Religion Debates and Discussions

I think that he meant that the moral values of religion meant that religious people in power are less commonly corrupted. Although the U.S. does reference God in some places, the people in power are often not religious. Now, while the U.S has killed "untold millions" (which you just told us about) none of the wars or the "Indian genocide" was done in the name of God. Therefore, it was not done for religious purposes.

Although the belief and motivation of the Nazis could be classified as religious, The Church definitely did not support the Nazi movement and Priests, along with most Catholics, were often persecuted by the Nazis. In fact the Church was a major advocate against the Nazi movement. That The Church powered Nazi values is definitely incorrect.

 

Someone might have said this already but im too lazy to check but
Science is not always 100% true, it is always changing. An Example is people thought maggits appeared out of nowhere on meat, that was their science at that time, but then people found out, hey, maggits appear when you leave meat to rot. My point it, never 100% believe in what science says, it could change (considering it changes a lot).

"Although the belief and motivation of the Nazis could be classified as religious, The Church definitely did not support the Nazi movement and Priests, along with most Catholics, were often persecuted by the Nazis. In fact the Church was a major advocate against the Nazi movement. That The Church powered Nazi values is definitely incorrect." Said by enderdragon

And i could kind of say the same thing about radicals islamics, although stupid muslims dont necessarily follow the
Quran, they read a verse, make their own opintion about it, which is not allowed (and the real meaning of the verse has been given its other books called Tafsirs) and think, oh hey, i needa go kill people, when the verse was talking about a battle like 1500 years ago. Dumb people taking verses to their own meaning.

 

What do you mean

Science is not a belief. It is a fact. Although, yes, you should not cite outdated science (science that predates modern discoveries) when new information is availible

^

 

“I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.”

This is a direct qoute from hitler.

You could take martin luther just as an example, tho he wasnt excactly catholic. I have not read his book The jewish people and their lies, but even the title is quite clear proof of what the content is. Anti Jewish heatread has deep roots within christianity. After all, the jewish people, was accused by the catholic church to be responcible for the murder of god in the name of jeesus.

I have only read parts of a copy of mein kampf, but as I am aware, he says in his first chapter, that he is doing the work of of god.

And lastly, there was a lot of christian symbolism, but thats a different topic. Wether they are christians or not doesnt matter. What matters is on what grounds they do things.

I mean, we could go on and on with terrible things religion has done. I am not even interested in it personally. What I am interested in is wether it is true or not.

On that matter, for example aig does a disservise to its religion by beeing so blatantly and agressively against science, or evidence based thinking as id like to put it. I can hardly find a religion convincing, if it has to defend it self in ways aig does it.

 

So whats the answer lol? I just want an explanation as to as to what can we not explain with science... Also isn't logical a synonym of rational? And rational a synonym of intellectual thinking? Not saying all christians are dumb, just saying iss whatever.

Also there are big situations that bother me of a "god" existant world that just wouldn't justify anything. Unless of course there's no reason to believe in science, in that case I guess it's okay. Just that the standard of society will murder you on sight.

 

WHOOOAAAAA you didnt just go there right... please tell me that was sarcasm or something

 

Not only does he not understand science, he doesn't understand how other religions work. The sheer ignorance...

This is what happens when you force a kid to believe Christianity. They spend their whole life trying to twist reality to fit what they were brainwashed into believing, but it can't be done. Not without logical gymnastics that make absolutely no sense.

 

The tilma of Guadalupe has been studied scientifically... scientists have determined that 1) the picture is not made up of paint 2) the picture hovers inexplicably just in front of the tilma 3) all the stars on the image are in the correct positions, which is just neat but not really inexplicable. 4) in the eyes of the image, there are teeny reflections of the bishop and others, and in their eyes are reflections of the image. Don't claim it doesn't exist, because, and I quote
"That's a nice picture, who painted it?" -Hillary Clinton, after seeing the tilma.

If you aren't familiar with the story, basically Mary (mother of Jesus) appeared to an Indian in Mexico and told him to ask the Spanish/European bishop and ask him to build a church. The bishop was skeptical, so Mary told the Indian to pick a bunch of flowers that were growing completely out of season. The Indian collected them in his tilma and when he opened it for the bishop, there was an image of Mary with both European and Aztec nationalities.

And as for the Buddist Confederate thing... that's hilarious!

 

Makes Christianity seem less crazy now doesn't it XD

 

You're insane.

 

You accuse us of being brainwashed, yet you have no evidence to possibly even back this up. How do you know for certain that you are right? Your assurance that you are correct and your arrogance towards us leads me to think that you yourself might be wrong. You call us ignorant. Fine, but at least look at yourself and see how closed minded you are. You accuse us of twisting reality when it might be you who is doing the twisting. We have thousands of years of history to support us, and you have a couple hundred theories.

If you honestly believe that you have the authority, or perhaps audacity, to claim that you are right and we are wrong, without so much as an argument, then maybe you shouldn't be in this debate.

 

Amen

So far, I have seen mostly criticism of the Christian faith, rather than actual evidence and facts to support their other theories.

 

If we started over from scratch and got rid of all religion and science, these theories would all be recreated exactly the same as they are. Religion would not.

Do you believe in evolution?

 

Ah! A good question.

To paraphrase, the Catholic Church does not believe that the book of Genesis is teaching science (I have a post somewhere that goes more int detail) We (Catholics) do believe that God created everything, however how he did it is up in the air so to speak. So yes Evolution is possible in my mind, but as long as we believe that it was God who "kickstarted" it.

Now for this point, you can only speculate, as there is no way to know. I believe Christianity would rebuild itself, however, you do not.