How did the church make a comeback
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
By definition an element of Western Civilization is its religion. No civilization has ever evolved without a religion. Some civilization would have replaced Western civilization had it been destroyed with the sacking of Rome but it would not be "Western".
Last edited on
| zepher wrote: |
|---|
| I'm merely interested in the official answer/come back the church in general has about those past claims made. |
As evidenced by you posting this on a programming forum where "The church" has an official presence?
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
"The Church" means different things within different religious institutions--and is ambiguous outside of those institutions.
Do you want to know if the Latin Church has ever apologized for past wrongs? -- because the answer is yes.
Do you want to know if the Latin Church has ever apologized for past wrongs? -- because the answer is yes.
| As evidenced by you posting this on a programming forum where "The church" has an official presence? |
well as put in previous post - I googled this and did not find the answer.
This forum has people with similar mind sets to my own (ie programmers).
I am thus interested to hear the opinions of other programmers on this matter.
When I asked the religious people about this I got no real answers - they were either very elusive in their answers or became offended. My general feeling is that I can have an intellgent debate/discussion with the types of people on this forum.
| Over the centuries it has held us back, been subject to corruption at it's finest, and been used to justify mass amounts of bloodshed supression and hate. |
I agree! There were a number of documentries made over time which depicted the church as being instrumental in wars. These are even listed in the bible and other religious sects. Wars even go on today over religious disputes (ie land disputes where both groups claim that god gave them a piece of land ...)
@hamsterman: regardless of how flatness is defined on the net, we can deduce from various other refereces (like your heliocentric example) that the church did have a simplistic view of how things work - they believed the world was flat as a child naturally would.
I have no problem with someone being incorrect - but when they claim that their views are inpired by a devine entity who knows everything and then are proven wrong - then I have a problem with such groups.
| Do you want to know if the Latin Church has ever apologized for past wrongs? -- because the answer is yes. |
No, I only want to know if they apoligized for the blunders listed in this thread, and if so would like to know where I can read their official apology made.
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
@zepher
What you are doing is fishing--you are hoping find someone stupid. Then you can make fun of their beliefs and feel better about yourself.
This is not a Vatican website and Catholic theologians do not monitor it. If you really expect to find authoritative answers here--you are a fool.
What you are doing is fishing--you are hoping find someone stupid. Then you can make fun of their beliefs and feel better about yourself.
This is not a Vatican website and Catholic theologians do not monitor it. If you really expect to find authoritative answers here--you are a fool.
| What you are doing is fishing--you are hoping find someone stupid. Then you can make fun of their beliefs and feel better about yourself. |
Aha - the elusive answer again!
| This is not a Vatican website and Catholic theologians do not monitor it. |
Thank you for pointing out the obvious "Mr Vulcan"
Why don't you rather try testing my theory and post this question on a vatican website - then you can see for yourself as I did that you would get no real response.
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
@zepher
I am only pointing them out, because you don't seem to get it. This is a programming site.
Please go somewhere else to bash religion--there are many blogs dedicated to this waste of time.
Now to point out some information you need, so you do not look stupid.
1.) Church Orthodoxy does not claim to be infallible. So no apology is needed when they change their position.
2.) The Latin Church has apologize for real errors--but this is not the site to read those documents. Call a priest if you are not getting the results you expect from their website.
| Thank you for pointing out the obvious "Mr Vulcan" |
I am only pointing them out, because you don't seem to get it. This is a programming site.
Please go somewhere else to bash religion--there are many blogs dedicated to this waste of time.
Now to point out some information you need, so you do not look stupid.
1.) Church Orthodoxy does not claim to be infallible. So no apology is needed when they change their position.
2.) The Latin Church has apologize for real errors--but this is not the site to read those documents. Call a priest if you are not getting the results you expect from their website.
Last edited on
@chwsks
they only claim that their beliefs were inspired by a divine source - sounds to me such inspiration shouldn't take you way off the mark :)
suppose an individual (or group) from the past claimed that their work was inpired by Einstein and in fact they have actually been his students.
Later on however, it is found that these people were never students of Einstein and have completely misunderstood his work. This will then bring these supposed students into question along with their work they claim to be inspired by the genius himself.
The church do claim that their doctrine/beliefs are inpired from a divine source - this is not taken lightly by them as bishop X believes we should do this or that - no it is asumed that god speaks to certain of these folks in visions - even up till today!
I'd say the claims of this post are real errors - like claiming the sun and all planets revolved around us and then killing those who claimed otherwise.
| Church Orthodoxy does not claim to be infallible |
they only claim that their beliefs were inspired by a divine source - sounds to me such inspiration shouldn't take you way off the mark :)
suppose an individual (or group) from the past claimed that their work was inpired by Einstein and in fact they have actually been his students.
Later on however, it is found that these people were never students of Einstein and have completely misunderstood his work. This will then bring these supposed students into question along with their work they claim to be inspired by the genius himself.
The church do claim that their doctrine/beliefs are inpired from a divine source - this is not taken lightly by them as bishop X believes we should do this or that - no it is asumed that god speaks to certain of these folks in visions - even up till today!
| The Latin Church has apologize for real errors |
I'd say the claims of this post are real errors - like claiming the sun and all planets revolved around us and then killing those who claimed otherwise.
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
@zepher
I am very sorry I ever replied to this thread--forgive me for inferring that you don't know what you are talking about. :)
I am very sorry I ever replied to this thread--forgive me for inferring that you don't know what you are talking about. :)
Last edited on
You do realize that the Catholic Church of the middle ages was ruled by a bunch of corrupt people who only used "religion" (although everything they did cannot be justified with what the Bible says) as cover for their actions. They had enormous power, and letting people speak out against them would undermine their power. That is why they executed people; to preserve their power, not because those people disagreed.
You can look anywhere in history and find people abusing power, some justify it with "religion" (their own twisted interpretation) while others do not. There are just as many atrocities committed in the name of religion as there are not in the name of religion. You can't blame the ideals of Christianity (or any other religion/belief system) for the actions of a corrupt few who distort its original meaning to fit their own ends. This is how the Catholic Church was instrumental in so many wars (and other religious groups, even to this day), its leaders deviated from the actual ideals of the religion and acted only to acquire their own purposes. If a religion preaches for war and destruction, then you can blame that religion for said war/destruction, but I know for a fact that Christianity preaches the polar opposite.
Earlier you talked about talking to "religious nutcases" and getting no real answers. You're probably right there, because every group has its radicals. Unfortunately the ignorant characterize these groups by their radicals, which is entirely unfair to the rest of the moderate members. Its those same radicals who do crazy things and make a bad name for the group as a whole (one may think that every Muslim is a terrorist, but that is obviously completely false).
You can look anywhere in history and find people abusing power, some justify it with "religion" (their own twisted interpretation) while others do not. There are just as many atrocities committed in the name of religion as there are not in the name of religion. You can't blame the ideals of Christianity (or any other religion/belief system) for the actions of a corrupt few who distort its original meaning to fit their own ends. This is how the Catholic Church was instrumental in so many wars (and other religious groups, even to this day), its leaders deviated from the actual ideals of the religion and acted only to acquire their own purposes. If a religion preaches for war and destruction, then you can blame that religion for said war/destruction, but I know for a fact that Christianity preaches the polar opposite.
Earlier you talked about talking to "religious nutcases" and getting no real answers. You're probably right there, because every group has its radicals. Unfortunately the ignorant characterize these groups by their radicals, which is entirely unfair to the rest of the moderate members. Its those same radicals who do crazy things and make a bad name for the group as a whole (one may think that every Muslim is a terrorist, but that is obviously completely false).
I disagree with the premise of the topic. Religion has been declining in popularity. More & more are realising that it is the biggest, longest running, widest ranging, nuttiest SCAM of all time. That is just my opinion though.
@TheIdeasMan
Maybe, or it could be declining because more and more are not believing in God anymore. The proof is that God is being taken out of more and more.
Maybe, or it could be declining because more and more are not believing in God anymore. The proof is that God is being taken out of more and more.
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
I would argue that it is not that less people believe in God. But that what we are seeing is the result of secularism.
At one time government and religion worked hand and hand in Western civilization and it was to an individuals benefit to be a member of the official and accepted religion. But the secular movement changed that--people no longer receive a benefit from joining the official religion nor are they punished for not being a member. So what we are seeing today is how many people really want to be part of the Church.
In fact it is easier today to be part of the herd if you claim to be a Atheist/Agnostic and the people who just want to fit in are quick to claim one of these titles and attack the church.
Nothing has changed other than in the old days most the of people in the pews were there because they wanted to fit in. The church is better off without these people and now it is the Atheist who have to deal with these thoughtless people--the ones that just want to fit in and be part of the herd.
It is easy to see, in the old days, whether you agreed with them or not, when someone claimed they were Agnostic/Atheist you knew you were dealing with an intelligent individual. Today an Agnostic/Atheist is just as likely to be a complete fool as any member of the Church.
In fact I believe this thread is evidence that today Atheist can be quite thoughtless.
At one time government and religion worked hand and hand in Western civilization and it was to an individuals benefit to be a member of the official and accepted religion. But the secular movement changed that--people no longer receive a benefit from joining the official religion nor are they punished for not being a member. So what we are seeing today is how many people really want to be part of the Church.
In fact it is easier today to be part of the herd if you claim to be a Atheist/Agnostic and the people who just want to fit in are quick to claim one of these titles and attack the church.
Nothing has changed other than in the old days most the of people in the pews were there because they wanted to fit in. The church is better off without these people and now it is the Atheist who have to deal with these thoughtless people--the ones that just want to fit in and be part of the herd.
It is easy to see, in the old days, whether you agreed with them or not, when someone claimed they were Agnostic/Atheist you knew you were dealing with an intelligent individual. Today an Agnostic/Atheist is just as likely to be a complete fool as any member of the Church.
In fact I believe this thread is evidence that today Atheist can be quite thoughtless.
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| chwsks wrote: |
|---|
| Today an Agnostic/Atheist is just as likely to be a complete fool as any member of the Church. |
| In fact I believe this thread is evidence that today Atheist can be quite thoughtless. |
It is a shame that theist debates never go down well a public forum.
Religion is (or at least, was, back when it worked properly) a formalised expression of a given society's general beliefs. It's a way to give everyone in that society a common set of rules of conduct, and also a way to moderate change; good ways to keep a society healthy and keep it from fragmenting and self-destructing.
So, when society believes crazy-belief-X, their religion endorses crazy-belief-X. When society stops believing crazy-belief-X, their religion stops endorsing it.
Predictably, religion starts to hit problems when people start writing it down (creating a permanent record, which makes changing it much harder) and when different societies collide.
So, when society believes crazy-belief-X, their religion endorses crazy-belief-X. When society stops believing crazy-belief-X, their religion stops endorsing it.
Predictably, religion starts to hit problems when people start writing it down (creating a permanent record, which makes changing it much harder) and when different societies collide.
Grey Wolf wrote (In part):
I agree, subject to my comments to chwsks' comments below
I have a relative whom I managed to thoroughly confuse by saying to him: "You're a Theist, whereas I am an Atheist". Complete ignorance of what the label attached to that group of organisations means.
chwsks wrote:
That implies that people are Atheist because of some kind of peer pressure. That is backwards IMO. Atheists have the courage of their convictions to have a position against the non-sensical & irrational traditional organisation, whereas theists are much more likely to belong because of peer pressure or tradition amongst other equally irrational reasons. The Theists are the sheep following the herd here, not the Atheists.
Atheists have the intelligence to not go along with the thoroughly ridiculous idea of religion. With Theists, it would be interesting to come up with a complete list of reasons why they follow along DESPITE their intelligence / academic achievements.
I agree with Moschops in his description of religion as a form of government providing societal structure.
The trouble is, that it can easily become a theocracy. Theocracies are all about power - if one can convince the population to believe in a religion, then one has power or at least influence over them, whether or not there is a separate functioning government. This easily translates to the religious organisation influencing the government. It is worse if the religious organisation is the government, and especially worse if the control the military or have a military of their own.
Religion has been the cause of many of the worlds problems throughout history and still is. It reminds me of the Family Guy skit where everyone was getting along fine, then religion was invented, so they started killing each other.
It is worth noting that here in Australia, there is going to be a Royal Commission (the highest form of inquiry in the Commonwealth) on the sexual abuse of children while in the care of various organisations (not limited to churches). Although I understand that what went on in these situations (about 10,000 submissions) is not endorsed in any way whatsoever by the vast majority of members of religious groups, it will be interesting to see what the conclusions / recommendations of the RC will be.
Why can't people treat each other how they would like to be treated themselves?
| ..... there has been thoughtless people on both side for many many years. |
I agree, subject to my comments to chwsks' comments below
I have a relative whom I managed to thoroughly confuse by saying to him: "You're a Theist, whereas I am an Atheist". Complete ignorance of what the label attached to that group of organisations means.
chwsks wrote:
| Today an Agnostic/Atheist is just as likely to be a complete fool as any member of the Church. |
That implies that people are Atheist because of some kind of peer pressure. That is backwards IMO. Atheists have the courage of their convictions to have a position against the non-sensical & irrational traditional organisation, whereas theists are much more likely to belong because of peer pressure or tradition amongst other equally irrational reasons. The Theists are the sheep following the herd here, not the Atheists.
Atheists have the intelligence to not go along with the thoroughly ridiculous idea of religion. With Theists, it would be interesting to come up with a complete list of reasons why they follow along DESPITE their intelligence / academic achievements.
I agree with Moschops in his description of religion as a form of government providing societal structure.
The trouble is, that it can easily become a theocracy. Theocracies are all about power - if one can convince the population to believe in a religion, then one has power or at least influence over them, whether or not there is a separate functioning government. This easily translates to the religious organisation influencing the government. It is worse if the religious organisation is the government, and especially worse if the control the military or have a military of their own.
Religion has been the cause of many of the worlds problems throughout history and still is. It reminds me of the Family Guy skit where everyone was getting along fine, then religion was invented, so they started killing each other.
It is worth noting that here in Australia, there is going to be a Royal Commission (the highest form of inquiry in the Commonwealth) on the sexual abuse of children while in the care of various organisations (not limited to churches). Although I understand that what went on in these situations (about 10,000 submissions) is not endorsed in any way whatsoever by the vast majority of members of religious groups, it will be interesting to see what the conclusions / recommendations of the RC will be.
Why can't people treat each other how they would like to be treated themselves?
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
People love to trick themselves into believing that their own personal belief system is based rational logic and science.
But it is impossible; your(any) belief system is based just as much on instinct and emotion as logic. Nothing can be proven and at some point you need to accept certain ideas as true or you will not be able to continue.
My best decisions in life have been based on instinct and emotion--I did not marry for a logical reason I married my wife based on emotion. When someone chooses to accept the concept of God they do so based on emotion or instinct. If God could be proven religion would cease to exist; because when something is testable it falls into the realm of science. God/god can neither be proven nor disproved.
When someone denies the existence of god they do it on instinct because it is irrational to assume something does not exist simply because you have not observed it.
Agnosticism is rational but it is not consistent because nothing can be proven -- we have to make assumption to accomplish anything.
Don't fool yourself into believing your belief is superior. It is not it is just a chemical reaction in your brain. Thank God for liberal thought.
But it is impossible; your(any) belief system is based just as much on instinct and emotion as logic. Nothing can be proven and at some point you need to accept certain ideas as true or you will not be able to continue.
My best decisions in life have been based on instinct and emotion--I did not marry for a logical reason I married my wife based on emotion. When someone chooses to accept the concept of God they do so based on emotion or instinct. If God could be proven religion would cease to exist; because when something is testable it falls into the realm of science. God/god can neither be proven nor disproved.
When someone denies the existence of god they do it on instinct because it is irrational to assume something does not exist simply because you have not observed it.
Agnosticism is rational but it is not consistent because nothing can be proven -- we have to make assumption to accomplish anything.
Don't fool yourself into believing your belief is superior. It is not it is just a chemical reaction in your brain. Thank God for liberal thought.
Last edited on