Conquer Club

I think we are the future, porkenbeans. We don't need the superstitions to explain the world any longer, we just need to courage to walk away from them.

mpjh wrote:I think we are the future, porkenbeans. We don't need the superstitions to explain the world any longer, we just need to courage to walk away from them.

You are quite right my friend. But I am afraid that until even more of our questions are answered by Science, We will be plagued with this legacy of superstition. Maybe in a thousand years or two. ...Maybe.

I don't think we have the luxury of a hundred years. There are too many problems closing in on us.

Facts, with citations, from the present getting a little too inconvenient? Time to run to more general charges of "superstition" and fear of what will happen if the religious are allowed too much freedom? Sounds a bit ominous. If one didn't know better it would seem as if you're running out of ideas. The regular schtick isn't serving that well, eh?


Porky now you really never came back in counterpoint to my defense of the "minghy" (superstition) thing in the other thread. I'd be happy to restate the points if you'd like.

mpjh wrote:I don't think we have the luxury of a hundred years. There are too many problems closing in on us.

Once again it's the courageous atheists that will lead the way? The faithful know nothing of courage, eh? I couldn't persuade you that the Seargeant York's, Rosa Parks', and Ghandi's of the world might know a thing or two about it could I?

Perhaps you could answer why there are more Christians even when adjusting for population growth than as the beginning of the Scientific revolution? Enlightenment thinking hasn't really done a great job of stamping out these "superstitions" even with more than 400 years to try. While yes if you are thinking in a strictly Euro-centric mode the Christian Churches aren't growing as much as we'd like in Europe right now, but hey they are booming in Africa, S. America, and Asia. It's a big world. The Africans already have their sites on Europe as the next mission field.

Well if 70% of the Christians believe as the poll indicates, I'd say you have a puric victory in play, which is the whole point of this thread. Thank you.

If 70% of the Christians believe what you think the poll suggests, but you don't seem to understand the point that misleads you about those findings. We do not limit Christ's actions. If he saves someone from another religion; he's free to do so, and all the more worthy of praise. That does nothing to make us doubt the veracity of our own, nor does it make us doubt his necessity in the process of salvation. No, the cost is not high at all.

Yeah, yeah, the poll is wrong. If that makes you feel better.

I never doubted the poll. I merely challenged your interpretation of it.

What i find interesting is you compulsive need to explain what all Christians think to fit your definition of faith. The poll indicates the Christians may not be so monolithic in their beliefs as you would like.

mpjh wrote:What i find interesting is you compulsive need to explain what all Christians think to fit your definition of faith.

Compulsive? Might I remind you that I wasn’t the one to open three threads on this subject? I have shown how a Christian can answer the poll’s questions, certainly be tolerant of others, and still hold his/ her own beliefs sacred. Out of curiosity how many Christians in your three threads said in their own words that Jesus was unnecessary to salvation? I’m guessing you used that “you’re in the distinct minority” line on a lot more people than me, right?

mpjh wrote:The poll indicates the Christians may not be so monolithic in their beliefs as you would like.

May not, hmmm? Funny that now you're qualifying what you were presenting as incontrovertible earlier. Remember though, I’m part of that 52% that you laud for our tolerance. I thank you for your high opinion. Sure, anything's possible, but I at least can speak from my own beliefs, I have also been to many churches, and I've spoken with many, many Christians about this very subject over 40 years (logitudinal studies do tend to be more reliable than opinion surveys). Do you know how many Christians said Christ was unnecessary to salvation, in all that time? You guessed it, zero. So, where is this 70%? I'd have had to run into at least one of them by now.

So, I'm not suggesting that Christians are "monolithic" (as you put it). The poll's results do show tolerance of others. It is hardly conclusive from the results of that poll that Christians are wavering in the commitment to their own religion. Which with the punic victory crack and the statement that "that was the point of this thread", you pointed out in your own words that you weren’t so much patting Christians on the back for tolerating others as you were trying to put forth the idea that people were wavering in their faith. Hence, “the wheel” that I’m sure you haven’t gotten many converts to yet, right?

What's particularly fascinating to me is the way that the poll conclusively proves the rejection of "liturgy-based dogma" by Christians. Erm... yeah. Lots of that stuff flying round the old Catechism, eh?

"Hold your own?" Why should you have to hold you own against a poll? You are not accountable for what others believe.

mpjh wrote:"Hold your own?" Why should you have to hold you own against a poll? You are not accountable for what others believe.

He's holding his own against a ridiculous interpretation of a ridiculous poll.

I think he can speak for himself, thank you.

mpjh wrote:I think he can speak for himself, thank you.

What, so he can bring more relevant facts and reasoned argument to the table for you to meet them with petty aspersions and rash, unsubstantiated assertions?

Sorry, but I'm not letting you off so easy.

You don't have me to let off. You are just trolling on someone else's conversation. If crazy episcopalian doesn't want to talk anymore, I'll take that as a concession to my last point. thank you

mpjh wrote:You don't have me to let off. You are just trolling on someone else's conversation. If crazy episcopalian doesn't want to talk anymore, I'll take that as a concession to my last point. thank you

Oh, so by that logic I can take your utter failure to respond to any of the points I've made in this thread and others as a sign of your utter and total submission to their philosophical validity? I mean, don't worry, I already have, but as for CA, I'd hazard a guess that he's just had enough of your pseudo-rationalizations which make about as much sense as a as a Salvador Dali.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

mpjh wrote:If you want to try and apologize for the churches's participation, fine. However, today I do not see religion's good influence in the world.

I think that may be a play on words? Apo logios or apologetics has nothing at all to do with actually apologizing. I merely means providing a logical defense. Actually it isn't hard at all to see the positive effects of Christianity in the world though. 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.

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 ?

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

porkenbeans wrote: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.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

porkenbeans wrote: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 ?

Say porkenbeans, do you know the difference between Anglican and episcopalian?

mpjh wrote:Say porkenbeans, do you know the difference between Anglican and episcopalian?

Anglcans jump up and down on the right, and episcopalian on the left foot. lol. Just a little joke.
No, ...What is the difference ?

I have no idea. Something to do with King Henry VIII and Ann Boline, I was really asking.