The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by hazel Jeebiz, you're conflating two things that have nothing to do with one another. The sexual abuse of children is vile, and any religion that condones it is to be condemned. And yes, it is quite true that the politically correct are disgracefully mealy-mouthed about this sort of thing when the abusers happen to be Muslims. There was a much worse example of this in the UK recently. A gang of Asian Muslim men were kidnapping and systematically abusing young white girls in Rochdale for years, and neither the police nor social services did anything about it because they were afraid of being called islamophobic. But Jehovah's Witnesses do no one any harm, and doorstep evangelists are merely a nuisance. Banning them is just an attack on free speech and freedom of religion.

So - is it Islamophobic of me to post and show my disgust at this practice?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39597062 FGM: Detroit doctor Jumana Nagarwala faces life in jail A doctor in the US city of Detroit has been charged with carrying out female genital mutilation (FGM) on young girls in what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the country.

I wonder how many unreported cases of FGM are in England right now? I am sure Mayor Khan would like to look into it? Or am I being Islamophobic? Feminists on this issue at all? Nah, why would they - after all according to them Islam is a 'feminist' religion right?

I obviously have a bone to pick here, but not just towards this practice that is either endorsed or turned a blind eye to in the Islamic community - but also the PC police out there. Sorry, but if this is prevalent in some cultures/religions I am beginning to think maybe some beliefs and cultures ARE better than others.... If this type of conclusion appalls whoever reads this, fine - but I hold to that conclusion because any culture/religious belief that condones this is barbaric and has no place in the world.

-edit

Again, it could have been any religion - some groups in East Africa does the same practice (and they are non-Muslim , but either some kind of traditional/animist religion) - that does not prevent me from holding the same beliefs. Islam right now just happens to be the target.

Hazel and Jeebizz,,,

Just a bit of information, your conversation is quite good but there is evidence throughtout history of atrocities committed by most religions, in the name of there belief...

To be honest tho, the perpetrators hide under the guise of religion, but the religions are generally peace loving but the leaders are the ones to be questioned when they condone or promote violence...

The Catholic church has been trying to cover up the child abuse committed in Australia, by church members, for many years now... This ubuse was started when children where shipped to Australia during the WW2 and after... The abuse was like rot and continues, there are a lot of questions unanswered...

One thing I have learnt over the years, the propaganda machines will promote what it needs to get the result it wants, sadly its always to the detriment of the people...

Religion and country leaders are all in the same pot, the people have no control(no countries people have any control over the governments)..

Anyway, this is good thread and very highlighting..

I am non religious, non conforming, and not interested in changing anybody from being a person, thus I help others and am peaceful until you break down my door..

As of this writing this thread has 501 pages and the pattern that emerges from all of these pages, at least to me, is that the more devout any contributor is, the less conversation takes place since they seem to revel in implacability*.

I am struck by the juxtaposition to everything else in Life in that change is not only common but has been exceptionally rapid since the turn of the 20th Century. My Grandfather was born to a time where even major towns still had hitching posts for horses and many gas lights in homes and around town and by the time he died he witnessed electricity everywhere, automobiles, airplanes, jets, rockets to the Moon (and even passed Pluto) and personal computers. My grandfather was devout and even when on vacation sought the location of local churches so he would never miss Mass.... Mass that is essentially unchanged for over 1000 years and involved in "the way the world is" yet ignoring how much our view of that world has rightfully changed even in one human lifetime, let alone 1000 years.


*

Originally Posted by Cambridge English Dictionary implacable adjective us ​ /ɪmˈplæk·ə·bəl/ ​ unable to be changed, satisfied, or stopped:

Originally Posted by enorbet As of this writing this thread has 501 pages and the pattern that emerges from all of these pages, at least to me, is that the more devout any contributor is, the less conversation takes place since they seem to revel in implacability.

Are you suggesting that I'm not devout? Then why did I spend four hours in church this Good Friday?

Originally Posted by enorbet As of this writing this thread has 501 pages and the pattern that emerges from all of these pages, at least to me, is that the more devout any contributor is, the less conversation takes place since they seem to revel in implacability*. I am struck by the juxtaposition to everything else in Life in that change is not only common but has been exceptionally rapid since the turn of the 20th Century. My Grandfather was born to a time where even major towns still had hitching posts for horses and many gas lights in homes and around town and by the time he died he witnessed electricity everywhere, automobiles, airplanes, jets, rockets to the Moon (and even passed Pluto) and personal computers. My grandfather was devout and even when on vacation sought the location of local churches so he would never miss Mass.... Mass that is essentially unchanged for over 1000 years and involved in "the way the world is" yet ignoring how much our view of that world has rightfully changed even in one human lifetime, let alone 1000 years. *

the thing you missed perhaps taking notice of - it looks to me is what has also not changed every sense mankind was created is that...

1. Mankind by himself in how he does not change. He is always changing the laws to suit his needs - he uses his belief system and the laws that come from it to try and govern himself and other people to conform to his ways and not theirs. But, for what reason? (rectorial question)

2. God does not change. The ones that do not follow His laws will always follow either their own laws or someone else laws.

therefore the need to follow is a common trait in all of mankind.

The need to have others like them too is a common trait of all of mankind. That is why they make laws for others to follow so them that do follow the laws will be more like the ones that made them to be followed.

Because the ones that made the laws believe that this is how man should live, therefore they set laws for them and the others to follow so that if all that follow the same said laws will become one with each other.
They will be of one mind and body all working together for the same common goal.


We are created in the likeness and Image of God. Therefore regardless of how much anyone in this world denies the existent of God - the one Almighty God that created mankind and everything for him to have and share with others so that everyone will be equal in all things.

if you know how God thinks and operates you will always see God in everyone even them that deny Him. Because they mimic even the one they deny exist. Which is God.

The only difference you will see between them (disbelievers) and others (some that even say they believe in God) is them that mimic God (which is everybody) and do not even try to follow Gods laws are only following themselves or someone else laws.

Because of that trait mankind has "to follow" someone. Be it themselves or someone else. This is where we see conflict enter into the equation of mankind. Because of selfishness and incomplete thoughts that ones uses to govern themselves. In what they believe to be a truth about anything. that is now stored into their belief system that all of mankind has and uses to judge and condemn others and sometimes themselves. Along with how they act or behave in all things at any given time. This causes and effect is from whatever is within their belief system at the time it happened.

all of what you soke of going from a candle light to a light bulb is progress in knowledge not progress in knowledge of oneself in what is just.

Man without God in their lives cannot by any means be a truly complete just person even though he is still capable of actually performing just acts now and then. That is him only getting it right once in a while.

... I'll leave it at that... because their is more, their is always more. .....

Laws: some synonyms to help the reader that has no real understanding that if the word Law is not used then that does not mean that no laws pertain to, or is being used to govern their thoughts which govern their behavior.

precepts, doctrine, rule, regulation, principle, convention, instruction, guideline statute, enactment, act, bill, decree, edict, bylaw, ruling, ordinance, dictum, command, order, directive, pronouncement, proclamation, dictate, fiat

Originally Posted by hazel Are you suggesting that I'm not devout? Then why did I spend four hours in church this Good Friday?

devout.

having or showing deep religious feeling or commitment

their is a big different between having and showing. Even the hypocrite shows others how devote he is to something to others. Jesus said what about that whenever (at least at times) whenever He seen others showing their devoutness to others? What did he call them?

For one to call someone into question about something they are doing especially when that other does not know what that is, is a sign of what coming out of the one that calls it into question?

self examination is now something that should take place by the one that called it into question, not the one that was given the question....

food for thought.
peace...

Originally Posted by BW-userx Jesus said what about that whenever (at least at times) whenever He seen others showing their devoutness to others? What did he call them?

Your wording is quite obscure, but since you've been profusely talking as if you had a direct line with him, what would Jesus say about you? I think we're all curious.

Originally Posted by hazel Are you suggesting that I'm not devout? Then why did I spend four hours in church this Good Friday?

Hello Hazel, and no, I'm not judging anyone but rather commenting on what I see as a directly proportional relationship. It is entirely a matter of degree and each finds his own balance point. If one is excessively open to change one tends to be uncertain of anything and wishy-washy. OTOH, If one is excessively resistant to change, one risks being static, rigid, and brittle.

Perhaps most importantly, from my point of view, spirituality is rightfully personal and not a little private. When it becomes public and especially "Organized" is when dogmatism becomes a serious risk. It is not for me to say if you are devout or not. I'm just saying that those that "wear it on their shirtsleeves" tend to be implacable as part of that process, possibly even a prerequisite.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Originally Posted by BW-userx View Post Jesus said what about that whenever (at least at times) whenever He seen others showing their devoutness to others? What did he call them? Your wording is quite obscure, but since you are profusely talking as if you had a direct line with him, what would Jesus say about you? I think we're all curious.

My wording is obscure?In what way? Huh? Why did you find what I said to be obscure?

In what sense of the word to you mean obscure?

It is written within the Bible what Jesus said about some of the people showing their devotion to God openly. I am quite sure that the one that wrote about it did not write what he said every time he said it within the bible for one, and that perhaps Jesus did not comment on it every time he seen the same type of people doing what he commented on about it.


that is why I worded it like I did, Because Jesus did say something about the people like that and (at least at times) is for the times I have no idea if he said it or not. because I was not there. why is it that hard to figure out what I mean by what I said?

does the phrase read a bible need to be said? or better yet: what, I got a quote Jesus now in a thread about religion? That can be redundant.

As far as you seemingly needing to know what Jesus thinks of me. more to mock me then to actually find out because of pure curiosity.

It is more important that you worry about what he thinks of you and not me. Don't you think?

and no I do not care what he thinks about you. only that I hope it is a not ill of you.

@BW-userx - Since you tend to preach the same line from the pulpit at every opportunity and at length, I have to wade through and single out actually relevant responses and from the last wall of text I got

Originally Posted by BW-userx all of what you soke of going from a candle light to a light bulb is progress in knowledge not progress in knowledge of oneself in what is just

If Organized Religion actually did only concern itself with personal knowledge of Justice as Abstract Truth that would be a welcome limitation but instead it/they also concern themselves with describing the nature of the world to force it to fit how scripture was interpreted as well as morality and then enforce that view at the threat of ostracism, exile, torture and death. I've already noted that it took 300 years for The Church to apologize for it's treatment of Galileo and his research, and that's just a well-known tip of the iceberg. Until and unless someone shows counter evidence my evaluation that the more devout the more static, rigid, and brittle a person or group of persons is seems accurate. Since I am unaware of any Clergy who have been arrested or worse by Scientists, it seems rather definitive as well as enlightening as to important defining differences.

Originally Posted by enorbet @BW-userx - Since you tend to preach the same line from the pulpit at every opportunity and at length, I have to wade through and single out actually relevant responses and from the last wall of text I got

to preach: publicly proclaim or teach

I'd rather teach or try to teach then to just lay unfounded clams in sentences that only make it look like i know what I am talking about to others that have no idea of what to believe. That only leads people astray. Even the ones that are doing that. - I better reword that last sentence.

even the ones that are laying unfounded clams lead themselves astray as well as the others that believe them. It is them that are being deceiving.

for example:

Originally Posted by enorbet If Organized Religion actually did only concern itself with personal knowledge of Justice as Abstract Truth that would be a welcome limitation but instead it/they also concern themselves with describing the nature of the world to force it to fit how scripture was interpreted as well as morality and then enforce that view at the threat of ostracism, exile, torture and death.

that is a mouth full for sure, am I to pick that entire thought apart then try to show you where it fails?


the ole generalize Organized Religion statement used to justify and try to show fault in it.

That term "Organized Religion" bares no relevance whatsoever to one particular person or "religion" I put the word religion in quotes because their is only one true religion. the rest are only seen as religions by the uneducated and them that do not actually seek truth of what a Religion truly is.

so they just toss what everyone's beliefs that have a central figure to follow into a conglomerate and name/tag it "Religions".

the term Organized Religion If something was not Organized then it'd be unorganized. therefore chaotic. what good can come out of chaos? complete disorder and confusion - Turmoil. where is the good in that I ask you?


Abstract Truth: | The Best In Smoothjazz R&B and Funk |

some band or a made up term, because it contradicts itself.

one does need to know the meaning of the two words to know that (much).

Abstract:
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

Truth:
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality

The term "Abstract Truth" is a misleading made up term. Therefore deceiving in nature.

personal knowledge of Justice as Abstract Truth.

that would entail someone having to do what?

how does one gain personal knowledge of Justice?

Then when this knowledge is gained. it becomes truth.

Why would someone then even want to take this truth that now has been gain and put it back into the Abstract?



Furthermore,

Originally Posted by enorbet I've already noted that it took 300 years for The Church to apologize for it's treatment of Galileo and his research, and that's just a well-known tip of the iceberg.

for one that is NO WHERE within the post of yours that I commented on stating that. So I see no relevance to that in which you just "said" or why you even brought it into this conversation. irrelevant - side tracking

post #7505 the post I commented on which you quoted me in reply with this one in which I am new giving my rebuttal on.

Originally Posted by enorbet Until and unless someone shows counter evidence my evaluation that the more devout the more static, rigid, and brittle a person or group of persons is seems accurate.

as well it should be. Otherwise what takes place if one is constantly changing their ways? Wishy washy, undeceive, unorganized, chaotic etc..

Just Like I said mankind is. always changing laws to suit his needs which are actually wants and not needs to suit however he feels about it at the moment regardless if it is actually right or wrong. In his mind one that does this it is always right. Because no one likes to be wrong. because we all are created in the image and likeness of God. That being the end point of a complete thought.

Originally Posted by enorbet Since I am unaware of any Clergy who have been arrested or worse by Scientists, it seems rather definitive as well as enlightening as to important defining differences.

Clergy do not even have the authority to arrest people even Scientists nor do Scientists have the authority to arrest people or Clergy.

where did that thought come from?

what? because of what man did long long ago. You speak of this - how it took the Church over 300 yrs to admit fault of something they did not do, but someone before them did before the one that admitted error.

More than 350 years after the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo, Pope John Paul II is poised to rectify one of the Church's most infamous wrongs -- the persecution of the Italian astronomer and physicist for proving the Earth moves around the Sun.

then I ask you how long will it take you to forgive them that someone else finally admitted for them because they are no longer alive in this world that the others where wrong in what they believed and did as a result of it?


that only proves to me by what the people of that time within the Church did are just like you and me. They are no different just because of a title one holds, or a position one hold. people are people. we are all the same.

We all have a belief system that by an internal means we want nothing but the truth stored in it, and if that belief system gets attacked by someone else or others. then we go into defense mode to try and protect it. Because it is our beliefs that define us.

So what happens when one puts the wrong information in their brief system?



It took over 350 years for someone within the Catholic Church to finally make a verbal/written statement of its error in its condemnation of someone in what someone or a body of people believed about the sun and the earth way back then. so what is your point on that anyways, for one. I missed it.

to error is human to forgive is divine.

I do wonder though how long it is going to take you to forgive them that did what you do and I and everyone on this earth does. Try to protect your beliefs at all cost.

denial is the first line of defense, and they at least publicly admitted by proxy that them that condemned Galileo where in error for doing so.

Why does that matter in the first place. everyone involved in that innocent are long dead and gone and judged rightly for everything they needed to be judged for.

therefore I see no relevance in any of it whatsoever. Only that I think it sad that the Pope had to make a public announcement on it just to shut them that kept digging up that hatchet and waving it around up.

you had to "single out actually relevant responses"

things only you wanted to hear, not everything I said.

that is called "selective hearing" which is an actual term that does not contradict itself.

"heaven forbid..." I know it's been done before but maybe you should rip your bibles in to 5s again: https://youtu.be/s86-Z-CbaHA

Originally Posted by BW-userx It is written within the Bible what Jesus said about some of the people showing their devotion to God openly.

Ok then. I guess that whatever Jesus allegedly said, according to your reference books, will apply to you as well, as you've been doing quite a bit of "showing off" your faith, devotion and moral superiority. Definitely much more than what Hazel did according to your allegations.

As far as you seemingly needing to know what Jesus thinks of me. more to mock me then to actually find out because of pure curiosity. It is more important that you worry about what he thinks of you and not me. Don't you think?

I don't, and I don't have any interest whatsoever in mocking you. See above. In my world there ain't no Jesus, no vicious bearded man with no control whatsoever over his alleged sloppy creation, no immortal souls, no original sins, etc. In my world we try to rely on facts, even if that doesn't give us all answers. And by "facts" I mean "facts".

Originally Posted by BW-userx It took over 350 years for someone within the Catholic Church to finally make a verbal/written statement of its error in its condemnation of someone in what someone or a body of people believed about the sun and the earth way back then. so what is your point on that anyways, for one. I missed it.

The point is that the so-called "catholic church" is a monarchy, and as such it is based on the authority of its king, the "pope" (i.e. "poppy", or "daddy"), and of his court of lackeys who are allowed to interpret the content of a set of books called "the books". They claim to have a direct line with the supernatural author of such books, and therefore to be the owners of the truth, which according to them is protected by their (usurped) authority.

If that isn't plain ridiculous arrogance. It took a long time to rectify the Galileo affair because the church's arrogance has been the rule, not the exception, for centuries. At some point more and more people started to run away from it, and fortunately the use of terror to keep them quiet and pious and everything wasn't allowed anymore, at least officially. In other words, the church had to stop ruining people's lives openly.

People kept asking about Galileo. The church swallowed its pride and did some public relations, by "apologizing" in order to clean up their product and stop people bothering. Not that the product changed much, though. Besides, given the persistent nature of religious beliefs and their stubborn resistance to facts, I'll bet there are still at least some firm catholics who believe that Galileo, after all, "deserved it".

And here's the point: when you've been making lots of such "mistakes" for centuries, and when it takes centuries to recognize one of them, in spite of the truth having been known all along, then they cease to be innocent "mistakes", and they start to appear more and more clearly as deliberate, vicious manoeuvres to maintain some vicious form of power.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Quote: Originally Posted by BW-userx View Post It is written within the Bible what Jesus said about some of the people showing their devotion to God openly. Ok then. I guess that whatever Jesus allegedly said, according to your reference books, will apply to you as well, as you've been doing quite a bit of "showing off" your faith, devotion and moral superiority. Definitely much more than what Hazel did according to your allegations.

what you call my reference books state that Jesus allegedly said something according to you.

hum

anyways, what Jesus said does apply to me as well, yes.

what you deem as showing off is doing nothing more then anyone else in this post. which is proclaiming their belief system. which you are doing to. so by your definition of showing off using my actions of explain my belief system then you too are showing off as well. By that definition of yours.

"your faith, devotion and moral superiority"

my faith and devotion to what I believe in.

Is this not a threat called "The Faith & Religion mega Thread" where people come to tell about what it is they believe in . even though not everyone in here including you even have believe you have faith and have no Religion,, yet here you are posting in it.

what is that called?

off topic?

atheism is a belief system but it is NOT a religion.


moral superiority. to who? you?

if what I believe in makes me moral superiority to you or anyone else then it is a direct account of what I believe in and what it turns one that believes in it to being moral superiority to others. and that is not a bad thing.

you speak of it as if having morals is an evil.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Quote: As far as you seemingly needing to know what Jesus thinks of me. more to mock me then to actually find out because of pure curiosity. It is more important that you worry about what he thinks of you and not me. Don't you think? I don't, and I don't have any interest whatsoever in mocking you. See above. In my world there ain't no Jesus, no vicious bearded man with no control whatsoever over his alleged sloppy creation, no immortal souls, no original sins, etc. In my world we try to rely on facts, even if that doesn't give us all answers. And by "facts" I mean "facts".

no vicious bearded man

why are you associating deliberately cruel or violent with Jesus?

a bearded man. associating a bearded man being deliberately cruel or violent with Jesus.

I am sure their is something there that can be looked at.


where in the bible do you find Jesus being deliberately cruel or violent with anyone?

[QUOTE=Philip Lacroix;5697076][quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BW-userx View Post
It took over 350 years for someone within the Catholic Church to finally make a verbal/written statement of its error in its condemnation of someone in what someone or a body of people believed about the sun and the earth way back then. so what is your point on that anyways, for one. I missed it.[quote]
it was to enorbet that that was put to not you.

do you now speak for enorbet. Are you liked minded the two of you?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix The point is that the so-called "catholic church" is a monarchy,

It is not so called Catholic Church, it is Called the Catholic Church. Because it is Catholic and it is a Church. Hence the Catholic Church. Their is NOTHING so-called about it other then them that speak ill of it. Blaming the Church as a whole is wrong.

so-called : used to express one's view that a name or term is inappropriate.

Not anything like your so called Abstract Truth which is a contradiction. it is a lie because there is no such thing.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix is a monarchy and as such it is based on the authority of its king, the "pope" (i.e. "poppy", or "daddy"),

No you speak of what you do not know as if you do know. when in fact you do not know. That is a lie what you spoke.

the authority of its king is Jesus. Period.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix and of his court of lackeys who are allowed to interpret the content of a set of books called "the books".

that too is a lie. their is no such thing as a set of book called "the books" within the Catholic Church that are said that a court of lackeys. Which the word lackeys only means "a servant". that are allowed to interpret "the books".

which there is no such thing called "the books"


but by the way you put it can be taken as degrading content.

generalizations is what you are using. Why?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix They claim to have a direct line with the supernatural author of such books,

The Holy Spirit????

have you ever wondered why people you have a deep hatred for do not talk to you much if any?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix and therefore to be the owners of the truth, which according to them is protected by their (usurped) authority.

you lie to yourself too much. as that is attached to your thoughts on the Catholic Church being the owners of the truth.

add that to your list of things to prove to me. or I will call you a lair. lets put that all together to help your out.

prove to me by ob-ting something they have in writing that states exactly what you just said.

That the Catholic Church are the owners of the truth and it is protected by their authority ((usurped) illegally or by force).

Show me that in writing. if you can't back it up then stop spreading lies.
It has to be something from the Vatican itself. Else it is not proof. It is just you spreading lies.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix It took a long time to rectify the Galileo affair because the church's arrogance has been the rule, not the exception, for centuries. At some point more and more people started to run away from it, and fortunately the use of terror to keep them quiet and pious and everything wasn't allowed anymore, at least officially. In other words, the church had to stop ruining people's lives openly.

you .. oh you speak of what you do not even know of then add it to something that took place with what you tag as the "the Galileo affair" like it is some kind of book or movie.

Just toss the two together into a conglomerate as if one is directly related to the other. You are not fooling me with your words, only yourself and perhaps others.

I'd love to see your documents on how you get all of that into one idea that speaks of a session of events tired together all starting with Galileo and ending up with what is going on today with Christianity.

I hardly think you could make them available to me

just words put together to make it sound like you know what you are talking about using generalities.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix People kept asking about Galileo.

sounds like something you read about. How do you know that is a truth? where you there? did you see and hear it first hand or read about it?


By using your line of rationalization in justifying it. in my world there is no Galileo, just because he was spoken of in something called "books" that means nothing to me whatsoever. I never seen him therefore he is a lie. he never happened that is just some made up person. it is an elaborate lie that a bunch of people got together and devised a plan then got others in on it then they just started writing about his person that did not and never did exist and what he did.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix The church swallowed its pride and did some public relations, by "apologizing" in order to clean up their product and stop people bothering. Not that the product changed much, though.

what More vague terms "the Product"

that is like saying . "they did it" who is they? the Product. what is the product?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Besides, given the persistent nature of religious beliefs and their stubborn resistance to facts,

vagueness again. "stubborn resistance to facts" I have yet to see you in this post to me proved any real facts yourself. Just made up terms and over generalizations then you present them to me as facts and expect me to listen to you?


oh some people long long ago decided to not take any stock in Galileo for whatever their reasons. You seem to forget how many people that where not Catholic actually believed that the world was flat.

that is what the belief was. if some goes over the horizon they will fall of the earth.

Many where sailors that said around the world or at least half of it and still believed that the world was flat. They not once put it to thought that maybe they were wrong because they seen many a ship going over the horizon and returning from where they were. But still held that belief that the world is flat.


How many people held to that believe and would not let go of it for how long even though they were proving it to themselves whenever they''d go beyond the horizon.


All you are doing is looking for reasons to not believe. then using fake facts to justify yourself in doing so. Abstract Truths and speaking of Organized Religion as if that is a bad thing.

as I proved my case there. by you not even trying to rebuttal it.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix I'll bet there are still at least some firm catholics who believe that Galileo, after all, "deserved it".

that is mere speculation again you just told me what about you? now you prove to me you just lied to me about it.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix In my world we try to rely on facts, even if that doesn't give us all answers. And by "facts" I mean "facts".

or you are not trying very hard to live by facts by speculating you can find some firm Catholics that believed Galileo. that is going to be very hard to do. Because you do not even that people have souls.

Because that is all that is left of them; So do please explain to me how are you going to find anyone that believe Galileo because they are all dead.


and according to your belief system have rotted away in a hole in the ground.


your words, do you even think about what it is you are going to say before saying it?

a complete thought.

Questions are not insults! (just stating a truth)

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix And here's the point: when you've been making lots of such "mistakes" for centuries,

I have not been alive for that long. How old do you think I am?

that is you blaming me for someone else actions. why?

why do you blame someone else for something they did not do?


I had nothing to do with the PEOPLE that were in the Catholic Church that said and did what they did pertaining to Galileo or any one else during that time. Or any time before I was born and of age to. You over generalize too much. has anyone else ever told you that?

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix and when it takes centuries to recognize one of them,

how do you know it took them centuries to recognize a mistake? are you diffidently sure that is the case?

or perhaps it was recognize centuries before someone actually made a public announcement about that mistake.

still to me that is irrelevant to anything. Because all the people involved in it . they are all dead and judged.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix in spite of the truth having been known all along, then they cease to be innocent "mistakes",

generalizing again.
define "innocent "mistakes""

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix and they start to appear more and more clearly as deliberate, vicious manoeuvres to maintain some vicious form of power.

deliberately cruel or violent form of power. that is what you mean when you state that the Catholic Church is using "innocent "mistakes"" to deliberately maintain a form of power that is cruel or violent.


I only see in the news others killing Catholics that is an act of cruelty to insert their power over the Catholic to the point of causing their death.


you are delusional about the Catholic Faith.

The Catholic Church is against violence and cruelty.

To clarify: "The Books" is just a literal translation of the Greek "Ta Biblia", which is more usually transliterated as "The Bible". But calling the Bible "The Books" is just a rather childish way of making Christianity sound like some kind of cult. I've often noticed this kind of childishness in militant atheists. For example, they nearly all seem to be convinced that God is an old man with a beard (Philip certainly believes so), though no biblical passage that I know of says anything about Him having a beard. It's as if they are stuck in a version of Christianity that hurt them when they were children and stopped them from growing up properly. And I often get the feeling that withdrawing their belief was once their way of punishing God, the only weapon they had against Him.

There's a scene in the Mastersingers of Nuremberg where Beckmesser the clerk is raving over all the mistakes Walther has made in his trial song, and Hans Sachs says quietly "Mr Marker, why are you so angry?" Beckmesser's anger betrays the fact that he has skin in this game. The real cause of his anger lies elsewhere than in Walther's mistakes.

btw my last post was intended as a joke. I know perfectly well that Jesus condemned people who make an ostentatious parade of their religion. Unfortunately I think BW-userx is absolutely serious when he parades his.