I know what you mean. I've not logged more than 2 hours in the last 2 weeks into Skyrim.

Well. It's not that bad, really. And all of the noteworthy entries has extensive literature lists of "respected" scholars.

Yes, that one.

No I advised on reading everything. Myths, fairytales, "serious" history books about all eras and cultures, books on mythology, andropology, psychology, sociology...

Still, there should be official records, like from Pilates' office about the events.
May have been lost though.

Never heard about Benny Hinn, must be an American thing.

Yes, and since these autorities contradict each other around the world it is our duty to question them.

Did you believe in a creator before reading about Kalam and Aquinas and they confirmed your belief, or did they "convert" you?

Well, a lot of cults and sects believe even more improbable (if not ridiculous) things and they also survive(d). See the Dionysus cult or Mithras or the Mormons and UFO sects of today.

There are "countless testimonials" for any religion, and even for "atheistic" schools and methods of "self-improvement". I know people who got their lives back together after following the Buddhist teachings. One friend managed his life's crisis by going to India and returning Muslim (he lives im Yemen now, and is - supposedly - happy). Another friend of mine had intestinal cancer and had been given up by modern medicine. He went to a Haitian shaman for 2 years and came back completely cured. He is now a renowned (and certified) healer himself in Berlin.
Or think of Stephen Hawkings, who just believed in himself.

Still I wouldn't want to be compared to sheep. Sheepish connotates to "not so bright". And I really don't want to be called anything that really mean "lifestock". Sheep that wander just are free and live their life.

I'm sorry but this is really bullshit. Animals also have an innate sence of right and wrong - it's just called instinct. Don't kill your own kind, much less your own family members. Care for and protect your offspring.
The innate sense of male humans is to have as much sex as possible with as many women as possible (God's law?) and the innate sense of the female is to pick the best man available to care for the kids and bind him. It's a lot more complex of course - but innate sense isn't saying much and has nothing to do with "higher power" but more with basic survival and procreation.

To me, "guilty" is someone who deliberately does the wrong things (i.e. harming others). Failing does not result in guilt, because it's just human.

But honestly, I don't think child abuse is (especially in the church) closely linked to pedophilia. Pedophiles "love" children. Most child molesters just abuse their position of power to force their desire on those who are available and cannot put up alot of resistance. Celibacy leading to sexual frustration may also be a factor to decrease the empathy of the perpetrators.

How do you get a nun pregnant?

Dress her up as an alter boy. *rimshot*

Yeah, trash me for that, fact is you'll be telling that joke to your friends tomorrow! :P

There is merit in considering a perpetual diminishing of evil to a point where there is ultimately no contrast, similar to trying to distinguish forms in a universe where everything is pure white. My argument however is that evil, and more specifically injustice, exists at a level where it actually impedes the execution of the divine plan.

A very simple example is murder. Suppose one is a sinner who is not yet redeemed, but will be given the opportunity to experience the lessons in life one needs to realise the evil in one and repent of it. But by chance one is murdered before reaching this point. So you end up with a scenario where someone who could have repented and enjoyed an eternity of bliss is now, due to a comparatively minor misfortune in their mortal life, instead damned to an eternity of suffering.

One has to either accept that god is an cruelly arbitrary being, or that these events are the will of that god, which is just as bad. The other possible excuse is it is the fault of the person for not redeeming themself further, but that too is a failure of theological thought. The plain fact is that people need time and experience to mature and develop into morally whole beings, and it is simply arrogance to step back and say "oh, well, serves them right for not coming to god when I told them to".

Far, far too much of it to go into it, though you can find lists aplenty in literature both online and off. Religions contain masses of contradictions, not to mention the many instances of relativistic or conditional morality which counteract its central message of "one right way".

The "logically necessary being" argument is flawed if you follow the chain of reasoning, but people looking for a justification of god tend to stop there rather than continuing the reasoning. It is beginning to appear from the research of physics that there may be no need for the First Cause to explain the universe. But even if there is, there is no reason to prefer an anthropomorphic deity as the embodiment of the FIrst Cause over other simpler, more logical explanations. Rather it is once again the theosophic principle of starting with the conclusion ("God exists") and then selecting the data to support it, rather than approaching things the proper way 'round.

There is no historical evidence for even the existence of Jesus, much less any event in his supposed life. That you believe otherwise reveals how isolated and monolithic your sources of information are. Even the sacred text that chronicles his life is not contemporary with him, but written much later, by people with agendas apart from his own supposed mission. So the one source you do have for him is incredibly unreliable and tainted, and that's before you even account for the subsequent centuries of editing, mistranslations, and outright misinterpretation.

That statement might look nice on a Christian greeting card, but it has nothing else to do with what I wrote. I was attempting to convey how completely transcendental such a being would be. Yet we are supposed to believe this universe-spanning consciousness of unknowable grandeur wants our worship, and deeply cares whether we eat shellfish and wear clothing of mixed fibres.

This is why I sometimes find intelligent religious types more frustrating than the ignorant "just because" believes. The intelligent ones know just enough logic and reason to be able to debate selected points, but are unable to take that reasoning to the full conclusions because they have a very specific ending they must reach at all costs. I am not so invested, and thus am free to go where logic and reason takes me. I see you, shackled by your belief which must be the final outcome regardless of the truth, telling me that you are free, and it brings to me a sadness that I cannot convey.

Used to be easier. In the oldey (middle age) Christian days the nuns' convents used to be exclusive brothels for the higher catholic clergy.

Yes and no. There were "safe" convents, were the feudal lords could put their female offspring in case of rebellion and/or pregnancy. But: There are also a quiet a few letters from countryside clergy to the Bishops and even Rome that the constant and well-known sexual excesses of the higher ranks damage the image of the Holy Church and drive people away from faith and where the authors beg their superiors to stop.

Why did they pretend to be nuns? WOW, it seems a lot of high ranking Catholic clergy were nothing but self righteous hypocrite assholes. Going to convents and banging all the nuns, then telling everyone else, such behavior is sinful and if you do such things you will burn in hell unless you repent... Thanks for teaching me something new.

Within a few hundred years they practically had crushed all "heathen" opposition and they had amassed incredible power (all the feudal ruler depended on them) and wealth. And you know: Power corrupts, near absolute power...

The wasn't only one "Reformation" but a reformation of the church and of the way the faith was taken to the believers (modesty and close to the people instead of pomposity and from above) was a constant struggle from multiple groups that sprang up everywhere - with good reason. But the church managed to crush most of them for a time. Those "heretics" were treated a lot worse than "witches" and other "heathens". See the story of John Wycliffe, the Hussites or the Anabaptists.
And The Reformation (Luther) only succeeded in surviving a full scale war that ravaged most of central Europe.

Some of these "heathens" were simply good honest people trying to show other people the Catholic Church is full of shit. And like all gangs, the Catholic Church made them pay for their insolent behavior with lots of torture, then death.

It's not THAT easy. Their foundation of power was their monopoly on the right to interpret the scripture and the infallibility of the Pope as God's representative on Earth. As long as this stood, they could threaten any ruler with excommunication - meaning taking away his "god-given" right to rule. If they hadn't crushed any insurgance and resistance with outmost brutality their Holy Roman Empire would have fallen apart much earlier.

Since we are on the subject I have a link here for a brilliant docudrama on the Spanish Inquisition. Some of you might want to give it a look.

The Spanish Inquisition

I know. A cult...a gang....why do they do what they do? Power... The day the Catholic Church got it's power is the day the real dark ages began...

My last comment on the subject in this thread:

Is there a god? I don't know. Anything that I would consider to be a true god is unknowable to my microcosmic mind. So I am open to the notion that it may be out there. But I have no reason to believe an anthropomorphic deity exists, certainly not one conjured post facto out of human cloth. Until such time as either hypothetical being makes itself unambiguously evident, I will not inflict upon myself the unreason of faith. Not that it would be genuine faith even if I did, since I would not be embracing it with my heart. Pascal may wager, but Sartre is my bidding partner in this round.

If there ever was perfect non-existence, then there wouldn't be anything that existed. Whether or not it is possible does not determine whether is is a meaningful concept. If something could come from non-existence, then something could be the cause of it's own existence. However, we don't see that. Rather, we see that whatever is caused is caused by something else.

I've been following this discussion with great interest.

I have a question. I always thought that Scientology and Mormonism were cults, but someone told me that after a cult attains a certain number of members or a large enough following, it becomes a religion. I don't have an answer to that and would welcome all feedback. Thanks. Sure do love this thread. I've learned so much.