The Passion rotten so far

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun
After watching some more reporting on this blown-out-of-proportion issue, I just wanted to state that those who have in the past, showered praise for such movies as Pulp Fiction, Thin Red Line, and so forth, seem to be inconsistent by villifying the violence portrayed in Gibson's current movie.

MrFun, I am glad you recognize this. You are one of the very few "liberals" on this board who are honest.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
So my beef is with atheists of category one, those atheists who deny the existence of God. Because there is no possibility of knowing whether God exists based upon evidence or upon human understanding, this brand of atheism is based either upon faith or upon animus. Based solely on the statements of most atheists of category one, the answer to whether it is faith or animus is clear.

And the problem is that you are making a false blanket statement about those kinds of atheists. Those who practice positive atheism don't, by and large, go around insulting and belittling religious people, as you seem so keen to do against them. I'm almost ashamed you and I are in the same category of atheists, because you're bigotted statements against the other variety is disgusting. Most of the positives atheists aren't bickering about this stuff, their out living their lives.

You keep dodging inconvenient questions, but let's get this answered: What do all the major religions say in their actual dogma about non-believers, Ned? Since you're oh so concerned about religious bigotry, surely that stuff must make you want to scream!

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Passion rotten so far

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, SEE!

And see how Sava says he was deliberately trolling you? Way to take the bait.

[Alexander's Horse]

The life of Jesus and his teachings are far more interesting than the gory bit at the end.

I still see no reason to see this snuff flick.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You forget Berz, that we are called to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us, who persecute us, as they do not know what they do.

You must agree, however, that many Christians in the past have not followed this decree.

Imran, we all know the sad history of the Church. The cause of the abuse was the mixture of state and religion. (Which is the fundamental problem with any religious state (thinking of the Taliban or Iran or what OBL wants for the world).

[DinoDoc]

And yet you keep coming to this thread. Feeling masochistic?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I would argue that the ideal for Atheists is to reject all forms of Christianity, and to belittle believers.

Atheism isn't about rejecting religion (and how noble of you to assume that atheists have to reject Christianity- what, not Islam, and Hinduism too?)- it's about finding
positive things to say about the humanity.

How typically arrogant of you to assume that atheism has to reject anything- it can positively assert that we are personally responsible for our actions, that the notion of someone assuming moral responsibility for crimes we may not yet have committed is absurd, that the idea of 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' would mean it might be rather hard to find Jeffery Dahmer guilty of anything, or indeed to punish him, and so on.

No one has to belittle believers- you do such a good job of it yourselves, with your interminable wrangling about
who has the best god/s and who has the monopoly on truth, and your willingness to proceed anti-clockwise, from assumptions to evidence.

As for Christians being under constraints to 'love' atheists, well, there's a world of difference between ideals and practice, and frankly, on past history, I don't think I'll be taking the word of any religionista, Christian or otherwise, on trust.

[Ben Kenobi]

Getting complicated here.

Berz:

I believe it was Peter who was complaining about Mary's relationship with Jesus, or maybe he was the one who told the whiners to keep quiet and respect Jesus' decisions wrt who he favored. Jesus was seen kissing Mary and someone lamented how his affection for her was greater or different.

Source would help... I'm not sure what you are talking about.

He was according to his followers or he wouldn't have had a following. John the Baptist said Jesus should have baptised him, not the other way around. Do non-priests baptise? No...

You fall into your own trap. Consider John the Baptist. Was he a priest according to the Jews? No. Was he considered to be a prophet from God, by his followers? Yes. As prophet, did they accept his baptism of repentence? Yes.

So how do you explain his supplication to Christ, and his claims of himself as a servant of Christ, as one unworthy of untying his sandals?

Christians do not believe Christ is a priest, but the Son of God. Peter exclaims that Christ is the Son of God, and receives blessings from Christ when he testifies.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


And the problem is that you are making a false blanket statement about those kinds of atheists. Those who practice positive atheism don't, by and large, go around insulting and belittling religious people, as you seem so keen to do against them. I'm almost ashamed you and I are in the same category of atheists, because you're bigotted statements against the other variety is disgusting. Most of the positives atheists aren't bickering about this stuff, their out living their lives.

You keep dodging inconvenient questions, but let's get this answered: What do all the major religions say in their actual dogma about non-believers, Ned? Since you're oh so concerned about religious bigotry, surely that stuff must make you want to scream!

Boris, perhaps I am reacting to the obvious hatred of religion exhibited by many atheists.

As to religions, of course they too can be bigoted in the extreme. The Catholic Church had its moments of extreme barbarism. They even admit to it and have apologized. The current pope has apologized to Islam for the crusades, to the Jews for what happened in Jerusalem after its Christian conquest, to the Jews for persecution during the middle ages, to the Orthodox for Constantinople in 1204.

I grew up as a Catholic and know what the religion teaches: It teaches that Catholicism is the one true religion and that one has to be baptised by a priest in order to gain access to heaven. The Church recognizes the legitimacy of Anglican priests and of Orthodox priests. The dispute with these "sects" is about the primacy of the Pope.

This doctrine does not condemn atheists to be slaughtered or the equivalent if they do not convert. It does not condemn atheists as being idiots, morons or the like for not believing in God because it recognizes that belief is God requires faith.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The life of Jesus and his teachings are far more interesting than the gory bit at the end.

I still see no reason to see this snuff flick.

You will regret, one day, that you never saw this movie. It is deeply moving and an act of love.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

I would argue you've now crossed into religious bigotry a la Ned.

Surprise, surprise.

The ideal for an Atheist is to reject all forms of superstition, period. Christianity doesn't get singled out, so we can cut the martyr complex here.

Yes, but how do Atheists treat those who obey the so-called superstitions? With respect or with scorn? I would say the latter far more than the former.

And "belittle believers?" Please. So does your rejection of all other creeds but Christianity mean you're belittling them? Are Jews required to belittle all faiths but their own?

No, because we are taught to love those who differ from ourselves in our beliefs. I do not see any such justification for similar respect from atheists. It seems optional, rather than obligatory.

Your creed says non-believers are wrong will spend eternity in hell. Mine says believers are just mistaken, but don't suffer any other consequences for it. Gee, which one is more tolerant of a differing opinion here?

Your own word traps you. Tolerance means that you respect a belief to which you disagree. Christians are not the ones who will be judging, Christ will. All we can do is to offer our alternative, and show you the consequences of your choice.

Secondly, Christians do not consider themselves to be exempt from charges of sin. We still must confront the same attitudes we condemn. I contrast this to the attitude of atheists, who feel so enlightened, as to never have to work from the perspective of the theist. We are never accorded such luxury, in being shown the enormity of our own sins every day.

Finally, Christians, are not called to merely tolerate their enemies, but to love their enemies, to do good to them, rather than ignoring them.

Nothing about atheism itself promotes any sort of bigotry against religious belief.

Not the question. Does atheism explictly promote the love of a Christian?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Church recognizes the legitimacy of Anglican priests and of Orthodox priests.

Only the latter not the former.

Remember, the Anglicans have begun to ordain women.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Only the latter not the former.

Remember, the Anglicans have begun to ordain women.

Ben, if you can provide a link to an official statement of the Church in this regard, please do so. I know the Church as beefs with priests being married and being women. However, this does not seem to change the fact that they are legitimately ordained priests.

[Ben Kenobi]

it can positively assert that we are personally responsible for our actions, that the notion of someone assuming moral responsibility for crimes we may not yet have committed is absurd, that the idea of 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' would mean it might be rather hard to find Jeffery Dahmer guilty of anything, or indeed to punish him, and so on.

Molly:

1. What is the philosophical grounds for the atheist to do as he would be done by?

2. Go argue with Boris as to whether Atheists must reject Christianity. He seems to think so. I speak of Christianity, because that is my bias. So boo hoo. If I were a Jew I would talk about attitudes to Judaism.

3. As for he who is without sin, refers precisely to the issue of spiritual judgment, and not legal judgment. They condemn the woman, while commiting the same sins themselves.

4.

there's a world of difference between ideals and practice,

Still evades my point. I admit that not all Christians live their life as they ought to. But at least we call for Christians to love their enemies. I do not see any such desire from Atheists beyond the requirements of social necessity and 'tolerance'.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ned:

Go here. This will give you a start.

It's an issue for me as well, since my church is not a part of the Apostolic Succession.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm