Thread: Editorial on 'Atheist Brainwashing'

Wow. Leave the thread alone for a few days and look what happens. I don't have the time to read it at the moment, but I'll get around to it eventually.
In the meantime, the editorial was replied to. The reply was fairly good, but leaned to much towards the pro-religion side for me. It mostly focused on how evolution and theism can exist together. Not much scientific backing, but oh well. Might just send in the one we were working on anyways. The new article didn't directly say it was replying to that specific article, and it didn't cover almost any of the points ours did anyways, so I likely will.

Leo, like I said, I didn't have time to finish reading your posts. But so you know, I'm an atheist, but also an artist. I spend a lot of time doing things for no point other than to make things look better. That sort of goes against your little theory, doesn't it? Further, I'm not an anarchist by any means. In fact, I'm a moderately liberal, but very active voter. I believe that government exists to benefit society as a whole, and I wish to restore it to that position rather than leave it exploiting society. Again, against your theory. Didn't you say that an atheist can't work for a common good?
In fact, what you're saying is the furthest thing away from what Darwin suggested. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Human kind is a social species. We enjoy and benefit from working in a group. Singled out, humans are incredibly weak in every way except mentally. Excelling mentally won't help you much when you're getting mauled by a bear, or when you're trying to bring down an elephant to eat. In order to reap the benefits of intelligence, human kind must work together. Working together implies working for the mutual benefit rather than individual survival. And further, lack of religion hasn't damaged my morals in any sense. I still don't steal, kill or rape anybody. I don't even have the slightest desire to do so.

It is false to say that Scientific Darwinism has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. Scientist need to take some responsibility for what Stupid People derive from their works.[/b]

And what of the ignorant people derive from religion? You DO advocate all religions here. Well, with the exception of the followers of the antichrist or whatever. But according to you, religion (NO specific religion was mentioned by you at this point) stops barbarianism every time. Well, what of corrupted religions? Those in the Middle East who blow themselves up to further their cause? Are you ready to take responsibility for what they derived from religion?

Science has long been too irresponsible. Just look at Nuclear Weapon's Technology. Are Scientists not supposed to be smart. And yet they handed over plans for weapons of mass destruction to the most hawkish of polititicans and militarists.[/b]

Actually, most of the scientists disagreed with the use their work was being put to, Einstein among them. They wanted nuclear technology to be used for power generation or further research, not to bomb enemies into submission. A few of them outright stopped working and left the project because of moral objections. Moral objections that existed in SCIENTISTS. And social momentum NOTHING. Like I said, evolution suggests that mankind work for EACHOTHER, not for the individual. Greedy corporate CEOs and other bureaucratic theifs aren't truly atheists. Or at the very least, they aren't for the right reasons. I'm an atheist because I believe that I can do more for others, and for myself, if I am not hampered by a religion opposing science. They're atheists because they don't like the idea of anybody knowing what they're pilfering from their fellow human beings. They're athiests because they're too lazy to commit the time to a belief in anything, whether that be in a God, or in scientific principles. They're the sort of slime I want removed from society. I don't mind theists, I just don't agree with them, especially when they try imposing themselves on atheists, or when they insult my moral standings. But greedy people, people who's sole reason for existence is to one up their neighbor, THOSE are people I truly hate.

Ok, I don't know if you send the article already, but I remembered that the previous pope, Juan Pablo II, had acknowledge the theory of evolution, think this might be good to say

Originally posted by Tsen

Leo, like I said, I didn't have time to finish reading your posts. But so you know, I'm an atheist, but also an artist. I spend a lot of time doing things for no point other than to make things look better. That sort of goes against your little theory, doesn't it?

Well, that you have not examined yourself for any consistency and integration between your mind spirit and emotions should not have to be assigned to any shortfall in my System. It would seem that you are the one with the problem.

It is false to say that Scientific Darwinism has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. Scientist need to take some responsibility for what Stupid People derive from their works. After all, we must all acknowledge that most people are stupid.[/b]

I'm not going to get into how cynical that is. More to the point, you are asking science to \"decide\" that some observations should be ignored for the good of the people. That the advantage of adaptibility exists in nature is not something you could reasonably order science to ignor because of some futuristic policy that may or may not claim allegiance with it.

Furthermore, the term \"Social Darwinism\" is used primarily by critics to criticize those policies. It is not embraced by those who follow that political philosophy.

Further yet more, Machiavelli penned the last of his treatises--the difinitve initial texts of the Realpolitik philosophy of Statecraft which first postulated the philosophy you call \"social darwinism\"--prior to his death in 1527. Charles Darwin was unable to publish his scientific oservations, which merely argued for Natural Selection favoring the adaptation of traits, until after his birth, which was not until 1809.

Your argument that Darwin himself in any way inspired this thinking is patently rediculous.

Now, if Science cannot be taught popularly without vast and dangerous misunderstandings, then maybe it should not be taught at all, or perhaps that the Religionists are correct in proposing that a great deal of Moral Offset be taught along beside these materialistic doctrines in order to achieve some moral balance. Science has long been too irresponsible. Just look at Nuclear Weapon's Technology. Are Scientists not supposed to be smart. And yet they handed over plans for weapons of mass destruction to the most hawkish of polititicans and militarists. Indeed, I could seriously think of an argument whereby mankind would be better off if it were to put every scientist in a big sack and drown them along with the lawyers, before they are finally successful in their almost deliberate bid to destroy the World. [/b]

Your argument is that of a Luddite, to put it mildly. It is the same Science that gives us the promise of efficient wind and solar power, and the potential hope for finding a way to feed the world's hungry. Ever hear of vaccines? Porsthetics? Open heart surgery? I know you don't oppose those medical advances on Darwinian grounds, because that would fly in the face of your earlier argument. Science is like everything else: you must take the good with the bad. Sticking your head in the metaphorical sand well not help or solve anything.

They forget that all of the core Christian Doctrines are sourced from Paul and not from Christ. Christ taught no Salvation. Christ taught no power of Forgiveness from any Crucifixion. Christ was a Avataric Messianic Saint who had an innovative Moral Teaching for His time and who should have risen politically, but who was victimized and martyred. No, it was no Sacrifice. It was a Crime against God. And, no, God would not reward Humanity for having murdered this Messiah. It is silly that anybody would believe Paul for proposing such a ridiculous argument -- but there is no underestimating the stupidity of people, and it is still taught without the blinking of an eye that God gives us Salvation for Murdering His One and Only Son. Then we need to evaluate the damaging harm of such a doctrine.[/b]

Should I take that to mean that you don't believe in Confession? It is not Paul that spreads this belief. The single most popular bit of scripture on the subject, in fact of all subjects, as well as the clearest reads as follows: \"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.\" This is not from Paul. It is from verse 16, chapter 3, of the first epistle of John. Good old John 3:16.

The essence and ultimate results of Paulist Christianity is that All Sins are Forgiven and therefore that it is understood tacitly that it is permissable for Christians to sin as much and as often as they like. That was NOT what Christ taught. And yet it is exactly what Paul was selling and exactly why his doctrines were so popular in the Greek World. Paul was selling Free Sin. Indeed, nowadays one can still catch Christians doing the same thing. Recently I heard one Christian boosting that all of the other World Religions are inferior to Christianity because they have no mechanism for Forgiveness of Sin. Duh!? It somehow does not occur to these people that allowing for sin is not the job of a Religion but a concern that exclusively belongs to Satan and the Devils.
[/b]

The idea of forgiveness of sins is alive and well in Catholicism, Marian or otherwise. It is based on this peice of scripture: \"Confess your sins to one another, and pray for each other, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a reighteous man avails much.\" Again, this is not from Paul, it is from the Genral Epistle of James, chapter 5, verse 16.

It is the Catholics who refer to the pretty verses here and there to redeem Paul. Actually Catholicism should have thrown Paul to the wolves as soon as he was fairly adopted by all of Enemies of Catholicism. It should have been one very large hint that there was a problem with paulist doctrine when all of our worst enemies took on Paul as their primary spiritual Father... indeed, when the Protestants insist that every word in the Bible is veritably the 'Word of God', they only say so as a means of Deifying Paul. Luther, Calvin and all of that ilk could have done nothing without Paul.[/b]

You'll have to show me some evidence of that.

I myself am confused about your mention of skeltons in Catholic closets in regards to Trent. Trent in many ways was a document of surrender. Where Catholicism had been a Civilization, with Trent Catholicism suddenly became this little limited thing, acknowledging and even institutionalizing its political and social defeat. [/b]

The council of Trent is what established the Catholic church as the official church of Rome, ending generations of systematic religious persecution on the part of the Romans. It was a lot of disagreeable things, Leo, but a \"social and political defeat\" was not one them. The problem was that it set the pattern for the Church's steady decline as a moral force for peace and brotherhood throughout the world, instead setting the stage for it to weild Armies, start wars, and engage in brutal inquisitions.

As for myself, I am a very devout Marian and regard every Catholic who isn't as somebody who would be better off being a Protestant and then roosting in Hell for it. Indeed, we have the Prophecy of Simeon which states that the Truth of every man's heart would be known in relationship to the Wound in the Heart of Mary -- those who add to the hurt of Mary's Heart by piling on the insults would be damned, but those who would commisserate with Mary would be Blessed. I have no sympathy for Catholics who agree with Protestants that Catholics should not be worshipping Mary. Indeed, the 'clarification' of Catholic Doctrine at Trent which surrendered to Protestant anti-marian sentiments was disgraceful. What, afterall, is the difference between permissable 'veneration' and the out of bounds 'worship' -- is veneration done on one knee but worship done on two. To suggest that any Catholic should somehow limit Devotions to Mary was in itself a Trigger to the Curse of the Prophecy of Simeon. [/b]

I'm not sure what brought this subject up, but i never claimed not to venerate Mary, but you do confuse the issue a bit. Catholics, including myself, venerate Mary with numerous devotions, befitting the mother and protector of God as a man, however it is true that we do not \"worship\" her. We do not look to her as a direct source of divine power, but instead ask for her concessions according to the catholic beleif in the Communion of Saints. We pray to God, and our prayers \"to\" Mary or requests for her also to pray for us. Think of the Hail Mary:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with the. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, jesus. Holy Mary, please pray for us, now until the hour of our death.[/b]

That doesn't mean she is a deity herself.

To behave as though Mary was an embarrassment to us would embarrass Her, wouldn't it. We should have had more consideration for our Mother and less concern for our enemies. [/b]

I would never apologize for venerating Mary, nor have I in this, or any other discussion advocated such a view.

Hmnmmmm... did I leave anything out....?[/b]

I don't think so.

It is false to say that Scientific Darwinism has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. Scientist need to take some responsibility for what Stupid People derive from their works. After all, we must all acknowledge that most people are stupid.[/b]

I'm not going to get into how cynical that is. More to the point, you are asking science to \"decide\" that some observations should be ignored for the good of the people. That the advantage of adaptibility exists in nature is not something you could reasonably order science to ignor because of some futuristic policy that may or may not claim allegiance with it.

Furthermore, the term \"Social Darwinism\" is used primarily by critics to criticize those policies. It is not embraced by those who follow that political philosophy.

Further yet more, Machiavelli penned the last of his treatises--the difinitve initial texts of the Realpolitik philosophy of Statecraft which first postulated the philosophy you call \"social darwinism\"--prior to his death in 1527. Charles Darwin was unable to publish his scientific oservations, which merely argued for Natural Selection favoring the adaptation of traits, until after his birth, which was not until 1809.

Your argument that Darwin himself in any way inspired this thinking is patently rediculous.

Now, if Science cannot be taught popularly without vast and dangerous misunderstandings, then maybe it should not be taught at all, or perhaps that the Religionists are correct in proposing that a great deal of Moral Offset be taught along beside these materialistic doctrines in order to achieve some moral balance. Science has long been too irresponsible. Just look at Nuclear Weapon's Technology. Are Scientists not supposed to be smart. And yet they handed over plans for weapons of mass destruction to the most hawkish of polititicans and militarists. Indeed, I could seriously think of an argument whereby mankind would be better off if it were to put every scientist in a big sack and drown them along with the lawyers, before they are finally successful in their almost deliberate bid to destroy the World. [/b]

Your argument is that of a Luddite, to put it mildly. It is the same Science that gives us the promise of efficient wind and solar power, and the potential hope for finding a way to feed the world's hungry. Ever hear of vaccines? Porsthetics? Open heart surgery? I know you don't oppose those medical advances on Darwinian grounds, because that would fly in the face of your earlier argument. Science is like everything else: you must take the good with the bad. Sticking your head in the metaphorical sand well not help or solve anything.

They forget that all of the core Christian Doctrines are sourced from Paul and not from Christ. Christ taught no Salvation. Christ taught no power of Forgiveness from any Crucifixion. Christ was a Avataric Messianic Saint who had an innovative Moral Teaching for His time and who should have risen politically, but who was victimized and martyred. No, it was no Sacrifice. It was a Crime against God. And, no, God would not reward Humanity for having murdered this Messiah. It is silly that anybody would believe Paul for proposing such a ridiculous argument -- but there is no underestimating the stupidity of people, and it is still taught without the blinking of an eye that God gives us Salvation for Murdering His One and Only Son. Then we need to evaluate the damaging harm of such a doctrine.[/b]

Should I take that to mean that you don't believe in Confession? It is not Paul that spreads this belief. The single most popular bit of scripture on the subject, in fact of all subjects, as well as the clearest reads as follows: \"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.\" This is not from Paul. It is from verse 16, chapter 3, of the first epistle of John. Good old John 3:16.

The essence and ultimate results of Paulist Christianity is that All Sins are Forgiven and therefore that it is understood tacitly that it is permissable for Christians to sin as much and as often as they like. That was NOT what Christ taught. And yet it is exactly what Paul was selling and exactly why his doctrines were so popular in the Greek World. Paul was selling Free Sin. Indeed, nowadays one can still catch Christians doing the same thing. Recently I heard one Christian boosting that all of the other World Religions are inferior to Christianity because they have no mechanism for Forgiveness of Sin. Duh!? It somehow does not occur to these people that allowing for sin is not the job of a Religion but a concern that exclusively belongs to Satan and the Devils.
[/b]

The idea of forgiveness of sins is alive and well in Catholicism, Marian or otherwise. It is based on this peice of scripture: \"Confess your sins to one another, and pray for each other, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a reighteous man avails much.\" Again, this is not from Paul, it is from the Genral Epistle of James, chapter 5, verse 16.

It is the Catholics who refer to the pretty verses here and there to redeem Paul. Actually Catholicism should have thrown Paul to the wolves as soon as he was fairly adopted by all of Enemies of Catholicism. It should have been one very large hint that there was a problem with paulist doctrine when all of our worst enemies took on Paul as their primary spiritual Father... indeed, when the Protestants insist that every word in the Bible is veritably the 'Word of God', they only say so as a means of Deifying Paul. Luther, Calvin and all of that ilk could have done nothing without Paul.[/b]

You'll have to show me some evidence of that.

I myself am confused about your mention of skeltons in Catholic closets in regards to Trent. Trent in many ways was a document of surrender. Where Catholicism had been a Civilization, with Trent Catholicism suddenly became this little limited thing, acknowledging and even institutionalizing its political and social defeat. [/b]

The council of Trent is what established the Catholic church as the official church of Rome, ending generations of systematic religious persecution on the part of the Romans. It was a lot of disagreeable things, Leo, but a \"social and political defeat\" was not one them. The problem was that it set the pattern for the Church's steady decline as a moral force for peace and brotherhood throughout the world, instead setting the stage for it to weild Armies, start wars, and engage in brutal inquisitions.

As for myself, I am a very devout Marian and regard every Catholic who isn't as somebody who would be better off being a Protestant and then roosting in Hell for it. Indeed, we have the Prophecy of Simeon which states that the Truth of every man's heart would be known in relationship to the Wound in the Heart of Mary -- those who add to the hurt of Mary's Heart by piling on the insults would be damned, but those who would commisserate with Mary would be Blessed. I have no sympathy for Catholics who agree with Protestants that Catholics should not be worshipping Mary. Indeed, the 'clarification' of Catholic Doctrine at Trent which surrendered to Protestant anti-marian sentiments was disgraceful. What, afterall, is the difference between permissable 'veneration' and the out of bounds 'worship' -- is veneration done on one knee but worship done on two. To suggest that any Catholic should somehow limit Devotions to Mary was in itself a Trigger to the Curse of the Prophecy of Simeon. [/b]

I'm not sure what brought this subject up, but i never claimed not to venerate Mary, but you do confuse the issue a bit. Catholics, including myself, venerate Mary with numerous devotions, befitting the mother and protector of God as a man, however it is true that we do not \"worship\" her. We do not look to her as a direct source of divine power, but instead ask for her intercessions according to the catholic beleif in the Communion of Saints. We pray to God, and our prayers \"to\" Mary or requests for her also to pray for us. Think of the Hail Mary:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with the. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, jesus. Holy Mary, please pray for us, now until the hour of our death.[/b]

That doesn't mean she is a deity herself.

To behave as though Mary was an embarrassment to us would embarrass Her, wouldn't it. We should have had more consideration for our Mother and less concern for our enemies. [/b]

I would never apologize for venerating Mary, nor have I in this, or any other discussion advocated such a view.

Hmnmmmm... did I leave anything out....?[/b]

I don't think so.

Originally posted by Leo Volont
And Barbarians with no acknowledged morality are supposed to be any better?

Besides, you need to clarify what Christians you are speaking of. Christianity has always been of two Camps -- the Messianic Marians of the True Saints, and the Paulists who have followed the Antichrist. I am certainly not going to defend the Antichrists, but I must insist that no matter how terrible a Leader one may be, if one even nominally must follow some form a Moral Doctrines and Ethical Restraints, then how much better is that then your Barbarian Materialists who have absolutely no restrictions. We have the History of the Catholic Church which you can put up against Western History of the last several hundred years. It is clear that Catholicism is the moral superior here. Nowhere has the slaughters or persecutions been more intense than under Protestant or Secular and then Revolutionary Jurisdictions. yes, I know of all the propaganda which endlessly is issued in effect to shame Catholicism, but if one looks at the actual events of History, Catholicism has only struck in its own defence, while materialism and secularism and capitalism and revolution has endlessly gone on the attack to exploit and pillage all of the World.

So, tell me the Church Leaders you would weigh in against Stalin, Hitler, Timerlane, Genghis Khan, Attila. No, you use the logic of the French Revolution and because the Catholic Church imposed a few inconvenient taxes on surplus revenues, you think that justifies a wholesale slaughter of Catholics. You complain that Religion is cruel and then murder off almost complete nationalities of religious people.

So, yes, go on telling us that Religion is more bloodthirsty than Barbarism. But then try to prove it. The numbers score the game quite differently.

so the Crusades were in defense? "Let's go out and slaughter countless Muslims and steal their land—for defense of Catholocism"? i don't think so. admittedly, i don't know much about the history of religion, but i hardly think much of what any churches do, including the Catholics, can be considered to be done out of defense.

and as for the morality of barbarians versus religionists—it seems to me that the actual acts, in many cases are similar or the same. give that, yes, barbarians are morally superior, because even if they are killing, raping, and plundering, they are not being hypocritical about it.

Originally posted by RCLefty
I am confused as to why you have not chosen to post this reply in the Forum. I was going to suggest that it is not necessary to continue the debate in both venues, but I had assumed the Forum would be the more logical place to continue it.

But if that is not what you wish, I am happy to oblige.

\"patently ridiculous\".

You honestly need to look at the history of the 19th and 20th Centuries and then tell me that Charles Darwin had absolutely no social influence. Then you would find that you are the one who is patently ridiculous. Now, what I am pretty sure you meant was the Charles Darwin had not thought or concern for what his social influence would be. That is NOT the same thing. That only indicates the degree of his selfishness or the extent of his own unconsciousness or stupiditiy. I suppose next you will defend scientist for building Megaton Yield Nuclear Weapons because they never bothered to infer that maybe they would be used to destroy the World. Turning out one's destructive works without thinking of anything beyond the Paycheck one will receive does not absolve us from our Moral Responsibilities and our Karma.

Oh, yes, and Machiavelli was also influencialin his time and well beyond, but no one prior to the most destructive wars in History were referring to Social Machiavellism. Machiavelli said nothing to refer to Racial and Ethnic Supremacies and Inferiorities. Machiavelli was all about power politics and balance of powers. It was Darwin's Theories that lent them out to the Idea of a Huge Slug Fest and a Giant Blookbath.

Moving on. What good are the advances of science the very moment the surface of the Earth is transformed to glass by the heat of a 1000 nuclear warheads. What good are all the Medical Advances when some 'designer plague' is turned loose by the Europeans to kill all Asians, or the other way around. We already have one Cold War Laboratory to thank for AIDS. Also, while we are thinking about ultimate things, we need to wonder where all of the Science that brought on first the Industrial and the Technical Revolutions are ultimately to the benefit of Humanity and the Planet. If we had stayed Agrarian would we now have Global Warming. Look at the choices which we will need to make in the next Century. Now we have Urban Areas spilling over onto Farm Land, and we have grains being converted into Fuel Oils. Already entire populations are being left to starve in Africa. It seems the Trend of the Future is for the selective removal of some Population Centers. Where is that to stop? You know, History has seen Agrarian Civilizations which had thrived for Centuries -- Several of the Chinese Dynasties -- a Number of the Egyptian Dynasties --- the Roman Empire --- The High Medievel Period of Catholic Civilization -- Persia. But we have no way of knowing that Technological Civilization will not destroy the viability of the entire Planet as it crashes and burns. So, ultimately speaking, we may have nothing to thank your Scientists for, as they have never been able to or even inclined to guess to what results their inventions would end. Oh, take Robotics. Do we really need Unemployment while the only plan Capitialist Civilization has for the general distribution of Wealth is in exchange for Labor, so lets invent Robots so that people will no longer be paid. I suppose the Real 20% Unemployment Rate in every Industrial Society has Mr. Science to thank for that.

Moving on. What is wrong with Confession? Confession is at least Catholicism acknowledgment that Sin is Still Wrong, something that Protestantism, under Paul, completely denies. It is the Protestant position that if Sin is Entirely Forgiven then there is no longer anything to confess for. To a Protestant the only Sin is to do an Act of Righteousness since that would imply that one has not enough Faith in one's Salvation. And don' t think I exaggerate. I have heard Fundamentalist Preachers damn Catholics to Hell for relying on Good Works and not Faith. And it is indeed traceable back to Paul -- who argues that Good Works are 'like rags'.

And about the Gospel of John. Really, you seem smarter than to need this present explanation. Ofcourse you must know from the internal evidence provided in the Gospel of John that it was the work of a 2nd Century Greek Mind and not that of an early 1st Century Hebrew. We have the Letters of John. John is zeolously Jewish but his writing are confused and he did without editing. The Gospel of John was clearly writen by a Platonist and refined Greek Language would have been impossible for Rough John the Apostle. And the Doctrines elaborated are not those presented by Christ in the other Gospels but are the salient points that had grown out of Paulist Gentile Greek Christianity. The Gospel of John is not a source document at all, but a Position Paper on what the Gentile Churches believed a hundred years after the death of Christ. Now, tell me I really had to tell you any of that, and that you were not being Intellectually very dishonest with me when you claimed that the Gospel of John was not somehow a Paulist Document.

When you ask for proof of some things which should be clear by my explanations, you are just coming across as being hardheaded and stubborn. After all, WHY ELSE would the Protestants have come up with the new and exclusive doctrine that Every Word of the Bible is the Absolute Word of God except to Deify Paul. They always had a huge problem of not being able to refer enough to any quote from Christ while referring entirely to Paul. And then they had Paul's problem that in 14 books he never once quoted Christ. They were painted into the Corner and frankly had to Deify Paul or they would have had no Religion. Now, what Proof is needed for a Truth so obvious? Do you think that some Protestant Theologian would publish such a Rationale. It was a Doctrine arrived at through all of the shady efforts aimed at Damage Control and White Wash. It was a Doctrine established so they would not have to speak about these things.

I still can't figure out what you mean about Trent. Whatever you are saying simply has no resonance for me one way or the other. But it does seem like nothing more than second hand hate speech. Maybe you should involve yourself a little bit more and do an essay with more truth and less stridency and venom. And you seem to have you timing wrong. Trent came AFTER the defeat of the Roman Church. Trent came after the Inquisitions. Trent came after any secular political influence that the Church had ever exercised. What you seem to be talking about is whatever established The Catholic Church as the Political Center of Catholic Civilization.... and what do you have against Civilization? Your argument seems to be with Gregory the Great. One would think you would have approved of the Surrender at Trent. You got the Defeat of the Catholic Church... and isn't that what you seemed to have wanted. Trent lead directly to what the Church is today -- a Pope held house prisoner in some tiny city block in Rome, without the secular power of a simple Dog Catcher.

And about Mary. If find it distasteful for a Catholic to be talking about Minimizing Mary. You are not apologizing to some Protestant now. You are talking to a devout Marian and you should take that under consideration when you tippitoe so close to insulting Her. It seems clear that you have no actual Feeling for Her or you wouldn't be able to reduce Her Importance so well. Perhaps you should become a Bishop and join in the Movement to Eccumenically bond the Church over to the Protestants, since you are already so comfortable with contemplating a Catholicism with little or no remaining Marian Influence.

No real Marian would ever use that silly word 'venerate' -- it is an insult to Mary by a scheming pack of Paulist Bishops that they would want to foist on the Marian Religious Orders, who should rightly throw it back in their faces. Mary is Queen of Heaven, The Immaculate Conception, the Mediatrix of All Grace. Co-Redemptrix. What exactly in all of that does not qualify Her for Worship. Those Bishops deserve to be flogged and transferred out to the Protestant Churches.

Firstly, I must apologize for a fairly aggregious error I made which has caused a great deal of confusion. When I reffered to Trent, I was thinking of the First Council of Nicaea. When you replace my reference to Trent with Nicaea, I am sure my argument will make a great deal more sense. I can only ask your pardon for my error.

Now, to business. You can't dismiss all of science on the basis of Nuclear Proliferation. I could just as easily say your arguments are moot, because you are a human, and humans created Nuclear Weapons. After all, I would not take council from people of that sort. Now, I ask you to defend the assertion that Darwin's observations, which are undoubtedly true, (Even Creationists aknowledge this, claiming their beef is with Evolution, not natural Selection.) are responsible for the existance of politics based upon the elite wanting to stay elite. The Elite have always wanted to stay elite, and i challenge you to produce one relevant text that uses his observations as a justification for policy. Nuclear weapons are an entirely different issue.

The only new claims you bring regarding Darwin is the vague suggestion of a link between his observations and political racism. If you are going to suggest to me that racism and genocide did not exist prior to the nineteenth century, then I cannot any longer take any of your claims seriously. That would be ludicrous.

Your views on Mary are confusing, to say the least. At what point was it Church policy to worship mary as a deity, and when exactly did we deviate from that? It is certainly not the view of the current Church in Rome that we should do so.

And who said anything about minimizing? Mary is first of all the Saints, even before Peter, but she is not part of the Holy Trinity. Queen of Heaven she may be, but a godess, she is not. We Catholics are monotheists. There is no God except for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the three in one. Mary was, as you correctly pointed out, conceived immaculate, perfect, and free of original sin, which brings her up arguably to the level of an angel, but even the angels have been quick to warn humans not to worship them. To draw worship from the Lord, even for the Holy Mother Mary, is folly.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but I don't find your claims about Paul's relationship to the protestants self-evident, as you say. I share your reservations about the view of modern biblical infallibility, but I don't agree that they have anything to do with Paul. If you would just present some evidence of that, you might well sway me, but you have shown me nothing. To suggest that John (the most beloved among Apostles) is also no more than a mouthpiece for Paul is, I think, silly. Is it your opinion that paul masterminded Revelations as well? As I assume you are aware, it is also accredited to John.

It is obvious that you have many disagreements with the current Roman Church, on some very fundamental issues. I have postulated nothing in this conversation that is inconsistant with the views of the Magesterium.[/i][/b]

Wow! It is rare for anybody to admit a mistake, but, yes, I do appreciate your explaining that your references to Trent were actually referring to Nicea. Yes, even I have a great deal of complaint about Nicea -- it incorporated Paul's Letters into Church Canon (mostly because the Council was chaired by a Political Emperor who wanted Paul's statement on State Supremacy to be Scripturalized). But about the central role that the Catholic Church would have among civilized institutions, if one has a complaint about it, which I don't, but wouldn't Gregory the Great, the first REAL Pope, wouldn't he be to blame?

And about Darwinism as a particularly provocative piece of Materialism... you seem to defend your position by saying that there had been other instances of Barbarism in History. Yes, but will you continue to defend all future instances of Barbarism simply because their had been previous historical precedents? One would hope that Humanity and Civilization might someday move forward. Your argument suggests the Pauline Doctrine of Original Sin to the extreme extent of supposing that Man is so innately and fixedly sinful that there is absolutely no hope or possibility of even the least bit of improvement. Especially when the Popular Mind is fairly inundated with the notion that Racial Survival and Supremacy is the only factor worth considering among all facets of social dynamics, accompanied by both patriotic and fascist drumbeating and saber rattling. Whatever may have provoked previous instances of the worst episodes of Barbarian Apocalypse, in the 19th and 20th Centuries we may mostly hold Darwinism to be most responsible. And I am not so ready as you to forgive it and then give it another bout of Popularity in our Schools. What, are we so ready for World War Three?

About Mary... I never said that the Official Church position is to be embarrassed about Mary Worship. That is all the fault of Masonic Bishops who had a better sense for manuevering politically, socially, and economically in a World controlled by Protestants and Masons then they care about their Church or the Blessed Virgin. Indeed, anybody who can speak exclusively in quasi-legal theological language regarding the Blessed Virgin is demonstrating that they do not really regard Her as Real, but treat her only as some speculative invention which they only consider maintaining in order to appease those who still insist upon Her 'superstition' for the sake of continuity of tradition. Again, I would these Bishops horsewhipped mercilessly, if only I have the power over them. No true Marian Catholic would ever consider apologizing for Mary or Her Devotees to those Her enemies responsible for the murders of millions of Catholics and the continued persecution of nations of Catholics. Such apologies only feed the original insults against Her. It as though our own Bishops are taking sides against Her. Besides, there are other Higher Religions that are not shy about identifying the Female Aspect of the Godhead as a Divinity, and so why are the Catholics intent upon scruples. You say that the Catholics are monotheists, but SINCE WHEN. If the Catholics are so intent upon the HOLY TRINITY -- a clear violation of Monotheistic sensibilities -- make the Man Jesus a God... and making Paul a God as it assigns God as the source of paul's voice and pen. So why would the Church finally decide upon scruples and draw the line at Mary when assigning the gulf that would separate Divinity from Humanity? it makes no sense. What of the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception. What more does on require for Apotheosis? The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was necessary for the assignment divinity to Christ, but that is because the Immaculate Conception first assigned Divinity to Mary. Chosen of God, full of Grace, and without Sin -- Perfect Flesh to give birth to Perfect Flesh. Indeed, after some appreciation of how the other Higher Religions treat Her, and a good look at our own Doctrinal Foundations for Her regard, it should be obvious that we SHOULD worship Her. She deserves nothing less. And again may I remind you that any difference between 'worship' and 'venerate' is a legal fiction -- it is not as though 'worship' means to fall on both knees while 'venerate' means to touch only one knee to the floor. Using a lesser word means nothing except as a slight by those who would trade off Mary for some political benefit.

Oh, okay.... if I can remember where we had been arguing, I can post this to the thread.

Originally posted by kage23


so the Crusades were in defense? \"Let's go out and slaughter countless Muslims and steal their land—for defense of Catholocism\"? i don't think so. admittedly, i don't know much about the history of religion, but i hardly think much of what any churches do, including the Catholics, can be considered to be done out of defense.

and as for the morality of barbarians versus religionists—it seems to me that the actual acts, in many cases are similar or the same. give that, yes, barbarians are morally superior, because even if they are killing, raping, and plundering, they are not being hypocritical about it.

Of course the Crusades were in defense. You need only look at History. In the 12th Century was not every Civilization on Earth overrun by the Mongol Hordes EXCEPT just one Civilization that was able, through the Institution of the Catholic Church, to organize and deploy a Defense?

Now, I can appreciate your argument, only if you insist that nobody ever can use violence in order to secure life or property. We need to remember that the Mongol Hordes did indeed threaten life -- they had a policy of complete genocide in regards to Persia.

Then it is unfair to describe the Crusades as genocide. Again one needs only review History. Once the Peace was established in in the region by the presence of the Catholic Armies and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, all further militant activities were curtailed by treaty. Communities of all the ethnic groups and Religions native to the area coexisted for more than several generations.

When the Catholic Church finally was removed from the area, by militant opportunists based out of Damascus, it was not so good for the area, as then, in the 14th Century a fresh incursion of Turkish Invaders, again from Mongolia and Manchuria were enabled to ride and and commit a fresh wave of slaughter, on a scale which no atrocity committed during the Catholic Crusade could hardly suggest. Indeed, the Capital of the Orthodox Catholic Church was lost to these pillaging Turks. But nobody cries about this Aggression against the West, but only blames the West for when it once was successful in preventing what subsequent Secularism was powerless to confront.

Oh, and if you truly believe that nobody should stand in the way of Islamic Aggression, terror and Imperial Domination, then why fly your sacrificial butt to Iraq and offer yourself up to Al Quada to be killed just as you would have had every European slaughtered in the 12th Century.

Originally posted by Leo Volont+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leo Volont)</div>

Of course the Crusades were in defense. You need only look at History. In the 12th Century was not every Civilization on Earth overrun by the Mongol Hordes EXCEPT just one Civilization that was able, through the Institution of the Catholic Church, to organize and deploy a Defense?

Now, I can appreciate your argument, only if you insist that nobody ever can use violence in order to secure life or property. We need to remember that the Mongol Hordes did indeed threaten life -- they had a policy of complete genocide in regards to Persia.

Then it is unfair to describe the Crusades as genocide. Again one needs only review History. Once the Peace was established in in the region by the presence of the Catholic Armies and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, all further militant activities were curtailed by treaty. Communities of all the ethnic groups and Religions native to the area coexisted for more than several generations.

When the Catholic Church finally was removed from the area, by militant opportunists based out of Damascus, it was not so good for the area, as then, in the 14th Century a fresh incursion of Turkish Invaders, again from Mongolia and Manchuria were enabled to ride and and commit a fresh wave of slaughter, on a scale which no atrocity committed during the Catholic Crusade could hardly suggest. Indeed, the Capital of the Orthodox Catholic Church was lost to these pillaging Turks. But nobody cries about this Aggression against the West, but only blames the West for when it once was successful in preventing what subsequent Secularism was powerless to confront.

Oh, and if you truly believe that nobody should stand in the way of Islamic Aggression, terror and Imperial Domination, then why fly your sacrificial butt to Iraq and offer yourself up to Al Quada to be killed just as you would have had every European slaughtered in the 12th Century.[/b]

ok, based on my knowledge (actually my lack thereof) of history, and particularly religious history, i won't argue this point any more. however, i would like to try to steer the discussion back towards what i thought is an even more important point of my older post, which is as follows.

Originally posted by kage@
<!--QuoteBegin-Leo

Indeed, in a purely Materialistic Universe, what incentive is there beyond pure personal selfishness?

There is the incentive of bettering humanity, which ought to far outweigh the incentive of bettering one's self at the expense of humanity. In order to improve humanity, we need to begin by improving our relationship with what is around us. By this, I mean two things. Firstly, I mean humanity as a whole needs to be in a better balance with the environment and nature. How can we expect the species to improve if the majority of it is living in such squallid conditions? Much of the human population on this planet is starving or ill. And the rest breathe polluted air, drink polluted water, and eat polluted food. If we improve our planet, we will improve our living conditions and that will give us a better chance to improve as a species. Secondly, I mean that we, as individuals, groups of individuals, organizations, corporations, and countries, need to start acting civil towards others! Quite obviously, war, violence, and destruction does not better humanity. War, violence, and destruction are caused by anger, hatred, and manipulation. If every single human being on this planet was always respectful and kind to their fellow humans, even when they disagreed about major things, we would live in a much more peaceful world, with a much better chance at improving the species and the planet. So even in a purely materialistic and atheistic universe, there is still incentive for morality.

all that, plus the idea that Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive. one can be a Theist and an Evolutionist simultaneously, without any conflicts!

AAHHHHH HYPOCRISY...

Why dosen't that zealot prove that God exists before bashing science and how we can't prove that it exists?

People are morons

How is science less proven when Christian religion is based on a book written by over 200 mostly unknown sources?