(May 28, 2012 at 11:22 pm)ScienceLovesGod Wrote: It never ceases to amaze me how atheists go around spreading hate, and at the same time, criticize religions that do the same. I'll bet you never once looked into the mirror and notice what a senseless hypocrite you are.

If slapping reality in one's face is considered 'hate' by you, then I have nothing else to say to you. Have fun playing the victim.

(May 29, 2012 at 11:27 am)LastPoet Wrote:

(May 28, 2012 at 11:22 pm)ScienceLovesGod Wrote: It never ceases to amaze me how atheists go around spreading hate, and at the same time, criticize religions that do the same. I'll bet you never once looked into the mirror and notice what a senseless hypocrite you are.

If slapping reality in one's face is considered 'hate' by you, then I have nothing else to say to you. Have fun playing the victim.

True. In the movies people sometimes reply with "thanks I needed that" after a slap to return them to their senses.

(May 29, 2012 at 10:30 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ...If you say Pol Pot was not a Buddhist one more time I'm going to flip out. Yes. Pol Pot WAS a Buddhist. He attended a Buddhist Monastery and in case you did not know people don't study at Buddhist monasteries for anything other than the sake of studying Buddhism. And chances are pretty good if you're studying Buddhism [and given that he was in a nation where Buddhism was the majority belief system] you're probably a Buddhist.

I guess if you mean prior to him becoming a Marxist then okay.

Quote:Religious monasteries do not fit the bill of broader-term communism [IE Marxist communism]

I hope not given the fact that Marxism is atheist by definition.

Quote:You ARE surrendering your mind to a ruler, whom you refer to as god, but you're also surrendering your life to this god as well. Does it hurt anyone else? I would be able to say no except for the Church's history with torturing people into conversion and confession regardless of whether or not they committed a crime [all it took was an accusation]. And you do not get to just freely leave. Well, NOW you can, but as you said before, the term of heresy and its punishment was reserved only for catholics who went against church doctrine, and you'd better hope that maybe some of those that the Inquisition and the church in general executed for heresy were atheists or pagans because if they were all catholics then that means that the catholic church is, indeed, a totalitarian system. Or was. And it's interesting to note that the only reason it wasn't was because of the reformations, which basically means doing away with dogma. Which again implies imperfection in the church, and if something is not perfect it does not deserve to claim itself a moral paragon...which the church does.

The Church doesn't claim that all of the actions of her members are going to be moral ones. Only her doctrines will be morally good. At one time, members of the church thought it was OK to torture so long as you didn't draw blood. It was never explicitly stated as a good action in any Catechism or in any dogma. The Church has apologized for this and torture has since been banned altogether as contrary to the virtue of Charity (which is more than you can say for the US Govt).

You do surrender in obedience to the Church, and in the same way when you join a monastery you vow obedience to your religious superior. However its not about controlling every aspect of your life or the economy, etc. I will admit that even if it "only" killed a few thousand people, the Spanish Inquisition is probably the closest religion has ever come to state atheism, the ugliest time of the Church for sure.

Most of the heretics executed were Protestants obviously. Pagans and atheists aren't heretics.

Quote:And yes, the church says you are damned. Shall I bring up the scripture?

No, since neither you nor I have any authority to interpret Scripture. You can bring up a Catechism or book of Canon Law if you prefer. The Church allows for salvation of those who do not believe in God.

Quote:But of course being in a communal setting with like-minded people is going to bring a profound sense of peace and comfort; why do you think we atheists have this forum?

I am sorry to hear that people have judged you, I also get judged by non-Catholics when I say I am a very devout Catholic.

(May 29, 2012 at 9:39 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yes, they were awful, awful people. I'm not defending them. They were totally not cool. I'm just not grasping what it has to do with me. I wish I could spare as much energy ranting about the Aztecs as you do about the communists, but I would just feel too ridiculous.

It seemed as if you were trying to make it out like they were happy to support religion or that they didn't really mind religion. State atheism has killed a lot of religious people in living memory. The Aztec government was centuries ago. If Christians had killed and suppressed tens of thousands of atheists just in the last century you might also have the energy to rant.

Quote:It's the societal default because almost everyone teaches it to their children. If you select for people who were never taught it, it's a different kettle of fish.

Is it? Do you have any evidence of this at all? A religious education is not required for theism, and plenty of atheists do get religious education.

Quote: I don't include you in that category, although you seem awfully interested in finding factoids that make us look bad, you don't seem to be suffering from profoundly basic ignorance about atheism. I haven't heard you say you were an atheist because you were angry at God or so you could party hardy.

I look for those factoids mainly to refute those who say "religion is a poison" or "religion harms society", "religious people are crazy" etc. It's nice to have studies which show the exact opposite.

Well I never partied hardy, but I think the initial spark may have been embarrassment at my own family's piousness (though it obviously went on from there). Its weird now though, that I have surpassed them all in devotion so now if anything I am upset they didn't raise me religious enough! My poor parents...

I also still called out to Saint Anthony in times of distress and panic. He's not remotely God, but it's funny he that he is such a precious person to me that even back then I still prayed to him. I am thinking about taking his name as my religious name.

Quote:Having been a Pentecostal, I can assure that your experience is not universal. The worse you were before 'being saved', the more likely you'll be able to build a preaching career out of it, and 'I was an atheist' is a nice cap to 'I was a whoring, heroin-shooting, boozing, rock musician'. 'Satanist' is good, too. I'm not threatened by the idea of atheists converting. I'm irritated by how stupid most of the ones who say they were atheists sound. I'm not against theism, or Christianity, or nuns, or ex-atheists who are convincing. I'm against stupidity and dishonesty. And you got into my motives, uncharitably, again.

I apologize if I was uncharitable to you. I have had some atheists tell me to my face that there can be no such thing as an ex-atheist, so when you started talking about "either lying or mistaken"I lumped you in there. I never met the people you describe in Catholicism, and there is definitely a bias in Catholicism toward those who are cradle Catholic. Converts are OK (and I've met ex-Protestant, ex-agnostic, and ex-Buddhist sisters) but if you ever admit to going apostate, its a red flag.

But OK yes, your explanation does make much better sense to me now.

Quote:I hope it brings you happiness and that you accomplish more good than you otherwise would have.

Aw thank you, I hope so as well. I am never happier than when I am with God.

Quote:I hope not given the fact that Marxism is atheist by definition.

Got to make something clear to you (and I know it won't sink in).
Communism is a political stance, theism and atheism are stances to do with belief or lack of belief in god.
So quit trying to merge them.

I can mention thousands of religious leaders who have committed mass murder and genocide if you want? All in the name of their religion/god.

I used to have an extremely long long long list of atrocities committed by religion, the church and religious leaders. Looking for it now. It's a hell of a long list.
Hundreds and even thousands of atrocities have been committed by religion, I could easily say that it's proof that the religious are immoral. I can produce a far far far greater list of mass murders and atrocities committed by religion than you can for atheism.

Quote:If Christians had killed and suppressed tens of thousands of atheists just in the last century you might also have the energy to rant.

Well.........they have actually. I could start with the Catholic extermination camps. Over a hundred thousand stabbed, hanged and burnt alive. Which happened within the last century.

Yes, prior to becoming the founder of the Khmer Rouge, he was Buddhist, potentially a catholic, though we cannot be sure of the latter. The man burned entire libraries to the ground, so obviously he didn't let many records of himself be written, most of what we know comes from witnesses.

And no, Marxism is not, by definition, atheistic. That's Leninism, and Leninism is what we've seen from Russia, Cambodia, China [to this day, too], and North Korea. Truth be told we've never seen Marxism in real practice, and likely never will. However, communism as we've seen, and communism as it is known, is based in Marxism, hence why the defining term tends to be "Marxist communism" even if we've never seen Marxism in practice, since communism as we know it is derived from it. But Leninism is the bastard son of Marxism. Marxism stated that religion was not an enemy or an ally; it was something to be left alone, and that people would depart from it of their own accord through learning and study, or they would not, and it did not matter either way. Leninism however frowns upon religion as something to be avoided, like a disease. And where Marxism basically stated that the people were the power, Leninism invokes dictatorship, a "worker for the workers." And when you give a dictator power, ABSOLUTE power, in fact, as Leninism does, you induce totalitarianism. Hence why we've seen what we've seen in communist nations.

Hence why people educated on the topic of communism will tell you "true communism never came to be." Because alas, it did not. If it had, the conversation on atheist dictators we have had would never have come to be. But we can learn from history and realize that secularists do not need to be anything more than secularists. It is important to note that secularism is the most beneficial attachment to both theism and atheism, because when religion is kept personal and private, it ceases to harm anyone, as the same can be said of any ideology.

The church allows for salvation only if you repent for it [deathbed conversions basically]. I have no intention of repenting, however, since it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to live my life as an atheist, only to turn around and repent out of a fear of damnation...which is ultimately what happens with everyone. The fear of death and the hope for eternity and the worry of what they think will come after. But THIS would segue into an extremely long discussion down a different path so I'll stop before I start walking it.

Also to butt in to your other discussion, there IS documented evidence that most parents teach the idea of god to their children in some way, I've actually seen it but fuck me I can't find it. It was somewhere in the high 80 percentile of parents admitting that they basically taught their children about god or instilled god-worshiping/fearing/respecting habits in their children at a young age even if they themselves were not very devout. It's kind of a practice a bit like circumcision or saying "bless you" when someone sneezes or me saying "GOD FUCKING DAMMIT!!" every time the lag kicks in in the middle of a match of Battlefield 3 and screws me out of a kill; it's just a socially-accepted behavior.

Honestly I had several of my foster families try to teach me about god but it was the first one to be nice to me that actually made the teachings stick. She was a simple woman and truth be told she didn't really read much of the bible. Also: Yes, we DO have the authority to interpret scripture; we are literate, possessing reasoning abilities and higher cognitive functions for discernment. Saying otherwise is like saying we do not have the authority to interpret the US Constitution. In fact, Timothy 2:5 is pretty unambiguous in that: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

I mean, granted, he THEN goes on to blather on for another ten verses or so about how women need to be submissive, servile, meek, quiet, docile, modest, are natural-born sinners because they're in the image of Eve yadda friggin' yadda primitive woman-hatred stuff, but he made the claim that there is one god, and Jesus is the only person between god and men. The catholic church has zero claim to be putting themselves anywhere between god/jesus and mankind and yet they do so anyway.

And yes, I know the whole thing that Jesus founded the Catholic Church...except that Catholic means "universal," not "made of a hierarchy where certain men are more in authority than others." And another thing, what is with the Catholic church calling their priests "father?"

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

And the rosary??

"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. Matthew 6:7

And Catholicism says that Mary was a virgin and remained one after Jesus was born:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56

Now, with all these things in my mind, I start to understand why the Catholic church forbids just anyone from interpreting scripture: Because they are going against it and they don't want members of their church to start thinking about that.

Truth be told, I find it all a load of hooey, obviously. Snakes talking and an apple inducing sin [now if it was a bundle of grapes THEN I'd be like 'oh fuck yeah, that was the fruit of sin'] and all of humanity supposedly coming from two people without inducing catastrophic congenital illnesses that would have wiped us all out after our tenth generation or so and the world being created 6000 years or whatever ago despite all evidence to the contrary, dudes rising from the grave and working alchemy by turning water into wine even though that's chemically impossible and how if that happened the universe would basically break down because the laws of chemistry if broken once would cease to have an effect and if one law of the universe breaks why not the rest and then there's the whole thing about Jesus dying for our sins supposedly being what made the sacrifice so meaningful except then he comes BACK to life which makes his sacrifice utterly pointless and then he floated into the sky even though we all know that there is no heaven on/in the clouds and beyond the sky is nothing but SPACE...so...maybe he floated into space and died again...??

AUGH!!

(May 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(May 29, 2012 at 11:27 am)LastPoet Wrote: If slapping reality in one's face is considered 'hate' by you, then I have nothing else to say to you. Have fun playing the victim.

True. In the movies people sometimes reply with "thanks I needed that" after a slap to return them to their senses.

I recall a scene in a horror movie in which a sentient cowboy doll slapped a depressed spaceman toy in the face with his own severed arm. So really our resident theists ought not complain too much, since it could be much worse.

(May 30, 2012 at 10:25 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(May 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm)whateverist Wrote: True. In the movies people sometimes reply with "thanks I needed that" after a slap to return them to their senses.

I recall a scene in a horror movie in which a sentient cowboy doll slapped a depressed spaceman toy in the face with his own severed arm. So really our resident theists ought not complain too much, since it could be much worse.

Exactly. They just need to try and take it in the spirit in which it is given.

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: It seemed as if you were trying to make it out like they were happy to support religion or that they didn't really mind religion. State atheism has killed a lot of religious people in living memory. The Aztec government was centuries ago. If Christians had killed and suppressed tens of thousands of atheists just in the last century you might also have the energy to rant.

Well, we're invisible, they couldn't find us!

A better analogy to what you're actually doing would be if Hindus had killed and suppressed thousands of atheists and I ranted at Catholics about it, because they are theists, and there aren't any Hindus on the board to argue with.

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: Is it? Do you have any evidence of this at all? A religious education is not required for theism, and plenty of atheists do get religious education.

Quote:Being a theist is highly correlated to having been taught there is a God, yes. Do you have any evidence otherwise at all? As I already noted, the study would exclude atheists who did get a religous education.

[quote='Aiza' pid='291781' dateline='1338338302']
I look for those factoids mainly to refute those who say "religion is a poison" or "religion harms society", "religious people are crazy" etc. It's nice to have studies which show the exact opposite.

Yet you paraded them in a thread about people hating on atheists, starting about the fifth post in, before anyone said any such thing. You didn't refute something, you started something. Although I suppose a thread on the topic of refuting over-the-top claims against relgion might be fruitful.

[quote='Aiza' pid='291781' dateline='1338338302']
Well I never partied hardy, but I think the initial spark may have been embarrassment at my own family's piousness (though it obviously went on from there). Its weird now though, that I have surpassed them all in devotion so now if anything I am upset they didn't raise me religious enough! My poor parents...

Parents can never win.

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: I also still called out to Saint Anthony in times of distress and panic. He's not remotely God, but it's funny he that he is such a precious person to me that even back then I still prayed to him. I am thinking about taking his name as my religious name.

Antonia?

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: I apologize if I was uncharitable to you.

S'allright. I can be tetchy, but I'm a sucker for apologies.

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: I have had some atheists tell me to my face that there can be no such thing as an ex-atheist, so when you started talking about "either lying or mistaken"I lumped you in there. I never met the people you describe in Catholicism, and there is definitely a bias in Catholicism toward those who are cradle Catholic. Converts are OK (and I've met ex-Protestant, ex-agnostic, and ex-Buddhist sisters) but if you ever admit to going apostate, its a red flag.

I've been lumped with worse.

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: But OK yes, your explanation does make much better sense to me now.

Good, sorry for not being clearer in the first place.

(May 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Aiza Wrote: Aw thank you, I hope so as well. I am never happier than when I am with God.

Best of luck. I guess we won't have your company anymore after you join up.

(May 30, 2012 at 8:10 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

---

Yes, prior to becoming the founder of the Khmer Rouge, he was Buddhist, potentially a catholic, though we cannot be sure of the latter. The man burned entire libraries to the ground, so obviously he didn't let many records of himself be written, most of what we know comes from witnesses.

And no, Marxism is not, by definition, atheistic. That's Leninism, and Leninism is what we've seen from Russia, Cambodia, China [to this day, too], and North Korea. Truth be told we've never seen Marxism in real practice, and likely never will. However, communism as we've seen, and communism as it is known, is based in Marxism, hence why the defining term tends to be "Marxist communism" even if we've never seen Marxism in practice, since communism as we know it is derived from it. But Leninism is the bastard son of Marxism. Marxism stated that religion was not an enemy or an ally; it was something to be left alone, and that people would depart from it of their own accord through learning and study, or they would not, and it did not matter either way. Leninism however frowns upon religion as something to be avoided, like a disease. And where Marxism basically stated that the people were the power, Leninism invokes dictatorship, a "worker for the workers." And when you give a dictator power, ABSOLUTE power, in fact, as Leninism does, you induce totalitarianism. Hence why we've seen what we've seen in communist nations.

Hence why people educated on the topic of communism will tell you "true communism never came to be." Because alas, it did not. If it had, the conversation on atheist dictators we have had would never have come to be. But we can learn from history and realize that secularists do not need to be anything more than secularists. It is important to note that secularism is the most beneficial attachment to both theism and atheism, because when religion is kept personal and private, it ceases to harm anyone, as the same can be said of any ideology.

The church allows for salvation only if you repent for it [deathbed conversions basically]. I have no intention of repenting, however, since it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to live my life as an atheist, only to turn around and repent out of a fear of damnation...which is ultimately what happens with everyone. The fear of death and the hope for eternity and the worry of what they think will come after. But THIS would segue into an extremely long discussion down a different path so I'll stop before I start walking it.

Also to butt in to your other discussion, there IS documented evidence that most parents teach the idea of god to their children in some way, I've actually seen it but fuck me I can't find it. It was somewhere in the high 80 percentile of parents admitting that they basically taught their children about god or instilled god-worshiping/fearing/respecting habits in their children at a young age even if they themselves were not very devout. It's kind of a practice a bit like circumcision or saying "bless you" when someone sneezes or me saying "GOD FUCKING DAMMIT!!" every time the lag kicks in in the middle of a match of Battlefield 3 and screws me out of a kill; it's just a socially-accepted behavior.

Honestly I had several of my foster families try to teach me about god but it was the first one to be nice to me that actually made the teachings stick. She was a simple woman and truth be told she didn't really read much of the bible. Also: Yes, we DO have the authority to interpret scripture; we are literate, possessing reasoning abilities and higher cognitive functions for discernment. Saying otherwise is like saying we do not have the authority to interpret the US Constitution. In fact, Timothy 2:5 is pretty unambiguous in that: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

I mean, granted, he THEN goes on to blather on for another ten verses or so about how women need to be submissive, servile, meek, quiet, docile, modest, are natural-born sinners because they're in the image of Eve yadda friggin' yadda primitive woman-hatred stuff, but he made the claim that there is one god, and Jesus is the only person between god and men. The catholic church has zero claim to be putting themselves anywhere between god/jesus and mankind and yet they do so anyway.

And yes, I know the whole thing that Jesus founded the Catholic Church...except that Catholic means "universal," not "made of a hierarchy where certain men are more in authority than others." And another thing, what is with the Catholic church calling their priests "father?"

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

And the rosary??

"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. Matthew 6:7

And Catholicism says that Mary was a virgin and remained one after Jesus was born:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56

Now, with all these things in my mind, I start to understand why the Catholic church forbids just anyone from interpreting scripture: Because they are going against it and they don't want members of their church to start thinking about that.

Truth be told, I find it all a load of hooey, obviously. Snakes talking and an apple inducing sin [now if it was a bundle of grapes THEN I'd be like 'oh fuck yeah, that was the fruit of sin'] and all of humanity supposedly coming from two people without inducing catastrophic congenital illnesses that would have wiped us all out after our tenth generation or so and the world being created 6000 years or whatever ago despite all evidence to the contrary, dudes rising from the grave and working alchemy by turning water into wine even though that's chemically impossible and how if that happened the universe would basically break down because the laws of chemistry if broken once would cease to have an effect and if one law of the universe breaks why not the rest and then there's the whole thing about Jesus dying for our sins supposedly being what made the sacrifice so meaningful except then he comes BACK to life which makes his sacrifice utterly pointless and then he floated into the sky even though we all know that there is no heaven on/in the clouds and beyond the sky is nothing but SPACE...so...maybe he floated into space and died again...??

AUGH!!

---

I agree. Whether you are a believer or not, anyone can see that Catholicism is in direct violation of the Scriptures.

(May 30, 2012 at 6:01 pm)ScienceLovesGod Wrote:

(May 30, 2012 at 8:10 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

---

Yes, prior to becoming the founder of the Khmer Rouge, he was Buddhist, potentially a catholic, though we cannot be sure of the latter. The man burned entire libraries to the ground, so obviously he didn't let many records of himself be written, most of what we know comes from witnesses.

And no, Marxism is not, by definition, atheistic. That's Leninism, and Leninism is what we've seen from Russia, Cambodia, China [to this day, too], and North Korea. Truth be told we've never seen Marxism in real practice, and likely never will. However, communism as we've seen, and communism as it is known, is based in Marxism, hence why the defining term tends to be "Marxist communism" even if we've never seen Marxism in practice, since communism as we know it is derived from it. But Leninism is the bastard son of Marxism. Marxism stated that religion was not an enemy or an ally; it was something to be left alone, and that people would depart from it of their own accord through learning and study, or they would not, and it did not matter either way. Leninism however frowns upon religion as something to be avoided, like a disease. And where Marxism basically stated that the people were the power, Leninism invokes dictatorship, a "worker for the workers." And when you give a dictator power, ABSOLUTE power, in fact, as Leninism does, you induce totalitarianism. Hence why we've seen what we've seen in communist nations.

Hence why people educated on the topic of communism will tell you "true communism never came to be." Because alas, it did not. If it had, the conversation on atheist dictators we have had would never have come to be. But we can learn from history and realize that secularists do not need to be anything more than secularists. It is important to note that secularism is the most beneficial attachment to both theism and atheism, because when religion is kept personal and private, it ceases to harm anyone, as the same can be said of any ideology.

The church allows for salvation only if you repent for it [deathbed conversions basically]. I have no intention of repenting, however, since it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to live my life as an atheist, only to turn around and repent out of a fear of damnation...which is ultimately what happens with everyone. The fear of death and the hope for eternity and the worry of what they think will come after. But THIS would segue into an extremely long discussion down a different path so I'll stop before I start walking it.

Also to butt in to your other discussion, there IS documented evidence that most parents teach the idea of god to their children in some way, I've actually seen it but fuck me I can't find it. It was somewhere in the high 80 percentile of parents admitting that they basically taught their children about god or instilled god-worshiping/fearing/respecting habits in their children at a young age even if they themselves were not very devout. It's kind of a practice a bit like circumcision or saying "bless you" when someone sneezes or me saying "GOD FUCKING DAMMIT!!" every time the lag kicks in in the middle of a match of Battlefield 3 and screws me out of a kill; it's just a socially-accepted behavior.

Honestly I had several of my foster families try to teach me about god but it was the first one to be nice to me that actually made the teachings stick. She was a simple woman and truth be told she didn't really read much of the bible. Also: Yes, we DO have the authority to interpret scripture; we are literate, possessing reasoning abilities and higher cognitive functions for discernment. Saying otherwise is like saying we do not have the authority to interpret the US Constitution. In fact, Timothy 2:5 is pretty unambiguous in that: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

I mean, granted, he THEN goes on to blather on for another ten verses or so about how women need to be submissive, servile, meek, quiet, docile, modest, are natural-born sinners because they're in the image of Eve yadda friggin' yadda primitive woman-hatred stuff, but he made the claim that there is one god, and Jesus is the only person between god and men. The catholic church has zero claim to be putting themselves anywhere between god/jesus and mankind and yet they do so anyway.

And yes, I know the whole thing that Jesus founded the Catholic Church...except that Catholic means "universal," not "made of a hierarchy where certain men are more in authority than others." And another thing, what is with the Catholic church calling their priests "father?"

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

And the rosary??

"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. Matthew 6:7

And Catholicism says that Mary was a virgin and remained one after Jesus was born:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56

Now, with all these things in my mind, I start to understand why the Catholic church forbids just anyone from interpreting scripture: Because they are going against it and they don't want members of their church to start thinking about that.

Truth be told, I find it all a load of hooey, obviously. Snakes talking and an apple inducing sin [now if it was a bundle of grapes THEN I'd be like 'oh fuck yeah, that was the fruit of sin'] and all of humanity supposedly coming from two people without inducing catastrophic congenital illnesses that would have wiped us all out after our tenth generation or so and the world being created 6000 years or whatever ago despite all evidence to the contrary, dudes rising from the grave and working alchemy by turning water into wine even though that's chemically impossible and how if that happened the universe would basically break down because the laws of chemistry if broken once would cease to have an effect and if one law of the universe breaks why not the rest and then there's the whole thing about Jesus dying for our sins supposedly being what made the sacrifice so meaningful except then he comes BACK to life which makes his sacrifice utterly pointless and then he floated into the sky even though we all know that there is no heaven on/in the clouds and beyond the sky is nothing but SPACE...so...maybe he floated into space and died again...??

AUGH!!

---

I agree. Whether you are a believer or not, anyone can see that Catholicism is in direct violation of the Scriptures.

Quick question... Jesusologismaphy... joke or not? I mean... seriously, have I missed a trick here? I'm learning all the time, everytime I turn theres a new religion. It was only a few weeks ago I found out about a growing religion called "The Family" that basically believes they should imagine fucking jesus at every chance they get with as many partners as they can.
No, I'm not kidding.