Muhammad is as much a fairytale figure as Nietzsche, Jesus and you are. How much one believes in their importance and/or accomplishments is another discussion.
...nature is really what should be getting worshiped. humans are definitely a part of that, as are plants, ecosystems, animals and miami heat fans. humans are just part of the universal web of lifeforce...not the central agent of it and no more important than other pieces.
I have to agree with this. So, isn't it ironic that we're shitting all over what gave birth to us and what sustains us.
I have a religious moral dilemma. The catholic part of my family was raised in, and attends the church built by Charles Coughlin. There are a lot of aspects of catholocism that make me squeamish. So I was never too keen to attend weddings, etc. there. But I was also fascinated by the strange rituals and traditions.
Then as I grew and learned the church's history, I got more turned off. To the point where, when invited to my cousins catholic something-or-other (first communion?) a few years ago, I made an excuse not to go, and then felt guilty.
After all, I'm pretty sure none of the more recent generations are aware of the history. Also, should one man from the 30's taint a congregation from today? And, my little cousin is just a little kid who made no choice in the matter. But that place is just BAD vibes to me.
I think you are brave to come into this post - which has turned into an all out attack on religion, Christianity and Catholicism - and state your beliefs. Thank you.
I find religion, and individuals relationship to it fascinating.
I don't blame you for not wanting to be in a place with bad vibes. Especially a place of worship.
If you can find the npr show where Dan Savage talks about his relationship to the Catholic church I would encourage giving it a listen.
In one part he talks about his mother going to see Father Patrick. Dan has just come out to his mother and she is upset and sharing this with Father Patrick. He puts his hand on her knee and and says, "it is ok, I am gay too". After that she had no problem with her sons sexuality and proudly embraced who he was. Her take was, the Church is wrong on homosexuality, wrong on divorce, wrong on birth control, wrong on abortion, wrong on women in the clergy, BUT, it is my church and I wont let a stupid pope drive me out.
I have no idea whether there is a god or not. But I live by my own moral code that centers around doing right by myself and others, and if there is a god, I think it would be cool with how Im doing my thing.
Muhammad is as much a fairytale figure as Nietzsche, Jesus and you are. How much one believes in their importance and/or accomplishments is another discussion.
M??NSTER, Germany -- Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany's first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn't like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.
So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.
Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn't portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.
"we leave religion to the psychos and fanatics" (Nick Cave / Grinderman)
Muhammad is as much a fairytale figure as Nietzsche, Jesus and you are. How much one believes in their importance and/or accomplishments is another discussion.
M??NSTER, Germany -- Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany's first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn't like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.
So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.
Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn't portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.
"we leave religion to the psychos and fanatics" (Nick Cave / Grinderman)
Well, that was very convincing.
I am sure you realize you come across as just as close-minded and extreme as those you rally against, but waaaaay smarter, of course.
The National Socialist government of Nazi Germany was, in my understanding, explicitly anti-Christian.
The official religion, to the degree there was one, was of Norse gods.
The Nazi's hated the Catholic church. The Vatican saw godless fascism as preferable to godless communism.
The relationship with the Lutheran church was more muted.
Also wrong, see my post above and read up on the contract called "Konkordat" signed between Nazi Germany and the Vatican on July 20th of 1933.
The purpose or the Concordat was to stop Nazi persecution of Catholics.
I was talking about spiritual religion, and state religion. You are talking about religion as politics.
It was my intention in my post to state that the Vatican did align itself with National Socialism. "The Vatican saw godless fascism as preferable to godless communism." That the Vatican sided with the Nazis (as I said) and signed a contract with the Nazis did not make Catholicism the state religion of Germany. Nor did the Nazis fight as Catholics. Nor did Hitler being a Catholic make Germany Catholic any more than Hitler being Austrian make Germany Austria.
The Vatican ruled much or Europe for about a thousand year. Kings and Queens, Princes and Dukes pledged their allegiance to the Vatican. In the modern era that power was fading. In the 20th century it was fading fast. Thus the Vatican did what it could to hold on to power.
But if we are to talk about Catholicism as a spiritual community we are not talking about the Vatican or popes or cardinals, we are talking about parish churches and priests and followers. I think history is clear that priests and followers often did not farewell under the National Socialists in Germany or in the Austrian country side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany#Violations
What I am trying to say is I don't disagree with what you are saying, we are just saying different things.
I agree with Stonehands that religion is the tool that leaders use to wield power, spread hatred and wage wars.
It is not the cause of wars and hatred.
You are wrong.
Hitler was a Catholic who continued paying church tax until his death.
As a young man in Austria, Hitler was heavily influenced by the "Christlichsozialen Partei Oestereichs". Even though a strong admirer of Martin Luther, he remained loyal to the Catholic Church for his entire life.
The "Christlichsoziale Partei Oestereichs" had called themselves "Die Antisemiten" until 1893.
The Catholic and Protestant church had laid down the antisemitic groundwork which made the Holocaust possible.
Hitler wrote in a letter to Pope Pius XII about the prosecution of Jews: "Wir setzen fort das Werk der Katholischen Kirche" transl. "We are continuing the work of the catholic church"
The Catholic church collaborated with Nazi Germany. Singular Christians opposed the Nazi regime out of humanitarian principle but as a whole, the church was a collaborator.
If you look back in history however, you will find that the Catholic collaboration with Nazi Germany is only a side note in a long history of genocide and crimes against humanity committed by the Vatican.
I respect anyone and everyone's religious beliefs as long as when they practice it they don't harm others.
"harm" can be interpreted in various ways.
The freedom of press and free speech has been harmed by crazies killing each others over caricatures of a fairytale figure.
I feel my personal freedom harmed everytime I'm being forced to read a "Jesus Loves You" bumper sticker.
These stickers are the spiritual equivalent to those pervs who secretly masturbate on crowded subway trains and ejaculate onto the clothes of oblivious fellow passengers. I don't want the love of your imaginary magic friend. Everytime someone tells me "God bless you" I feel sullied. Keep that filth to yourself and contained within the privacy of your home.
So would you'd rather not have someone who believes in God to say "God bless you" or "Jesus loves you" or something of a more positive light?! I understand if you wouldn't want to be bombarded by messages you don't believe in, but you can't help someone who has a joy from simply sharing. At least it's better to share love than this.
And no, I never will eat my babies. When I have them.
As for me, I do believe in Him. I do believe that He created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, which is why I subscribe myself as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian.
Just wondering, did outsiders refer to you as a 'peanut'? Or is that just what I've heard locals refer to Adventists as in my area?
I guess it's meant to be somewhat derogatory (referring to their eating habits - nuts and seeds, etc) but in the scheme of religious epithets, it's pretty mild - and always amused me. Plus, I LOVE the Adventist grocery store. Heaven to a vegetarian.
After that she had no problem with her sons sexuality and proudly embraced who he was. Her take was, the Church is wrong on homosexuality, wrong on divorce, wrong on birth control, wrong on abortion, wrong on women in the clergy, BUT, it is my church and I wont let a stupid pope drive me out.
Yeah - I agree people should feel this way. If everyone was turned off from their sect by atrocities committed in their religion's name, no one would be members anymore!
Although maybe that does have something to do with the increasing secularization of (Western) society.
I try to fathom believing in Christianity, or any religion for that matter, and can't. I think you have to be raised with it, for the most part. I'm always amazed at people who have adult conversions from atheism to a religious order to which they previously had no connection.
As for me, I do believe in Him. I do believe that He created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, which is why I subscribe myself as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian.
Just wondering, did outsiders refer to you as a 'peanut'? Or is that just what I've heard locals refer to Adventists as in my area?
I guess it's meant to be somewhat derogatory (referring to their eating habits - nuts and seeds, etc) but in the scheme of religious epithets, it's pretty mild - and always amused me. Plus, I LOVE the Adventist grocery store. Heaven to a vegetarian.
No, I've never been called a peanut before. I never even knew that was a term used towards Adventists. I'm not fully a vegetarian, though. I still eat fish and chicken, but I frequent my local ABC (Adventist Book Center) and buy different seeds, nuts, beans and other vegetables and meat substitutes. But in Adventism we believe that a healthy spirit is just as important as a healthy body. Since the body is considered a temple, it is up to us as keepers to maintain it with a healthy diet. There are some Adventists, mainly the ones from the Caribbean, who incorporate meat such as fish, chicken and goat into their meals. And what area are you from where Adventists are called peanuts?! If that's supposed to be derogatory then I'd welcome that anytime.
If you can find the npr show where Dan Savage talks about his relationship to the Catholic church I would encourage giving it a listen.
In one part he talks about his mother going to see Father Patrick. Dan has just come out to his mother and she is upset and sharing this with Father Patrick. He puts his hand on her knee and and says, "it is ok, I am gay too". After that she had no problem with her sons sexuality and proudly embraced who he was. Her take was, the Church is wrong on homosexuality, wrong on divorce, wrong on birth control, wrong on abortion, wrong on women in the clergy, BUT, it is my church and I wont let a stupid pope drive me out.
I don't really understand people who pick and choose the little bits they like and disregard the bits they don't and still call themselves Catholic (or whatever).
It just seems like they want the advantages of belonging without having to, well, believe.
It was hypocrisy like this that made me bail on religion when I was about eight.
Muhammad is as much a fairytale figure as Nietzsche, Jesus and you are. How much one believes in their importance and/or accomplishments is another discussion.
Jesus is very much a fairy tale figure. The historical Jesus, if there was one, was consumed by myth.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
If you can find the npr show where Dan Savage talks about his relationship to the Catholic church I would encourage giving it a listen.
In one part he talks about his mother going to see Father Patrick. Dan has just come out to his mother and she is upset and sharing this with Father Patrick. He puts his hand on her knee and and says, "it is ok, I am gay too". After that she had no problem with her sons sexuality and proudly embraced who he was. Her take was, the Church is wrong on homosexuality, wrong on divorce, wrong on birth control, wrong on abortion, wrong on women in the clergy, BUT, it is my church and I wont let a stupid pope drive me out.
I don't really understand people who pick and choose the little bits they like and disregard the bits they don't and still call themselves Catholic (or whatever).
It just seems like they want the advantages of belonging without having to, well, believe.
It was hypocrisy like this that made me bail on religion when I was about eight.
One way to look at it.
Another is to see your religion as an entrance into a world where you can study, pray, learn, and come to your own conclusions about the meaning of holy books, spirituality, morality and life. Many Catholics do this everyday. Many (most) do not agree with Vatican doctrine. If that makes them hypocritical I think it is too their credit that they are hypocritical.
The National Socialist government of Nazi Germany was, in my understanding, explicitly anti-Christian.
The official religion, to the degree there was one, was of Norse gods.
The Nazi's hated the Catholic church. The Vatican saw godless fascism as preferable to godless communism.
The relationship with the Lutheran church was more muted.
Also wrong, see my post above and read up on the contract called "Konkordat" signed between Nazi Germany and the Vatican on July 20th of 1933.
The purpose or the Concordat was to stop Nazi persecution of Catholics.
If you can find the npr show where Dan Savage talks about his relationship to the Catholic church I would encourage giving it a listen.
In one part he talks about his mother going to see Father Patrick. Dan has just come out to his mother and she is upset and sharing this with Father Patrick. He puts his hand on her knee and and says, "it is ok, I am gay too". After that she had no problem with her sons sexuality and proudly embraced who he was. Her take was, the Church is wrong on homosexuality, wrong on divorce, wrong on birth control, wrong on abortion, wrong on women in the clergy, BUT, it is my church and I wont let a stupid pope drive me out.
I don't really understand people who pick and choose the little bits they like and disregard the bits they don't and still call themselves Catholic (or whatever).
It just seems like they want the advantages of belonging without having to, well, believe.
It was hypocrisy like this that made me bail on religion when I was about eight.
One way to look at it.
Another is to see your religion as an entrance into a world where you can study, pray, learn, and come to your own conclusions about the meaning of holy books, spirituality, morality and life. Many Catholics do this everyday. Many (most) do not agree with Vatican doctrine. If that makes them hypocritical I think it is too their credit that they are hypocritical.
I tend to agree with you on that. I rejected Catholicism as a kid but the Catholics I respect almost all reject the more disgusting aspects of the Church and ignore large parts of its official teaching.
The National Socialist government of Nazi Germany was, in my understanding, explicitly anti-Christian.
The official religion, to the degree there was one, was of Norse gods.
The Nazi's hated the Catholic church. The Vatican saw godless fascism as preferable to godless communism.
The relationship with the Lutheran church was more muted.
Also wrong, see my post above and read up on the contract called "Konkordat" signed between Nazi Germany and the Vatican on July 20th of 1933.
The purpose or the Concordat was to stop Nazi persecution of Catholics.
You are right. It was not "the purpose" as I said, it was "a purpose".
From the start of the article you linked to:
"Concordats have been used to create binding agreements to safeguard church interests and its freedom to act, particularly in countries that do not have strong jurisprudence guaranteeing government non-interference in religious matters or in countries where the church seeks a privileged position under government patronage."
And then:
"Hitler adroitly passed laws restricting movement of funds (making it impossible for German Catholics to send money to missionaries, for instance), restricting religious institutions and education, and mandating attendance at Hitler Youth functions (held on Sunday mornings to interfere with Church attendance), thereby pushing negotiation for a concordat more in favor of the Nazi regime. Indeed, as a result, the need for a concordat seemed even more urgent to Church officials."
And then under Terms Of the Concordat:
"Protection of Catholic organizations and freedom of religious practice. (Article 31)"
And then"
"Church leaders were realistic[specify] about the Concordat???s supposed protections.[8] Cardinal Faulhaber is reported to have said:
??? With the concordat we are hanged, without the concordat we are hanged, drawn and quartered.[9In Rome the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pacelli (later Pius XII), told the British minister to the Holy See that he had signed the treaty with a pistol at his head. Hitler was sure to violate the agreement, Pacelli said ??? adding with gallows humor that he would probably not violate all its provisions at once.[8]
When the Nazi government violated the concordat (in particular article 31), bishops and the papacy protested against these violations. Between September 1933 and March 1937 Pacelli issued over seventy notes and memoranda protesting such violations, culminating in his draft of the 1937 papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge ("With Burning Concern") issued by Pope Pius XI.[8]]"
Gosh Bob, I don't know, did you read the article you linked too? Seems to suggest it was closely related to stopping the Nazi persecution of Catholics and the Catholic church.
The National Socialist government of Nazi Germany was, in my understanding, explicitly anti-Christian.
The official religion, to the degree there was one, was of Norse gods.
The Nazi's hated the Catholic church. The Vatican saw godless fascism as preferable to godless communism.
The relationship with the Lutheran church was more muted.
Also wrong, see my post above and read up on the contract called "Konkordat" signed between Nazi Germany and the Vatican on July 20th of 1933.
The purpose or the Concordat was to stop Nazi persecution of Catholics.
You are right. It was not "the purpose" as I said, it was "a purpose".
From the start of the article you linked to:
"Concordats have been used to create binding agreements to safeguard church interests and its freedom to act, particularly in countries that do not have strong jurisprudence guaranteeing government non-interference in religious matters or in countries where the church seeks a privileged position under government patronage."
And then:
"Hitler adroitly passed laws restricting movement of funds (making it impossible for German Catholics to send money to missionaries, for instance), restricting religious institutions and education, and mandating attendance at Hitler Youth functions (held on Sunday mornings to interfere with Church attendance), thereby pushing negotiation for a concordat more in favor of the Nazi regime. Indeed, as a result, the need for a concordat seemed even more urgent to Church officials."
And then under Terms Of the Concordat:
"Protection of Catholic organizations and freedom of religious practice. (Article 31)"
And then"
"Church leaders were realistic[specify] about the Concordat???s supposed protections.[8] Cardinal Faulhaber is reported to have said:
??? With the concordat we are hanged, without the concordat we are hanged, drawn and quartered.[9In Rome the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pacelli (later Pius XII), told the British minister to the Holy See that he had signed the treaty with a pistol at his head. Hitler was sure to violate the agreement, Pacelli said ??? adding with gallows humor that he would probably not violate all its provisions at once.[8]
When the Nazi government violated the concordat (in particular article 31), bishops and the papacy protested against these violations. Between September 1933 and March 1937 Pacelli issued over seventy notes and memoranda protesting such violations, culminating in his draft of the 1937 papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge ("With Burning Concern") issued by Pope Pius XI.[8]]"
Gosh Bob, I don't know, did you read the article you linked too? Seems to suggest it was closely related to stopping the Nazi persecution of Catholics and the Catholic church.
Or did you mean to link to a different article?
In light of the general ways in which Nazis actually persecuted people they didn't like, it is genuinely obscene for you to refer to these trifling interferences as "persecution."
The Church had its nose up Hitler's ass even before he took full power.
If you can find the npr show where Dan Savage talks about his relationship to the Catholic church I would encourage giving it a listen.
In one part he talks about his mother going to see Father Patrick. Dan has just come out to his mother and she is upset and sharing this with Father Patrick. He puts his hand on her knee and and says, "it is ok, I am gay too". After that she had no problem with her sons sexuality and proudly embraced who he was. Her take was, the Church is wrong on homosexuality, wrong on divorce, wrong on birth control, wrong on abortion, wrong on women in the clergy, BUT, it is my church and I wont let a stupid pope drive me out.
I don't really understand people who pick and choose the little bits they like and disregard the bits they don't and still call themselves Catholic (or whatever).
It just seems like they want the advantages of belonging without having to, well, believe.
It was hypocrisy like this that made me bail on religion when I was about eight.
One way to look at it.
Another is to see your religion as an entrance into a world where you can study, pray, learn, and come to your own conclusions about the meaning of holy books, spirituality, morality and life. Many Catholics do this everyday. Many (most) do not agree with Vatican doctrine. If that makes them hypocritical I think it is too their credit that they are hypocritical.
I tend to agree with you on that. I rejected Catholicism as a kid but the Catholics I respect almost all reject the more disgusting aspects of the Church and ignore large parts of its official teaching.
If a person is going to reject many of the fundamental precepts of Catholicism, why would they still call themselves a Catholic?
If a person is going to reject many of the fundamental precepts of Catholicism, why would they still call themselves a Catholic?
Because they don't agree with your description of the precepts they disagree with as "fundamental."
American Catholics use birth control as often as non-Catholic Americans. The prohibition against doing so is one of those "fundamental precepts" of the Church, but only a few fanatics still take it seriously, at least among the civilians.
"This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources??? If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold.
In today's news:
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has arrived in Rome for the beatification of the late Pope John Paul II.
An EU travel ban forbids him from visiting member states but the Vatican, where the ceremony will take place, is a sovereign state and not in the EU.
"A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency ??? issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights ??? the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html
Back on the first page I spoke poorly. (Probably spoke poorly on all the other pages too.)
I said; thanking God for riches offends me.
Not at all what I meant.
I was thinking of a relative who never thanked anyone. If you gave him a present he would say, praise the lord, I was praying for that. Wouldn't think of thanking you for the present. Bugged me. Also went around telling everyone what he was praying for (ie living room furniture, tv) then when someone said I have some you can have, Praise the Lord.
Back on the first page I spoke poorly. (Probably spoke poorly on all the other pages too.)
I said; thanking God for riches offends me.
Not at all what I meant.
I was thinking of a relative who never thanked anyone. If you gave him a present he would say, praise the lord, I was praying for that. Wouldn't think of thanking you for the present. Bugged me. Also went around telling everyone what he was praying for (ie living room furniture, tv) then when someone said I have some you can have, Praise the Lord.
Sorry if I offended anyone.[/quote
I know of people like that as well. They thank God for every little gift or good thing that comes their way, but fail to acknowledge the people who gave them those things. It may be that when they thank God they assumedly thank you as well, because they believe that God led you or whoever it may be to have the fortune needed to give you what it was they prayed for. They could not give thanks at all, then there'd be complaints of ungratefulness.
This thread is blowing it with the Godwin's law rabbit hole
I figured I'd jump in the middle of this thread and see some general arguing, but you guys outdid yourselves going from zero to nazi in just 3 pages. Bravo.
I don't believe in religion, I think historically it's done more harm than good. I DO believe in a greater power that lives in all of us and I try to respect other people's beliefs.
I'm a Christian, but only in the loosest term possible i.e. I was schooled in the ways of the bible and went to a Church Of England school, but I have since drawn my own conclusions on what I think is real and what isn't.
I don't believe in God or Jesus.. but I do believe something happened once and pretty much every religion has some account of the same stuff, just told in different ways.
I think faith is good for people who are at a loose end or facing hard times and have nothing to believe in. I like the idea that anyone can walk in to a church if they want.
I hate the dogmatism of devout religious dudes. If they are such believers, then surely they are secure enough in their belief to question a few things and see if it holds up.
Comments
Muhammad is as much a fairytale figure as Nietzsche, Jesus and you are. How much one believes in their importance and/or accomplishments is another discussion.
I think you are brave to come into this post - which has turned into an all out attack on religion, Christianity and Catholicism - and state your beliefs. Thank you.
I find religion, and individuals relationship to it fascinating.
I don't blame you for not wanting to be in a place with bad vibes. Especially a place of worship.
If you can find the npr show where Dan Savage talks about his relationship to the Catholic church I would encourage giving it a listen.
In one part he talks about his mother going to see Father Patrick. Dan has just come out to his mother and she is upset and sharing this with Father Patrick. He puts his hand on her knee and and says, "it is ok, I am gay too". After that she had no problem with her sons sexuality and proudly embraced who he was. Her take was, the Church is wrong on homosexuality, wrong on divorce, wrong on birth control, wrong on abortion, wrong on women in the clergy, BUT, it is my church and I wont let a stupid pope drive me out.
That's pretty much how I roll.
I really like Dawkins and Harris
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/11/did-muhammad-exist-muslim-prof-isnt-so-sure-outrage-brewing.html
Well, that was very convincing.
I am sure you realize you come across as just as close-minded and extreme as those you rally against, but waaaaay smarter, of course.
The purpose or the Concordat was to stop Nazi persecution of Catholics.
I was talking about spiritual religion, and state religion. You are talking about religion as politics.
It was my intention in my post to state that the Vatican did align itself with National Socialism. "The Vatican saw godless fascism as preferable to godless communism." That the Vatican sided with the Nazis (as I said) and signed a contract with the Nazis did not make Catholicism the state religion of Germany. Nor did the Nazis fight as Catholics. Nor did Hitler being a Catholic make Germany Catholic any more than Hitler being Austrian make Germany Austria.
The Vatican ruled much or Europe for about a thousand year. Kings and Queens, Princes and Dukes pledged their allegiance to the Vatican. In the modern era that power was fading. In the 20th century it was fading fast. Thus the Vatican did what it could to hold on to power.
But if we are to talk about Catholicism as a spiritual community we are not talking about the Vatican or popes or cardinals, we are talking about parish churches and priests and followers. I think history is clear that priests and followers often did not farewell under the National Socialists in Germany or in the Austrian country side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany#Violations
What I am trying to say is I don't disagree with what you are saying, we are just saying different things.
I agree with Stonehands that religion is the tool that leaders use to wield power, spread hatred and wage wars.
It is not the cause of wars and hatred.
So would you'd rather not have someone who believes in God to say "God bless you" or "Jesus loves you" or something of a more positive light?! I understand if you wouldn't want to be bombarded by messages you don't believe in, but you can't help someone who has a joy from simply sharing. At least it's better to share love than this.
And no, I never will eat my babies. When I have them.
I guess it's meant to be somewhat derogatory (referring to their eating habits - nuts and seeds, etc) but in the scheme of religious epithets, it's pretty mild - and always amused me. Plus, I LOVE the Adventist grocery store. Heaven to a vegetarian.
Although maybe that does have something to do with the increasing secularization of (Western) society.
I try to fathom believing in Christianity, or any religion for that matter, and can't. I think you have to be raised with it, for the most part. I'm always amazed at people who have adult conversions from atheism to a religious order to which they previously had no connection.
Especially the ones that demand circumcision!
No, I've never been called a peanut before. I never even knew that was a term used towards Adventists. I'm not fully a vegetarian, though. I still eat fish and chicken, but I frequent my local ABC (Adventist Book Center) and buy different seeds, nuts, beans and other vegetables and meat substitutes. But in Adventism we believe that a healthy spirit is just as important as a healthy body. Since the body is considered a temple, it is up to us as keepers to maintain it with a healthy diet. There are some Adventists, mainly the ones from the Caribbean, who incorporate meat such as fish, chicken and goat into their meals. And what area are you from where Adventists are called peanuts?! If that's supposed to be derogatory then I'd welcome that anytime.
I don't really understand people who pick and choose the little bits they like and disregard the bits they don't and still call themselves Catholic (or whatever).
It just seems like they want the advantages of belonging without having to, well, believe.
It was hypocrisy like this that made me bail on religion when I was about eight.
Jesus is very much a fairy tale figure. The historical Jesus, if there was one, was consumed by myth.
One way to look at it.
Another is to see your religion as an entrance into a world where you can study, pray, learn, and come to your own conclusions about the meaning of holy books, spirituality, morality and life. Many Catholics do this everyday. Many (most) do not agree with Vatican doctrine. If that makes them hypocritical I think it is too their credit that they are hypocritical.
That is not even remotely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
I tend to agree with you on that. I rejected Catholicism as a kid but the Catholics I respect almost all reject the more disgusting aspects of the Church and ignore large parts of its official teaching.
You are right. It was not "the purpose" as I said, it was "a purpose".
From the start of the article you linked to:
"Concordats have been used to create binding agreements to safeguard church interests and its freedom to act, particularly in countries that do not have strong jurisprudence guaranteeing government non-interference in religious matters or in countries where the church seeks a privileged position under government patronage."
And then:
"Hitler adroitly passed laws restricting movement of funds (making it impossible for German Catholics to send money to missionaries, for instance), restricting religious institutions and education, and mandating attendance at Hitler Youth functions (held on Sunday mornings to interfere with Church attendance), thereby pushing negotiation for a concordat more in favor of the Nazi regime. Indeed, as a result, the need for a concordat seemed even more urgent to Church officials."
And then under Terms Of the Concordat:
"Protection of Catholic organizations and freedom of religious practice. (Article 31)"
And then"
"Church leaders were realistic[specify] about the Concordat???s supposed protections.[8] Cardinal Faulhaber is reported to have said:
??? With the concordat we are hanged, without the concordat we are hanged, drawn and quartered.[9In Rome the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pacelli (later Pius XII), told the British minister to the Holy See that he had signed the treaty with a pistol at his head. Hitler was sure to violate the agreement, Pacelli said ??? adding with gallows humor that he would probably not violate all its provisions at once.[8]
When the Nazi government violated the concordat (in particular article 31), bishops and the papacy protested against these violations. Between September 1933 and March 1937 Pacelli issued over seventy notes and memoranda protesting such violations, culminating in his draft of the 1937 papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge ("With Burning Concern") issued by Pope Pius XI.[8]]"
Gosh Bob, I don't know, did you read the article you linked too? Seems to suggest it was closely related to stopping the Nazi persecution of Catholics and the Catholic church.
Or did you mean to link to a different article?
In light of the general ways in which Nazis actually persecuted people they didn't like, it is genuinely obscene for you to refer to these trifling interferences as "persecution."
The Church had its nose up Hitler's ass even before he took full power.
If a person is going to reject many of the fundamental precepts of Catholicism, why would they still call themselves a Catholic?
Because they don't agree with your description of the precepts they disagree with as "fundamental."
American Catholics use birth control as often as non-Catholic Americans. The prohibition against doing so is one of those "fundamental precepts" of the Church, but only a few fanatics still take it seriously, at least among the civilians.
Thus the term "cafeteria Catholics."
Okay, maybe not all people, but most.
In today's news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13248101
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html
I said; thanking God for riches offends me.
Not at all what I meant.
I was thinking of a relative who never thanked anyone. If you gave him a present he would say, praise the lord, I was praying for that. Wouldn't think of thanking you for the present. Bugged me. Also went around telling everyone what he was praying for (ie living room furniture, tv) then when someone said I have some you can have, Praise the Lord.
Sorry if I offended anyone.
I figured I'd jump in the middle of this thread and see some general arguing, but you guys outdid yourselves going from zero to nazi in just 3 pages. Bravo.
I don't believe in religion, I think historically it's done more harm than good. I DO believe in a greater power that lives in all of us and I try to respect other people's beliefs.
I don't believe in God or Jesus.. but I do believe something happened once and pretty much every religion has some account of the same stuff, just told in different ways.
I think faith is good for people who are at a loose end or facing hard times and have nothing to believe in. I like the idea that anyone can walk in to a church if they want.
I hate the dogmatism of devout religious dudes. If they are such believers, then surely they are secure enough in their belief to question a few things and see if it holds up.