Heaven, I'm in heaven

[CrazyAnglican]

The Episcopalian Church is part of the Anglican Communion. Episcopalians are Anglican, but they are not the only Anglicans. The Anglican Church is a much larger group of Churches encompassing churches all over the world that share a common method of worship and are more or less loosely presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I am an Anglican, but not an Episcopalian. I don't, however, have any problem with your play on my username. Episcopalians are cool.

[CrazyAnglican]

However, today I do not see religion's good influence in the world.

I've already cited many sources for Christian Charities in this thread. In my own parish we've got organized groups who fill back packs for needy children in the county where we live, babysitting children in foster care while their foster parents attend meetings and fill out paperwork, etc., advancing businesses/cooperatives in Africa, advancing education in Uganda through gifts of supplies. That's just from one small congregation. A quick look on the internet (as I cited earler) shows many organizations that do much around the world and are religious.

Charitable work is not the exclusive domain of Christians. Muslim, Buddhists, atheists, animists, and pagans all participate in charitable work. Hell, even lawyers do pro bono work. More accurately, people of all faiths and non-faiths participate in charitable works. So there is no special claim to fame there.

You stated that you did not see religions' good influence in the world and then turned around and blatantly cited members of four religions that have positive influence on the world. Are you well? You're starting to argue against yourself. How could you possibly expect anyone to take that line of reasoning seriously when it's so contradictory. One the one hand you can't see the positive influence of religions on the world and the you forget yourself and begin mentioning the charitable works of members of four other religions, thereby establishing that your original point was wrong.

mpjh, It is no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these "Believers". They have been brainwashed their whole lives. It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job. How in the hell can you have a senseable discussion with someone that professes "Faith" as there proof ? We used to have faith in our tribal witchdoctor, Did faith make it so ?

Party foul, nine yards for ad-hominem fallacy.

Anyway, I believe that what OA was referring to was that I was citing sources and providing a rational rebuttal to everything mpjh was slinging. I mean really he's gone from this supposed "reign of terror" that he eventually had to admit was his own concoction as no actual historian calls it that, all the way back to "Well, I can think what I want about the results of this poll".

[OnlyAmbrose]

mpjh, It is no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these "Believers". They have been brainwashed their whole lives. It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job. How in the hell can you have a senseable discussion with someone that professes "Faith" as there proof ? We used to have faith in our tribal witchdoctor, Did faith make it so ?

Just read what you just wrote, then read each of CA's responses in this thread, and bathe in the irony.

I must be stupid, Maybe you could spell it out in words that I can understand ?

What you just wrote is the dogmatic atheist response to the religious, and yet that dogmatic response condemns those who follow dogma unquestioningly. Meanwhile, CA has been making reasoned arguments this entire thread with sources to back up his claims.

The claim that believers are "brainwashed their whole lives" is a logical fallacy on so many levels. First of all it's a total generalization. Secondly it's an unprovable positive claim. Thirdly it's nothing but an ad hominem. And it's strikingly ironic given you are spewing this fallacious nonsense about how believers are brainwashed with fallacious nonsense.

Next, stating that it is impossible to have a "rational debate" with a believer is absolutely laughable given the helping upon helping of rational debate that CA has served up. Especially so when you compare said debate with the dogmatic garbage which you just posted.

Thirdly, as if it wasn't evident enough already, you have obviously not read any of CA's posts since he has not once used his faith as evidence of his claims.

So why is all this ironic?

Well, I'll spell it out for you now. In saying that believers are impossible to argue with, you just proved that YOU are impossible to argue with because:

1) Your post contained no facts, citations, or evidence.
2) You committed several logical fallacies in the process.
3) You did not answer any of the points CA made in this thread, and I doubt you even bothered reading them.
4) You make an "argument" based on false accusations (ie that you can't argue with CA because he uses "faith" as evidence).

That is irony wrapped up in a tortilla.

[mpjh]

However, today I do not see religion's good influence in the world.

I've already cited many sources for Christian Charities in this thread. In my own parish we've got organized groups who fill back packs for needy children in the county where we live, babysitting children in foster care while their foster parents attend meetings and fill out paperwork, etc., advancing businesses/cooperatives in Africa, advancing education in Uganda through gifts of supplies. That's just from one small congregation. A quick look on the internet (as I cited earler) shows many organizations that do much around the world and are religious.

Charitable work is not the exclusive domain of Christians. Muslim, Buddhists, atheists, animists, and pagans all participate in charitable work. Hell, even lawyers do pro bono work. More accurately, people of all faiths and non-faiths participate in charitable works. So there is no special claim to fame there.

You stated that you did not see religions' good influence in the world and then turned around and blatantly cited members of four religions that have positive influence on the world. Are you well? You're starting to argue against yourself. How could you possibly expect anyone to take that line of reasoning seriously when it's so contradictory. One the one hand you can't see the positive influence of religions on the world and the you forget yourself and begin mentioning the charitable works of members of four other religions, thereby establishing that your original point was wrong.

mpjh, It is no use trying to carry on any kind of rational debate with these "Believers". They have been brainwashed their whole lives. It would take professionals that know how to deprogram cult members to do the job. How in the hell can you have a senseable discussion with someone that professes "Faith" as there proof ? We used to have faith in our tribal witchdoctor, Did faith make it so ?

Party foul, nine yards for ad-hominem fallacy.

Anyway, I believe that what OA was referring to was that I was citing sources and providing a rational rebuttal to everything mpjh was slinging. I mean really he's gone from this supposed "reign of terror" that he eventually had to admit was his own concoction as no actual historian calls it that, all the way back to "Well, I can think what I want about the results of this poll".

First, I point out the charitable works of other religious and non-religious persons because I don'[t believe any religion has a lock on this activity, and I don't believe it provides any unique basis for the existence of religion. In others words claiming that religions are a good thing because they do charitable work is really one bridge too far. In fact, there is evidence that charitable work may be hard-wired into human genetics -- the altruism gene. Something new from science to explain good works. So I don't see religions doing the influencing for good work, I see people doing good work and religion taking credit.

Second, I can call the middle ages a reign of terror on science because it was. Scientist were murdered for their support of science alone. Murdering someone for their ideas is terrorism.

[OnlyAmbrose]

First, I point out the charitable works of other religious and non-religious persons because I don'[t believe any religion has a lock on this activity, and I don't believe it provides any unique basis for the existence of religion. In others words claiming that religions are a good thing because they do charitable work is really one bridge too far. In fact, there is evidence that charitable work may be hard-wired into human genetics -- the altruism gene. Something new from science to explain good works. So I don't see religions doing the influencing for good work, I see people doing good work and religion taking credit.

Hey, let's just do away with government and the united nations as well. I mean, sure they do good works and stuff, but that's just people doing good work and the UN taking the credit.

Come on dude. Charity is most useful when organized efficiently and with expertise, give credit where it's due.

[mpjh]

Actually, I am all for doing away with undemocratic institutions. I think a democratic institution will give credit to the people that vote its actions into being.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Actually, I am all for doing away with undemocratic institutions. I think a democratic institution will give credit to the people that vote its actions into being.

Do you really think the people on the receiving end of one of the largest charitable organizations on the planet (the RCC) really care whether it's a "democratic institution"?

Also, if Catholics don't like where their money is going, they are more than free to stop donating. And they do. Donations plummeted when the priest abuse scandals broke.

[mpjh]

Yes.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Yes.

How about we starve you for a few weeks and find out for certain? Sounds like a scientific way of doing things.

[mpjh]

I think many, many people value freedom, democracy and justice more than life itself. I certainly do.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I think many, many people value freedom, democracy and justice more than life itself. I certainly do.

So as a poor starving person I'm sure you would refuse food purchased for you from the coffers of the Catholic Church freely donated by Catholics throughout the world? Because, of course, the voluntary donations of the religious throughout the world are a blight upon "freedom, democracy, and justice" because they are all "brainwashed" into donating money to the poor. What a travesty.

[Napoleon Ier]

Actually, I am all for doing away with undemocratic institutions. I think a democratic institution will give credit to the people that vote its actions into being.

Oh, so we get rid of every single floating corporation on the face of this earth which don't give each stockholder equal votes, those social-"scientific" think-tanks you're so wildly fond of, as well as the US Military and every single common-law nation's judiciary?

[Napoleon Ier]

I think many, many people value freedom, democracy and justice more than life itself. I certainly do.

So as a poor starving person I'm sure you would refuse food purchased for you from the coffers of the Catholic Church freely donated by Catholics throughout the world? Because, of course, the voluntary donations of the religious throughout the world are a blight upon "freedom, democracy, and justice" because they are all "brainwashed" into donating money to the poor. What a travesty.

Hmm, all those children we brainwashed with "liturgy-based dogma", eh...

[mpjh]

Yes, I likely would. I am experienced with the Maryknoll missionaries and they have had just such experiences. Many people fight the "food distributions" in their countries; seeking democracy and control over their own country and its resources. Too many times the "food distribution" is a product of external control and permanent dependence.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, crazy episcopalian does try. Nappy is just messing with people.

How little child, by ramming your face into the hard brick wall of reality with properly constructed argument you can't respond to?

What's that? No, you never said that?

Well maybe you'd care to answer this, bitch:

a. Some study of some Aquinas, the Catechism and Church history would lead to the swift realization that mpjh is making simply outrageous claims motivated by his own intense hatred of religion and of Moral Society, in even the most liberal, shall we say Gladstonian, terms. This is not a flame or a provocation, but rather a simple analysis of the core of his claims about "traditional dogma" he so contemptuously derides.

b. i. The following Analysis is a refutation I hope the reader will find comprehensive enough outlining the reasons for which a series of comments surmising mpjh's positions and theses on the subject are wrong.

b. ii. "People aren't buying this traditional dogma anymore" --- mpjh.
"Hmmm. Didn't quite match your [My] worldview I take it?"
"This is a poll ... not the work of dogmatists and so-called theologians is my point" ---mpjh.
In response to my comment that "... we [the RC Church] are all firm opponents of the rare sola fidei strand of the Genevan heresy anyway.", "More bunk from Nappy" --- mpjh.
"Travesty? How can a poll be a travesty?" ---mpjh.

The Roman Catholic Church, and every single major "Liturgical" Church has always recognized that belief in Jesus not necessary for Salvation, but rather that Jesus as understood in metaphysical terms as the Platonic-Hellenistic λογος is necessary.

Even Martin Luther's sola fidei position, (and it's quite a stretch to claim he's "traditional"), was quickly done away with by Nordic/Anglican State Churches: only the Calvinists and to an extent Jansensists continued to postulate sola fidei as a valid eschato-concupiscental hypothesis.

Here is the Roman Catholic position on the matter, as it appears in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC846-848).

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

However, deceptively, mpjh masks the fact that a "positive formulation" of the statement that "Outside the Church there is no Salvation" does not exclude the possibility of non-Christians ignorant of the Truth of the Gospel through no fault of their own reaching Salvation.


c. It is a further claim of mpjh that "people are tolerant not only of other faiths, but of the legitimacy of those faiths in offering ways to eternal life for those who believe in eternal life.".

But in what way is agreeing that others can reach eternal life granting that other Faiths are legitimate in their dogma on the subject? I posed the very question to him:

Another "its either black or white" analyst comes forward. The poll shows that people don't think that way. They appear to be much more complex, tolerant, and flexible in their views on this issue. That is the truth here.

The problem is, the poll doesn't show that. Nor do I think most people who have sensibly pondered the question genuinely believe that two mutually exclusive sets of propositions about the afterlife are both true/"unfalse". They do not believe that two religions have two equally valid "perspectives", they probably do take it for granted that some religions have it wrong, but that this doesn't exclude them from heaven. This is what the poll indicated, not that I believe it was at all serious, but that's a separate issue. However I digress: for people to believe that other religions were "legitimate" in their dogma on the afterlife, it would entail an utter ejection of the concept if truth in a Nihilist sense. Not even Nietzschean existentialists or postmodernists would go that far.

The response to this was that "No doubt about it, the general populace doesn't see it your way. Glad to see that you have the black and white for yourself, but most of the rest of the world see things in bright varying shades of color.".

I hope that the reductio of the consequences this statement entails has adequately convinced the reader to take them to be ad absurdum.

d. i. Yet another claim by mpjh was that the NT passage John 3:16 in conjunction with the contrasting poll demonstrated that, "most people do not believe in either a rigid liturgy-based or bible-based approach to religion."

We shall ignore the assertion that Liturgy-based aspect of religion is rejected, since the Liturgy is in fact simply the order of rituals performed during non-private/devotional religious ceremonies that has very little do to with belief in who can and can't be saved. It is possible he intended his comment to refer to Churches with set-liturgies. As I have already demonstrated however, using adequate citation from religious authority, pre-Reformation councils attest to the falsity of sola-fidei, (Councils therefore accepted then, by broadly "Liturgy-based" or State Anglican/Lutheran Churches), this claim would not be of any relevance.

ii. However, the original Koiné for John 3:16 is that "ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον" (taken from the Scrivener NT).

iii. Clearly then, the translation of πιστευω in mpjh's English version is deficient. Sadly, it is the standard in most modern Protestant Bibles, the most readily available due to the far more frequent proselytizing activities of these nauseating groupuscular heretics. The word, as anyone who has studied Koiné at any level from a reasonable Attic, Ionic or even Homeric base will attest, is better translated here (taking the dative) as put trust in. The Attic is frequently used to refer to soldiers following generals in battle, or characters following a god's commands.

It does not mean that literal "belief" is a requisite, or indeed sufficient, condition for entry into Heaven.

Clearly then, there is strictly nothing to any of the rather rare instances of attempts at formulation of relevant hypotheses of my detractors.

My advance apologies to goasklucy and co., who will perhaps find themselves much consternated by the frequent occurrence of polysyllabic latinates in my dialectic.

The topic is one that demands a certain intellectual baggage. It's a big topic, with big ideas, and yes, we do need big words and big logic. Maybe you may find referring yourself to a theological primer of use if you find yourself submerged.

What's that? You're not going to answer? Oh, and what trumped up reason do we get now? Oh, of course, it's just a series of logically supported connected statements attempting to establish definite propositions, what I and almost every other being on this earth call "rational argument", but mpjh calls a "flame".

[mpjh]

I will answer nappy. Your post is a flame designed to insult and irritate. It has been reported.

[Napoleon Ier]

I will answer nappy. Your post is a flame designed to insult and irritate. It has been reported.

In other words, you're too chickenshit to engage in debate.

If you'd bothered to read the material presented, you'd realise it was a perfectly valid rebuttal of every single attempt at a point you've made in this thread. Either you accept that fact, and change your views in accordance with them (and the scientific method you seem so keen on), or you get out and stop polluting this forum with you're virus-like trolling.

[mpjh]

No, nappy, I am too civil to engage in the childish blather you favor. All the points beyond the flame have already been thoroughly discussed.

[CrazyAnglican]

First, I point out the charitable works of other religious and non-religious persons because I don't believe any religion has a lock on this activity, and I don't believe it provides any unique basis for the existence of religion.

I believe your point was that you could not see any good influence of religion. A point that you quite cleverly killed by telling me how Muslims, Bhuddhists, Animists, and Pagans all participate in charitable works. Now your doing damage control by stating that these "brainwashed from birth" people (as Porky puts it) are not influenced by their religion in this particular instance. It's only the bad things they do that their religion influences them to do, right? Still we have not one citation, No evidence whatsoever that this (however unlikely it may be) might be the case. In spite of my citation that The Roman Catholic Church (not individuals, but the entire organization of individuals) brings "Its transnational ties and organizational prowess to bear on the behalf of those in needy situations" (paraphrase of earlier citation, Wiki), I guess we should just believe you that religions don't do much good in the world.

One thing is for certain, the religious don't have a lock on the "Don't look too deeply into the facts just believe me" line of reasoning. You've brought nothing to the party in the way of any information to corroborate your flights of fancy here. We seem to just have to take your word for it.

In others words claiming that religions are a good thing because they do charitable work is really one bridge too far.

Nice rhetoric, I'm sure you think it might be, but you've shown little reason to really believe it.

In fact, there is evidence that charitable work may be hard-wired into human genetics -- the altruism gene. Something new from science to explain good works. So I don't see religions doing the influencing for good work, I see people doing good work and religion taking credit.

Don't you mean you see genetics doing good work and nobody has that much free will in the matter? If not, then the religion can very well be an influence. Especially with the preponderance of scriptural evidence (Yes, you were the one that brought up the scripture of particular religions not influencing their followers) that supports the necessity for charitable works. Those brainwashed Christians will do anything their good book tells them remember?

Second, I can call the middle ages a reign of terror on science because it was.

Sure call it what you want. You seem to be in the distinct minority on that one though. Perhaps we should visit the difference between acts of terrorism and a reign of terror? Nah, call it what you like.

[mpjh]

The fact that we have genetic code that predisposed us to altruist activity isn't a question of free will, it is a question of evolutionary adaption. Apparently the altruism gene helps us survive as human beings and is naturally selected over time.


I never said anything about brainwashing - so don't mix my arguments with porkenbeans's. I like some of his arguements but they are not mine.

My point is simple. People engage in altruistic acts because it is in our nature as human beings to do so. It enhances our survival. I think it would be better if we gave credit where credit is due rather than having religions take credit for creating something when we actually are only following our human nature.

[Napoleon Ier]

No, nappy, I am too civil to engage in the childish blather you favor. All the points beyond the flame have already been thoroughly discussed.

So, you're too incapable of intelligent debate to engage in the mature discussion comprising of rational arguments I favor.

You'll notice that amidst the wailing and whining and gnashing of teeth that comprise your posts for the duration of this thread, you haven't addressed the misinterpretation of the NT by both Pew and yourself, the failure of the Poll to take into account basic theology that would affect the responses from their sample, the issue of traditional dogma and what can categorized as such, the issue of how exactly the poll demonstrates a postmodernist, even nihilist, perception of the concept of objectivity, nor a myriad other valid points brought up by myself and other patrons of this intraweb establishment.

I'll have to take your inability to respond as a sign of concession, I suppose.

[mpjh]

There is no misrepresentation, except in you delusional mind.

[CrazyAnglican]

The fact that we have genetic code that predisposed us to altruist activity isn't a question of free will, it is a question of evolutionary adaption. Apparently the altruism gene helps us survive as human beings and is naturally selected over time.

Sure, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the possible influence of religions on their followers to perform altruistic acts. Moreso it becomes even more tenuous when you bring in that churches use organization to amplify the good works of their flocks. I alone would likely have no effect on anyone in Africa, but the many organizations that foster acts of altruism (religions among them) do in fact have a positive influence on the world around them.

I never said anything about brainwashing - so don't mix my arguments with porkenbeans's. I like some of his arguements but they are not mine.

No but you are certainly eager to pin all sorts of atrocities on the churches. I believe you said "Organized religion has a lot to answer for" and there is that whole "reign of terror" thing. Now you've added "against science" (what about the abject poverty, routine use of torture, etc.? Had to drop them because secular institutions are worse about it than the churches now, eh?). Despite our genetic encoding toward violence, and any number of other unsavory things; it's only now that genetics comes into play? Which is it? We're genetically encoded for our behavior and anyone who does anything wrong or right is actually only following their predetermined genetic destiny, or is it people have the ability to choose right from wrong and religions (among a great many other things) have an influence in that?

My point is simple. People engage in altruistic acts because it is in our nature as human beings to do so. It enhances our survival. I think it would be better if we gave credit where credit is due rather than having religions take credit for creating something when we actually are only following our human nature.

Only following our human nature, huh? I've got two words for you, Nightly News.

[Napoleon Ier]

There is no misrepresentation, except in you delusional mind.

Joseph Goebbels himself couldn't construe that as a serious response to someone's referenced, logically and empirically supported argument if you got him together with a dream team of Tony Blair's spin doctors and the Obama '08 campaign team.

[CrazyAnglican]

No, nappy, I am too civil to engage in the childish blather you favor. All the points beyond the flame have already been thoroughly discussed.

You'll notice that amidst the wailing and whining and gnashing of teeth that comprise your posts for the duration of this thread, you haven't addressed the misinterpretation of the NT by both Pew and yourself, the failure of the Poll to take into account basic theology that would affect the responses from their sample, the issue of traditional dogma and what can categorized as such, the issue of how exactly the poll demonstrates a postmodernist, even nihilist, perception of the concept of objectivity, nor a myriad other valid points brought up by myself and other patrons of this intraweb establishment.

I'll have to take your inability to respond as a sign of concession, I suppose.

Nothing childish at all about that. You have avoided those points with the whole "you're in the distinct minority" thing. You seem to be taking the rather unscientific stance that "The poll says X" and not defeding how or why it says that. We, your opposition, are merely poining out other interpretations that are both supported by the poll's findings and the religious doctrine of the respondents.