Religion.

[Hardy]

I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs.  You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?

What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.

Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.

Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking.  Also your comparison is very naive  - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.

If someone has to spend an "eternity in a very hot place" just because they had the misfortune to use their brains and come to honest conclusion about the existence of a god, then that god is just a petty, vindictive bollocks. And the idea that someone who, through accident of time and place of their existence and no fault of their own, went through their life without even hearing about this god should also be punished or at least denied access to the privileges and riches of the "heavenly" suggests this god is also a c**t.

Or, as Bertrand Russell put it:

I will say further that, if there be a purpose [to the universe] and if this purpose is that of an Omnipotent Creator, then that Creator, so far from being loving and kind, as we are told, must be of a degree of wickedness scarcely conceivable. A man who commits a murder is considered to be a bad man. An Omnipotent Deity, if there be one, murders everybody. A man who willingly afflicted another with cancer would be considered a fiend. But the Creator, if He exists, afflicts many thousands every year with this dreadful disease. A man who, having the knowledge and power required to make his children good, chose instead to make them bad, would be viewed with execration. But God, if He exists, makes this choice in the case of very many of His children. The whole conception of an omnipotent God whom it is impious to criticize, could only have arisen under oriental despotisms where sovereigns, in spite of capricious cruelties, continued to enjoy the adulation of their slaves. It is the psychology appropriate to this outmoded political system which belatedly survives in orthodox theology.

[Hardy]

Russell's Teapot, precursor to The Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Invisibkle Pink Unicorn:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day.... But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants. If we are Conservatives, we are amazed by the superstitions to be found in the Labour Party. If we are Socialists, we are aghast at the credulity of Conservatives. I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of course, those which you do not hold.

I cannot, therefore, think it presumptuous to doubt something which has long been held to be true, especially when this opinion has only prevailed in certain geographical regions, as is the case with all theological opinions.

[Caid]

"The only way to God is through Jesus"

Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu.  He would have been exposed to Christianity and Jesus but he remained a Hindu.  However, he, despite being one of the most peaceful and pious men of the 20th Century, will not be in Heaven because he did not follow Jesus?

Re. Religion as a good force or bad, Mandela stated

"Religion is one of the most important forces in the world. Whether you are a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew, or a Hindu, religion is a great force, and it can help one have command of one's own morality, one's own behavior, and one's own attitude."

[Caid]

One of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II") during the early to mid 1960s  was the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium." Chapter 1, sections 14 to 16 discuss salvation of Catholics and others. 5 An "Assessment of this Council" reads:

    "5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

In the year 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- issued a document: " 'Dominus Iesus' on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It stated that salvation is possible to those who are not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which "depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation." Members of other religions are "gravely deficient" relative to members of the Church of Christ who already have "the fullness of the means of salvation."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm

[muppet]

One of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II") during the early to mid 1960s  was the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium." Chapter 1, sections 14 to 16 discuss salvation of Catholics and others. 5 An "Assessment of this Council" reads:

    "5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

In the year 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- issued a document: " 'Dominus Iesus' on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It stated that salvation is possible to those who are not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which "depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation." Members of other religions are "gravely deficient" relative to members of the Church of Christ who already have "the fullness of the means of salvation."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm

I wondered where Rumsfeldt got the idea for his known & unknown speech.

[Zapatista]

I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs.  You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?

What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.

Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.

Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking.  Also your comparison is very naive  - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.

If someone has to spend an "eternity in a very hot place" just because they had the misfortune to use their brains and come to honest conclusion about the existence of a god, then that god is just a petty, vindictive bollocks. And the idea that someone who, through accident of time and place of their existence and no fault of their own, went through their life without even hearing about this god should also be punished or at least denied access to the privileges and riches of the "heavenly" suggests this god is also a c**t.

If God is all knowing then it's brave of you to question what he does and why he does it. Gods reasoning would be inconceivable to humans.

[Tony Baloney]

One of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II") during the early to mid 1960s  was the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium." Chapter 1, sections 14 to 16 discuss salvation of Catholics and others. 5 An "Assessment of this Council" reads:

    "5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

In the year 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- issued a document: " 'Dominus Iesus' on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It stated that salvation is possible to those who are not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which "depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation." Members of other religions are "gravely deficient" relative to members of the Church of Christ who already have "the fullness of the means of salvation."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm

I wondered where Rumsfeldt got the idea for his known & unknown speech.

Ratz is some craic. No other church in Christianity is as based on superstition as the Catholic Church.

[mylestheslasher]

I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs.  You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?

What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.

Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.

Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking.  Also your comparison is very naive  - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.

If someone has to spend an "eternity in a very hot place" just because they had the misfortune to use their brains and come to honest conclusion about the existence of a god, then that god is just a petty, vindictive bollocks. And the idea that someone who, through accident of time and place of their existence and no fault of their own, went through their life without even hearing about this god should also be punished or at least denied access to the privileges and riches of the "heavenly" suggests this god is also a c**t.

If God is all knowing then it's brave of you to question what he does and why he does it. Gods reasoning would be inconceivable to humans.

Indeed, so why would he need a pope (who is human I'm fairly sure) to interpret his will?

[J70]

I laugh often at non-believers who feel the need to challenge Christians beliefs.  You're really only trying to convince yourself you're right because deep down that little question is niggling at your heart - what if you got it wrong?

What a load of crap. By that logic, Nationalists only challenge the Unionist beliefs because deep down that little idea that unionism might be right is niggling at them.

Religious opinion/beliefs should be challenged every bit as much as any other opinion.

Maguire thats the thing - Faith is not based on Logic - if it was people like you would have no problem understanding it.
Therefore you can't apply your "logic" and compare it to other ways of thinking.  Also your comparison is very naive  - Nationalists will not be spending eternity in a very hot place if they got it wrong.

If someone has to spend an "eternity in a very hot place" just because they had the misfortune to use their brains and come to honest conclusion about the existence of a god, then that god is just a petty, vindictive bollocks. And the idea that someone who, through accident of time and place of their existence and no fault of their own, went through their life without even hearing about this god should also be punished or at least denied access to the privileges and riches of the "heavenly" suggests this god is also a c**t.

If God is all knowing then it's brave of you to question what he does and why he does it. Gods reasoning would be inconceivable to humans.

If my questions are inappropriate or "brave" (i.e. foolhardy  ) then reason or rationality does not appear to feature much at all in "God's" judgement on these matters.

[Zapatista]

Indeed, so why would he need a pope (who is human I'm fairly sure) to interpret his will?

I don't think he does need a pope I think it's a case that we need a pope

If my questions are inappropriate or "brave" (i.e. foolhardy  ) then reason or rationality does not appear to feature much at all in "God's" judgement on these matters.

Maybe he's just seeing how much we let him away with. The ultimate test.

[delboy]

Indeed, so why would he need a pope (who is human I'm fairly sure) to interpret his will?

I don't think he does need a pope I think it's a case that we need a pope

So comapared to the likes of protestanism which don't need a middle man catholicsim is for slow learners 

[Zapatista]

So comapared to the likes of protestanism which don't need a middle man catholicsim is for slow learners 

Sure if ye want.

I'd say the different varities of protestant churches have many middle men they just don't have a pope.

[delboy]

So comapared to the likes of protestanism which don't need a middle man catholicsim is for slow learners 

Sure if ye want.

I'd say the different varities of protestant churches have many middle men they just don't have a pope.

Certainly the structure of the church could be seen as middle men although they are not required at all and certainly no middle man man role such as the one that the pope holds in catholicism exists, thats a massive difference you either need a middle man or you don't.

[Zapatista]

Certainly the structure of the church could be seen as middle men although they are not required at all and certainly no middle man man role such as the one that the pope holds in catholicism exists, thats a massive difference you either need a middle man or you don't.

Are you conceeding that there are middle men? If you took these middle men away how would protestant churches function?

That's one of the main (if not the main) difference between the two. Your point doesn't mean anything. Protestants don't need a pope and catholics do. You think this makes catholics slow learners while I think it just makes them catholic.

[delboy]

Certainly the structure of the church could be seen as middle men although they are not required at all and certainly no middle man man role such as the one that the pope holds in catholicism exists, thats a massive difference you either need a middle man or you don't.

Are you conceeding that there are middle men? If you took these middle men away how would protestant churches function?

That's one of the main (if not the main) difference between the two. Your point doesn't mean anything. Protestants don't need a pope and catholics do. You think this makes catholics slow learners while I think it just makes them catholic.

They would probably not function as 'churches' but thats rather the point isn't it you don't even need them to commune/worship god.

I don't actually think it makes them slow learners at all, hence the undecided smiley that went with that comment, but it does make me wonder why the need for a pope and what does that say about the religion? Or is it just a an historical anachronism that people like to hang onto? Your own comment suggests its something that delinates catholicsm.