[Credendovidis]

De Maria posted in the now closed "WHERE in the Bible are the scriptures about homosexuality?" :

Rev Phelps? I've never heard of him

I reacted with the following comment :

... And I assume you also never have heard about the intolerance of the RCC with it's inquisition

De Maria reacted with :

Anytime you want to debate about what you perceive was wrong with the Inquisition, start a thread on the matter. But I imagine, you're really not interested in truth or in details. You're just taking another opportunity to throw darts at religion

No, I do not throw darts at religion. That is an unfair accusation. All I do is pointing out that there is no objective supporting evidence for the existence of "God", and for "God" being the "Creator", and that any religious statement is based on subjective belief only.

I like to address the intolerance of the RCC with it's Inquisition, and De Maria's suggestion that it is only my perception that the Inquisition was wrong.

As early as 430 AD church leaders declared heresy punishable by death. Pope Gregory IX went one step further and established in 1233 the Inquisition, it was intended to combat and/or suppress heresy. Soon however it became an organization that tried to enforce the RCC doctrines on to all people, regardless if they were Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Atheist, or other.
This continued to deep in the 18' century, and all over the world. Many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were murdered in the most terrible ways to the greater glory of the "God" the RCC claimed to exist and to serve.
People got murdered for their beliefs. Scientists were murdered and/or jailed for the results of their research. People were murdered for failing to believe. Women and men were murdered accused of being witches (not only by the Inquisition, but also by the Protestants).

All I suggested was that De Maria never had heard about the intolerance of the RCC with it's Inquisition. And from his reaction it became clear that he rejects that the RCC's Inquisition was based on intolerance.
Well, if it was not intolerance and bloody murder of innocent people, how do you want to name these despicable actions otherwise?


Anyone ?

·

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes, it was a bad time for religion because the church leaders were not basing their rule on real religiion but were using the power of the church for their own self interest over any real religion.

It was also a good example of why Christ taught that his world is not of this world. The church is combined their belief with worldly government power. This was an example of two things, how bad man can be, and the fact that God's word is true and that his church will always come back even after it wonders. This is shown time and time again in the Old Testment how the Church wondered and came back

[magprob]

I would tell you in no uncertain terms what was wrong with the Inquisition, however, it would be heresy on my part. I can't piss off the Pope one more time without facing serious retribution... but... I will give you a thumbnail sketch.
It had something to do with complete control over the masses of sheeple and the money they bring. Any other open minded view of the world, the universe and GOD could endanger that control.
Did I say too much?

[George_1950]

There is as much objective evidence for the existence of God as there is for God's nonexistence. Are you saying that you, the planet, the galaxy, and the universe are an accident? That in itself is a great leap of faith. In fact, it is a great leap of denial. As for intolerance, the atrocities committed by rationalists are just as numerous and despicable as those committed by people of faith of whatever stripe.

[cal823]

It is a common misconception that "religion is the cause of all wars"
God does not cause wars (well, except in the old testament kinda)
It is peoples misinterpretations and manipulations that cause trouble, they are just often using god as an excuse to justify murder and discrimination

[magprob]

There is as much objective evidence for the existence of God as there is for God's nonexistence. Are you saying that you, the planet, the galaxy, and the universe are an accident? That in itself is a great leap of faith. In fact, it is a great leap of denial. As for intolerance, the atrocities committed by rationalists are just as numerous and despicable as those committed by people of faith of whatever stripe.

Keep scaring me like that George and I'll personally ask the Pope burn you at the stake in the next Inquisition.

[cal823]

Shun the unbeliever! Shun!
;)

[magprob]

I ain't never been shunned before... actually, I kind of like it. Gives me time to get my laundry done and my toenails clipped. You know you always put off clipping them toenails till they finally get hung up in the carpet and you nearly break your neck trippin.

[cal823]

Eeww I can't stand it when my nails get too long but I always put it off because I'm lazy lol :s
Though... if you like being shunned... I can shun you some more... maybe I can spit on you and rough you up a little if you like that kind of thing ;)

[magprob]

You can rough me up all you like but if you spit on me I go midevil on yo azz.

[cal823]

Lol

[simoneaugie]

The inquisition was an incident of Christianity wandering? No, it was clearly about authorized murder to facilitate the gathering of land, wealth and control. Sure, innocent people have been killed in the name of rationalism as well as religion. It's about money and power, and the fear of lack of them. Hate and intolerance is based on fear. Any system that teaches tolerance and love is potentially a cure for this fear.

However, don't the main religions on this planet teach their followers fear? Fear of going to hell. Fear of association with "sinners" and "devil worshippers." Fear of punishment by a creator that loves them conditionally. But then, if you follow Christianity, you can be a complete jerk and still go to heaven. You can tell me that it is not fear... well it sure isn't love.

We feel that something is wrong, or at least some do. That wrongness causes us to fight the ideology of the faithful. Some, like Cred, fight it with implacable rationalism. Sometimes, the fight is just arguments going in circles. When scripture is quoted, does the quoter take into account that the reader feels that the quoted source is worthless? For the unbeliever, scripture is not "The Truth!" How can there even be an intelligent discussion when this premise is not agreed on?

I cannot be rational and believe things when I see them. My faith in whatever is unshakeable. There cannot be a belief system for me that excludes any living thing. Everything in the world as we know it has value. The most logical rationalist has as much value as the most devout Christian. We don't see or know enough to judge. Yet we do know enough to choose to act through the opposite of fear.

[magprob]

Jumping Gee Wilikers! I agree.

[cal823]

A christian can be a complete jerk yes, but they are forgiven.
Forgiveness, compassion, tolerance, they are a part of love yes?
We all sin, so it would be unfair for god to allow (not send) us all to damnation? That would not be love, it would be justice yes, but not love or compassion.
God does not use fear tactics as such, he just tells us where we are headed, and offers a better destination.
Well, that's just my opinion, pick it apart as much as you like :)

[Curlyben]

[cal823]

Lol! Good one curly :)

[simoneaugie]

Cal, I have no desire to pick apart anyone's belief system. You have as much value as anyone in my mind and heart. Even if we are in total disagreement, we are part of one another. I choose to not fear our differences, how about you?

[Credendovidis]

There is as much objective evidence for the existence of God as there is for God's nonexistence.

There is no need at all for objective supported evidence for God's nonexistence. Specially as there is no single iota of objective supported evidence for God's existence in the first place.

Are you saying that you, the planet, the galaxy, and the universe are an accident?

No, these are not "accidents". They came into existence or were born. But that provides no logical support and/or objective supported evidence for the religious claim on the existence of some supra-natural entity...

·

[Credendovidis]

Some, like Cred, fight it with implacable rationalism .... When scripture is quoted, does the quoter take into account that the reader feels that the quoted source is worthless? For the unbeliever, scripture is not "The Truth!" How can there even be an intelligent discussion when this premise is not agreed on?

I see it more as impeccable rationalism. :D

Note that it is hardly ever the nonbeliever who tries to force his/her views onto others. My problem with theist activists is that they do not try to "spread the word", but try to force "the word" though the non-believers throats.
And how can there be an intelligent discussion, when one side bases it's views on empty non-objective supported claims? That has to end up with the non-believer "fighting" hot air, lot's of it!

:rolleyes:

·

[RickJ]

For anyone on ANY side, here are some helpful articles:

An Inquisition Primer (This Rock: September 2007)
Secrets of the Spanish Inquisition Revealed (This Rock: November 2007)
The Inquisition