestant churches amounting to more than the Catholic contingency. As far as influencing Canadian politics, well, I cant say that I see it in a day to day basis at all. One of the largest Churches in Canada is the United Church and they are in fact quite liberal and don't seem to complain much about anything.

I don't like to contradict; however, in the interest of accuracy...
according to the 2001 census Canadian religious affiliations;
43.6% Roman Catholic
29.2% Protestant Christian (note; United Church is the largest of the protestant churches at 9.5%)
16.5% No religious affiliation
2% Muslim
1.1% Jewish
1% Buddhist
1% Hindu
.9% Sikh
1.6% Orthodox Christian

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't like to contradict; however, in the interest of accuracy... according to the 2001 census Canadian religious affiliations; 43.6% Roman Catholic 29.2% Protestant Christian (note; United Church is the largest of the protestant churches at 9.5%) 16.5% No religious affiliation 2% Muslim 1.1% Jewish 1% Buddhist 1% Hindu .9% Sikh 1.6% Orthodox Christian

Wait.. How is that contradictory to what I was saying?

Edit:

Oops, the Protestant comment, I see now!

Ok well good for us then, Catholics4lyfe.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While I appreciate the kind words I believe that Alex does bring something a little different to the table then I do... I also believe that you are in no way just a poor copy of PKC. Reading the exchanges between the two of you really goes to show how personality conflicts shape discussions though, as you and I have civil conversations on similar topics and Alex and PKCs dealings are normally rather congenial.

I'd say you're spot on there...as usual. Alex and I don't get on because personality wise he's basically a bastard

Nice sig too I see...

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM I'd say you're spot on there...as usual. Alex and I don't get on because personality wise he's basically a bastard Nice sig too I see...

I hereby apologize to you RickyM, I'm not in the business of being an ACTUAL dickhead, just a partial one A semi so to speak.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On As an aside, I would just like to say that I am very grateful to both Moral Hazard and yourself (sometimes ) for humouring us heathens in the ways of high religion.

yeah, these conversations would be rather boring without their input that's for sure.

God sent me here on a mission.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I mention this merely due to the fact that I have never seen a religious American make an even remotely cogent argument to represent his or her faith/religion.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, these conversations would be rather boring without their input that's for sure.

I appreciate that.

For the record, I have no interest in converting any one from anything to anything else; I post in an attempt to further understanding and (hopefully) clear up some of the misconceptions many on all sides seem to have.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov

You said so, yourself - you're not necessarily religious, merely spiritual.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On You said so, yourself - you're not necessarily religious, merely spiritual.

Ha, touche salesman. It's probably some creepy combination of the two though, to be fair. Without all the fasting and giving up alcohol for Lent to be closer to God.

Well, and to be honest, there is a gulf of difference between people who are simply religious, and people who believe that religion deserves the guest fucking throne in our schools, federal and state governments, our laws, our media, etc. As was covered by Alex and Moral so sufficiently, the politically-motivated religious are an entirely different animal. And I know you are smart enough to know the difference.

To be honest, I think institutional religion is bollocks just by the mere fact that faith is supposed to be personal. The utility of theology and Pastors/Priests/Rabbis is to ask vital questions, not to provide vital answers.

So yes, I would agree that the politicization of religion is bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov To be honest, I think institutional religion is bollocks just by the mere fact that faith is supposed to be personal. The utility of theology and Pastors/Priests/Rabbis is to ask vital questions, not to provide vital answers. So yes, I would agree that the politicization of religion is bad.

Faith is personal, but I also believe that one of the big pillars in leading a spiritual life is being part of a religious community.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Faith is personal, but I also believe that one of the big pillars in leading a spiritual life is being part of a religious community.

A religious community is perfectly healthy - it's the institutionalization of indoctrination that I don't like.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov A religious community is perfectly healthy - it's the institutionalization of indoctrination that I don't like.

Ahh ok.

but where else does the institutionalised indoctrination begin other than within religious communities?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but where else does the institutionalised indoctrination begin other than within religious communities?

That's like saying where else does political indoctrination begin other than within societies.

Religious communities are everywhere - they aren't all the Vatican or al-Qaeda sleeper cells.

The novel "City of God" by E.L. Doctorow highlights what I think is the healthiest variety of religious community possible - where a group of people gather to discuss the theological issues most troubling to them. Where they acknowledge that universal answers are too difficult, and aid each other in approaching these questions from a personal perspective. The role of a Priest/Pastor is in my mind not a teacher; but a facilitator of religious thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov That's like saying where else does political indoctrination begin other than within societies. Religious communities are everywhere - they aren't all the Vatican or al-Qaeda sleeper cells. The novel "City of God" by E.L. Doctorow highlights what I think is the healthiest variety of religious community possible - where a group of people gather to discuss the theological issues most troubling to them. Where they acknowledge that universal answers are too difficult, and aid each other in approaching these questions from a personal perspective. The role of a Priest/Pastor is in my mind not a teacher; but a facilitator of religious thought.

All very nice in theory, but can you name an instance in history where the preistly caste have actually performed the role of "facilitators of religious thought" rather than leaders who claim to have a unique and privilaged insight into the mind of the divine?

I recently read "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels (highly recommended, btw) and she makes the point that one of the main reasons that "orthodox" Chrsitianity won out over gnostic Christianity in the early years of the faith, was the fact that orthodox theology lent itself to the creation of a central organisation (in the form of the church) and gnostic theology did not (due to its emphasis on personal rather than apostolic revolation - presumably something quite close to what you're talking about). This central organisation was obviously useful in the formation of a common, universal doctrine, which in turn helped facilitate the spread of the faith. Entrance into the early Catholic chruch required only a Baptism and the recitation of some pledge (the name of which escapes me now), whereas entrance into the gnostic faith often required the onerous investment of years of study and spiritual guidance, obviously not a system likely to lend itself to rapid, widespread conversions. On the other hand, though, it was a system that lent itself to spiritual autonomy and the creation of an attentive, nurturing priestly caste: I think we can both probably lament the fact that the proto-Catholics won.

In truth, Catholicism is hardly unique in this regard: the most successful faiths on the planet that presently come to mind all lend themselves to an organisation that involves a distinction between the priestly caste and the laity, a system which inevitably ends up with the suppression and disenfranchisement of the latter. This is even true for many faiths that do not formally recognise the necessity of a priestly caste for religious expression (e.g. Sunni Islam, Protestantism, Buddhism etc.). So, as much as I may agree with your ideal of "the healthiest variety of religious community" being that in which "a group of people gather to discuss the theological issues most troubling to them", in practice that can never happen: historically, the most successful religious doctrines have always been those best equipped to attain (and retain) power over the laity.

You brought up the counter-example of political indoctrination, and I think you're right: as with religion, the most successful political movements have (historically) been those that are most efficiently able to impose themselves into positions of political power. However, the advent of democracy (and its attendent system of checks and balances) means that the dangers of political indoctrination are not quite so immediate as in the case of religion, where the equivalent processes do not exist. In no religious doctrine that I am familiar with do the laity have the capacity to challenge the wisdom or the power of the priestly caste without running the very real risk of expulsion from their religious community, something unthinkable in a democratic political system. Given that religion - by its nature - doesn't lend itself to the sort of revolutions which gave politics its democracy, I think that your ideal of a major religion ever organising its theology along Socratic (rather than dogmatic) lines is never likely to happen.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.