A Different Question
-
I'm not sure why my point remains so unclear, but every organisation from the cricket club on requires money to survive. More people = more money if people HAVE to pay, otherwise it may well mean more cost. Who is getting more money, if the money in question is in trust and is used solely to provide for the needs of the people ( a hall, firewood, coffee, etc. ) ? Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
****Christian Graus wrote: I'm not sure why my point remains so unclear, but every organisation from the cricket club on requires money to survive. We've both been arguing the same point. ****Christian Graus wrote: Who is getting more money, if the money in question is in trust and is used solely to provide for the needs of the people ( a hall, firewood, coffee, etc. ) ? The church, which was my point to begin with. And how do you know that the money is used for "good and right purposes" only? Prime example: the Vatican contains priceless art. What religious purpose does that serve? I know this doesn't directly affect churches at the local level, but do remember that your leaders are human, too, and are subject to frivolity. I see this turning into another "God vs. No god" pissing contest. It's like being floored in neutral - the engine is revved up, but you're just wasting gas. I think this "simple" argument can be further broken down into: "You believe in God. I don't." We've been there and done that before, so no need to do it again. Jon Sagara "Ninety percent of baseball is mental, the other half is physical." -- Yogi Bera
-
****Christian Graus wrote: I'm not sure why my point remains so unclear, but every organisation from the cricket club on requires money to survive. We've both been arguing the same point. ****Christian Graus wrote: Who is getting more money, if the money in question is in trust and is used solely to provide for the needs of the people ( a hall, firewood, coffee, etc. ) ? The church, which was my point to begin with. And how do you know that the money is used for "good and right purposes" only? Prime example: the Vatican contains priceless art. What religious purpose does that serve? I know this doesn't directly affect churches at the local level, but do remember that your leaders are human, too, and are subject to frivolity. I see this turning into another "God vs. No god" pissing contest. It's like being floored in neutral - the engine is revved up, but you're just wasting gas. I think this "simple" argument can be further broken down into: "You believe in God. I don't." We've been there and done that before, so no need to do it again. Jon Sagara "Ninety percent of baseball is mental, the other half is physical." -- Yogi Bera
Jon... Are you serious? What religious purpose does the priceless art in the Vatican serve? You gotta be kidding? The best way to look at the priceless art in the Vatican is to consider it part of the family's heirlooms, bequeathed to future generations of Christians for their pleasure and edification. But your whole "it is for the money" argument doesn't hold water. Most local churhes are shockingly poor. And even historically, the norm of a celibate priesthood might very well have been to ensure that the priestly class weren't building treasure up to enrich the family through generations (not that some of that didn't occur anyway, but it helped minimize it). If Christianity was about the money I doubt twelve confused, misguided and fumbling men, parked in the backwater of first century Palestine, would have been able to start something that ended up dominating the western world for the next 20 centuries.
-
Jon... Are you serious? What religious purpose does the priceless art in the Vatican serve? You gotta be kidding? The best way to look at the priceless art in the Vatican is to consider it part of the family's heirlooms, bequeathed to future generations of Christians for their pleasure and edification. But your whole "it is for the money" argument doesn't hold water. Most local churhes are shockingly poor. And even historically, the norm of a celibate priesthood might very well have been to ensure that the priestly class weren't building treasure up to enrich the family through generations (not that some of that didn't occur anyway, but it helped minimize it). If Christianity was about the money I doubt twelve confused, misguided and fumbling men, parked in the backwater of first century Palestine, would have been able to start something that ended up dominating the western world for the next 20 centuries.
John McIlroy wrote: If Christianity was about the money I doubt twelve confused, misguided and fumbling men, parked in the backwater of first century Palestine, would have been able to start something that ended up dominating the western world for the next 20 centuries. A lot of really successful corporations began in a garage. I'm sure Christianity will make it some day too. ;P
-
Jon... Are you serious? What religious purpose does the priceless art in the Vatican serve? You gotta be kidding? The best way to look at the priceless art in the Vatican is to consider it part of the family's heirlooms, bequeathed to future generations of Christians for their pleasure and edification. But your whole "it is for the money" argument doesn't hold water. Most local churhes are shockingly poor. And even historically, the norm of a celibate priesthood might very well have been to ensure that the priestly class weren't building treasure up to enrich the family through generations (not that some of that didn't occur anyway, but it helped minimize it). If Christianity was about the money I doubt twelve confused, misguided and fumbling men, parked in the backwater of first century Palestine, would have been able to start something that ended up dominating the western world for the next 20 centuries.
*sigh* I thought I was done, but... John McIlroy wrote: Are you serious? What religious purpose does the priceless art in the Vatican serve? You gotta be kidding? The best way to look at the priceless art in the Vatican is to consider it part of the family's heirlooms, bequeathed to future generations of Christians for their pleasure and edification. I fail to see how art fosters edification. Art is a material object and has nothing to do with virtue and piety. Art may inspire people, sure, but there is nothing holy about art itself. Why don't they sell this priceless art to feed the poor? Because the day after, the poor would still be hungry, so selling the art is a waste of *money*. The art will not make people go to heaven. The art will not save souls. The art only increases the financial value of the Vatican. Art is for pleasure, not edification. John McIlroy wrote: But your whole "it is for the money" argument doesn't hold water. Most local churhes are shockingly poor. Right. But they would be non-existent without a congregation. Therefore, they need people because they need money to survive. John McIlroy wrote: If Christianity was about the money I doubt twelve confused, misguided and fumbling men, parked in the backwater of first century Palestine, would have been able to start something that ended up dominating the western world for the next 20 centuries. That's based on the huge assumption that you hold the Bible to be true. I don't. Jon Sagara "Ninety percent of baseball is mental, the other half is physical." -- Yogi Bera
-
Jon... Are you serious? What religious purpose does the priceless art in the Vatican serve? You gotta be kidding? The best way to look at the priceless art in the Vatican is to consider it part of the family's heirlooms, bequeathed to future generations of Christians for their pleasure and edification. But your whole "it is for the money" argument doesn't hold water. Most local churhes are shockingly poor. And even historically, the norm of a celibate priesthood might very well have been to ensure that the priestly class weren't building treasure up to enrich the family through generations (not that some of that didn't occur anyway, but it helped minimize it). If Christianity was about the money I doubt twelve confused, misguided and fumbling men, parked in the backwater of first century Palestine, would have been able to start something that ended up dominating the western world for the next 20 centuries.
John McIlroy wrote: If Christianity was about the money I doubt twelve confused, misguided and fumbling men, parked in the backwater of first century Palestine, would have been able to start something that ended up dominating the western world for the next 20 centuries. John, its not the "same" Christianity now that it was at the time of the deciples. Sure times change but a lot has been added to the 4 testamentss probably starting at the time of Saul aka Paul. If you are to consider the 3 original Christian lineages, of (Orthodox || Nonorthodox), Coptic and Nostic, you'll certainly find those lines that made the greater modifcations to the testaments and created tithing and other tributary systems, dominated the Western world, not the lineages that stuck to Jesus's words. These days the Coptic Papacy is almost unheard of. And simlar due to politics there are disputes as to whether the Nostics still truly exist. History proves the point, John McIlroy wrote: Are you serious? What religious purpose does the priceless art in the Vatican serve? You gotta be kidding? The best way to look at the priceless art in the Vatican is to consider it part of the family's heirlooms, bequeathed to future generations of Christians for their pleasure and edification. Bequeathing heirlooms may be nice but serves little purpose in true faith or religeon. The reason that Cathedrals were built so magnificiently, artisitic treasures and religeous artifacts were displayed, was to stun the uneducated peasant classes into seeing part of Gods Glory, and the promise of the Kingdom to come in heaven. History also shows that when new Cathedrals were completed, market towns followed and trade boomed, giving a spin-off effect into the local economy of the Feudal Lord. Who coincidentally had sponsered the Cathedrals construction. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
John McIlroy wrote: If Christianity was about the money I doubt twelve confused, misguided and fumbling men, parked in the backwater of first century Palestine, would have been able to start something that ended up dominating the western world for the next 20 centuries. A lot of really successful corporations began in a garage. I'm sure Christianity will make it some day too. ;P
Ahhh... I wish I didn't have an exam tomorrow. I always enjoy a little give and take with the materialists and the gaping holes in their reasoning, but tonight is not a good night. Maybe we can continue this a little later!!! JM
-
Ahhh... I wish I didn't have an exam tomorrow. I always enjoy a little give and take with the materialists and the gaping holes in their reasoning, but tonight is not a good night. Maybe we can continue this a little later!!! JM
John McIlroy wrote: I always enjoy a little give and take with the materialists and the gaping holes in their reasoning Can you believe this guy? John, you have yet to provide one single argument which cannot be - by your own double standards - reliably countered. I should say from that that you are the one with gaping holes in your reasoning, or an inability to effectively communicate them. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
Henry Jacobs wrote: I mean science defying miracles like parting the red sea, not child birth and the like. So do I. Henry Jacobs wrote: I do not consider finding god, peace, or whatever a miracle. It's not, it's an emotional experience caused by chemical reactions in our minds. That's why so many people experience it in so many different contexts, void of real proof. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
What science defying miracles are you refering to?
-
Ahhh... I wish I didn't have an exam tomorrow. I always enjoy a little give and take with the materialists and the gaping holes in their reasoning, but tonight is not a good night. Maybe we can continue this a little later!!! JM
I never said I was a materialist but since you believe I am then explain how my reasoning possesses any more holes than yours? (When you get back of course. ;))
-
John McIlroy wrote: I always enjoy a little give and take with the materialists and the gaping holes in their reasoning Can you believe this guy? John, you have yet to provide one single argument which cannot be - by your own double standards - reliably countered. I should say from that that you are the one with gaping holes in your reasoning, or an inability to effectively communicate them. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
david So far your argument is that because some religious people believed 600 years ago that the sun revolved around the earth, and science proved it wrong... that we can make infinite extrapolations that science is going to prove every religious truth to be bogus. Your other point is that we can be 100% certain that the only reality is a physical reality, even though we have no comprehensive phyical explantion for countless things... stretching from the microcosm to the macrocosm and especially in the realm of human behaviour. Like most materialists who have gone before you... you end up assuming that which you are trying to prove. Siiggghhh! The fact that you have no physical explanation for the majority of human experience seems not to slow you down one tiny bit in ensuring us that without doubt ultimate reality is 100% physical. Like I said... when the scientists come us with a physical model that explains volition (for example)... I'll start throwing out my rosaries. Until then... Hail Mary full of grace! JM
-
david So far your argument is that because some religious people believed 600 years ago that the sun revolved around the earth, and science proved it wrong... that we can make infinite extrapolations that science is going to prove every religious truth to be bogus. Your other point is that we can be 100% certain that the only reality is a physical reality, even though we have no comprehensive phyical explantion for countless things... stretching from the microcosm to the macrocosm and especially in the realm of human behaviour. Like most materialists who have gone before you... you end up assuming that which you are trying to prove. Siiggghhh! The fact that you have no physical explanation for the majority of human experience seems not to slow you down one tiny bit in ensuring us that without doubt ultimate reality is 100% physical. Like I said... when the scientists come us with a physical model that explains volition (for example)... I'll start throwing out my rosaries. Until then... Hail Mary full of grace! JM
Look mate, I really need sleep now, so this will be brief. We can continue this in the morning (or rather the afternoon)... So far your argument is that because some religious people believed 600 years ago that the sun revolved around the earth, and science proved it wrong... that we can make infinite extrapolations that science is going to prove every religious truth to be bogus. If you believe that is what my argument is, or is even based on, then you need to re-read all forty nine of tonight’s posts. My belief is the complete opposite. That particular example was used purely to show how people – not science – have been able to justify a fact till the sun comes down, but still be wrong. Your other point is that we can be 100% certain that the only reality is a physical reality, even though we have no comprehensive phyical explantion for countless things... stretching from the microcosm to the macrocosm and especially in the realm of human behaviour. Again, you are placing words in my mouth (supposedly). I said that we cannot be 100% certain, but that does not mean that you are 100% correct. Naivety is what that is called, and naivety is what it is. On either side. Like most materialists who have gone before you... you end up assuming that which you are trying to prove. Siiggghhh! Firstly, I am not a materialist, I am a realist. I evaluate all of the evidence available to me and draw my own conclusions. Secondly, I have not assumed one thing tonight that I cannot provide accepted scientific proof for – even that which has been accepted by religious men. The fact that you have no physical explanation for the majority of human experience seems not to slow you down one tiny bit in ensuring us that without doubt ultimate reality is 100% physical. Look, mate, I don’t know which David Wulff you’ve been talking to tonight, but it hasn’t been me. If anything, the opposite has been your argument. In fact, my points have not even been mentioned. Like I said... when the scientists come us with a physical model that explains volition (for example)... I'll start throwing out my rosaries. No you wouldn’t, and saying that is nothing more than a futile attempt to try to show open-mindedness. I have said (in practically every reply), and provided accepted scientific proof, that you would not change your beliefs if you have true faith. You can – as you have been shoeing tonight – find justifications in anything. ------ Right, that IS it – I am go
-
What science defying miracles are you refering to?
How about the ability for a man to piss though a six inch hole at a distance of more than ten feet? ;) ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
How about the ability for a man to piss though a six inch hole at a distance of more than ten feet? ;) ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
Hmmm.. that does sound truly miraculous. :omg: I'm not sure if I should ask if there's a story behind it, though.... "das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten
-
We've had a few religious threads today, but I want to ask a slightly different question. Obviously different people have different beliefs and we are not going to change each other's minds with a simple discussion in the Lounge. I have my own beliefs and I don't agree with some other people, but I accept that as a normal part of life. (I'm also not so uncertain of my beliefs that I need others to validate them.) So here is my question: What about religious people (of any religion) who feel the need to preach to and convert others? The sort of people who are so closed minded that they think that only they are right and everyone else should change (or perhaps they are merely trying to convince themselves)? Some of these people take it to the extreme. Some kill others in the name of their religion. Some hijack planes. Some brainwash others with their own beliefs. Some just go door to door. And some just try to convert their friends. Where do you draw the line? "Let me burn you down." -"Religion" by Front 242
before years came to our gate two jehovists with: we want to speak with you father said them: ok we can talk for hours but at first here is spade and there is garden - we all will spend hour there at first to make enought time for discussion in 3 miliseconds they were at neighbours and they fighthed with them so long as neighbours before us t!
-
What science defying miracles are you refering to?
Don't ask. Christian always says this - he has experienced miracles, including faith healing. Then he backs away from providing details. Says that he can't actually provide verified evidence, so we have to just believe that he has indeed seen miracles. I haven't pushed him too hard on this because it seems he is reluctant to get into the details, and I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume there is a "personal" dimension here that he'd rather not discuss in an open, public, forum. Christian, I wish you'd either stop saying this, or start posting some details (and verification) of these miracles. ----------------------------- "I leave no turn un-stoned." - John Simmons, Nov 6 2001 -----------------------------