If there was no rain there would be no vegetation and animal life. The vegetation would dry up and die followed by the animals who depended upon it for food. Not to mention drinking water.
i think he means that there would be no rain like falling rain, but rather a constant misty humidity in which plants can be perfectly watered.
LOL!!! You're right! Don't forget to add that it's ok for a Priest to mollest an altar boy and the Pope and his Bishops to cover it up.
haha oh yes and don't forget that you have to believe that the wizard sent his kid to be murdered in order to forgive the sinners who had always sinned since the naked woman took the apple! oh hahhah. oh wait? you believe that part.. oops.
Actually, I do mind. I take my faith very seriously, as do most of the rest of the 95% of the people on this planet who believe in some form of Divine Being. And I think your blanket statement that all faith or even questioning uncertainty about the possibility of something beyond this plain of existence is "moronic" and "a fairy tale", smacks of the worst form of hubris and arrogance that I've found to be very common among most atheists and non-believers. And it is that one quality about atheists that gets my blood boiling about them, just as much as religious fanatics who attempt to violently bend people and nations to their own narrow theological interpretations. Puny little arrogant despots like Michael Newdow and Ted Turner who think they know so much they can stand on the mountaintop, point at the sky, and say "NOTHING AND NO ONE IS UP THERE! NOTHING!" You don't agree with my spiritual beliefs, fine. I believe in spreading the Gospel, as per the Great Commission, but hey, if I tell you about it,and you say "Thanks, but no thanks," oh well, I tried my best, and I'll live and let live after that. You think you know with absolute certainty that there is no god, no heaven, no life after death, go ahead. I'm just as certain that these things exist and are real. But I draw the line at having my beliefs called moronic, especially when an elitist 5% of the world's population has the arrogance to assume they are superior to the other 95% simply because that tiny group of people is uncomfortable with not being in complete and total control of their lives and destinies at all times or the idea that the human existence is limited and that powers beyond their comprehension are at play in the Universe. My beliefs have just as much validity and logic as yours do, and I have literally hundreds of years of scholarly study, theology, philosophy, logic, and thought, bound in the pages of volumes of books, by men much smarter than you or I backing my side up. What support does atheism have? A few obscure books by a few nihilist, narcissistic malcontents unhappy with their lot in life and seeking some reason for it other than looking within at their own warped minds. Now, nothing personal, martin, nor do I think any of those definitions fit you, but I detect just a little bit of smugness in your absolute certainty that all religion is fantasy. As fanatical a Christian as I am, I honestly can't say I have never questioned or doubted my faith. You can't tell me there have never been times when you've contemplated the possibility that God might exist and that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong. But whether you have or not, I really don't think you should be so condescending and jerk-faced towards people of faith. You can disagree with a religious viewpoint AND be respectful of that viewpoint. Its' really not that hard.
Not trying to proselytize or convert you Martin, but I'm just wondering...what exactly is it that you find stupid about a philosphy that asks us to love one another as we love ourselves? Seems to me that that would be a pretty good way to live if everybody followed it.
Just ran across this thread today. Not sure how long it's been going on but it took me about an hour to read through. Some good stuff being thrown around. I was raised Catholic and believe there is a supreme being. I doubt that it's Jesus (although it could be) and agree that most of the Christian religion has been enhanced and exaggerated by man. Still, most of the underlying "way of living your life" values are positive and I have no problem raising my son a Christian also. I will likely discuss my views at the appropriate time with him. To me, there are certain things in life I've witnessed that make me believe in some sort of higher being. Even if there isn't One, Christianity has taught me a lot about the right way to treat fellow humans. If I find out tomorrow there is no God (or wizard), I would continue to treat others with respect and lend a helping hand. Unfortunately, I fear many others would not do the same. Oh well, I agree that ignorance of the universe it something we have to accept, at least for now.
previously in this thread i said: "i don't even really deny the existence of god. i just think anyone claiming to know any specifics about god doesnt know what they are talking about. if i had to guess though, i would say there is no god..... i wouldnt be stunned if there was some sort of creating thing" so i say nothing with absolute certainty. i am only honest about my opinions of your beliefs. my opinion is that your beliefs are moronic. this is a discussion forum, i feel like i might as well be honest about my opinions. i feel similar to the way you might feel about my views if i told you i read crystal balls or tea leaves and base my life on it. furthermore, i made specific points about my not being superior to anyone, and that was the reason i think it is so fascinating that people who are obviously super smart believe what seem to me like children's morality fables. see, look what i said earlier. sure, i would never tell you that. god very well may exist. a hindu god? less likely, an islamic god? doubt it. a christian god? all these seem less likely for the simple reason that the more specifics you pile up about god, the less likely they are to be right. i know i have seen that a universe exists. could it have been created by some sort of god? maybe so. after that, its all lies and guesses masquerading as answers. so again, i think that my lack of answers about the universe makes it no more likely that your answers are true. i think i said it pretty well earlier, so let me quote myself: and finally: christianity has no monopoly on morality. what some call the golden rule, others might call the categorical imperative and see from a secular rationalist perspective, and it is surely a great way to make decisions. don't think that christianity is the only path to being a fair, generous and genuinely good person. quote of the day: "Religion is so absurd that it comes close to imbecility." - HL Mencken
None of the things you mention above are doctrine. They are all practices or in man cases myth. I will address each briefly. The Church did not have a problem with the theory of heliocentric universe. It's problem was with the method Galileo used to construct his theory. It was not in keeping with the scientific method believed to be the correct one at the time. furthermore his house arrest in the church tower was to keep the secular government from putting him to death. As far back as Thomas Aquinas the church has recognized that whatever science has discovered is part of God's creation and not contradictory to anything the church teaches. The church burns and tortures heretics. No it doesn't and it never did. The church acted as judge in heresy cases. The secular government set penalties. Women have been active in the Church since its foundation in 33. It does still prohibit ordination as Christ never comissioned women. The practices of Eucharistic Reverence have never been consistant. They change with the times and logistics. Catholics are still suppossed to abstain from meat on Fridays. This practice can be traced back to the second century hermits. Only in America is theis form of pennance not required. American Catholics are supposed to make some other form of pennence in its place. The Church teachs that masturbation is a mortal sin no matter of your situation in life. Married or single we still answer to God for violation of the natural law. Touching of the Host has changed because of logistics. It was never a mortal sin to touch the Eucharist. The early house mass required laymen to touch it. It became less necessary as the Church developed. It was never forbidden. It just didnt happen. And Sourdough you shouldn't beleive anything you read on Jack Chic's website there is no truth in anything he says.
Whether it was the church or the secular govenment who did the actual burning and torturing the fact is that by participating the chuch condoned the inquisition. If the church had been against the torturing and burning of people they could have refused to participate and even prevented the practice. The fact that they didn't is proof that they approved of it and were an active participant in the inquisiton. If this is true is there a man who ever lived who won't burn in hell for whacking his willie?
