Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TD1]

I would say my family's brand of Protestantism is fairly mild. They just go to church because they go to church. I don't think there's any real sentiment there, and from my father's words at least I'd say he's probably agnostic.

Much of the stuff they view as absolute

What stuff do you refer to? There's really very little that fits the bill...

On phone atm. Will respond when in possession of proper computing eqiipment.

[Yoink]

Should I necro the Booze thread to ask a booze-related question, or start a new one?
The OP doesn't seem to have been active in a couple of years, not that that really matters.

[Frumple]

*shrugs* If you can improve upon the OP or intend to moderate the thread after starting it up, sure? New one's maybe a good idea in that case, just link to the old one in the OP or somethin'.

If you don't intend to do either of those, probably just go ahead and necro. Same effect, less effort, and necroing's fine so long as you bring something new to the thread.

[Helgoland]

Wait, this isn't the religion thread? o.O

[TempAcc]

:v

The religion thread will ocasionaly possess other threads, sometimes along with its partners, the europol and the ameripol threads.

[wierd]

Catholicism just drips with dogmatic practice that seems unfounded in the core cannon of the religion-- It is the very thing that Jesus actually got lividly angry about in regard to prior behaviors by the pharisees and saducees. (Though to be quite honest, the "fundamentalist christian" movement in the US would equally raise his ire IIRC.)

I doubt that he got angry at people following stuff that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the bible... He got angry at people abusing their power and losing faith. Although the second implies the first, there is a world of difference in between.

I'll raise you one Matthew 15.

That is pretty specific about being religious hypocrites, and following secular doctrine over sacred edict. Catholicism fails big time at that. (and again, so does the fundie christian movement in the US.)

[Graknorke]

Is a show election generally considered to be fixed/rigged/fraudulent, or is it a thing all of its own?

[wierd]

The election is rigged, if the winner is predetermined, and the voting process itself is only there for show.

If the election process is impotent (does not actually mean anything), and thus is not engineered to have a predetermined outcome (because the outcome is meaningless) then it is not rigged, but still only for show.

So, it depends on what you mean by "show election."

[Helgoland]

Catholicism just drips with dogmatic practice that seems unfounded in the core cannon of the religion-- It is the very thing that Jesus actually got lividly angry about in regard to prior behaviors by the pharisees and saducees. (Though to be quite honest, the "fundamentalist christian" movement in the US would equally raise his ire IIRC.)

I doubt that he got angry at people following stuff that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the bible... He got angry at people abusing their power and losing faith. Although the second implies the first, there is a world of difference in between.

I'll raise you one Matthew 15.

That is pretty specific about being religious hypocrites, and following secular doctrine over sacred edict. Catholicism fails big time at that. (and again, so does the fundie christian movement in the US.)

Well, that bit was about putting tradition above the spirit of God's law: He didn't mind the Pharisees washing their hands, after all. It's a different issue.

[wierd]

No, it wasnt about the washing of hands, the issue was about the dogmatic adherence to the tradition, over what was actually ordered by god. (the handwashing thing came out of the levitical laws, where there was a proscription against being uncleanly, at least in terms of sewerage removal, and basic civil hygiene. It was never ordered to wash your hands, and body religiously. You must understand that the Pharisees and Saducees had this dogmatic fixation on washing, and would actually charge people for the service of using the laver (basically a religious bathtub) to cleanse themselves before entering the temple.)

[Helgoland]

Precisely - over what was actually ordered by God. There's nothing in there about people doing stuff that's not mentioned at all, but is also not prohibited. IIRC this started with a question about saints: I dare you to find a prohibition against praying to saints in the bible.

[Arx]

It kind of depends on exactly how you pray to them. If you're just asking them to pray for you, as in the Litany of the Saints, then it's fine - it's almost exactly the same as asking your friend to pass you the salt, but on a cosmic scale.

If, on the other hand, you're saying 'All hail (name of saint) (generic praise) (generic praise intensifies)" then you have a problem, as identified by 'You shall have no other god (before me).'

[Reelya]

That's old testament though, so you're free to ignore just as much as you're free to ignore the anti-shellfish rules. After all eating invertebrates is an abomination and we decided later that it's ok to do this just because some of them are tasty. Whereas the "no gods" part is just a "don't do this" without the "abomination" label. So going off the biblical language, worshipping saints is not as suspect as eating oysters.

[TD1]

The 10 Commandments are Old Testament too, I assume you're not allowed to ignore them?

[Arx]

Technically, yes. It's entirely possible to construct an argument that literally anything is Biblically okay if you're willing to ignore the spirit of the thing.