Designated Religion Argument Thread

Remove all ads!

My Mother taught me this poem when I was very young.

 

King James I of England could have hardly cared less if the Pope told him he could not divorce as he was a Presbyterian and by the point he came to the throne of England in 1603* (having already ruled Scotland for some time) England was Protestant and so no longer dependent on Rome for clergy or spirtual guidance. You sound like you have mixed Henry VIII and James I up somewhat there perhaps, or perhaps confused James I with James II who converted to Catholicism as a young man.

* With the typical soap-opera maddness that pervades European royal families he ended up suceeding Elizabeth I who had ordered his mother, Mary Queen of Scots executed in 1587.

 

That could be, but at some point they wanted the Bible in their language, not Latin...

 

Which they already had for some time before the King James translation of the Bible. John Wycliff, one of the early critics in England of the Roman Church had translated it into English as early as the 1380's. Now, admittely his translation was from before the age of publishing and was confined to hand-written reproductions generally, however William Tyndale published a New Testament in English in the mid 1520's and a full bible (both New and Old Testament) in 1536. That is 74 years before the King James translation was published in 1610. Even the Catholic version of the Bible that would become known as the Douay version was published in the 1580's in English, although that particular translation is sometimes regarded as been riddled with errors.

Saying King James I was flustered with the Pope over a divorce is about equivalent to me saying that Abraham Lincoln was still fighting the War of Independence in the early 1860's. It shows poor research and makes any arguments that spring from the assertion look weak by extension.

Again the term circular logic applies to this, you feel it 'isn't right' by your tenets so you convince yourself it is not and hey presto it is not! Also, again we enter the 'one exclusive faith is right' club, well there goes everybody else then. Honestly, it seems ridiculous that a being of infinite power should he exsist will be doing the equivalent of turning the afterlife (should there be one) into a members only club where only those whose season ticket is stamped with a particular religion can enter. I of course cannot know, but I really do hope if there is a God his outlook is wider than that.

 

The plan has accomodations for that, but somewhere along the way (including the afterlife, and after ressurection up to the point of Judgement) Jesus Christ has to be accepted or at least acknowledged. It is likely that in this life we are taught a straight and narrow way to help us to return to Him...

 

Many paths to one end as William Blake said, I see no reason if God is up there that I cannot reach him via the Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Baptist Church, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism etc. Of course if he is not up there all's equal anyway.

 

Jesus said "In my father's house are many rooms."

For me...end of story.

 

Buddhist

Nothing is permanent and we are chained to the wheel of death and rebirth until we become aware of the nature of the universe and existence. Reincarnation is the focal point in this "religion" (religion to me has roots in believing in an omnipotent being). Every life you live teaches you something you need to know until you can fit all the pieces of the puzzle together and attain enlightenment. Tree, cat, fly, human. You take apiece of each of these lives to better understand the whole. I once explained it to a friend as mixing colours. Each life is a touch of a coulour until you have the right mix to get the colour you want.

 

Well, it depends on what you mean by "pay". For example, the Catholic Priests do not get a salary. However, the diocese provides them with a home to live in (sometimes referred to as a rectory), a maid to keep the church and home clean, and a (usually quite nice) car. The last priest I met drove a late model Lincoln Continental. Morevoer, the diocese also prays all the electrical and heating bills of the church and rectory, and also gives him a food stipend every month. They even get a few luxury items such as a computer with internet access.

So, technically, Catholic priests don't receive a salary either, but that's not to say that they live in abject poverty either. Quite the opposite in fact. Some of the things I listed include things that the average person would not be able to afford (like a maid and a luxury car). I imagine that the priesthood in the Mormon church receive many of these benefits as well.

[ July 25, 2005, 20:29: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Actually it very rarely happens. Those high in the church (equal level to a Cardinal) basically need to be able to retire without requiring additional finances before they're appointed. Some of the older couples who maintain the missions around the world get free use of a house, but need to provide their own vehicle. I've never heard of anyone in the Mormon church getting an allotment for food or clothing (except the destitute).

All the leaders at the local level get no pay, no benefits, nothing. It's all purely volunteer work. At the "Priest" level is the Mormon Bishop -- every Bishop I've ever met was a working man. These guys have regular jobs in construction, law, business, science, every field you can think of. I even met a Bishop who was a chemist -- AND believed in evolution (take THAT Gnarff).

My ex-father-in-law ran a Mormon temple for several years. It actually ate into his retirement (there was no reimbursement for any of his expenses).

My nephew was one those goofy young guys with a name tag on the bike (Mormon missionary). At 19, he volunteered two years of his life -- he (actually, my sister) had to pay his own way for the two years (rent, food, clothing, etc.). He even had to pay for his transportation to the mission.

Most jobs in the Mormon church are considered "callings" -- there is no pay of any kind with a calling. There are some tasks which are just jobs. The only regularly paid members of the Mormon church are the custodians, university staff (BYU), and clerical-type workers at the church office building (there are a few other, but I won't bore you with the details).

[ July 25, 2005, 18:53: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Wow. How do they do it? I mean, how do they complete all of their daily priestly acitivities if they have a full time job elsewhere. It seems somewhat unfair to establish a priesthood where only the independently wealthy could fully devote their time, as anyone working a 40+ hour week is not going to have time to make a very good priest, or at least not do all the things typical Catholic priests do.

I know the Catholic priest at my old church would never be able to hold a full-time job and complete his duties. For example, every morning he had a mass, and every afternoon he would visit hospitals and retirement communities to give sacrements to people who were too sick or too weak to make it to church. Of course, on the weekend, where most people are NOT working is when the priest is the busiest, as there are many more masses on the weekend than during the week. In the Catholic church if you become a priest the diocese paying the way is almost a necessity - you'd never be able to hold another full-time job, and you'd never be able to pay all the bills without one.

 

One difference is the Mormon church believes in having a network of support. Instead of one or two guys doing everything, it's divided between 15-20. It's all done by the locals. Although most Bishops I knew put in well over 40 hours per week on church related issues.

The problem comes when the network falls apart and people start looking out for their own interests. Another problem occurs when the people in various positions are not adequately prepared for the position.

The Mormon church has some significant strengths (local network of support and a family-first attitude), but I just ran into too many of the self-righteous jerks and 'holier-than-thou' hypocrites. I admire parts of the religion, disagree with other parts (such as no alcohol), and absolutely do not miss the average, closed-minded church member.

 

I had three cousins go out. They had to save money to go and still received help fromt he family while they were out.

Yes. Basically, the Bishop has two counsellors, though which the majority of the business of the ward is conducted. They also have groups of three to oversee the young men, young women, adult women, adult men, and the children. There is also committees fromed encompassing these auxiliaries. Probably the majority of the members have a calling of some form or another...

 

[silliness]
I wonder how Loo's there might be for that many people? I wonder if they follow standard architectural guidlines. There must be quite a program of extension works going on in that place, but I guess they don't have planning permision to worry about.
/[silliness]

 

@ Caracoth, I thought it just meant that the house was unfathomably huge...

 

Um, obviously you didn't pick up on the admitted [silliness]....

 

(Christian: Baptist)
I've noticed several people say and imply that there's no real proof of any kind of God. This is blatently untrue. If you ever study a lot of physics, there is plenty of stuff that seems to be 'convenient coincidences'. Just about every other science can say the same thing. If anyone is really interested in this, I would suggest they read Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. He's actually written about 5 books with variations on that title, but they are all collections of logical, historical, and scientific proof that there is a God. This is cited and annotated work that you can read and check up on if you don't believe him. I'd also suggest Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. This is much more reasoning and logic, as well as a good explanation of christian beliefs.
To those of you who don't want to bother, let me give a few examples:
1)Physicists have found 6 primary forces (gravity, EM, nuclear, etc.) who's balances of power cannot be derived or deduced by anything other than experimentation. Basically, they just happen to be the way they are for 'no particular reason'. If these numbers were even slightly different, atoms would not be able to form and the universe would basically not exist.
2)Astronomy tells us that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. 5 million years ago, the moon took up 1/4 of the night sky and in another 5 million years, it will be tiny. The interesting part is that it is only within the last 10 thousand years and for another 5 thousand or so that the moon is just far enough away to completely cover the sun in an eclipse, but not so close as to cover the corona. In other words, Total solar eclipses, solar flares, and a few other wonders of the natural world, could only be viewed by humanity in the 15 thousand or so years that we 'happen' to reach civilization.
3)Geology tells us that, prior to about 10 thousand years ago, the earth's average temperature changed drastically all the time, as much as 2-3 hundred degrees F in a century. The past 10 thousand years has been an incredible steady period. Again, the 10 thousand years that humanity just 'happens' to develope.
4)Astronomy and statistics tell us that the odds of the planet-moon-solar system relationship, that we now understand to be required for life, ever occuring are so high that, even concidering all the star systems in a galaxy and all the galaxies we know to exist, you would need 10^15000 or so universes to have likely odds of getting one such relationship. In other words, the odds of earth existing are as close to a statistical impossibility as you can get.
All in all, this leaves me pretty sure that there is a God. Which god, well, that required personal contact. That's right, God talks to me. No, I don't hear voices, nor does He tell me the future or give me special missions or anything, its a soul connection.
As for the whole 'loving father' issue, God designed this entire world to tell of His glory, not to mention all the people He's sent us. And for those who never hear, God says He'll judge them "by what they know."(Hebrews something) God isn't a vindictive master or a sick kid with a magnifying glass, or a complacent old man who just sits and watches. He wants the most intimite relationship possible with every one of us, but at the same time, He's not going to force it on us. He wants us to come to Him, and He's marked the way clear as day.
For atheists and agnostics, no I don't think you're stupid or anything if you still don't believe. The human capacity to make excuses of any kind is absolutely astounding and no evidence but the manifest presence of God Himself will be enough to convice through proof. In the end, it is a leap of faith, but faith isn't that hard.
A lot of people think faith is all about religion, but it isn't. You have faith every day in everything around you. When you sit in a chair, you don't carefully examine and test it before you sit in it because you have faith in it, its designers, manufacturers, and testers that it will support you. The same is true of food, cars, planes, bikes, and even the earth beneath your feet. This is faith. Faith in God is no different.

 

CLSVABCH, imo your post is absolutely brilliant. Chances are you will now get flack from both sides.

I have read it over again to see if I can find something to disagree with but I haven't.

 

@CLSVABCH:
First of all, please think up a nickname so we don't have to type that random string of letters over and over, unless you've got a good reason for using it.

Secondly, I agree with most of your points on the nature of faith (#2 is rather thought-provoking), but it is not the same thing to have faith in God as it is to have faith in gravity. Gravity can be measured and proven, while God cannot. You will notice that there are almost NO debates regarding the existence of gravity, while the existence of God is debated ad nauseam, not only on this site, but just about everywhere else.

P.S. In #4, I believe you are referring to star systems, not universes, as every universe will not necessarily be the same size.

 

Brilliant post? As demanded by Nakia here comes the worldly response to CLSVABCH:

I happen to study a lot of physics and, with all due respect, you don't seem to do the same. Without starting to nitpick on your examples (like saying that we have 4 fundamental forces that have collapsed to only 2 in the last decades), your arguments boil down to: existence of life and matter is a fact -> this is a proof for the existence of god. This is a commonly used argument, but one I wouldn't call blatantly true.

Like you said somewhere in your post, science is about observing and classifying things rather than about finding underlying reasons for the observed on a "why is the speed of light 299.792.458 m/s instead of more aesthetic 300.000 km/s?" level.

An approach like yours translates as
1. someone creates the laws of physics.
2. someone decides to create a universe built of matter.
3. someone decides to create man as evolution's crowining glory.
4. someone adpets the environment by parameterizing the appropriate laws in such a way that these beings can live in the environment.
5. these steps require some intelligence.
6. coincidence is not intelligent.
7. Bingo, you damn unbelievers!

This is, of course, a totally arbitrary approach that has nothing in common with the methods of science. You start with the human being in the center of your hypothesis, although you pretend that you start with physics. In fact, it is the other way round. You have to start with physics and then realize that the environment present in our universe leaves room for intelligent beings at some point in space and time. The reason for all this, the existence of the universe and the existence of some special points in time and space can be due to

1. intelligence.
2. coincidence.
3. without a cause.

It is hard to accept, but I don't see why you think that hypothesis 1. is superior to hypthesis 2. or 3. Since all things we encounter in natural laws are either due to 2. (evolution) or 3. (quantum physics -> radioactivity) I'd rather place my bet on those two than on the first.

As an aside, I've read "Mere Christianity" (which is called "Pardon, I'm Christ!" in German - the arrogance of it...) and have not encountered a single convincing argument. This is not transferable to other readers, I know, but it shows that the arguments in there are only logical and reasonable if you share a specific set of beliefs. It is never going to convince an atheist of christian beliefs.

EDIT: changed "afford" to "require" in point 5. Damn semantics. BTW, LNT, clean up your pm inbox.

[ July 29, 2005, 12:11: Message edited by: Darkthrone ]