Quote from TheShawn
Quote from Klapzi
I'm willing to engage, first by stating that any argument against the catholic church and it's variations isn't effective, since the catholic church is ridiculous and not compatible to even what Christ said, so it can't even really be called a christian religion.
I won't discuss with person who mistakes Catholicism for Christianism.
That excludes 98%(or more) of the comments in this reddit thing.
The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in existence based on the teachings of Christ. Hundreds of smaller christian sects came into existence alongside the Catholic sect, few of them agreed on anything about the teachings of Christ. In fact, it's very likely that we don't currently have access to even 1/100 of the original teachings, both actual and invented. Eventually, Catholicism won out because it was legitimized and backed by the Roman Empire and the four Gospels that it supported were accepted as the only true ones (I ask that you forgive me for not remembering the name of the specific Emperor at the moment). From there, Catholicism was the only Christian faith with any sort of longevity of influence until the Great Schism beginning in 1054 during which Eastern Orthodoxy essentially became a separate Christian faith, but one still based on the four Gospels legitimized by the Catholic Church.
Nearly all major protestant faiths that exist are also based directly off of the Catholic church, in that they still only recognize four Gospels as being legitimate. While there are major theological disagreements between Catholicism and the Protestant faiths, and between individual Protestant faiths, the most massive differences are largely structural. The core beliefs of any Christian faith are the same, or at least similar, because they are all interpretations of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Catholic Gospels.
All of this points to one thing; Catholicism is a Christian religion, despite what you assert. In fact, given the evidence, it would be more accurate to say that most current Christian faiths are derivative of Catholicism, not that Catholicism is derivative of Christianity.
I will only ever call a religion christian if it doesn't go against many things said in "Mathew, Mark, Like, and John", like the roman church does. I have never seen such an convenient "interpretation". Furthermore this is a pointless discussion, it's like arguing about when two people started dating if they never actually confessed to each other (I did that once
).
But I get your point and will refrain from using this word to avoid needless conflicts.
Costantine I was the western roman emperor, he is the one who started mutating christianism into catholicism, he invented the Holy Thrinity, for example.
Some other western empreror banished reincarnation from the bible too, but I can't remember his name.
Well, the catholic church really liked to mess with the bible, they even invented hell and the devil, even when both go against the ideia of God's benignity and fairness.
God knows how much of the bible was lost in these years, and that is why spiritists will hardly use it for guidance.
Quote
What you're saying here is that men feel women should be submissive and that some religions just help them to explain why; so, you're saying you think women should be submissive? At least in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam women are supposed to be submissive. Christians aren't any better than the Catholics; do you really think atrocities such as the sexual abuse of children is restricted to the Catholic Church? I don't think so; so far the Christians just managed to cover it up better.
You interpreted my text the way you wanted to, I never said women should be submissive.
"except not liking every religion from the start just because some "help" man to explain why women should be submissive"I just said that they help to men explain why women should be submissive, not that I agreed with their whys or anything.
The sexual abuse of children isn't written in any holy book, as far as I know, so it's a human's failure and not the failure of the religion.
Quote
Well, I'm not aware of the situation in Brazil; Europe's got its own problems to worry about for the moment.
That's probably because there are many more male doctors than there are female doctors; for instance, if data shows that only 10% of all male doctors ever made a fatal mistake as opposed to 50% of the women, that would make it seem like men are much better doctors than women. However, if you then find out that there are 5000 male doctors included in the sample and only 100 female doctors, that would mean that men have made 500 fatal mistakes and women only 50. So, it really depends on how much information you're given. Skills also differ greatly depending on the person, and the kind of education that person was given.
You didn't need to use 7 lines to repeat what I said.
Just so you know, the data I have is in percentage, men commit less mistakes, but there are many others things to consider, like education, there is no guarantee the men and the women received the same education, and there is also the possibility that one studied more than the other, as I said, only a neurological analysis could settle it.
Quote
Some humans aren't.
But some are. And that is why simply killing is wrong.
Quote
I also think elephants, apes and several whale species might very well be able to understand morals. These animals, like humans, have spindle cells, they live in organised social groups, they communicate with each other, and I think especially elephants and whales may be much more intelligent than humans give them credit for.
And in the case of the dog; when a dog misbehaves it is almost always the owner's fault, but the dog will be the one to pay the price.
A few years ago, someone had their dog euthanised because it bit their child; it later turned out that the dog had 17 staples in its ear, which was the child's doing. If a dog that didn't even do anything wrong isn't given a second chance, why should a human who's killed people and shows no sign of remorse be allowed to live?
Ants also are capable of living in society.
Some apes(or all of them, I don't know every kind of ape out there), live in society. An society is essential to their survival. ALL they do in their society is only the basic for it's maintenance, there is no moral in it. An ape will only understand that he shouldn't touch the green ball when you punish him some way for touching it or if you praise him for not touching it. The same applies to the dog. They are not capable of going out of their survival instincts.
A dog will fight for it's owner life, as it would fight for it's pack leader survival. Because he loves his pack leader? No, Because the survival of the strongest genetic line in the pack is important to the survival of the species. He is not intelligent enough to understand that, though, he just follows his instinct to protect the leader, the meaning of his actions are probably not known to him.
An alpha male monkey(or female, I don't know if there are any species of monkeys in which the female is the leader, I'm stating that so you don't come with the "you choose the male monkey because you are sexist") will fight for it's territorry because territory is important for the species survival, even when you put him in a "blank" room, there is still a high probability that he will try to defend it as territory, even though it doesn't do him any good. He probably doesn't know it doesn't do him any good, he just has the instinct to protect territory.
Last edited by lambchopsil at 12:40 am, Feb 9 2012