What is Your Religion?

[Doctor Who]

Originally Posted by FashionableFedora

Yes, the Church really does encourage its laity to read scripture, but does not teach that reading scripture alone is sufficient to know God. Man can only achieve salvation through the sacraments, which were entrusted to the Apostles, and passed down through Apostolic succession to the bishops of the current day.

Heretics like Tyndale erred not in encouraging laymen to read scripture, but in claiming that knowledge of scripture was sufficient to have a full relationship with God. If he had petitioned the pope (or likely even the Archbishop of Canterbury) to sanction a vernacular translation of the Bible in order to instruct laymen in the Christian faith, there wouldn't have been an issue. His rejection of Christ's bride was the issue, not translation of the Bible.

If the Church wanted the laity to read the scriptures, then why wasn't there already a translation in the common vernacular? The Vulgate (Latin) had been around since the 4th Century CE, so they could have translated it if they wanted to.

[FashionableFedora]

Originally Posted by TheGillotine

Ok, which didn't he believe?

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.

Probably most of them, though I don't have concrete evidence except for:

3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

This one fore sure. He is on record as saying Jesus was the son of a Greek soldier.

4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

Probably believed in this one though, not too controversial for a person of any religious persuasion.

[V1per41]

Did they commit atrocities in the name of Christianity? Probably yes, but debatable, and for the sake of argument I'll go along with no.

Did they do it in the name of atheism? I know you never claimed that they did, but many do, so I'm including it here for completeness. The answer to this question is very obviously no.

So where does this get us? Plenty of atrocities have still been committed by Christians, whether this one was or not is of little importance to me.

So I guess my next question is what's your point? What are you trying to get at?

[TheGillotine]

[FashionableFedora]

Originally Posted by TheGillotine

Moreover, I see this as entirely irrelevant. It is a historical fact that Christians have committed atrocities, and their faith was not a deterrent factor.

It is also an historical fact that faith has been a strong motivator toward acts of charity and mercy, such as the Church being the sole voice in the Spanish court speaking against the genocide against native Americans. Not all who claim to be Christians follow Christian teachings. My point was that places with a strong church presence and stronger Christian values tend to commit fewer atrocities than societies without such uplifting influences. I think the historical record corroborates. I gave you many examples, which you scoffed at.

[FashionableFedora]

Originally Posted by V1per41

So I guess my next question is what's your point? What are you trying to get at?

My original point was that societies with a strong Church presence and stronger Christian values tend to commit fewer atrocities than societies without such uplifting influences. I think the historical record corroborates.

[Paul Brand]

Originally Posted by V1per41

You're not helping your argument here. What religion Hitler or most Nazi's followed isn't important to me. What's important is the people realize that their atrocities were not the result of non-belief [in God?].

Vacuous claim. Again, why would one want to be an atheist, considering that atheists have never done anything good as a result of non-belief?

[V1per41]

Because you gave the dark ages as example of a good influence.

[Paul Brand]

Originally Posted by V1per41

Did they commit atrocities in the name of Christianity? Probably yes, but debatable, and for the sake of argument I'll go along with no.

Did they do it in the name of atheism? I know you never claimed that they did, but many do, so I'm including it here for completeness. The answer to this question is very obviously no.

So where does this get us? Plenty of atrocities have still been committed by Christians, whether this one was or not is of little importance to me.

So I guess my next question is what's your point? What are you trying to get at?

What are you trying to get at? Your logic shows that Christians have done good in the name of Christianity, and atheists haven't done anything good in the name of atheism. It's a silly game to play, and entirely vacuous.

[V1per41]

Originally Posted by Paul Brand

Vacuous claim. Again, why would one want to be an atheist, considering that atheists have never done anything good as a result of non-belief?

The bolded statement is just plain wrong.

I for one, care about what is correct. That is why I'm an atheist. Not because it feels good, or because it makes me a better person, or because I'm just rebelling. I'm an atheist because all claims for the existence of a super-natural deity are at best, just plain wrong, and at worst, extremely detrimental to society.