DescentBB

Dakatsu wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:I'd argue that your view on Catholicism following the Bible is a matter of how you interpret it.

Dakatsu wrote:The reason we have religious sects is from disagreement on what the Bible says.

That's a really weak argument.

How so? You just said that:

"How so"? Just read your argument again. You're claiming that my argument is a matter of interpretation and not a matter of fact, but your argument in doing so is based on a general assumption, not an analysis of or answer to what I've said. If you want to take the nebulous position that it's all a matter of interpretation (which, as an assumption or starting position is pretty ridiculous), that's your problem, but don't try to use that to tell me that what I've specifically presented is not really there, or to detract from it. You're fooling yourself. I'll add the obvious fact that stating that variations/sects in "Christianity" are cause by disagreements on what the Bible says does not at all disprove what I've said.

I'm trying to bully you out of an argument, you just need to have one to be in one. What you have is an unoriginal construct to allow you to deal with all of religion without feeling the need to burden yourself with the problem of who or what is right or wrong, because none of it and all of it is, and who knows because everyone disagrees (which alone is a gross generalization, completely glazing over the different reasons that people have for disagreeing or interpreting, which themselves can be judged to be good or bad--right or wrong--sound or erroneous). There are facts and truths--logic that I have been faced with that you assume does not exist. The Catholic church does not truly make any sense from a strictly Biblical perspective--it flies in the face of scripture in many ways, and even directly/boldly contradicts it, and they get away with it because people have been raised believing that what they may plainly see is not really a contradiction--that contradiction is not contradiction--or that even if it is that's not the point. Some people have had their eyes opened, as time passed, to the fact that it DOES matter when the Bible says "call no man 'father'" and Catholic priests say to refer to them as "father". That there is no scriptural support for the worship of Mary, or for praying to anyone but "our father in heaven", as Jesus instructed, but that Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". The scriptures mean what they say, and they're there for a purpose, and they explain in many places what that purpose is. One of the purposes is to keep believers from being deceived--from being made to thing that salvation--that the gospel is anything but what God intended it to be, and from achieve anything short of what God intended it to achieve. People can be ignorant, or people can be deceived, but anyone can read the Bible, understand what it plainly says, and believe it over what anyone else would have you believe about it. Not to leave out the supernatural work of God in our life, but believing the Bible provides a vital base for this work.

well... after speaking with a few other people about this, three being muslims... one couldn't stop laughing, the other went on a rant about how all Americans were stupid (I set him straight on that little stereotype by showing him a few threads here), and the third had this to say:

There is a principle of choosing the lesser evil in Islam, thus it might be ok for Muslims to become politicians/senators, etc, in the US in order to try to make positive changes and stand for the principles that are compatiable with Islam, and in the case where they're not, then to stand for the lesser evil, thus with such a purpose being a US politician will go hand in hand with Islam

an example of choosing a lesser evil will be, say there is a warmogering party up for elections and a more moderate one, then allthough both are evil according to islam, yet the former will be far worse than the latter, thus a Muslim could aspire to be a politician for the latter party in order to win for it more votes so as for the greater evil not to prevail


In this respect, there really is no difference between Muslims and (say) Christians.

There are conservative Christians and liberal Christians; conservative Muslims and liberal Muslims. There are Christians who are perfectly happy with the separation of church and state, and those who aren't. Same with Muslims.

So there you have it. Just like anyone else who's religious, there are devouts and there are moderates. And in those groups you will have some that will uphold the constitution and those who would rather do without. The muslims who have come to america, are more likely to uphold the constitution. Otherwise, why would they have come here in the first place?

just the fact that you have no idea that Christianity, Islam, Judaism...etc are in fact systems of governments

they're religious constructs designed to answer questions that cannot be answered at that time (and used to control people). It may be ran by an organization, but it is not an agency. Any form of government is just too broad to be interchangeable with religion.

I think you're confusing a religion with an autocracy that uses religion as their lever.. and in some cases, a hammer.

No, governments are established on principle. That principal is established by what the majority of people choose to believe in. These principals are derived from personal, deeply held beliefs. Government is just a shell filled with either secular beliefs or religious ones.

Ask your muslim friends if they will all 3 agree, that it is their opinion that any other institution, belief or system of government is looked upon as being evil by Islam.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm trying to bully you out of an argument, you just need to have one to be in one. What you have is an unoriginal construct to allow you to deal with all of religion without feeling the need to burden yourself with the problem of who or what is right or wrong, because none of it and all of it is, and who knows because everyone disagrees (which alone is a gross generalization, completely glazing over the different reasons that people have for disagreeing or interpreting, which themselves can be judged to be good or bad--right or wrong--sound or erroneous). There are facts and truths--logic that I have been faced with that you assume does not exist. The Catholic church does not truly make any sense from a strictly Biblical perspective--it flies in the face of scripture in many ways, and even directly/boldly contradicts it, and they get away with it because people have been raised believing that what they may plainly see is not really a contradiction--that contradiction is not contradiction--or that even if it is that's not the point. Some people have had their eyes opened, as time passed, to the fact that it DOES matter when the Bible says "call no man 'father'" and Catholic priests say to refer to them as "father". That there is no scriptural support for the worship of Mary, or for praying to anyone but "our father in heaven", as Jesus instructed, but that Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". The scriptures mean what they say, and they're there for a purpose, and they explain in many places what that purpose is. One of the purposes is to keep believers from being deceived--from being made to thing that salvation--that the gospel is anything but what God intended it to be, and from achieve anything short of what God intended it to achieve. People can be ignorant, or people can be deceived, but anyone can read the Bible, understand what it plainly says, and believe it over what anyone else would have you believe about it. Not to leave out the supernatural work of God in our life, but believing the Bible provides a vital base for this work.

While I can't say for sure that you're right, I can't say you're wrong either. I've only read from Genesis to Deuteronomy, and I'm not a Christian, so I can't really argue on that front further. Either way, I'll concede defeat on that point

Nevertheless, I remembered a key difference between Catholics and Protestants (for comparison): Catholics believe that the Bible is not the sole basis for Christianity. They don't believe in "Sola Scriptura," which says that all you need to be a Christian is to read the Bible. Catholics believe that Church tradition and sacraments and other stuff like that are just as important as the Bible, which they believe to have flaws. No, I have no idea what parts they believe to be flawed.

Here's a summary, if you feel like reading it, from some Catholic website on Sola Scriptura:
http://www.cegguam.org/youngdefenders/T ... iptura.htm

So Catholics have fundamental disagreements on the requirements of Christianity, not just different interpretations. You believe they are going against the Bible, but they justify themselves by their Church tradition, and they don't believe you reading the Bible is good enough.

*Looks at topic again* Man, this topic has strayed, hasn't it?

Just as a general word of advice, if you want to cite analysis of a religious topic, there are probably better sources out there than an 8th-grade school assignment. Granted, the kid writes well for a middle-schooler, but still. There are certainly a few of his points that make me raise my eyebrows a bit and are worth a bit of scrutiny.

Top Gun wrote:Just as a general word of advice, if you want to cite analysis of a religious topic, there are probably better sources out there than an 8th-grade school assignment. Granted, the kid writes well for a middle-schooler, but still. There are certainly a few of his points that make me raise my eyebrows a bit and are worth a bit of scrutiny.

Heh, I didn't even notice that.

In my defence, it's more of an example of a Catholic point-of-view.

Actually, what really got me as I read through it is that the kid pretty much plagiarizes half of that paper from his one listed source. Said source was a pretty good read, though.

flip wrote:Ask your muslim friends if they will all 3 agree, that it is their opinion that any other institution, belief or system of government is looked upon as being evil by Islam.

why?

you stated that muslims would not jive with the us constitution based on their religion, and you got your answer for that.

now it seems you're just fishing for something.

besides, i'm sure you can find some muslims around where you live. why don't you ask them that question.

Honestly, seems we have more Hindus here than Muslims, though oddly at least half of them have professed to be Christians. Yeah it was a loaded question. I already knew the answer, I just wasn't sure if you did.