When I used the phrase "extensive religious zeal," my original inclination was to say "
excessive" rather than "extensive..." but I imagined it was too judgmental a term and too loosely based on individual interpretation as to what defined "excess." Using religion as a manner of backing a nonviolent protest against war and violence isn't excess, it's invoking the pacifist doctrines of Christianity. As such, I don't even consider it to be extensive...by the term "extensive," I was refering to the many people who take religion too far and begin to use it as an excuse to serve their own selfish goals in an extreme manner.
I'm pretty sure that's called 'not being religious' rather than being excessively religious. It may sound like a matter of semantics, but if a religion says to do one thing and a person does another, you can't blame the religion for that.
As a side note, the Church is not pacifist, it teaches in self-defense force is justifiable.
And I'm sorry, but "follow the word of God, not the word of men" is absolute bullpooky. How many people have an original copy of the Bible (in the originally written language) and are capable of reading it? The far-and-wide majority of Christianity's followers are trusting the in words of the Church of old, using their "faith" to blindly trust that the very institution that served as the most powerful dominating social structure loyally portrayed every message in perfect synchrony to the original intent.
The legitimacy of the Bible was what I had hoped to avoid with the note I put at the end of my post: "Note: I realize that what the interpretation of the Bible, whether or not God exists, and so forth is open to debate, however it isn't relevant to this debate. So when I state things like that, realize it is in order to keep the response as brief as possible, not for any other reason." It's legitimacy is irrelevant as this is a discussion of it's usage in the world, something that is not an article of faith, but of fact.
When I say "follow the word of God, not the word of men", I mean to follow the 2000 year old teachings that form the basis of Christianity rather than contemporary clergy. That means the message is a singular, constant message to be followed. This challenges the idea that the teachings of the Church can be manipulated and changed to serve selfish interests as they are thoroughly defined in volumes of the Church's teachings (the most modern copy being the catechism) and expanded upon in articles written by scholars (which have been translated from their original languages and into English).
As to how many people have an original copy of the Bible? Off the top of my head, I can say that thousands of scholars around the world have published copies of the Latin Vulgate in Latin (the text of a Bible dating from the 4th century). So who are we trusting with modern copies of the bible? Scholars from around the world, secular and religious, pro-Christianity and anti-Christianity. I'd say text dating from 1700 years ago that you can buy copies of on amazon.com in the original Latin isn't secreted knowledge hoarded and manipulated by the Church. There are older Bibles out there as well, I just happen to not know them off the top of my head to use as examples.
Several of the doctrines in the Bible (or at least how they're interpreted from the Bible) are unbelievably self-serving and corporate/capitalist in nature. "Spread the word of God" is just a more altruistic-sounding way of saying "conquer all peoples and unite them under our common banner." Not a whole lot unlike Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan's individual sweeps across Eurasia. Violence in the name of peace isn't an uncommon concept used by powerhungry rulers throughout history.
Except for the fact that belief in Christianity is
voluntary and forced conversions are taught as immoral. You speak of taking quotes of out context, however you are doing it yourself. Spread the word of God yes, but you must also respect the dignity of man. I quoted the catechism for a response to Kuzmich, but the important part for this goes "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of...religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design."
Not even getting into the argument that there is NO evidence whatsoever that the original writers of the Bible were indeed granted visions from God that instructed them to write it down in His exact wording. As with much of Christian lore, you have to just forget logic and "have faith." Meaning "I know this doesn't make sense and anyone with a 3rd Grade logic level should have a hard time believing it, but just forget about that and believe in what I tell you." Even taken at its most grounded logical possibility, the most advanced and powerful religion in the world was founded on the hallucinations of poverty-stricken, likely unhealthy peasants oppressed by the Roman Empire.
...
Christianity only prospers because of when it was introduced. Look at scientology's plight right now...it's absolutely ludicrous-sounding and is being blasted from every angle, but it's actually more logical and scientifically likely than anything Christianity has ever put forth as God-given fact. What's the difference? Christianity appeals to more people and came at a time when the world needed something to believe in.
Oh, and it's not like it's unique. It's just one of a hundred other religions that popped up during the Roman oppression. The other "cults" were all squashed out into nonexistance, their followers exterminated. Christianity's followers were just a bit more crafty and dodgy, and eventually the Roman government decided to accept it as a genuine religion rather than attempt to continue extermination. Not surprising considering how good it obviously was at keeping its peoples in line, at a time when Romans were having a measure of difficulty managing all its conquered peoples.
Christianity isn't even anything special...it's Judaism if someone said "hey, suppose it actually happened more like this?" "What if Jesus really WAS the Savior and son of God?" Just like Islam is essentially Christianity under the supposition that Mohammed didn't die during his banishment into the desert.
Christianity may not be true. It may not be unique. It may not be special. All of those are debates in and of themselves. All of it is irrelevant to the basic thesis I'm challenging you on: "In principle, religion is a glorious thing that should be making our world so much better. In practice, it's a blight upon our world, a man-made scourge that gives people the freedom to interpret it however they choose and call upon it as an undeniable backing for any selfish and closed-minded actions they feel they must perform."
And don't throw a bunch of pacifist, hippie Bible quotes at me as a means to validate your religion's ideas. I've said before that Christianity is great, it's Christians that are a poison to our society. All the wonderful ideology in the cosmos doesn't replace the fact that the vast majority of its followers either don't really understand it or simply don't care and use it as an excuse to live their lives however they so choose.
Then wouldn't you say that they need to be more religious rather than blaming religion for causing the problems you see in them?
This discussion is pointless anyways. It doesn't really matter. Arguing with Tipsy is like arguing with any other Christian. It's always dodging the questions that you're not equipped to answer, and turning to out-of-context scripture or unfairly literal interpretations of said scripture, and resorting to the blind and unjustifiable argument: "Just have faith."
Please, show me any question I have dodged. Please, show me anywhere that I have quoted the bible to make my point. I quote the Catholic Catechism, a systematic breakdown of everything taught by the Church that is so thorough that it can in no way be misinterpreted. I also have nowhere turned to "just have faith." In fact, in the note at the end of my first post designated at you I conceded that the legitimacy of the Bible, the existence of God, and other such articles of faith are open to debate and irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing the use of religion, specifically Catholicism, in the world; this is a matter that not only can, but must be debated empirically as it does not rely on faith or opinion, but on empirical data. I have done none of the things you accuse me of.
. I don't think we ever finished our debate either. Who knows, we might bring some activity to the AS.
![N[U]TS](/data/avatars/m/4/4610.jpg?1366521177){kind=avatar}
