Organized Religion

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I wouldn't say I'm totally an atheist. Maybe equal parts Agnostic and Satanist.

 

I absolutely do not believe in a supreme being, nor do I believe in a soul, or the afterlife. THIS is all we've got, so things like "sin" don't really matter so much anymore.

 

Because of the things that have been attributed to religion, I'm a little more hostile towards the concept than your average middle of the road agnostic, but I like some of the self-deistic views of Satanism, but totally lose interest when it degenerates into dogma, which I loathe.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I explained why I think it goes against the orderly nature of things scientifically, why I think it's a sin biblically, and where I believe it actually comes from. Three explanations for why I think it's wrong.

 

Two of your silly claims were addressed. You never responded, because you can't. Your "orderly nature of things scientifically" doesn't exist and never has, which was demonstrated at length. The fact that homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible was never questioned. As for the third, that homosexuality is nothing more than a mental and emotional disorder rooted in the lack of a sense of identity, you were so ludicrously far off the mark that no one even bothered to respond. You may have "wrestled" with the issue as you claimed in the past, but it's obvious that the issue beat the living shit out of you.

 

Which begs the question of why you're still so full of it, but that's a paradox I doubt we'll ever resolve.

 

have you forgotten the Texas Sodomy thread... It's right there and still pretty high up on the list for anyone else that wishes to wade through Marney's sudden attack in the thread.

And everyone absolutely SHOULD read it, because I... I... I attacked a CHRISTIAN!!! The HORROR!

 

Seriously, can you be more pathetic?

 

Hey look everyone, Marney attacks the Christian!

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I'm not going to blame religon because someone wanted to make war on the mideast during the Crusades

 

...

 

Then what, pray tell, were they fought over?

[Guest Goodear]

Being that I live here in Salt Lake City, I can safely say that it is not TOTALLY full of MORMONS. In fact, I know a couple, but not many. I HATE the Mormon religion. I think that they are Catholic's on Crack! I am a catholic and them trying to spice it up with Joseph Smith, that jackass, really pisses me off! I just thought that I'd vent on how I hate that religion. IMO of course.

 

DFA

Being that I live in Washington, Dc, I can safely say that it is not TOTALLY full of BLACKS. In fact I know a couple, but not many. I hate the BLACKS! I think they are white people ON CRACK! I am a white person and them trying to spice it up with Martin Luther King, that jackass, really pisses me off! I just thought I'd vent on how much I hate that race. IMO of course.

 

Welcome to bigotry, population... you.

[Guest Goodear]

I'm not going to blame religon because someone wanted to make war on the mideast during the Crusades

 

...

 

Then what, pray tell, were they fought over?

Conquest of land and other peoples... religon like national pride are just excuses.

[Guest godthedog]

I'm not going to blame religon because someone wanted to make war on the mideast during the Crusades

 

...

 

Then what, pray tell, were they fought over?

religion doesn't kill people. people kill people. wars HAVE been fought in the name of religion, but people will ALWAYS have something to fight about. hubris was to blame in the crusades, not jesus. to blame religion for wars is to oversimplify the issue.

[chaosrage 0]

Since all my posts got no-sold.

 

I don't understand why anyone would worship an omnipotent being. No matter what other excuses you make for everything else, an omnipotent is always able to make the world as perfect as to how he wants it. He doesn't have to make anything any certain kind of way. Which means he WANTED to create a world full of suffering. He WANTED for there to be natural disasters and diseases. He WANTED to make a human sacrifice necessary for salvation. He WANTED to make a place of eternal torture for people who don't grovel at his feet, and yet still create those people despite knowing where they're going to end up. How sick is that? Besides, I don't think there's anyone that would try to argue that the God in the bible wasn't blood-thirsty. I totally don't get it. Someone explain to me how you can worship this character.

[Guest Goodear]

Because God is a parental figure that allows you to learn and grow on your own. If you were simply born into a untopia, there would never be any way to show that you indeed are a being that can control your own life and make good choices. Otherwise you get into a situation were your "mom" never lets you leave the house and you're always being fed and clothed by others. Suffering is good for you, whether you think it is or not. It builds you just as effectively as joy does, and sometimes even more so.

[chaosrage 0]

Even if what you're saying was true, it would only be true because that's the way god set it up in the first place. He could just as easily created a utopia of learning where suffering WASN'T necessary.

[Guest Ripper]

But he didn't. Charles Dickens COULD have written the christmas carol about 2 marshmellows singing silent night over and over, but he didn't. Like it was said, we COULD create a utopia for our children if we never allow them to venture into the world. The only thing they would know is that we take care of them and what their home looks like. But we chose not to so that they have a opportunity to live life to the fullest and that is what I believe God did. He has given us the oppertunity to experience and feel the world.

[chaosrage 0]

But he didn't. Charles Dickens COULD have written the christmas carol about 2 marshmellows singing silent night over and over, but he didn't. Like it was said, we COULD create a utopia for our children if we never allow them to venture into the world. The only thing they would know is that we take care of them and what their home looks like. But we chose not to so that they have a opportunity to live life to the fullest and that is what I believe God did. He has given us the oppertunity to experience and feel the world.

And being god, he could have done that without creating suffering. That's the whole point. There's no greater good that comes from hurricanes or earthquakes. There's nothing good that can come from some people living out their entire lives in misery and in poverty.

 

Imagine a world 500 years from now. Where science has advanced so far that all poverty and disease have been eliminated. Would we be better off then or not? Think about it. Would we be better of living in the Stone Age than right now?

[chaosrage 0]

About the wars, religion is a huge motivator. Saying it didn't out-right cause them is just being picky. The Crusades were over land, but would people have cared as much if it wasn't supposed to be holy land? The Pope told them the Holy Land had to be liberated at all costs. According to Church doctrine, the Pope does the will of God. Doing what the Pope said was just being a good christian in those times. Whatever he said was the truth.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Marney, perhaps in your own little world and to whatever little following around here you have, I've been slapped around and/or owned.  I've presented my points peacefully and without the flaming that you so often love to resort to.  The people who will recognize that are the people I'm interested in talking to.  Continue your "abuse" if you like, we who are carrying on an actual conversation will continue to do so.

SP, first you alienated yourself from other religious people by beginning with your "one, true religion" attitude. That's ok to believe, but you can't expect fair, reasoned debate when you immediately call people out. Then you alienated yourself from fellow Christians by saying they weren't Christians. Finally, you are offering nothing more than biblical passages without interpretation as your "evidence". Believe it or not, you can appeal to reason as well. There are logical explanations for things (i.e. the soul) above and beyond "cuz the Bible says".

 

I'm a Jesuit; if that makes me a bad Christian, so be it.

I went to a Franciscan high school, so I'll ignore that one . We don't need any more divisive-ness in this thread.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

But he didn't.  Charles Dickens COULD have written the christmas carol about 2 marshmellows singing silent night over and over, but he didn't.  Like it was said, we COULD create a utopia for our children if we never allow them to venture into the world.  The only thing they would know is that we take care of them and what their home looks like.  But we chose not to so that they have a opportunity to live life to the fullest and that is what I believe God did.  He has given us the oppertunity to experience and feel the world.

And being god, he could have done that without creating suffering. That's the whole point. There's no greater good that comes from hurricanes or earthquakes. There's nothing good that can come from some people living out their entire lives in misery and in poverty.

 

Imagine a world 500 years from now. Where science has advanced so far that all poverty and disease have been eliminated. Would we be better off then or not? Think about it. Would we be better of living in the Stone Age than right now?

We would be worse off. Without suffering there would be no compassion, no individual character. People should have to deal with hard times in their lives. As a Catholic, Christ DIED for us. The least we could do is deal with a little shit in our lives before we go to Christ in heaven. That's why death from a natural disaster is not the ultimate horrible thing. It's bad, but you're rewarded in the afterlife. The difficulty comes from your perspective that this life is it.

 

About the wars, religion is a huge motivator. Saying it didn't out-right cause them is just being picky.

The point is religion doesn't pick up a weapon and murder somebody. It's ultimately the individual's decision. They may happen to be religious but they are responsible for themselves. It's just as absurd as saying 2 Fast 2 Furious made someone drag race and run somebody else over.

[Guest godthedog]

Since all my posts got no-sold.   

 

I don't  understand why anyone would worship an omnipotent being.  No matter what other excuses you make for everything else, an omnipotent is always able to make the world as perfect as to how he wants it.  He doesn't have to make anything any certain kind of way.  Which means he WANTED to create a world full of suffering.  He WANTED for there to be natural disasters and diseases.  He WANTED to make a human sacrifice necessary for salvation.  He WANTED to make a place of eternal torture for people who don't grovel at his feet, and yet still create those people despite knowing where they're going to end up.  How sick is that?  Besides, I don't think there's anyone that would try to argue that the God in the bible wasn't blood-thirsty.  I totally don't get it.  Someone explain to me how you can worship this character.

you're missing god's other qualities. god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent: that is, he's as perfectly MORAL just as he is perfectly POWERFUL. as such, god has moral obligation to create the best possible world to exist in. by the christian definition of god, he can't allow any suffering unless it is necessary and unavoidable. when you utter a sentence like "god is mean-spirited" or "god has a sick sense of humor" or something of the like, you're no longer even talking about the same god that a theist is talking about. it's like saying "god isn't omnipotent" or "god didn't create the world," you're not even talking about the same thing anymore.

 

now...if you're saying the existence of so many evils in the world is proof that god does NOT exist, that's okay but it's a whole other can of worms & an extremely complex issue. thousands of very smart people have tried to use the problem of evil to disprove god's existence, and the results have always been inconclusive.

 

and about this point of god knowing the future that comes up over and over again...it's debatable, and not everyone takes it as gospel. god knows all that could possibly be known, but no one has ever proven that it's possible to know the future. many people argue that god can know it because he exists outside time and perceives everything at once (which is what IDRM brought up earlier), but this view appears to be nonsensical. of course, people argue that it's only nonsensical to us because we exist inside time, but to me it's like asserting that god can defy the laws of logic: even if we're just limited by time, it doesn't change the fact that it's still unimaginable to view otherwise, and it makes as much sense as conceiving that god can "adhrier fjkdhroewru3 djd_)*&(*&r3."

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

as such, god has moral obligation to create the best possible world to exist in. by the christian definition of god, he can't allow any suffering unless it is necessary and unavoidable.

You answered your own question, so to speak. The suffering that exists is necessary.

[Guest DrTom]

"Religon" has not and can not be responsible for a war that took place in its name since its an abstract concept.

I disagree. Religion is a man-made institution, used to venerate a mythical being also created by man, and to control the masses and justify abhorrent behavior. As such, religion is responsible for the atrocities men commit in its name. Holy wars, which are basically "my god can beat up your god" disputes, are started because of religion, and religion bears those scars and pockmarks.

 

It's like saying "Communism" caused all of those people to dissapear from their homes during Stalin's reign.

No, because those things were not carried out in the name of communism specifically. All manners of things have been committed in the name of religion.

 

I'm not so judgemental to imply that love actually caused a man to kill his wife, I'm not going to blame religon because someone wanted to make war on the mideast during the Crusades.

First, being judgmental is a virtue. It shows reasoning and critical thinking, and it shouldn't be used as a ninny pejorative. Second, love is an emotion, not an institution, though it can certainly compel people to do many manners of things, wonderful and terrible. Religion was directly responsible for the Crusades, the Inqusition, the Salem witch trials, etc.

 

Mormons are just like you and me except they go on more religous retreats and raise barns for each other.

Every Mormon I've met has been boorish and preachy. I couldn't care less about someone's religious beliefs until they go and wave them in my face. My aunt and uncle are Mormons, and I avoid them whenever I can because I simply despise being preached to. Add in the fact that their whole belief system is based on a book even more mythical than the Bible, and I think the whole thing is rather silly.

 

Want to make fun of the Amish now?

Nah, that's too much of a television cliche. Besides, I couldn't top Weird Al.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

"Religon" has not and can not be responsible for a war that took place in its name since its an abstract concept.

I disagree. Religion is a man-made institution, used to venerate a mythical being also created by man, and to control the masses and justify abhorrent behavior. As such, religion is responsible for the atrocities men commit in its name. Holy wars, which are basically "my god can beat up your god" disputes, are started because of religion, and religion bears those scars and pockmarks.

Maybe, but the crusades would stil have occured even if they were of the same religion. The human/animal condition is to protect and expand your territory. However, our increased intellect means that we must find "excuses" for this, instead of just taking over. Race, religion, nationality, political differences.

 

Personally, I believe that Christianity, and all other religions as far as I can see, are a result of pepole trying to understand things. thousands of years ago, people couldn't concieve how Earth and other celestial bodies were created, so they said "God created it". They didn't know how man was created, so they said "God created it". They didn't know what happened when we die, so they said "we go to Heaven". However, it has also been bastardised into a reason to persecute people by mankind which needs an excuse to hate other tribes.

Its the same as all archaic religions, such as Norse or Roman religions, which are today widely believed to be untrue. I personally believe that these are as "realistic" as Christianity of Judaism. I don't wish to put down anybody's religion, but I don't understand the fundamental difference between Norse and Christian religion which makes one pecieved to be the truth by the vast majority of the Western world, while one is percieved as being bullshit. Other, of course, than the fact that the America's were colonised by Christians.

Today, we have much more solid scientific theories as to how we and our surroundings came to be. So, as a result, it is far harder for the vast majority of people to have faith when there is nothing to convince them.

 

I personally don't give a fuck as to whether there is a God or not. Either way, it doesn't affect the way I live my life. If there is a Heaven, I 've lived a good life and I'm going to it. And if I'm not allowed in by God because I'm not a Christian, or Jew or whatever, then thats not a God I particularly want to believe in.

[Guest Goodear]

I disagree.  Religion is a man-made institution, used to venerate a mythical being also created by man, and to control the masses and justify abhorrent behavior.  As such, religion is responsible for the atrocities men commit in its name.  Holy wars, which are basically "my god can beat up your god" disputes, are started because of religion, and religion bears those scars and pockmarks.

 

You can't just scream from the highest hilltop that its mythical without a whole lot more discussion on a whole lot of things we probably don't want to get into. So I'll just accept you're interpretation for this discussion that the whole supreme being thing is a myth. Still you imply that religion, being created by man, is the cause of evil that men do. Wouldn't it just be easier to cut out the middle man and just say humanity is evil? And if you want to say, 'well not all people do bad things' I would reply that not all religous belief leads to crusades, sometimes it leads to Ghandi.

 

No, because those things were not carried out in the name of communism specifically.  All manners of things have been committed in the name of religion.

 

They were done by the government which called itself communist. They might not have technically been communist, but I wouldn't describe the people that burned witches back in the day as particularly religous either. After all while there isn't anything in the Communist Manifesto that calls for mass murder, there is an expressed law against murder in the bible.

 

First, being judgmental is a virtue.  It shows reasoning and critical thinking, and it shouldn't be used as a ninny pejorative.

 

It also leads to wild generalizations that don't always hold true. But if you are going to say that love actually kills people, okay.

 

Second, love is an emotion, not an institution, though it can certainly compel people to do many manners of things, wonderful and terrible.  Religion was directly responsible for the Crusades, the Inqusition, the Salem witch trials, etc. 

 

The Catholic Church is an institution... religon is an abstract. I can be as religous as I want and never go to church. You want to say that religon burned people at the stake, I will reply that ignorance and superstition did it.

 

Every Mormon I've met has been boorish and preachy.  I couldn't care less about someone's religious beliefs until they go and wave them in my face.  My aunt and uncle are Mormons, and I avoid them whenever I can because I simply despise being preached to.  Add in the fact that their whole belief system is based on a book even more mythical than the Bible, and I think the whole thing is rather silly.

 

And I had a Mormon living next door for over 15 years and he never once preached to me despite a number of long conversations. Besides, there is no way of knowing if every Mormon you've ever met did anything since they don't all wear "I'm a Mormon" buttons. And if you would of met one of a nonevangelical nature, how would you know what church they went to on a given day?

[Guest Big Poppa Popick]

havent read much of this, but gawd people, what i did read...why you bash us catholics so much ... eh okay half the stuff that goes on is whack

 

then again...so is most of the protestant stuff too

 

im pretty certain this thread degenerated into a debate on is there a god or what religion is true.

 

id just like to encourage anyone who has faith or wants to know about a defensible arguement for faith, read Kierkergard. He's in Barnes and Noble...philosophy

 

The basic idea is to believe because it is absurd...anywho, thats where i ascribe.

 

as per any organized religion, im at the point where i go to church...what denomination it is depends on which friends im with...it really shouldnt matter in the end.

[Guest godthedog]

havent read much of this, but gawd people, what i did read...why you bash us catholics so much ... eh okay half the stuff that goes on is whack

 

then again...so is most of the protestant stuff too

 

im pretty certain this thread degenerated into a debate on is there a god or what religion is true.

 

id just like to encourage anyone who has faith or wants to know about a defensible arguement for faith, read Kierkergard. He's in Barnes and Noble...philosophy

 

The basic idea is to believe because it is absurd...anywho, thats where i ascribe.

 

as per any organized religion, im at the point where i go to church...what denomination it is depends on which friends im with...it really shouldnt matter in the end.

i love kierkegaard, but there's some problems with it.

[chaosrage 0]

We would be worse off. Without suffering there would be no compassion, no individual character.

 

Well people have been suffering less and less as we go throughout history, with medical and technological advances and such, and we still have individual character and compassion. We actually have more of it than we had back then. At what point does it just disappear?

 

People should have to deal with hard times in their lives. As a Catholic, Christ DIED for us. The least we could do is deal with a little shit in our lives before we go to Christ in heaven. That's why death from a natural disaster is not the ultimate horrible thing. It's bad, but you're rewarded in the afterlife. The difficulty comes from your perspective that this life is it.

 

No, even if I was a Christian, I'd still say suffering was in vain, at the very least excess suffering. There's absoloutely no reason for it. No matter how hard you look, it always comes down to being totally unnecessary. There's millions of people around the world that have known nothing but misery from the time they were born until the time they died. What's the point to that? Also, do we suffer in heaven?

 

The point is religion doesn't pick up a weapon and murder somebody. It's ultimately the individual's decision. They may happen to be religious but they are responsible for themselves. It's just as absurd as saying 2 Fast 2 Furious made someone drag race and run somebody else over.

 

If 2F2F told people to go out and run people over, then you could say it contributed. But the difference here is that christians during the crusades were following the church's teachings, and the pope. For that time, in general what the Pope said was the correct thing for Christians to do. You couldn't question him. What they said was what was Christian.

[chaosrage 0]

you're missing god's other qualities.  god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent: that is, he's as perfectly MORAL just as he is perfectly POWERFUL.  as such, god has moral obligation to create the best possible world to exist in.  by the christian definition of god, he can't allow any suffering unless it is necessary and unavoidable. 

 

You just said he was omnipotent, nothing is necessary or unavoidable for an all-powerful god of course. Ignoring that, why exactly would it be necessary say to have 40,000 children starve to death everyday, anyway?

 

when you utter a sentence like "god is mean-spirited" or "god has a sick sense of humor" or something of the like, you're no longer even talking about the same god that a theist is talking about.  it's like saying "god isn't omnipotent" or "god didn't create the world," you're not even talking about the same thing anymore.

 

That God doesn't exist though. It's a contradiction. You can't be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent. But that's not something to worry about, because I don't even think the bible said he was omni-benevolent. I mean, according to the bible, with the exception of one family, God drowned the entire population on earth, including children and animals, he incinerating every living thing in two cities, tortured David's newborn son to punish David, killed all the first-born Egyptian children, tested Abraham's faith by seeing if he would kill his son as a human sacrifice, and sent bears to rip children to shreds. It's pretty sick shit.

 

now...if you're saying the existence of so many evils in the world is proof that god does NOT exist, that's okay but it's a whole other can of worms & an extremely complex issue.  thousands of very smart people have tried to use the problem of evil to disprove god's existence, and the results have always been inconclusive.

 

Actually, whether or not God is good or evil shouldn't affect your belief in him at all. All I'm trying to figure out is why people would worship such a monster.

 

Edit: Scratch that last one. I see that you're just saying what I said above.

[Guest Ripper]

But their were Grand Wizard of the Klan that were also Preachers and said that God told them that White man should be the only person of power. Does that mean that Christanity is also racist. I can go out and gun down a bunch of pre-schooler and say that it was in the name of "your name here" . Would it be acceptable if people blamed you for what I did?

 

 

And because you can't see the reasoning behind the suffering, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I can't understand the answer to complex scientific theories, but the answer is still there.

[chaosrage 0]

But their were Grand Wizard of the Klan that were also Preachers and said that God told them that White man should be the only person of power.  Does that mean that Christanity is also racist.  I can go out and gun down a bunch of pre-schooler and say that it was in the name of "your name here" .  Would it be acceptable if people blamed you for what I did?

 

It's a huge difference between preachers and the Pope. The Pope pretty much was Christianity. He wasn't supposed to be wrong ever. It's not like some random people went up and said "Hey you guys, go do this", this was an act wholly endorsed by the Church. No one else even had the ability to interpret the bible at the time. If the Church's truth (since no one knows any better, it is truth) says that the Crusades are for liberating the holy land, then it's the truth and Catholic doctrine.

 

And because you can't see the reasoning behind the suffering, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.  I can't understand the answer to complex scientific theories, but the answer is still there.

 

I just don't see why we should make excuses for it. He has the power to do whatever he wants but he lets millions starve and die. His motives for that are about as irrelevant as Hitler's motives were IMO.

[Guest Ripper]

But their were Grand Wizard of the Klan that were also Preachers and said that God told them that White man should be the only person of power.  Does that mean that Christanity is also racist.  I can go out and gun down a bunch of pre-schooler and say that it was in the name of "your name here" .  Would it be acceptable if people blamed you for what I did?

 

It's a huge difference between preachers and the Pope. The Pope pretty much was Christianity. He wasn't supposed to be wrong ever. It's not like some random people went up and said "Hey you guys, go do this", this was an act wholly endorsed by the Church. No one else even had the ability to interpret the bible at the time. If the Church's truth (since no one knows any better, it is truth) says that the Crusades are for liberating the holy land, then it's the truth and Catholic doctrine.

 

And because you can't see the reasoning behind the suffering, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.  I can't understand the answer to complex scientific theories, but the answer is still there.

 

I just don't see why we should make excuses for it. He has the power to do whatever he wants but he lets millions starve and die. His motives for that are about as irrelevant as Hitler's motives were IMO.

Maybe he's just pissed off that people kept blaming everything on him so he is just like "Screw you guys, I'm not doing anything else until you all apologize." Calling him Hitler ain't helping the cause either.

[Guest cartman]

About insulting Christians, religion is something you choose to do. You should be allowed to make fun of somebody for something they've chosen to believe in.

Ok, I don't have the patience to actually ready every page of this thread because it would just infuriate me.

 

This comment back on page one stood out at me. By THIS logic than Gay bashing would be A-OK here as well because people choose whether or not they want to have sex with members of their own sex.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

This comment back on page one stood out at me. By THIS logic than Gay bashing would be A-OK here as well because people choose whether or not they want to have sex with members of their own sex.

That's open to debate. If it is a choice, than yes, gay bashing is fine. Besides, there is plenty of gay bashing here, though it's not as malicious as the religion bashing.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Well people have been suffering less and less as we go throughout history, with medical and technological advances and such, and we still have individual character and compassion. We actually have more of it than we had back then. At what point does it just disappear?

I disagree. Medically, where one disease is cured, others run rampant. Look at the AIDS pandemic. Also, look at third world countries. Sure, we've ended things like slavery. But look at all the laborers in poorer countries working for cents a day.

 

You also are contradicting yourself by citing these medical and technological advances and then saying that "millions of people around the world that have known nothing but misery from the time they were born until the time they died."

 

No, even if I was a Christian, I'd still say suffering was in vain, at the very least excess suffering. There's absoloutely no reason for it. No matter how hard you look, it always comes down to being totally unnecessary. There's millions of people around the world that have known nothing but misery from the time they were born until the time they died. What's the point to that? Also, do we suffer in heaven?

Who are you to decide what excess suffering is? No matter how hard you look, there is always something to learn from very necessary hardship. There absolutely is a reason for it. The point in persevering through misery, as everyone does, is literally the light at the end of the tunnel. There is no suffering in heaven. That's the point. You live a Christlike life, doing good and suffering through hardship, as He did... and you are rewarded with eternal life in heaven.

 

If 2F2F told people to go out and run people over, then you could say it contributed. But the difference here is that christians during the crusades were following the church's teachings, and the pope. For that time, in general what the Pope said was the correct thing for Christians to do. You couldn't question him. What they said was what was Christian.

Here's one... IF the Pope ordered a crusade, he was wrong. And the individual is ultimately responsible for himself, no matter what the influences. If my Church leaders suddenly advocated the death of all non-Catholics, they would invalidate themselves. I wouldn't turn away from the Church... I would say they had. It is always my final decision with my consequences, and it's my responsibility... not the religion, not the Church leader.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Gay bashing would be A-OK here as well because people choose whether or not they want to have sex with members of their own sex.

Of course. It should be perfectly fine in terms of bans and warnings. There's nothing wrong with gay-bashing; it just doesn't make too much sense because sexuality is a matter of taste. It'd be like attacking someone and calling him names for preferring pizza to cheeseburgers.