Religious bigotry in seventh grade class room

Well, he's the Pope now, so if he isn't communicating doctrine, who is?

Well, he's the Pope now, so if he isn't communicating doctrine, who is?

What need, if man can converse with God directly, for a church to interpret God's words and teaching for him? What need for the authority of the church whatsoever?

Several speeches given both by JP2 and Ratzinger over the years speak to exactly this question, and would seem to indicate that the official position of the church is that man cannot determine morality of actions for himself, but instead must rely upon the church to do so for him. See Ratzinger's 'two levels of Conscience' speech given in Dallas in'91 - and the fact that the church continually gives out pronouncements as to what is and isn't acceptable 'in the eyes of god,' in an attempt to actually sway human behavior.

'Converse' implies a two-way flow of information.

The Catholic church doesn't say that individuals cannot Beseech God, only that they aren't properly equipped to understand what he has to say about anything. At least, to the best of my knowledge, this is the case.

As you acknowledge yourself, there is not any reliable evidence that your boy Jesus held he was the son of god, nor do i know of any authoritative source for that or that he held that he would die to redeem mankind. That makes the logic rather dodgy. Paul is hardly to be considered an authoritative source on Jesus. What i "believe" about scripture is based on sound historiographic method--the sources are too far removed from the events to be considered reliable.

Christ means anointed, and is probably a Greek translation of Messiah. Messiah means the prophesied deliverer of the Jews. Leaving aside that Jews aren't buying that line, it appears that one need only see the putative Jesus as having been the redeemer. There is no requirement that they believe that Jesus was the son of god, much less god himself.

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John passage “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (verse 14:28)

Jehovah's Witnesses emphasize use of God's biblical name, represented in the original texts by the Tetragrammaton, and in English they prefer to use the name, Jehovah. They believe that Jehovah is the only true God, the creator of all things, and the "Universal Sovereign". They believe that all worship should be directed toward him, and that he is not part of a Trinity; consequently, the religion places more emphasis on God than on Christ. They believe that the holy spirit is God's power or "active force" rather than a person.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's only direct creation, that everything else was created by means of Christ, and that the initial unassisted act of creation uniquely identifies Jesus as God's "only-begotten Son". Jesus served as a redeemer and a ransom sacrifice to pay for the sins of mankind. They believe Jesus died on a single upright torture stake rather than the traditional cross. They believe that references in the Bible to the Archangel Michael, Abaddon (Apollyon), and the Word all refer to Jesus. Jesus is considered to be the only intercessor and high priest between God and mankind, and appointed by God as the king and judge of his kingdom. His role as a mediator (referred to in 1 Timothy 2:5) is applied to the 'anointed' class, though the 'other sheep' are said to also benefit from the arrangement.(emphasis added)

The Arians did not believe that Jesus was divine.

Quote:

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's only direct creation, that everything else was created by means of Christ, and that the initial unassisted act of creation uniquely identifies Jesus as God's "only-begotten Son".

On the contrary. A conversation can be entirely one-way. For instance, I'm conversing with you, yet all of the information is going in one direction -- from me to you. You, in contrast, are providing nothing of value whatsoever.

Look at it this way.

I can ask my manager for a raise.
I can ask my coworkers to ask my manager to give me a raise.
There's a difference.

I'm making no claims for the efficacy of prayer.
I making no claims for any increasing efficacy for increasing volume of prayer.
I'm just distinguishing different kinds of prayer.

The fact that you have differing opinions than I on matters theological doesn't require you to be a dick. Nor does being a dick add to my or anyone else opinion of the quality of your contribution.

What more, your statement is factually untrue. The fact that you are (apparently) judging the quality of information flowing your direction from me as inadequate or irrelevant doesn't change the fact we are indeed exchanging information. You're also incorrect that a conversation can be 'one-way.' By definition, a conversation is an exchange of information. Look it up.

Can't help but note that nothing in your response actually directly related to anything that I said, but seems more like an attempt to incite or put me down in some way.

I'm not the one who made a completely unsupportable statement and then has furiously backtracked and obfuscated in a vain attempt to escape from that statement, yet somehow I'm the dick?

So you have no problem with the inadequate and irrelevant nature of your information so long as it's information of some kind? Well, then let me just reply by saying that a screw conveyor or auger conveyor is a mechanism that uses a rotating helical screw blade, called a "flighting", usually within a tube, to move liquid or granular materials.

That's because everything you said was completely unrelated to the point you initially raised and that I questioned. I'm paying attention to what you write. I encourage you to do the same.

georgeob1 wrote:

I suspect Lash's unknown 7th grader would find much of this to be very familiar material. All of this is an excellent example of human intolerance and bigotry.

Discussing inconsistencies with people's stated religious beliefs and the historical record they supposedly base those beliefs on is tantamount to 'intolerance and bigotry?'

Recall that none of us are telling anyone what they can or cannot believe or asking anyone to change any of their behaviors whatsoever. That being the case, I think you are off the mark on this one. In fact, quite the opposite is true; nobody here is being 'intolerant' of anyone's beliefs at all. We tolerate them perfectly fine.

Quote:

Fashion, of course dictates regional variations and periodic changes in the groups that are the common targets of this stuff, and others that are sacred and immune. However, these are the only details that appear to change.

Pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in the differences between the established Catholic church's pronouncement of moral authority and both the actual words of Jesus (as recorded) and the actions of the leaders of the church has been in fashion, to the best of my knowledge, for well over 1500 years.

George wrote:

. . . I'm making no claims for the efficacy of prayer. . . I'm just
distinguishing different kinds of prayer.

Sure. Let's use your example - why would your co-workers asking your
manager to give you a raise be considered to be more effective or
meaningful than asking for your own raise? . . .

Possibly so. However, this is a claim the 7th grade student could have made as well. More significantly, if you were to have offered comments and criticisms here similar to your about the Catholic Church, instead about (say) homosexuals or African Americans, I think you would have been greeted with a storm of protest about your intolerance and bigotry ( euphamistically lebelled as homophobia and racism).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

George wrote:

. . . I'm making no claims for the efficacy of prayer. . . I'm just
distinguishing different kinds of prayer.

Sure. Let's use your example - why would your co-workers asking your
manager to give you a raise be considered to be more effective or
meaningful than asking for your own raise? . . .

I give up.

Quote:

I'm not the one who made a completely unsupportable statement and then has furiously backtracked and obfuscated in a vain attempt to escape from that statement, yet somehow I'm the dick?

Exactly correct.

This is indeed true. Irrelevant, but true. See how being polite works?

You could have simply asked for more clarification, or pointed out that the points that I was making were irrelevant to my original statement, or asked for more clarification of how they were relevant. But instead you felt it would be more fun or productive to attempt to insult me. That's not very interesting to me.

Quote:

Possibly so. However, this is a claim the 7th grade student could have made as well. More significantly, if you were to have offered comments and criticisms here similar to your about the Catholic Church, instead about (say) homosexuals or African Americans, I think you would have been greeted with a storm of protest about your intolerance and bigotry ( euphamistically lebelled as homophobia and racism).

It's quite impossible for us to know the outcome of a fictional conversation you've dreamed up. I think it's difficult, however, to compare the Catholic church and a discussion of their actions vs. their stated morals, with a ethnic or sexually-oriented group such as African Americans or Homosexuals; in that criticism of those groups typically relies on inherent characteristics of those groups, whereas that of the church lies in the actions of those within it, not the inherent characteristics of the group of people.

The 7th grader's comments, were they backed up with logical reasoning (or even an attempt at it) are not necessarily bigoted; but they were out of place, because that forum wasn't appropriate for discussions of that type. A2K, on the other hand, is entirely appropriate for discussions of that type. So, once again, the comparison that you are attempting to make here is not what I would call an entirely valid one

Right, because providing responses in a discussion that don't match your standards of relevance is the height of disrespect and certainly sufficient grounds to insult someone.

Nonsense. It would be very easy to discuss groups of people, including those I listed, based on their collective individual actions actions, just as you claim to have done about the Catholic Church, which itself is merely a group of people. You are trying to escape your hypocrisy here by playing with definitions and categorical evasion.