Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
![]() World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) ![]() ![]() ![]() Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,399 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 1 month, 1 day |
| ||||||
You're not rude but you seem to systematicaly disregard many diferent perpectives. The defenition you find in your dictionary isone between many defenitions, so what is a religion ?
1. The question may be understood as a request for a comprehensive descriptive definition. Such definitions are harder to produce that might be imagined, and those that are offered often betray various degrees of cultural (including religious) bias. The difficulty of producing satisfactory 'descriptive' definitions may suggest that the term religion applies to a wider variety of cultural phenomena than is capable of being comprehended in a single definition. 2. A more dynamic approach to answering the question is to provide what may be called an analytical or heuristic definition, which seeks to identify the various elements within religions (or a religion). This is typically done by identifying various 'aspects' or 'dimensions' of religion and, through or beyond this, by analysing the relationship between these aspects or dimensions. 3. Another way of dealing with the question is by seeking to identify some common or essential element manifested by religion. Quite apart from taking for granted that there must be some one essence or element there to be identified, the attempt to produce an essentialist definition of religion poses the obvious danger of reducing religion to one element in particular (perhaps as part of an attempt to judge or justify religion in some way). 4. A further type of response to the question is to produce what may be called a hermeneutic definition, such as implies or leads to an explanation or theory of religion. In effect the question 'What is religion?' is translated as 'What is the meaning of religion?' or 'What is the origin of religion?'. Such definitions are quite legitimate provided they do not attempt to disguise themselves as purely descriptive definitions. 5. A fifth response to the question is for a writer to make it clear what he will understand religion to mean for a particular purpose or in a particular context, making use of a working or provisional definition without claiming for it any wider or universal significance. Such definitions will not necessarily differ in form from any other type of definition. The explanation of "what is religion" and its meaning cannot be reduced to a dictionary reference, look at several defenitions already used, In reply to: All of us are religious persons, even if we don't believe in anything above we are defining ourselfs religiously by rejecting religion. Some believe in institutionalized religions such as the catholic religion, others define and create their own religion (it's not creating a personal god but creating a personal belief) and there are some wich don't believe in anything. "and you think there is no meditation in catholocism? " I didn't say that ! I said christian rationalism prefer using meditation rather than prayers, i know catholics also meditate but they give greater importance to prayers, they mumble countless prayers, repeating the same words over and over wasting their thoughts and souls and seeking salvation by using repetitiveness to achieve a spiritual state instead of trying to understand the spiritual state itself. To me, religion is merely a set of beliefs held dogmatically to be the one right answer, catholics believe in answers like "church is the only salvation", "confessing forgive their sins", "praying gets you closer to god", dogmas ! "can i get a little proof as to how the church was responsible for the dark ages? proof please? no hearsay?" "good thing it was actually the spanish government and not the church itself. " You're way off the truth, i live next to Spain and i know (i've visited torture chambers wich existed in my country) it was the church, why do you say you read history when you actually show no knowlodge ? For a glimpse of the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic religion, do a net search on the Inquisition or the Crusades. During the Inquisition, the Catholic religion killed millions. Why? Primarily to suppress any and all opposition to the pope. Side "benefits" included taking the material wealth of its victims and showing the pope's power. The Catholic Inquisitors tortured, crippled, burned, and imprisioned millions of people. Whatever happened to love your enemies? (Matthew 5:44) So, let's review how this bloodthirsty organization treated a man who simply wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the common people. In the late 1300s John Wycilf translated the scriptures from the Latin Vulgate. Some 40 odd years after his death, the Catholic religion dug up his bones and burned them calling him an arch-heretick. In the 1500's William Tyndale sought to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, English. He could not gain approval from the Catholic religon so he worked as an outlaw on the run in Europe, translating the Bible. He was eventually captured, condemned and executed in 1536. It is because of people like these men, Tyndale and Wycliffe, that we have the scriptures today. If the Catholic religion had its way, we'd still be in ignorance about the Bible and enslaved to the pope. Time fails me here to tell of other marytrs like John Hus, John Rogers, etc. who were killed by popish persons. I have done some search (as my grandfather did) trying to explain why the church and all it represents are based in falsities. I'll list the catholic tradition first and then what the Bible has to say about the matter. In reply to: There are many other scriptures that could have been used here to testify against the doctrines of the catholic religion. There are also many other doctrines of the catholic religion which could have been refuted (e.g. the sacraments, receiving the Holy Ghost, salvation through the catholic religion, penance, rosary, etc.). The Catholic religion has a history of taking the money of poor widows in order to say masses for the dead (which do no good) and collecting the material possessions of nuns. In Italy, the heart of Roman Catholicism, there is an often used saying that goes, "Without money, they don't sing the mass." That is really pitiful on several fronts--1) mass is blasphemous and people who trust in it are hell-bound 2) there's no such thing as purgatory and 3) the gift of God is without price. Roman Catholicism today is probably the wealthiest government in the world. It owns a good share of America's hospitals and has healthy real estate interests. The bottom line is, if you are christian and you want to get right with God , you have to go through His Son, Jesus Christ, not some religious organization. I hope you understand this facts, try to be more rational about what people want to make you believe in as freedom of mind should be the primary resource. MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala ![]() ![]() Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
![]() lover ![]() Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 22 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
i get it, the plan is to bombard me with so many things that i can't possibly respond without taking three or four hours out of my day?
![]() you do realize that when a child builds a castle out of blocks, it takes hours sometimes, but when another child comes to tear it down, it takes no time or effort at all. so uh, you gonna be the second child huh? in the yaers i've been debating on the internet, i've come across each and every one of these points you bring up. i don't mean to systematically disregard what you say. it's just that when you get the same falsifications about the church from every person (because, like i said, they all come from just about the same source originally) then it turns into a system. you want me to think of new answers every time? i could, but that would mean people need to bring something new and actually true against the catholic church. new allegations, new responses. it's simple. so now we are to get into the bible huh? bible is actually easier for me than other things because if you take the verses other people have taken out of context, and put them BACK in context. it totally changes their meaning. so thus, (give me a little time) i begin. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() -------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
I appreciate your posts but I want to drop this little turd into this thread because I think it warrants it:
![]() Keep arguing guys. Some people have nothing better to do. Cheers,
| |||||||
![]() World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) ![]() ![]() ![]() Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,399 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 1 month, 1 day |
| ||||||
"bible is actually easier for me than other things because if you take the verses other people have taken out of context, and put them BACK in context. it totally changes their meaning."
Sure, you give the meaning the church has conceived for the bible words, i "try" to understand the bible as a whole but try to explain it using specific transcriptions. The book is not a science book from where you can take precise conclusions (although the church has already done it before), when i read the bible i read it open minded, directing the message to myself, without any "alien" point of view, it should be read that way because it teaches, show emotions and attitudes, it shows life as it is, not as others want to make you see life. If you control the meaning of "the word", you control life of those who believe in "the word". So it's easy to control people that way, the church have done so with success it seems. 9Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." 10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'[1] " Was the church the only one that trully perceived and understood the message ? MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala ![]() ![]() Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
![]() lover ![]() Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 22 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
this is a long post yes, but if you skip down to the bottom, my apologies are there. maia? we might wanna continue this via email. or agree to disagree. if you get inot history and religion, long post can't be avoided.
first, it's okay for me to disreegard other ways of thinking, as long as i give logical proof to back up why i believe they are wrong. i'm not at all saying these things are wrong for you. i'm just telling you my personal and quite possibly wrong opinion. it's all good, this is just a philosophy workshop, in which many people come together to share and debate idea's. second, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the deffinition of what religion is. because yes, that may be those peoples opinions on what religion is, but what makes them an authoritative source? i only use the dictionary deffinitions because it's short, concise, and agreed on by most of the general populace. also, i believe that in your plethora of deffinitions that range in date and author...there were quite a few that contradicted each other. but i digress. to me it doesn't seem we will get far with that without just going in circles. ![]() now this: All of us are religious persons, even if we don't believe in anything above we are defining ourselfs religiously by rejecting religion. Some believe in institutionalized religions such as the catholic religion, others define and create their own religion (it's not creating a personal god but creating a personal belief) and there are some wich don't believe in anything. i agree with to an extent. i just don't believe catholics are instituionalized like you think. just because thier buildings are old and they have had thousands of years to work out a system that fits for the people who adhere to it, doesn't mean institution. I didn't say that ! I said christian rationalism prefer using meditation rather than prayers, i know catholics also meditate but they give greater importance to prayers, they mumble countless prayers, repeating the same words over and over wasting their thoughts and souls and seeking salvation by using repetitiveness to achieve a spiritual state instead of trying to understand the spiritual state itself. To me, religion is merely a set of beliefs held dogmatically to be the one right answer, catholics believe in answers like "church is the prayer is meditation. really. the more repetitive the better for meditation purposes. when you repeat something over and over while meditating fiercely in your mind, it produces a very deep state of trance. every heard of those tribesmen...crap! damn it...name name...uh...whirling durbishes? dirbishes? something like that. but my spelling is all wrong. i have a tape set that goes into meditation by jeff salzmen Ph.D. that name may be spelled wrong. anyway he talks about all the different types of meditation that mankind has developed. yoga. just sitting and thinking. the catholic prayers. the whirling...whatever that word is...and others. and he is very clear on why these all work very well for meditation...or self hypnosis. catholics believe in answers like "church is the only salvation", not true, but okay. YOU might have believed that, but it's not what the church teaches. find it in the catachism, which is a statment of what we believe (not another bible) everything we believe is in there. "salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven, given to man, by which we must be saved." now that sounds like what the church teaches. not preaching, just defending. your beliefs are good for you. let's give a foundation for what i'm saying. showing no knowledge? don't speak so fast. it's good to think about what you say before you say it. You're way off the truth, i live next to Spain and i know (i've visited torture chambers wich existed in my country) it was the church, why do you say you read history when you actually show no knowlodge ? I. THE SUPPRESSION OF HERESY DURING THE FIRST TWELVE CENTURIES (1) Though the Apostles were deeply imbued with the conviction that they must transmit the deposit of the Faith to posterity undefiled, and that any teaching at variance with their own, even if proclaimed by an angel of Heaven, would be a culpable offense, yet St. Paul did not, in the case of the heretics Alexander and Hymeneus, go back to the Old Covenant penalties of death or scourging (Deut., xiii, 6 sqq.; xvii, 1 sqq.), but deemed exclusion from the communion of the Church sufficient (1 Tim., i, 20; Tit., iii, 10). In fact to the Christians of the first three centuries it could scarcely have occurred to assume any other attitude towards those who erred in matters of faith. Tertullian (Ad. Scapulam, c. ii) lays down the rule: Humani iuris et naturalis potestatis, unicuique quod putaverit colere, nec alii obest aut prodest alterius religio. Sed nec religionis est religionem colere, quae sponte suscipi debeat, non vi. In other words, he tells us that the natural law authorized man to follow only the voice of individual conscience in the practice of religion, since the acceptance of religion was a matter of free will, not of compulsion. Replying to the accusation of Celsus, based on the Old Testament, that the Christians persecuted dissidents with death, burning, and torture, Origen (C. Cels., VII, 26) is satisfied with explaining that one must distinguish between the law which the Jews received from Moses and that given to the Christians by Jesus; the former was binding on the Jews, the latter on the Christians. Jewish Christians, if sincere, could no longer conform to all of the Mosaic law; hence they were no longer at liberty to kill their enemies or to burn and stone violators of the Christian Law. St. Cyprian of Carthage, surrounded as he was by countless schismatics and undutiful Christians, also put aside the material sanction of the Old Testament, which punished with death rebellion against priesthood and the Judges. "Nunc autem, quia circumcisio spiritalis esse apud fideles servos Dei coepit, spiritali gladio superbi et contumaces necantur, dum de Ecclesia ejiciuntur" (Ep. lxxii, ad Pompon., n. 4) religion being now spiritual, its sanctions take on the same character, and excommunication replaces the death of the body. Lactantius was yet smarting under the scourge of bloody persecutions, when he wrote this Divine Institutes in A.D. 308. Naturally, therefore, he stood for the most absolute freedom of religion. He writes: Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows [verbis melius quam verberibus res agenda est]. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion, and one must defend it at any cost [summ? vi] . . . It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion. (Divine Institutes V:20) The ecclesiastical ideas of the first five centuries may be summarized as follows: the Church should for no cause shed blood (St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo I, and others); other teachers, however, like Optatus of Mileve and Priscillian, believed that the State could pronounce the death penalty on heretics in case the public welfare demanded it; the majority held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity. you know, i realize that the some bishops acting freely of the church killed people who were considered heretics, but if you know ( i'm not saying you don't) anything at all about history. not goverment jilted versions of it, then you would know that torture and death for petty things was a sign of the times. that's what people did. and the church was populated by people. eventually the church led humanity out of those horrible barbaric habits, but when it first started, it could just MAKE every change. that's not our way. in fact, during the middle ages people preferred ecclesiastic courts to civil courts because their punishments were actually less harsh. yeah, we had torture chambers. but everybody else had more. understand? St. Augustine (Ep. c, n. 1), almost in the name of the western Church, says: "Corrigi eos volumus, non necari, nec disciplinam circa eos negligi volumus, nec suppliciis quibus digni sunt exerceri" -- we wish them corrected, not put to death; we desire the triumph of (ecclesiastical) discipline, not the death penalties that they deserve. St. John Chrysostom says substantially the same in the name of the Eastern Church (Hom., XLVI, c. i): "To consign a heretic to death is to commit an offence beyond atonement"; and in the next chapter he says that God forbids their execution, even as He forbids us to uproot cockle, but He does not forbid us to repel them, to deprive them of free speech, or to prohibit their assemblies. The help of the "secular arm" was therefore not entirely rejected; on the contrary, as often as the Christian welfare, general or domestic, required it, Christian rulers sought to stem the evil by appropriate measures. As late the seventh century St. Isidore of Seville expresses similar sentiments (Sententiarum, III, iv, nn. 4-6). How little we are to trust the vaunted impartiality of Henry Charles Lea, the American historian of the Inquisition, we may here illustrate by an example. In his History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages" (New York, 1888, I, 215), He closes this period with these words: It was only sixty-two years after the slaughter of Priscillian and his followers had excited so much horror, that Leo I, when the heresy seemed to be reviving in 447, not only justified the act, but declared that, if the followers of a heresy so damnable were allowed to live, there would be an end to human and Divine law. The final step had been taken and the church was definitely pledged to the suppression of heresy at any cost. It is impossible not to attribute to ecclesiastical influence the successive edicts by which, from the time of Theodosius the Great, persistence in heresy was punished with death. In these lines Lee has transferred to the pope words employed by the emperor. Moreover, it is simply the exact opposite of historical truth to assert that the imperial edicts punishing heresy with death were due to ecclesiastical influence, since we have shown that in this period the more influential ecclesiastical authorities declared that the death penalty was contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, and themselves opposed its execution. For centuries this was the ecclesiastical attitude both in theory and in practice. Thus, in keeping with the civil law, some Manichaeans were executed at Ravenna in 556. On the other hand. Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel, the chiefs of Adoptionism anti Predestinationism, were condemned by and councils, but were otherwise left unmolested. We may note, however, that the monk Gothescalch, after the condemnation of his false doctrine that Christ had not died for all mankind, was by the Synods of Mainz in 848 and Quiercy in 849 sentenced to flogging and imprisonment, punishments then common in monasteries for various infractions of the rule. About the year 1000 Manichaeans from Bulgaria, under various names, spread over Western Europe. They were numerous in Italy, Spain, Gaul and Germany. Christian popular sentiment soon showed itself adverse to these dangerous sectaries, and resulted in occasional local persecutions, naturally in forms expressive of the spirit of the age. In 1122 King Robert the Pious (regis iussu et universae plebis consensu), "because he feared for the safety of the kingdom and the salvation of souls" had thirteen distinguished citizens, ecclesiastic and lay, burnt alive at Orl?ans. Elsewhere similar acts were due to popular outbursts. A few years later the Bishop of Chalons observed that the sect was spreading in his diocese, and asked of Wazo, Bishop of Li?ge, advice as to the use of force: "An terrenae potestatis gladio in eos sit animadvertendum necne" ("Vita Wasonis", cc. xxv, xxvi, in P. L., CXLII, 752; "Wazo ad Roger. II, episc. Catalaunens", and "Anselmi Gesta episc. Leod." in "Mon. Germ. SS.", VII, 227 sq.). Wazo replied that this was contrary to the spirit of the Church and the words of its Founder, Who ordained that the tares should be allowed to grow with the wheat until the day of the harvest, lest the wheat be uprooted with the tares; those who today were tares might to-morrow be converted, and turn into wheat; let them therefore live, and let mere excommunication suffice St. Chrysostom, as we have seen, had taught similar doctrine. This principle could not be always followed. Thus at Goslar, in the Christmas season of 1051, and in 1052, several heretics were hanged because Emperor Henry III wanted to prevent the further spread of "the heretical leprosy." A few years later, In 1076 or 1077, a Catharist was condemned to the stake by the Bishop of Cambrai and his chapter. Other Catharists, in spite of the archbishops intervention, were given their choice by the magistrates of Milan between doing homage to the Cross and mounting the pyre. By far the greater number chose the latter. In 1114 the Bishop of Soissons kept sundry heretics in durance in his episcopal city. But while he was gone to Beauvais, to ask advice of the bishops assembled there for a synod the "believing folk, fearing the habitual soft-heartedness of ecclesiatics (clericalem verens mollitiem), stormed the prison took the accused outside of town, and burned them. in most cases, it was not the church that killed the "heretics", but the people, stray bishops working free from the churches authority, and civil authorities. The people disliked what to them was the extreme dilatoriness of the clergy in pursuing heretics. In 1144 Adalerbo II of Li?ge hoped to bring some imprisoned Catharists to better knowledge through the grace of God, but the people, less indulgent, assailed the unhappy creatures and only with the greatest trouble did the bishop succeed in rescuing some of them from death by fire. A like drama was enacted about the same time at Cologne. while the archbishop and the priests earnestly sought to lead the misguided back into the Church, the latter. were violently taken by the mob (a populis nimio zelo abreptis) from the custody of the clergy and burned at the stake. The best-known heresiarchs of that time, Peter of Bruys and Arnold of Brescia, met a similar fate -- the first on the pyre as a victim of popular fury, and the latter under the henchmans axe as a victim of his political enemies. In short, no blame attaches to the Church for her behavior towards heresy in those rude days. Among all the bishops of the period, so far as can be ascertained, Theodwin of Li?ge, successor of the aforesaid Wazo and predecessor of Adalbero II, alone appealed to the civil power for the punishment of heretics, and even he did not call for the death penalty, which was rejected by all. who were more highly respected in the twelfth century than Peter Canter, the most learned man of his time, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux? The former says ("Verbum abbreviatum", c. lxxviii, in P.L., CCV, 231): Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid, he certainly did not say, Kill him. Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death (cf. Geroch von Reichersberg, "De investigatione Antichristi III", 42). During the first three decades of the thirteenth century the Inquisition, as the institution, did not exist. But eventually Christian Europe was so endangered by heresy, and penal legislation concerning Catharism had gone so far, that the Inquisition seemed to be a political necessity. That these sects were a menace to Christian society had been long recognized by the Byzantine rulers. As early as the tenth century Empress Theodora had put to death a multitude of Paulicians, and in 1118 Emperor Alexius Comnenus treated the Bogomili with equal severity, but this did not prevent them from pouring over all Western Europe. Moreover these sects were in the highest degree aggressive, hostile to Christianity itself, to the Mass, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and organization; hostile also to feudal government by their attitude towards oaths, which they declared under no circumstances allowable. Nor were their views less fatal to the continuance of human society, for on the one hand they forbade marriage and the propagation of the human race. and on the other hand they made a duty of suicide through the institution of the Endura (see CATHARI). It has been said that more perished through the Endura (the Catharist suicide code) than through the Inquisition. It was, therefore, natural enough for the custodians of the existing order in Europe, especially of the Christian religion, to adopt repressive measures against such revolutionary teachings. In France Louis VIII decreed in 1226 that persons excommunicated by the diocesan bishop, or his delegate, should receive "meet punishment" (debita animadversio). In 1249 Louis IX ordered barons to deal with heretics according to the dictates of duty (de ipsis faciant quod debebant). A decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229) makes it appear probable that in France death at the stake was already comprehended as in keeping with the aforesaid debita animadversio. To seek to trace in these measures the influence of imperial or papal ordinances is vain, since the burning of heretics had already come to be regarded as prescriptive. It is said in the "Etablissements de St. Louis et coutumes de Beauvaisis", ch. cxiii (Ordonnances des Roys de France, I, 211): "Quand le juge [eccl?siastique] laurait examin? [le suspect] se il trouvait, quil feust bougres, si le devrait faire envoier ? la justice laie, et la justice laie le dolt fere ardoir. "The "Coutumes de Beauvaisis" correspond to the German "Sachsenspiegel", or "Mirror of Saxon Laws", compiled about 1235, which also embodies as a law sanctioned by custom the execution of unbelievers at the stake (sal man uf der hurt burnen). In Italy Emperor Frederick II, as early as 22 November, 1220 (Mon. Germ., II, 243), issued a rescript against heretics, conceived, however quite in the spirit of Innocent III, and Honorius III commissioned his legates to see to the enforcement in Italian cities of both the canonical decrees of 1215 and the imperial legislation of 1220. From the foregoing it cannot be doubted that up to 1224 there was no imperial law ordering, or presupposing as legal, the burning of heretics. The rescript for Lombardy of 1224 (Mon. Germ., II, 252; cf. ibid., 288) is accordingly the first law in which death by fire is contemplated (cf. Ficker, op. cit., 196). That Honorius III was in any way concerned in the drafting of this ordinance cannot be maintained; indeed the emperor was all the less in need of papal inspiration as the burning of heretics in Germany was then no longer rare; his legists, moreover, would certainly have directed the emperors attention to the ancient Roman Law that punished high treason with death, and Manichaeism in particular with the stake. The imperial rescripts of 1220 and 1224 were adopted into ecclesiastical criminal law in 1231, and were soon applied at Rome. It was then that the Inquisition of the Middle Ages came into being. What was the immediate provocation? Contemporary sources afford no positive answer. Bishop Douais, who perhaps commands the original contemporary material better than anyone, has attempted in his latest work (LInquisition. Ses Origines. Sa Procedure, Paris, 1906) to explain its appearance by a supposed anxiety of Gregory IX to forestall the encroachments of Frederick II in the strictly ecclesiastical province of doctrine. For this purpose it would seem necessary for the pope to establish a distinct and specifically ecclesiastical court. From this point of view, though the hypothesis cannot be fully proved, much is intelligible that otherwise remains obscure. There was doubtless reason to fear such imperial encroachments in an age yet filled with the angry contentions of the Imperium and the Sacerdotium. We need only recall the trickery of the emperor and his Pretended eagerness for the purity of the Faith, his Increasingly rigorous legislation against heretics, the numerous executions of his personal rivals on the pretext of heresy, the hereditary passion of the Hohenstaufen for supreme control over Church and State, their claim of God-given authority over both, of responsibility in both domains to God and God only etc. What was more natural than that the Church should strictly reserve to herself her own sphere, while at the same time endeavouring to avoid giving offence to the emperor? A purely spiritual or papal religious tribunal would secure ecclesiastical liberty and authority for this court could be confided to men of expert knowledge and blameless reputation, and above all to independent men in whose hands the Church could safely trust the decision as to the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of a given teaching. On the other hand, to meet the emperors wishes as far as allowable, the penal code of the empire could be taken over as it stood (cf. Audray, "Regist. de Gr?goire IX", n. 535). alright, do you see what i mean when i say that it takes more to build up then to tear down? one can say, " the church killed people! look at the torture chambers!!" and then in defense, the defender would have to bring up so much more evidence just to prove the accuser wrong. i realize other people read this post. and making them to long is no fun for anyone. so i'm assuming you really research things before you say them because you seem very smart and intelligent. i will give you a site that goes through the inquisition from start to finish. yes some people were killed, but no the ways you think, and not as many as you think...and sometimes it was because the heretics themselves were murderers. now if you are just argueing to argue, and you honestly won't look this information up, please tell me because i don't want to waste anybodies time or piss them off. then again, maybe we could continue this via email. it's up to every one else reading this really. i don't care either way. i love debates as long as tempers stay nice and iced and cool. i'm not even responding to the rest of your stuff right now. bring me one thing at a time and we'll discuss, and if you prove me wrong, i will change my belief...i think you did prove me wrong on a couple of points about what religion actually is. not totally, but i have lot's to think about and i appriciate that greatly. you a pretty cool dude. now here's the site on the inquisition: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#II now this site is a catholic site, yes. i still believe the information to be true. i personally don't like dicussing or history or basing predjuidices on things i've heard about history because almost all historians lie out thier ass. at least for the small things the church has done wrong, we admit it freely. it's just people who hate the church say that we've done more. in fact, some people say so much i laugh...but those are usually anti catholic fanatics and televangilist. and dude. i'm sorry, the rest of what you say is so falsified....are you sure you were ever catholic? i mean, those scripture quotes are out of context. i mean, just one for example. anybody who is a catholic and knows what he believes knows that preists are not forrbidden to marry, they CHOOSE not to, it's a practice. not a dogma. have you even cracked open a catechism? you throw the word DOGMA around so much, yet you don't even know what our DOGMA'S are. i'm going to do laundry. i'll chat atcha later. and uh....God bless dude, seriously. ![]() -------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
![]() lover ![]() Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 22 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
maia. the church wrote the bible. i can tell you the year, and where...but i won't, we're talking about the inquisition here. you think jesus came down here with a pen and paper? useing the bible against the church is like taking a man's arm and beating him with it. besides, the bible clearly states (in one of those many verses people skip over in timothy) that the church is the final authority and also that verbal (galations) tradition is just as important as written. it also states that no part of the bible, small or large, is a matter of ones own interpretation. (peter) the bible is a small part of a large faith. but other faiths have taken it and made it into their whole faith. but it's all good. don't matter to me i'm just here. havin' a good time. damn i need a joint. i gotta go. here's my email so we can finish this in private. sublimechill@yahoo.com
plato dude, argueing on the internet is honing skills for use with real people. ![]() -------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
![]() World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) ![]() ![]() ![]() Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,399 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 1 month, 1 day |
| ||||||
"damn i need a joint"
I've just smoked one to read your damn long post ![]() ![]() MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala ![]() ![]() Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
![]() World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) ![]() ![]() ![]() Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,399 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 1 month, 1 day |
| ||||||
I just love that pic man.
Peace to Josh... ![]() MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala ![]() ![]() Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Thanks. I think it is one of the best things I have ever seen on the net.
Josh? What is that about? Cheers,
| |||||||
![]() lover ![]() Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 22 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
dude. plato. that is a cool ass pic. hey maia! your post wasn't to short itself.
![]() hey, i think we should all stop argueing about religion and be rastafarian. they so happy in jamaica. ![]() -------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
whiterastahippie:
You started off rambling on about Hitler, Stalin, the KKK, Gothic people and atheists. Talk about hate, it seems you were bringing a bit forth yourself in trying to equate these various characters with me. You then went on to state, "i KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE AND DON'T BLINDLY FOLLOW THE CLERGY" I think that's a good idea, especially seeing as this thread is entitled, 'The Bible and the clergy.' You then carried on with the following, which I shall address... DUDE...understand me here for two seconds. yeah you, the one who is bashing so hard. pull your head out of your ass and look around... 'Pull your head out of your ass,' that's a very Christian thing to say. I'm sure Jesus Christ would have responded the same way. . you think what you are saying is original... Hmm, another mind reader. When did I say or imply that what I have said is original? i used to think it was too. You project your own qualities onto me, why do you do this? people don't want to hear what i have to say. they want to bash because it makes them feel good...until they hear the response, then they get even more mad, use even bigger words...sometimes even resorting to a dictionary so as to sound even more intelligent... This is a curios response, both you and Why are apparently intimidated by people who have a decent grasp of the English language, and insist on projecting your own traits on others in an attempt to understand their natures. I am not like you. It doesn't make sense to assume this without more information to go on than one thread on The Shroomery. you should chill, and try to see some other peoples point of view. it helps alot. i mean, some of the things you've said about the catholic church. oh my god! they are so far out there and wrong. lol. i mean, it's no surprise, it's typical anti catholic propaganda. I have seen things from a different point of view, how do you know that I haven't? Is it because your views and mine are not shared? My ideas and opinions have changed through the years, I suspect they will continue to evolve as I continue to go through life. as the band stroke 9 put it; Anger is todays fashion statment, so let's sing another song about bashing someones head in.... he's 14. You seem to be parroting Why's fanciful notions about what kind of person I am. Repeating misconceptions does not make them valid. Is this the same mode of thinking that you use in coming to conclusions about religion? Make a quick assumption based on your own prejudices and maintain your assumptions with no further attempt to understand what you don't know. This is the apparent line of reasoning you have used to construct your mental model of me. Your reasoning is seriously flawed in this instance (understanding another human), what makes you think it works better when addressing the weightier task of understanding the nature of all that is? that is so fucking hypocritical dude. lol. you have done exactly that. exactly. you have made assumptions about christians (they have to be because most aren't true) and then held to them with no further attempt to understand what YOU don't know. you so obviously don't even know what christians believe. Reading comprehension: I stated, 'This is the apparent line of reasoning'. Notice the word 'apparent.' I do understand Christians, having been one myself. . you must be getting your info from other people instead of going to the source. wanna know what we believe? find out from the horses mouth. AND NO DON'T FIND SOME 12 YEAR OLD AND SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF HIM TRYING TO PROVE HIS FAITH WRONG more like, get a catholic catechism. read it. get doctrinal staments froms other churches. read them... ...then don't talk about us. until you know what we believe as WE see it. not as you and your cronies do. then don't talk about us. until you know what we believe as WE see it. not as you and your cronies do. then you have NO (repeat) NO *NO* right to talk about us. at ALL Let's see, is 13 years of Catechism enough for you? How about going to Catholic church at least 2 times a week during those 13 years in addition to the years before and after that? How about being baptized, receiving my First Holy Communion and the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Catholic Church? How about serving as an alter boy? How about my aunt the nun? I would really like to know, who are my 'cronies?' so dude. you wanna go little boy? (vroom vroom) Oh, the old 'I'm older than you and more mature so I know more than you' school yard taunt. I believe Why also alluded to this concept. Too bad it doesn't hold water. Well, you finally got into the law of the conservation of energy in an attempt to present your reasoning behind a belief in God. I accept that there is the unexplained. I just don't accept your dogma. I see no need to buy into a shrink wrapped belief system full of contradictions, old mythologies, human wishes for an after life and an anthropomorphic description of the unknown just so I can have an explanation that I can relate to and take comfort in the idea that I am not mortal. I'm also wise enough to see how the hierarchy of Churches and the clergy have greatly abused the trust put in them by their flocks in the past, and are doing so in the present, and I'm sure they will continue doing this in the future.
| |||||||
![]() lover ![]() Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 22 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
you think jesus wouldn't have said what i said? hey, yo, i'm not jesus. i follow him, but with my free will, i choose to do some bad things sometimes. i can do that. but uh...no, i'm not going in circles with you. been there. just gonna say. "okay"
![]() it's all good dude, i bet you post everything with a chuckle and a smile. seriouslly some times the most somber sounding people on the internet have the greatest sense of humor. so yeah, i get a little miffed when people seem to bash something and so i in turn bash. very hypocrytical of me. my apologies. ![]() ![]() ![]() -------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
![]() Stranger Registered: 04/24/02 Posts: 24 Loc: Maryland Last seen: 22 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
I think the shaving of water came before the selling of shoes.
-------------------- ![]()
| |||||||
![]() lover ![]() Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 22 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
ya braa, your a stoner man.
![]() ![]() -------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
![]() journeyman Registered: 06/03/02 Posts: 50 Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Sorry, I'm not a victim.
Your a victim of "teenage rebellion syndrome". Although sufferer's are vaguely aware that "nonconformity is conformity", that don't believe that applies to them as they 'think for themselves'. Victims also exhibit a steadfast belief that no one understands them. Other symptoms include a mix of insecurity and vanity, and a tendency to be argumentative. ![]() Don't worry, most people grow out of it sooner or later! The point you made is that where I came to an opinion based on ignorance, you came to the same conclusion threw knowledge and free thinking: May be you might have had similar opinions to what I expressed earlier in this thread, but that hardly qualifies you to state that you have thought in the same way as I do now Do I believe you are immature and know very little because you hold a different opinion to me? Certainly not. I believe you don't know what your talking about because of the kind of arguments you use. Your first post looked like it had been written by a kid who had been reading the Satanic Bible. (which is why I asked you if you had read it) What have you said since then that might convince me my first impression of you was wrong? As far as being 'more genuinely spiritual' than I am, if you mean making wishes to and attempting to massage the ego of a mythical invisible amorphous gaseous being with the temperament and manners of a spoiled child It would be ridiculous to believe that God is an "amorphous gaseous being" . It is just as ridiculous to think that other people believe in a God like that! In this one statement you have proved you just don't have a clue what your talking about. A good place to start for a Christian "concept" of God is 'Mystica Theologia' by Pseudo Dionysius. What else have you had to say? What have the clergy done in the name of their supposed 'truth?' Hmm, lets ask some alter boys and their experiences in the rectumry with the clergy This is such a low level of argument I'm not even going to comment on it other than to say you know yourself that this is very far from being an intelligent point. If you really were any different to the way I used to be, then you would be using more intelligent arguments than the one's I used to use wouldn't you? For a good attack on Christianity see 'The Anti-Christ' by Friedrich Nietzche. Maybe you have read some of his books? thats the kind of author I imagine you might have an interest in. (more mind reading... well, I was right about the Satanic Bible) In a few years time you will look back on the way you are now and laugh about it. Maybe you will even take the other side of the argument with someone someday... you have my best wishes.
| |||||||
![]() Stranger Registered: 07/24/02 Posts: 5 Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Christianity is a wretched corrupt religion. It should be despised for spreading the curse and guilt of Jewish morality to the western world. Where you have a religion that claims that salvation is by faith alone, is there any surprise when it almost completely disregards all spiritual development of the individual?
For a religion of slaves, any development of the individual is poison. It is subversive to the power of the Church. For proof of it's corruption you only need look at the place of it's conception, not in the womb of the virgin(!) mother of God, but in the messianic fantasies of the Jewish people. The Jews at that time lived under the occupation of Rome. If there is anything more arrogant than the Christian belief that they have the only way to salvation, then it is the Jewish belief that they are God's chosen people. (Some heretical Gnostic sects believed that the God of the Old Testament was evil, how could anyone think otherwise?) The Jewish national ego could never tolerate living under Roman occupation. In a climate of political unrest Jesus Christ steps onto the stage just when the prophesied messiah is needed most. He was not the wanted revolutionary, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's." Christ's answer wasn't to resist occupation, but to accept the life of the slave. In all likelihood, he was probably one of many people at that time teaching eastern religious philosophy borrowed from India. The parables of Christ as reported in the Bible were stolen almost word for word from Buddhist sources such as the Dhammapada and Udanavarga! Elements of his biography given in the gospels are also taken straight out of the life of the historical Buddha Siddhattha Gotama. It is hard to believe that this religion guilty of such plagiarism could claim itself to be unique, could claim itself to be the *ONLY* way to salvation! It would have been harmless had it not been diluted, misrepresented and reabsorbed back into a Jewish theological framework and become the perversion that Christianity is. The repression of Gnostic sects in the early centuries A.D. was intended to destroy the influence of eastern mysticism. In effect, the priests conspired to murder the soul of their own religion. All that was left when they were finished was a wasteland of theology and doctrine created for the purpose of power. The books chosen for inclusion in the Bible were chosen for church political, rather than spiritual reasons. The Bible, the supposed word of God, is the word of man trying to reinforce his own control. Christianity's ideas of sin and redemption have been a neurotic plague upon the world. The Christian's arrogance is more than matched by their feeble mindedness in being able to accept such absurdities as truth. At no point does Christian mythology connect with reality, it is a self supporting delusion. It is worse than opiate addiction, at least the addict has enough self knowledge to know he's slowly killing himself. What could be more immature than needing a saviour?
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Careful there Mandlebrot, somebody might take your words as an attempt to blow down their house of cards (and they're livin' on the second floor).
| |||||||
![]() lover ![]() Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 22 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
if christians are so bad, then why not be better by being more loving, more patient, more kind and less preachy than all the christians out there? you will never change a christians mind about his or her religion by saying things like that. no matter how they may or may not ring true. christians believe what they believe just as strongly as you do.
killing happens in wars, wars come from strong words or actions, strong words or actions are started by one, one is controlled by his mind and thoughts. be careful what you say, for people may listen, and in the future, your words may be the cause for wars, and millions of deaths. are you a murderer? in order to change a christian, you must show them you are better. not tell them you are better, for my braa, actions always speak louder than words. especially words such as these. don't be the babylon. be the love. and people will eventually follow. peace peace and more peace, and when you are done. love. do christians preach my friend? of course they do. i have. i do. and i kick myself everytime. so if you hate their preachings, show them how much better you can be. do christians hurt you with their beliefs and strong voilent words, my braa? then show them how much better you are by taking the beating, and then turning to them and saying." thank you for this lesson". returning a hit for a hit will only get a strike in return. but returning a kiss for a hit, will win you much much more. "one love, one light, let's get together and feel alright" - ![]() -------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
![]() journeyman Registered: 07/04/02 Posts: 129 Loc: florida Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
i am a christian, but not like you might describe a christian, namely i am immersed in the common theme. the course in miracles describes it the best, unconditional love and the move back towards and undoing so many of the true and false miscreations that we have made as humans as we have drifted away from the spiritual state.
| |||||||
![]() Stranger Registered: 01/21/02 Posts: 4,779 Last seen: 20 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Christianity's ideas of sin and redemption have been a neurotic plague upon the world. The Christian's arrogance is more than matched by their feeble mindedness in being able to accept such absurdities as truth. At no point does Christian mythology connect with reality, it is a self supporting delusion. It is worse than opiate addiction, at least the addict has enough self knowledge to know he's slowly killing himself.
How is it worse than opiate addiction? Religious people live an average of 7 years longer then non-religious people. Religious people hardly suffer from depression or anxiety, and many people are able to escape an addiction (drugs, alcohol) by becoming a religious person. I think you're the one harbouring the self supporting delusion. Your ideals have no connection with the reality of the consciousness behind faith. -------------------- ![]()
| |||||||
|
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
![]() |
Catholic Sex Scandal | ![]() |
2,871 | 19 | 08/14/04 01:15 AM by Huehuecoyotl |
![]() |
![]() |
Question about different Christian sects | ![]() |
1,374 | 12 | 08/08/03 06:32 AM by gnrm23 |
![]() |
![]() |
America Was NOT Founded On Christianity | ![]() |
1,015 | 11 | 12/03/04 07:31 AM by gnrm23 |
![]() |
![]() |
chrestie and catholic | ![]() |
639 | 4 | 04/07/03 09:50 AM by gnrm23 |
![]() |
![]() |
why christianity is for inbreeders: ( ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
2,950 | 26 | 08/19/04 09:57 AM by silversoul7 |
![]() |
![]() |
Bible Belt leads in Divorce Rate ( ![]() |
![]() |
3,999 | 33 | 01/15/05 07:59 AM by trendal |
![]() |
![]() |
The Bible's History ( ![]() |
![]() |
3,564 | 23 | 08/19/04 09:02 AM by BlueCoyote |
![]() |
![]() |
Christians? ( ![]() |
![]() |
4,958 | 62 | 04/13/03 05:39 PM by jimsuzo |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 8,109 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||