Christian School Student Suspended If He Attends Prom

[doppelganger]

every part of this article is ridiculous.
im christian and all i have to say is that i am embarrassed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_on_re_us/us_school_dance_flap

thoughts?

edit: this was already posted in the general forums, my bad

[GeeBee]

Does the kid look like Kevin Bacon? I swear I've seen this scenario play out before with Kevin Bacon...

[gr33ndayfr3ak]

Wow that's pretty insane.
I'm also Christian [Catholic, actually], and this is a perfect example of, not only what I hate about the church, but also of how corrupt it really is.
Those crazy fundamentalist Baptists...

[undonesweater93]

"Rock Music is part of the counterculture which seeks to implant seeds of rebellion in young people's hearts and minds."

And Here at St. Elsewhere's Christian Academy, We don't tolerate independent thinking...

[Regards]

Wow that's pretty insane.
I'm also Christian [Catholic, actually], and this is a perfect example of, not only what I hate about the church, but also of how corrupt it really is.
Those crazy fundamentalist Baptists...
As I've said before, Catholic =/= Christian,

But that's besides the point. As I stated in the thread in general already made on this, I think its going to be ashame that people with blame this on Christianity, and not the abusers of power that be. I would love for the heads of this school to tell the members of bands such as Sleeping Giant that what they're doing is part of the "counterculture"

[doppelganger]

As I've said before, Catholic =/= Christian,

But that's besides the point. As I stated in the thread in general already made on this, I think its going to be ashame that people with blame this on Christianity, and not the abusers of power that be. I would love for the heads of this school to tell the members of bands such as Sleeping Giant that what they're doing is part of the "counterculture"

ha agreed. also it's interesting you bring up sleeping giant because they were on tour recently with the glorious unseen. i guess the glorious unseen is part of the counterculture because of the scene they associate themselves with. ha.

[more heart]

:boobies: :beerbros: :drunk: :kiss:


What are they going to do to me now?

[Regards]

ha agreed. also it's interesting you bring up sleeping giant because they were on tour recently with the glorious unseen. i guess the glorious unseen is part of the counterculture because of the scene they associate themselves with. ha.
Right? Might as well take out all of Facedown's line-up, because what they are doing is not furthering God's word or bearing witness to anyone. Rebels

[doppelganger]

Right? Might as well take out all of Facedown's line-up, because what they are doing is not furthering God's word or bearing witness to anyone. Rebels
i wonder what they would think of come&live! records... hmm

[fightinirish217]

Wow, this is insane. I'm Catholic, which also makes me Christian obviously, and this is just completely ridiculous.

I'm not surprised by anything in this world anymore though.

[deanster321]

Does the kid look like Kevin Bacon? I swear I've seen this scenario play out before with Kevin Bacon...
I was about to say, all I could think of while I was reading that article was Footloose.

[gr33ndayfr3ak]

As I've said before, Catholic =/= Christian,

But that's besides the point. As I stated in the thread in general already made on this, I think its going to be ashame that people with blame this on Christianity, and not the abusers of power that be. I would love for the heads of this school to tell the members of bands such as Sleeping Giant that what they're doing is part of the "counterculture"

Catholics are Christians, but not all Chirstians are Catholic...

You do bring up a good point though..I guess I should have thought about that more before I posted.
The Church's corruption is a result of the authorities abusing their powers and misinterpreting things, as you said.

I definitely overstated that before..my bad.

[The Personist]

ridiculous.

[Machu505]

Perfectly rational.

[eleven eleven]

Uh. "Rock music" plants seeds of rebellion in young hearts and minds?

What is this, the 60's?

I think "Rock" music is certainly accepted enough to have proven otherwise....

[Misstamara]

i thought that Catholics Were Totally different to Christians ..In Australia we have totally different schools/Beliefs..
for example..
Magdalene Catholic High School
Mount Annan Christian College
:?>

[Dicebox]

Q: Why don't Baptists believe in premarital sex?

...

A: Because it leads to dancing!

[saysmydoctor]

They can take our dances and they can take our rock music but they can never take OUR FREEDOM.

http://thestockmasters.com/images/william-wallace-braveheart.gif

[TK]

There is nothing wrong with this. The parents knew what kind of school they were enrolling their child in, so they shouldn't be surprised by the rules they agreed to.

[saysmydoctor]

Actually, legally a school can only act in loco parentis within the institution.

[TK]

Actually, legally a school can only act loco parentis within the institution.

Legally, a private school can do just about anything it wants.

[saysmydoctor]

As one who went to catholic school, I can tell you that's completely false. Private schools still have to allow First Amendment rights--Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is the precedent there. The school can act in loco parentis--but considering him going to prom doesn't disturb the school workplace, the grounds to sue if he is suspended are so high, I'd highly suggest a reversal on their part.

[TK]

As one who went to catholic school, I can tell you that's completely false. Private schools still have to allow First Amendment rights--Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is the precedent there. The school can act in loco parentis--but considering him going to prom doesn't disturb the school workplace, the grounds to sue if he is suspended are so high, I'd highly suggest a reversal on their part.

I also went to a private Christian school, and my understanding is that private schools have much more leeway than public schools do. And Tinker vs. Des Moines was a court ruling for public schools, not private schools I believe, so I don't see how it is relevant in this matter. I also do not see grounds to sue. He signed a contract that stated such behavior would result in disciplinary action.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the schools approach and decision, but I think they have every right to do so.

[saysmydoctor]

It was over a case in a public school, but Tinker is used frequently concerning boarding schools and catholic schools. All schools have an obligation to uphold First Amendment rights.

[GeeBee]

You should have seen how much Brigham Young University upheld First Amendment rights when Dick Cheney was protested. God Bless America...as long as you're a conservative war-monger.

[Regards]

Catholics are Christians, but not all Chirstians are Catholic...

You do bring up a good point though..I guess I should have thought about that more before I posted.
The Church's corruption is a result of the authorities abusing their powers and misinterpreting things, as you said.

I definitely overstated that before..my bad.
Sorry brother, but I have to disagree. A lot of Catholic teachings, and doctrines go against a lot of what the Bible says, not to mention there is a separate "Catholic Bible" which has 8 extra books in it. Historically speaking Catholics and Christians believe in the same Christ, but a lot of what the Catholic church stands for is exactly opposite of what the Bible says.

[Liz_who?]

The Catholic school I got kicked out of was like that. I don't get shit like that.

[Liz_who?]

Legally, a private school can do just about anything it wants.

Thats not at all true.

[GeeBee]

Sorry brother, but I have to disagree. A lot of Catholic teachings, and doctrines go against a lot of what the Bible says, not to mention there is a separate "Catholic Bible" which has 8 extra books in it. Historically speaking Catholics and Christians believe in the same Christ, but a lot of what the Catholic church stands for is exactly opposite of what the Bible says.

:wallbash:
Christians arguing about who's more Christ-y than the other one. Christians arguing about who's more true to the Bible than the other (as if that's a good thing). Christians arguing about which version of their fantasy is better than the other.
Get real, the lot of you.

[live.]

My high school (catholic) canceled prom my senior year. So, I just went to the public high school's prom and got 10x drunker than I ever would have before.

[The Personist]

:wallbash:
Christians arguing about who's more Christ-y than the other one. Christians arguing about who's more true to the Bible than the other (as if that's a good thing). Christians arguing about which version of their fantasy is better than the other.
Get real, the lot of you.

You're the kind of atheist that gives atheists a bad name. Jerk.

[doppelganger]

:wallbash:
Christians arguing about who's more Christ-y than the other one. Christians arguing about who's more true to the Bible than the other (as if that's a good thing). Christians arguing about which version of their fantasy is better than the other.
Get real, the lot of you.
i would expect the same between the 'atheists that actually know what atheism is' and the 'atheists that are only atheist because it's cool.' i always seem to find an atheist have to redefine what atheism is to the latter group (especially on reddit) also, i always see the whole atheism vs agnostic debate between those that don't really know what they are talking about.

edit: no, i am not implying that atheists argue more than christians

Sorry brother, but I have to disagree. A lot of Catholic teachings, and doctrines go against a lot of what the Bible says, not to mention there is a separate "Catholic Bible" which has 8 extra books in it. Historically speaking Catholics and Christians believe in the same Christ, but a lot of what the Catholic church stands for is exactly opposite of what the Bible says. that would be more catholic vs protestant, but i agree nonetheless. i could go more into detail but i won't. the catholic church did, however, become more protestant-esque after Vatican II

[TK]

Thats not at all true.

I was putting that in the context of signing a contract. A student has significantly less rights after doing so than he would in a public school and whatever he agrees to on the contract he signs also limits his rights.

[Regards]

:wallbash:
Christians arguing about who's more Christ-y than the other one. Christians arguing about who's more true to the Bible than the other (as if that's a good thing). Christians arguing about which version of their fantasy is better than the other.
Get real, the lot of you.
Lol. I've seen you on these forums and arguing with with you is exactly like the smiley you posted, pounding your head against a brick wall.

[Dicebox]

:wallbash:
Christians arguing about who's more Christ-y than the other one. Christians arguing about who's more true to the Bible than the other (as if that's a good thing). Christians arguing about which version of their fantasy is better than the other.
Get real, the lot of you.
I used to think you were cool. Understanding that everyone had a right to believe something, you just wanted people to really question why they believe what they believe. Now I think you're annoying and arguing pointlessly. In actuality there is a point to saying that Catholicism=/=Christianity. In the same way that Islam=/=Buddhism. There is actual merit to discussing the differences if people don't see them. You would argue with someone that called themselves an "atheist" if they still believed there could be a god. Is there any point in all of it? Yes there is, there is a point if the person's beliefs/religion turns out to be right in the end.

[GeeBee]

You're the kind of atheist that gives atheists a bad name. Jerk.

sniffle.

Lol. I've seen you on these forums and arguing with with you is exactly like the smiley you posted, pounding your head against a brick wall.

Why, because C.S. Lewis' arguments for Christianity are filled with holes?

I used to think you were cool. Understanding that everyone had a right to believe something, you just wanted people to really question why they believe what they believe. Now I think you're annoying and arguing pointlessly. In actuality there is a point to saying that Catholicism=/=Christianity. In the same way that Islam=/=Buddhism. There is actual merit to discussing the differences if people don't see them. You would argue with someone that called themselves an "atheist" if they still believed there could be a god. Is there any point in all of it? Yes there is, there is a point if the person's beliefs/religion turns out to be right in the end.

I never said you didn't have the right to believe something. Just that I had a right to scrutinize it. Just like you're scrutinizing Catholicism. There actually is merit in discussing the difference between rational/irrational belief if people don't see them. And no, I have no argument with atheists who believe there could be a god. I actually hope there is.

[The Personist]

sniffle.



Why, because C.S. Lewis' arguments for Christianity are filled with holes?



I never said you didn't have the right to believe something. Just that I had a right to scrutinize it. Just like you're scrutinizing Catholicism. There actually is merit in discussing the difference between rational/irrational belief if people don't see them. And no, I have no argument with atheists who believe there could be a god. I actually hope there is.

Faith is irrational. Looking for it through logic and reason just doesn't make sense. Also, the God you don't believe in probably isn't the God some people believe in. There's so much presumption and lack of knowledge on the part of atheists concerning religion.

[GeeBee]

Faith is irrational. Looking for it through logic and reason just doesn't make sense. Also, the God you don't believe in probably isn't the God some people believe in. There's so much presumption and lack of knowledge on the part of atheists concerning religion.

Yeah. Believing in things that don't make sense...doesn't make sense.

If religion is based on iirrational and unsubstantiated claims, no amount of "understanding" of religion will fix that. That's like claiming that I need to read more volumes of Tolkien if I don't think Lord of the Rings is based on a true story.

Who's making the presumtion? You're the one claiming that in spite of sound scientific data, the universe was created by a bearded guy who makes himself known via burning bushes and knocking up virgins. A guy who needs his son to be tortured for the sake of saving mankind from the natures he created them with.

You claim ATHEISTS are the presumptious ones? YOU'RE the ones making the outrageous claims!

[billyboatkid]

Sorry brother, but I have to disagree. A lot of Catholic teachings, and doctrines go against a lot of what the Bible says, not to mention there is a separate "Catholic Bible" which has 8 extra books in it. Historically speaking Catholics and Christians believe in the same Christ, but a lot of what the Catholic church stands for is exactly opposite of what the Bible says.
Agreed 100%

[WordsandMusic]

as a follower of Christ (I refuse to use the term Christian, for the misunderstanding involved in what that title now implies) I apologize for this schools GROSS misinterpretation of the teachings of Jesus. I promise you not all "Christians" are so nutty.

[GeeBee]

as a follower of Christ (I refuse to use the term Christian, for the misunderstanding involved in what that title now implies) I apologize for this schools GROSS misinterpretation of the teachings of Jesus. I promise you not all "Christians" are so nutty.

I'm starting to wonder...

[QuikTrig]

I'm starting to wonder...

beliefs aside, your posts are so goddamn condescending all the time.

[The Personist]

Yeah. Believing in things that don't make sense...doesn't make sense.

If religion is based on iirrational and unsubstantiated claims, no amount of "understanding" of religion will fix that. That's like claiming that I need to read more volumes of Tolkien if I don't think Lord of the Rings is based on a true story.

Who's making the presumtion? You're the one claiming that in spite of sound scientific data, the universe was created by a bearded guy who makes himself known via burning bushes and knocking up virgins. A guy who needs his son to be tortured for the sake of saving mankind from the natures he created them with.

You claim ATHEISTS are the presumptious ones? YOU'RE the ones making the outrageous claims!

Your lovely abstract of the Bible proves how ignorant you are of theology or religion in general, thus making my outrageous claim quite rageous.

Furthermore, you presume that I believe such nonsense. I seem to recall some old adage about pots and kettles...

[TheZeroKid]

Sorry brother, but I have to disagree. A lot of Catholic teachings, and doctrines go against a lot of what the Bible says, not to mention there is a separate "Catholic Bible" which has 8 extra books in it. Historically speaking Catholics and Christians believe in the same Christ, but a lot of what the Catholic church stands for is exactly opposite of what the Bible says.

The basis of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the son of God. Considering that Catholics believe this, that would make them a Christian religion. Everything else, from the dogma all the way downward doesn't take away the fact that Catholics believe that Christ is the son of God, sent to earth to die for our sins, the same as Protestants, Methodists, Baptists, etc. For the record, I was raised Catholic, and I hate when this is brought up.

[secretsociety92]

I hate people like this, it is the 21st century and for some reason the church has no idea of this and that is why less and less people join them and one reason why I am not part of it because if I was I would not be able to 3/4 of the stuff I do right now.

[doppelganger]

follow arrow
i was hoping you would quote me! oh well.

Your lovely abstract of the Bible proves how ignorant you are of theology or religion in general, thus making my outrageous claim quite rageous.
Furthermore, you presume that I believe such nonsense. I seem to recall some old adage about pots and kettles...
i wanna be friends with you.

The basis of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the son of God. Considering that Catholics believe this, that would make them a Christian religion. Everything else, from the dogma all the way downward doesn't take away the fact that Catholics believe that Christ is the son of God, sent to earth to die for our sins, the same as Protestants, Methodists, Baptists, etc. For the record, I was raised Catholic, and I hate when this is brought up.
true, the core of it is all the same, but other stuff makes protestants iffy about Catholicism's take on other stuff(substantialism, purgatory stuff, etc). i won't go into detail because you seem to hate talking about it. i understand and respect your thoughts.

I hate people like this, it is the 21st century and for some reason the church has no idea of this and that is why less and less people join them and one reason why I am not part of it because if I was I would not be able to 3/4 of the stuff I do right now.
agreed.
that is why i said this in a different thread (click arrow to follow)
click the arrow

[WTG]

Sorry brother, but I have to disagree. A lot of Catholic teachings, and doctrines go against a lot of what the Bible says, not to mention there is a separate "Catholic Bible" which has 8 extra books in it. Historically speaking Catholics and Christians believe in the same Christ, but a lot of what the Catholic church stands for is exactly opposite of what the Bible says.

Not true at all. Those 8 books were in the original compilation of the Bible, but they weren't in the Greek compilation, so the Protestants took them out. Catholics are undoubtedly Christian, with no ifs, ands, or buts about it. None of their views goes against Christian teachings. Hell, most Christian teachings come from the Catholic Church itself before the split. The concept of the Holy Trinity comes from Catholic teachings, not directly stated in the Bible. I'm sorry, but I've been involved with Protestant Churches, and I've been involved in Catholic Churches, and you have no idea what you are saying. If you say Catholics aren't Christian, then you would also have to say that Orthodox Churches aren't Chrisitans, Evangelical Churches aren't Christian, and Lutheran Churches aren't Christian, since they are all so similar.


You may not agree with the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean you can say a statement like that like it's fact.

[x togepi x]

Yeah. Believing in things that don't make sense...doesn't make sense.

If religion is based on iirrational and unsubstantiated claims, no amount of "understanding" of religion will fix that. That's like claiming that I need to read more volumes of Tolkien if I don't think Lord of the Rings is based on a true story.

Who's making the presumtion? You're the one claiming that in spite of sound scientific data, the universe was created by a bearded guy who makes himself known via burning bushes and knocking up virgins. A guy who needs his son to be tortured for the sake of saving mankind from the natures he created them with.

You claim ATHEISTS are the presumptious ones? YOU'RE the ones making the outrageous claims!

You are quite presumptuous as you assume your way of looking at the world is the only one that has merit. Religious narratives are meaningful even if they can't be rigidly be judged in regards to their "truth value". I mean, does your hard-on for Darwin help you sleep better at night?

[Regards]

sniffle.



Why, because C.S. Lewis' arguments for Christianity are filled with holes?



I never said you didn't have the right to believe something. Just that I had a right to scrutinize it. Just like you're scrutinizing Catholicism. There actually is merit in discussing the difference between rational/irrational belief if people don't see them. And no, I have no argument with atheists who believe there could be a god. I actually hope there is.
Hahah. Why the hostility dude? I'm sorry if you've been wronged by somebody who claimed to be a Christian, but that gives you no right to attack me.
The basis of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the son of God. Considering that Catholics believe this, that would make them a Christian religion. Everything else, from the dogma all the way downward doesn't take away the fact that Catholics believe that Christ is the son of God, sent to earth to die for our sins, the same as Protestants, Methodists, Baptists, etc. For the record, I was raised Catholic, and I hate when this is brought up.
Correct, and as I've pointed out in my previous post, we both believe in the same historical Christ. A lot of people leave out though that we both also called to believe in the divine inspiration and writings of the Bible. A lot of the Catholic doctrines go against a lot of what the Bible says. I mean looking at Mary alone and how she's revered in the Catholic church is enough to put up a red flag. I was raised in a Catholic church as well, but eventually realized that their representation of the Bible and living according to it has be wayyyy twisted.
Not true at all. Those 8 books were in the original compilation of the Bible, but they weren't in the Greek compilation, so the Protestants took them out. Catholics are undoubtedly Christian, with no ifs, ands, or buts about it. None of their views goes against Christian teachings. Hell, most Christian teachings come from the Catholic Church itself before the split. The concept of the Holy Trinity comes from Catholic teachings, not directly stated in the Bible. I'm sorry, but I've been involved with Protestant Churches, and I've been involved in Catholic Churches, and you have no idea what you are saying. If you say Catholics aren't Christian, then you would also have to say that Orthodox Churches aren't Chrisitans, Evangelical Churches aren't Christian, and Lutheran Churches aren't Christian, since they are all so similar.


You may not agree with the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean you can say a statement like that like it's fact.
Indeed a lot of them do, and I'm not talking about the Catholic church of years past, not even the Catholic church of 100 years ago. I'm talking about the Catholic church of now. You're right, I don't know totally in depth about what I'm talking about within the inner teaching and history of the Catholic church. I'm not called to, I'm called to know the teaching of Christ, and as I've stated above, the divine inspiration of the Bible. It's not hard to walk into a catholic church and seeing they're already breaking one of the 10 commandments of no graven images.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Indeed a lot of them do, and I'm not talking about the Catholic church of years past, not even the Catholic church of 100 years ago. I'm talking about the Catholic church of now. You're right, I don't know totally in depth about what I'm talking about within the inner teaching and history of the Catholic church. I'm not called to, I'm called to know the teaching of Christ, and as I've stated above, the divine inspiration of the Bible. It's not hard to walk into a catholic church and seeing they're already breaking one of the 10 commandments of no graven images.
The Bible that has been altered numerous times and was set into place by the Catholic church. They are following what they think is the Bible and you are following what you think is the Bible. I see no basis for why Book X in Bible A has more of a right to be there than Book Y in Bible B in most cases considering that the canons, creeds etc were all written by man in inspiration.

[Regards]

The Bible that has been altered numerous times and was set into place by the Catholic church. They are following what they think is the Bible and you are following what you think is the Bible. I see no basis for why Book X in Bible A has more of a right to be there than Book Y in Bible B in most cases considering that the canons, creeds etc were all written by man in inspiration.
Haha, there's a lot to go into there. Christians, myself included, have to believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, or pretty much everything goes out of wack. Historically speaking the Bible is more original manuscripts and has been put through many many tests on its originally validity than more than a lot of the historical books we have; ie the Illiad, Socrates works etc etc. It's totally understandable to question, but understand that you're going to have to throw these same questions onto ever single book you study from for the next X amount of years of schooling.

As for which books were placed in for what reason I honestly haven't gotten into studying that quite yet, so I don't have the answer. I will eventually get to it, and hopefully remember this and be able to give you a better answer. Maybe someone better fit will be able to answer it for you.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Haha, there's a lot to go into there. Christians, myself included, have to believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, or pretty much everything goes out of wack. Historically speaking the Bible is more original manuscripts and has been put through many many tests on its originally validity than more than a lot of the historical books we have; ie the Illiad, Socrates works etc etc. It's totally understandable to question, but understand that you're going to have to throw these same questions onto ever single book you study from for the next X amount of years of schooling.

As for which books were placed in for what reason I honestly haven't gotten into studying that quite yet, so I don't have the answer. I will eventually get to it, and hopefully remember this and be able to give you a better answer. Maybe someone better fit will be able to answer it for you.
Well obviously or the religion really wouldn't be a religion. I happen to think that some of the books that were not put in seem very valid and would only make the Christian religion stronger. I happen to still be somewhat of a Chrstian so I still have feelings for the direction of the faith but I am very dissatisfied with it. I obviously don't think that every book written to be placed in the Bible should be there or we might have books written by modern Baptist pastors talking about the sins of using dildos and sex toys or some shit haha.

[samsara]

Well we where told that if we saw certain movies or read certain books we could be ex-communicated while I went to CCD.

[Regards]

Well obviously or the religion really wouldn't be a religion. I happen to think that some of the books that were not put in seem very valid and would only make the Christian religion stronger. I happen to still be somewhat of a Chrstian so I still have feelings for the direction of the faith but I am very dissatisfied with it. I obviously don't think that every book written to be placed in the Bible should be there or we might have books written by modern Baptist pastors talking about the sins of using dildos and sex toys or some shit haha.
Haha, exactly. From what I remember though a lot of those books were proven to be very off from a historical stand point. Also I'm sure you've heard this a million times, and if you haven't always remember its a relation, not a religion, and if you're living out your Christian life as a set of religious beliefs then you're missing the point.

[Duexy]

Hahah. Why the hostility dude? I'm sorry if you've been wronged by somebody who claimed to be a Christian, but that gives you no right to attack me.




seriously? attack?

[Regards]

seriously? attack?
And defense evidently! And it may not have been in here, nor on me, but he's attacked numerous people in these forums because of their Christian belief.

But yes, attack.

[TEAMRAMROD]

Haha, exactly. From what I remember though a lot of those books were proven to be very off from a historical stand point. Also I'm sure you've heard this a million times, and if you haven't always remember its a relation, not a religion, and if you're living out your Christian life as a set of religious beliefs then you're missing the point.
This seems to be overlooked by many people.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Haha, exactly. From what I remember though a lot of those books were proven to be very off from a historical stand point. Also I'm sure you've heard this a million times, and if you haven't always remember its a relation, not a religion, and if you're living out your Christian life as a set of religious beliefs then you're missing the point.
haha the funny part is that I am living outside of the religion and inside the relationship. I have never felt the urge to bash Jesus or anything he has ever said. I tend to trust the New Testament pretty whole heartedly as a good philosophical text. I still pray and try not to "sin" but I haven't gone to church since Christmas.

[yves.]

Not true at all. Those 8 books were in the original compilation of the Bible, but they weren't in the Greek compilation, so the Protestants took them out. Catholics are undoubtedly Christian, with no ifs, ands, or buts about it. None of their views goes against Christian teachings. Hell, most Christian teachings come from the Catholic Church itself before the split. The concept of the Holy Trinity comes from Catholic teachings, not directly stated in the Bible. I'm sorry, but I've been involved with Protestant Churches, and I've been involved in Catholic Churches, and you have no idea what you are saying. If you say Catholics aren't Christian, then you would also have to say that Orthodox Churches aren't Chrisitans, Evangelical Churches aren't Christian, and Lutheran Churches aren't Christian, since they are all so similar.


You may not agree with the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean you can say a statement like that like it's fact.

this is correct.

[samsara]

Meh I agree Catholics are Christian but we have more rules and Catholicism is a lot older than Christianity.

[Regards]

haha the funny part is that I am living outside of the religion and inside the relationship. I have never felt the urge to bash Jesus or anything he has ever said. I tend to trust the New Testament pretty whole heartedly as a good philosophical text. I still pray and try not to "sin" but I haven't gone to church since Christmas.
Well good fellowship and worship is always needed, but if you're from a church that is more damaging than anything I can see how it's a lot harder to even want to attempt to find a good one.

[FullCollaspe]

Wow, I'm Christian also and I think that those people at that High School are just stupid. Does the Bible say rock music is evil? That dancing is evil? That liking a girl and going to a dance with here is evil? These people just tried to find more ways to say ''We are more holier and better than you''. They find their own interpertaions in the Bible, and since they found it in the bible is God's words. They think that they have the authoriy of God, which they don't, and can tell people what you should do and shouldn't do. Just so freaking stupid, can't describe it any other way.

[Dicebox]

I never said you didn't have the right to believe something. Just that I had a right to scrutinize it. Just like you're scrutinizing Catholicism. There actually is merit in discussing the difference between rational/irrational belief if people don't see them. And no, I have no argument with atheists who believe there could be a god. I actually hope there is.
I never scrutinized Catholicism. Atheists who believe there could be a god are called agnostics, my argument is saying that you should say to that person, "You're not an atheist you are agnostic." I guess a more exaggerated example would be if someone said, "I believe that Unicorns control my life and that I should kill all those who disbelieve, I am an Atheist!"

Of course you would correct this person to show them that in fact, they are not an atheist.

[Duexy]

As ridiculous as this whole ordeal is, if the kid's parents enrolled him at this school with the understanding that this type of activity was not tolerated then there really isn't much that can be done. After something as shitty as this happened I would just send my kid to another school.

[doppelganger]

i am christian and i see few benefits in children attending "christian" schools.

[Mercy Medical]

Read about this in another forum and I find it to be asinine. The prom is taking place outside of his school and I don't see why the private school has any say over his life that occurs outside of said school. Now, if there was something in the rules when they signed the kid up for private school about this, well, then the parents are idiots for complaining because they put him there in the first place. If not, this is bullshit.

Also, the thing that gets me is that the school has a process where you can essentially request the ability to go to a dance or something at another school. Okay, that's great. Get a signed piece of paper, whatever. The kid followed their process and was told he would be punished anyway. So why even have that process when the signed permission and attendance will result in a punishment? It doesn't make any sense.

[Esrb99]

...separate "Catholic Bible" which has 8 extra books in it.

Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible.

look at this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

so, the text was assembled by MEN, and the king james version was 12,1300 years later with the protestants basicly saying, meh, we don't like these books.

sounds very God inspired.

about the king james version:

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive: Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives; and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about an ordained clergy.

Oh, and I agree, the school was retarded.

[Mercy Medical]

Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible.

look at this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

so, the text was assembled by MEN, and the king james version was 12,1300 years later with the protestants basicly saying, meh, we don't like these books.

sounds very God inspired.

about the king james version:

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive: Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives; and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about an ordained clergy.

Oh, and I agree, the school was retarded.
Ughhhhhhh, this is why I can't stand organized religion and the various sects of Christianity. Every fucking picks and chooses what they want their followers to actually follow and what they want people to dump aside. Shouldn't it all be important?

Where did you get that last italics part from about the King James Bible? The translation and different versions of the Bible really intrigue me right now for reason in my previous statement.

[Esrb99]

Ughhhhhhh, this is why I can't stand organized religion and the various sects of Christianity. Every fucking picks and chooses what they want their followers to actually follow and what they want people to dump aside. Shouldn't it all be important?

Where did you get that last italics part from about the King James Bible? The translation and different versions of the Bible really intrigue me right now for reason in my previous statement.

I completely understand; I actually own both versions, King James and Catholic.

We studied it in my western civ class, and I also looked up king james bible on wiki.

[Adeniz19]

how can people not understand that Catholicism is just a denomination of Christianity? Same goes for Evangelicals, Mormonism, Protestants, ect. Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God, which all of those share a common ground. Doesn't matter if they all read different books or what not. They all have the same basic principals behind them.

Most denominations of Christians actually branched off from the catholic church

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/659px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png

[Mercy Medical]

how can people not understand that Catholicism is just a denomination of Christianity? Same goes for Evangelicals, Mormonism, Protestants, ect. Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God, which all of those share a common ground. Doesn't matter if they all read different books or what not. They all have the same basic principals behind them.

Most denominations of Christians actually branched off from the catholic church

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/659px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png
I think when anyone questions that, we just need to show them this from now on.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/659px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png

AH BOO! Ninja edit before I could post it! lol

[Regards]

Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible.

look at this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

so, the text was assembled by MEN, and the king james version was 12,1300 years later with the protestants basicly saying, meh, we don't like these books.

sounds very God inspired.

about the king james version:

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive: Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives; and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about an ordained clergy.

Oh, and I agree, the school was retarded.
That's not what happened at all, and a little research outside of wikipedia may help you to know that. Back when the language was shifting from Hebrew to Aramaic and Greek, the leaders put together a Greek version of the Hebrew cannon call the Septuagint. When the Septuagint was getting put together they threw in the Apocrypha, or those 8 books as a way of filling in the time between Malachi and John. If anything what the protestant church was doing was getting the Old Testament back to its original forum. That's a very very summarized version, and as I've said earlier in this thread, I haven't done a ton of research into this subject, but its certainly interesting.

[Adeniz19]

hahaha yea, i just found it and figured it was worth posting

[gr33ndayfr3ak]

Sorry brother, but I have to disagree. A lot of Catholic teachings, and doctrines go against a lot of what the Bible says, not to mention there is a separate "Catholic Bible" which has 8 extra books in it. Historically speaking Catholics and Christians believe in the same Christ, but a lot of what the Catholic church stands for is exactly opposite of what the Bible says.

Well TECHNICALLY Jesus was the founder of Christianity, and all of the offshoots (Catholics, Baptists, etc.) consider themselves to be Christian.
It does have extra books in it, but that doesn't make it a completely different Bible..it just means that the Catholic Church believes that those books were divinely inspired and essential enough to be included in the canon. I'm not saying you have to believe that or agree with me, especially since (I'm guessing) you're not Catholic..just that we believe different things..and with different religions, that's expected.

[zion the lion]

I havent read this whole thread, but the school was probably assemblies of god, thats how my old church was.

[Regards]

Well TECHNICALLY Jesus was the founder of Christianity, and all of the offshoots (Catholics, Baptists, etc.) consider themselves to be Christian.
It does have extra books in it, but that doesn't make it a completely different Bible..it just means that the Catholic Church believes that those books were divinely inspired and essential enough to be included in the canon. I'm not saying you have to believe that or agree with me, especially since (I'm guessing) you're not Catholic..just that we believe different things..and with different religions, that's expected.
Yeah, and I apologize. The area I come from everyone states their Catholic, and by Catholic they mean they really have no care whatsoever, its just what their parents believe. Its a bit frustrating. I realized that i may've came off as a bit harsh, sorry about that.

[stayforawhile]

Most ridiculous article I have ever read.

[sjb2k1]

how silly.

but where's the follow-up? did he actually go?

[FullCollaspe]

how silly.

but where's the follow-up? did he actually go?

He did, it was on our news.

[sjb2k1]

He did, it was on our news.
did his school follow through on all that bullshit?

again, how silly.

[FullCollaspe]

Yeah, unfortunaly but he will still graduate

[gr33ndayfr3ak]

Yeah, and I apologize. The area I come from everyone states their Catholic, and by Catholic they mean they really have no care whatsoever, its just what their parents believe. Its a bit frustrating. I realized that i may've came off as a bit harsh, sorry about that.

Eh no hard feelings, my friend.
I would also like to apologizing for not realizing that I was reiterating pretty much everything that everyone else has said so far..I was a bit too lazy to read through all of them :P

I understand completely what you mean though..I believe that I'm actually one of the few who actually is a Catholic AND knows exactly what that entails..a good majority of the people I know use it as a title or a bragging right or whatever..it doesn't really mean anything to them besides being something to make them feel better about themselves.

[TEAMRAMROD]

Eh no hard feelings, my friend.
I would also like to apologizing for not realizing that I was reiterating pretty much everything that everyone else has said so far..I was a bit too lazy to read through all of them :P

I understand completely what you mean though..I believe that I'm actually one of the few who actually is a Catholic AND knows exactly what that entails..a good majority of the people I know use it as a title or a bragging right or whatever..it doesn't really mean anything to them besides being something to make them feel better about themselves.
I know many people who do this.

[gr33ndayfr3ak]

I know many people who do this.

Unfortunately, I think it's more common than not :-(

[TEAMRAMROD]

Unfortunately, I think it's more common than not :-(
I would agree.

[Sventhegreat]

I don't understand....people.

[TEAMRAMROD]

I don't understand....people.
Who does? Everyday I find my self amazed at the stupidity of people I come across.

[GeeBee]

You are quite presumptuous as you assume your way of looking at the world is the only one that has merit. Religious narratives are meaningful even if they can't be rigidly be judged in regards to their "truth value". I mean, does your hard-on for Darwin help you sleep better at night?

Never said my way was the only one with merit. Said a rational worldview has the MOST merit.
No hard-on for Darwin. But if I had a hard-on for anyone, it wouldn't be mythical men of legend from an old book of stories.

[GeeBee]

And defense evidently! And it may not have been in here, nor on me, but he's attacked numerous people in these forums because of their Christian belief.

But yes, attack.

Stop mistaking critique of your ideas as a personal attack on you. Your beliefs are only as valid as they can be substantiated. That's pretty much a rule in any discussion of ANY topic, so put on a bandaid.

[x togepi x]

Never said my way was the only one with merit. Said a rational worldview has the MOST merit.
No hard-on for Darwin. But if I had a hard-on for anyone, it wouldn't be mythical men of legend from an old book of stories.

explain to me how it has the most merit since perspectives can have merit beyond the rigid truth-value box that the sciences have.

god, i hate religious people like you.

[GeeBee]

explain to me how it has the most merit since perspectives can have merit beyond the rigid truth-value box that the sciences have.

god, i hate religious people like you.

Hard to hate person you only know through exchanges on a forum thread, but whatevs.
If you're here to argue that non-truths have merit, go right ahead, I'd love to read it.
Also, I don't adhere to a religion, so I don't know what you're getting at.

[x togepi x]

Hard to hate person you only know through exchanges on a forum thread, but whatevs.
If you're here to argue that non-truths have merit, go right ahead, I'd love to read it.
Also, I don't adhere to a religion, so I don't know what you're getting at.

Art isn't a truth. it has merit.
theories such as marxism have merit, but no real truth value.
I'm pretty sure you have at one point in your life liked a piece of fiction or a poem or lyrics yet nobody would argue about if Bob Dylan's songs are true or false.

I don't see how you can seriously argue that there aren't multiple perspectives about the world. Religion has done a many great things. Are you seriously going to write it off because it's "irrational?"

your "rationality" is a religion. you sound just like a fundamentalist christian since you won't shut the fuck up anyone says the word "god" on this forum unless it's in a negative tone.

[GeeBee]

Art isn't a truth. it has merit.
theories such as marxism have merit, but no real truth value.
I'm pretty sure you have at one point in your life liked a piece of fiction or a poem or lyrics yet nobody would argue about if Bob Dylan's songs are true or false.

I don't see how you can seriously argue that there aren't multiple perspectives about the world. Religion has done a many great things. Are you seriously going to write it off because it's "irrational?"

your "rationality" is a religion. you sound just like a fundamentalist christian since you won't shut the fuck up anyone says the word "god" on this forum unless it's in a negative tone.

Art has truth...it's tangible, empirical, and demonstrable.

Religion has done a great many things...none of which couldn't have been done without it. And yes, I write it off because it's irrational.

If you want to call my lack of belief in a god and adherence to rationality a religion, be my guest.

You can always hit the ignore button if you take issue with me "not shutting the fuck up". Pardon me for chiming in on topics that interest me. Stay classy, chap, I haven't gotten personal with you.

[TEAMRAMROD]

Art has truth...it's tangible, empirical, and demonstrable.

Obviously for another thread, but could art empirical while it's subjective? Or is my understanding of empirical lopsided?

[AJ F]

What the fuck? Really?

[GeeBee]

Obviously for another thread, but could art empirical while it's subjective? Or is my understanding of empirical lopsided?

Dunno if I understand the question, but I think there's plenty of subjective ideas and creations that have truth value to them, simply by virtue of the fact that they can be substantiated in some way.

[TEAMRAMROD]

Dunno if I understand the question, but I think there's plenty of subjective ideas and creations that have truth value to them, simply by virtue of the fact that they can be substantiated in some way.
Ha it made sense in my mind. I understand where you're coming from.

[x togepi x]

Art has truth...it's tangible, empirical, and demonstrable.

I would like to see the tangible elements of conceptual performance art.

I can also point to demonstrable aspects of religion, like how the church allowed the african american community some semblance of power when they were completely disenfranchised through slavery and the early 20th century.

but the problem with your logic here is that you're trying to fit things into a scientific perspective that are decidedly unscientific. If you're determining the merits of a poem based on the logic you're using here, you're totally missing the point.

Religion has done a great many things...none of which couldn't have been done without it. And yes, I write it off because it's irrational.

i think this is a gross over simplification of what "could have been done" or not. I'm not entirely sure how one can retroactively go through history and deem whether religion was crucial or not to it being done. the empirical fact of the matter though is that religion did act as a catalyst for some of these great things.

If you're writing things off because they're irrational, why exactly are you posting on a message board?

If you want to call my lack of belief in a god and adherence to rationality a religion, be my guest.

Well, i mean, you're using a similarly close minded and limited worldview as fundamentalist christians so i'll call a spade a spade.

You can always hit the ignore button if you take issue with me "not shutting the fuck up". Pardon me for chiming in on topics that interest me. Stay classy, chap, I haven't gotten personal with you.

Why would I ignore you? Your dumb posts bashing religion are hilarious.

[DI Pistola]

hahaha I went to school in Findlay.

People there are batshit insane.

[GeeBee]

I would like to see the tangible elements of conceptual performance art.

I can also point to demonstrable aspects of religion, like how the church allowed the african american community some semblance of power when they were completely disenfranchised through slavery and the early 20th century.

but the problem with your logic here is that you're trying to fit things into a scientific perspective that are decidedly unscientific. If you're determining the merits of a poem based on the logic you're using here, you're totally missing the point.



i think this is a gross over simplification of what "could have been done" or not. I'm not entirely sure how one can retroactively go through history and deem whether religion was crucial or not to it being done. the empirical fact of the matter though is that religion did act as a catalyst for some of these great things.

If you're writing things off because they're irrational, why exactly are you posting on a message board?



Well, i mean, you're using a similarly close minded and limited worldview as fundamentalist christians so i'll call a spade a spade.



Why would I ignore you? Your dumb posts bashing religion are hilarious.

We're not talking about music or art. People aren't basing their lives and major decisions on music or art. I'm still waiting for you to make the argument that basing one's life on irrational, unsubstantiated belief-systems is best.
If you have so much against basing decisions on science, I'd like you to go to a faith-healer, not a doctor, next time you're sick.
I'll also wait for your argument as to what good deeds COULD NOT be done without the conduit of religion. There are plenty of BAD things that happened that could have been avoided without religion i.e. Crusades, witch hunts, inquisition.
Fundamentalist Christians aren't aspiring to beliefs that are rooted in objective reality. I am. If that's close-mindedness, so be it.
Please go read the "who here believes in the one we call god" thread, because Dan, myself, and several other atheists have already responded to these questions a thousand times.
Glad I could provide the lols.

[Mercy Medical]

We're not talking about music or art. People aren't basing their lives and major decisions on music or art. I'm still waiting for you to make the argument that basing one's life on irrational, unsubstantiated belief-systems is best.
If you have so much against basing decisions on science, I'd like you to go to a faith-healer, not a doctor, next time you're sick.
I'll also wait for your argument as to what good deeds COULD NOT be done without the conduit of religion. There are plenty of BAD things that happened that could have been avoided without religion i.e. Crusades, witch hunts, inquisition.
Fundamentalist Christians aren't aspiring to beliefs that are rooted in objective reality. I am. If that's close-mindedness, so be it.
Please go read the "who here believes in the one we call god" thread, because Dan, myself, and several other atheists have already responded to these questions a thousand times.
Glad I could provide the lols.
You are honestly becoming quite annoying. I respect people for their beliefs and believe that people should do what they please, believe what they want as long as it makes them happy and doesn't interfere with others...but seriously.

All you ever do in EVERY thread based on religion is belittle, demean, and attempt to debunk other people's beliefs. EVERY FUCKING THREAD. It's getting really old, really redundant and completely takes the focus away from the original topic and turns it into a religious debate.

We all know how you feel about religion and people that practice it. We get it, you are an atheist who thinks basing your life on what you claim to be irrational beliefs is silly and stupid, but you are easily becoming significantly more annoying and obnoxious then any other fundamentalist Christian I've seen post on this website or others. Your shtick is getting extremely old and extremely tired and I think more then just me can agree with that fact. While religious debate is great and thought provoking, there is no need to turn every single thread with a hint of religious tone into a debate over religion in general. Please, from here on out could you at least just stick to the "who believes in the one called god" thread as it seems to pertain to your overall beliefs so that other threads can actually stay on course.

EDIT: Look, I even made a thread just for you! http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=42972002#post42972 002

[stayillogical]

You are honestly becoming quite annoying. I respect people for their beliefs and believe that people should do what they please, believe what they want as long as it makes them happy and doesn't interfere with others...but seriously.

All you ever do in EVERY thread based on religion is belittle, demean, and attempt to debunk other people's beliefs. EVERY FUCKING THREAD. It's getting really old, really redundant and completely takes the focus away from the original topic and turns it into a religious debate.

We all know how you feel about religion and people that practice it. We get it, you are an atheist who thinks basing your life on what you claim to be irrational beliefs is silly and stupid, but you are easily becoming significantly more annoying and obnoxious then any other fundamentalist Christian I've seen post on this website or others. Your shtick is getting extremely old and extremely tired and I think more then just me can agree with that fact. While religious debate is great and thought provoking, there is no need to turn every single thread with a hint of religious tone into a debate over religion in general. Please, from here on out could you at least just stick to the "who believes in the one called god" thread as it seems to pertain to your overall beliefs so that other threads can actually stay on course.

EDIT: Look, I even made a thread just for you! http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=42972002#post42972 002

:worship:

P.S. LOST tomorrow!!

[Mercy Medical]

:worship:

P.S. LOST tomorrow!!
I know! I'm excited/sad. I'm stoked because I'll be able to sit down and watch all this season back to back.

[GeeBee]

You are honestly becoming quite annoying. I respect people for their beliefs and believe that people should do what they please, believe what they want as long as it makes them happy and doesn't interfere with others...but seriously.

All you ever do in EVERY thread based on religion is belittle, demean, and attempt to debunk other people's beliefs. EVERY FUCKING THREAD. It's getting really old, really redundant and completely takes the focus away from the original topic and turns it into a religious debate.

We all know how you feel about religion and people that practice it. We get it, you are an atheist who thinks basing your life on what you claim to be irrational beliefs is silly and stupid, but you are easily becoming significantly more annoying and obnoxious then any other fundamentalist Christian I've seen post on this website or others. Your shtick is getting extremely old and extremely tired and I think more then just me can agree with that fact. While religious debate is great and thought provoking, there is no need to turn every single thread with a hint of religious tone into a debate over religion in general. Please, from here on out could you at least just stick to the "who believes in the one called god" thread as it seems to pertain to your overall beliefs so that other threads can actually stay on course.

EDIT: Look, I even made a thread just for you! http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=42972002#post42972 002

Read the last paragraph of my last post...I referred to the "god" thread, because I don't want to go over the same arguments over and over.

Find one thread where I discussed religion where religion WASN'T implied in the topic. You can't, because I haven't.

This is an open forum. If you have a problem with me, hit the ignore button. I have just as much right to express my beliefs as you do. If you have a counter argument to what I've said, feel free to post it. As the thread starter says "The debates start here". Debating implies that someones views will be challenged, and that's all I've done. If you'd like to challenge mine, I welcome you to it. I've not gotten personal with anyone.
Christians have been evangelizing for centuries, but the second an atheist has a voice, he gets pounced on?

[x togepi x]

We're not talking about music or art.

Your claim was "irrational perspectives are illegitimate." I brought up music and art as examples of irrational perspectives that you most likely buy into to prove that you don't actually believe the claim you just made. Now you're trying to back away and frame the debate solely around religion (framing in such a way is again, a tool of the fundamentalist), but i'd think one who supposedly values inquiry would want this discussion to be less closed off than you're trying to make of it.

People aren't basing their lives and major decisions on music or art.

I'm pretty sure any musician/artist worth anything is going to tell you that this statement is completely false. Chomsky says it's people like musicians and artists who have the most power to spark social change, Tolstoy claimed the best art was one that moved people into some sort of righteous action. It seems to me that two important thinkers aren't willing to buy your claim, so why should i?

Even ignoring the appeals to authority, one only need to look at how many times someone seriously claims "x song changed my life" or "x movie made me think of the world differently" for proof that people do in fact base their lives/major decisions on art. Look at some of the great post-World Wars anti-war literature, and tell me that nobody's views on war were influenced.

I'm still waiting for you to make the argument that basing one's life on irrational, unsubstantiated belief-systems is best.

Considering the fact that my position was never this, but merely that a multi-perspective approach is, I think you're going to be waiting a very long time. My point was religion has a place in this multiple perspective approach, just like science does. It's obviously true that some people can go completely overboard with religion, but that's true of any perspective. One need not dominante the conversation. I just think more than just boring rationalism which strips us of our humanity at the end of the day has validity.

If you have so much against basing decisions on science, I'd like you to go to a faith-healer, not a doctor, next time you're sick.

This is what's funny about your posts is that you come to us as the Enlightened One but you can't even understand the most simplistic of points. Where did I say I was against basing decisions on science? Obviously some things should be based on science, but not all. I mean, I'm not a big fan of creating a behaviorist utopia ruled by technocrats like Skinner wanted because i value human rights.

Once again, I see you falling into the same binary logic that you're criticizing Christians for. Much like a Christian might say "evolution is wrong because the bible is true", you are saying "if you don't want to use science all the time, don't use it at all". Science and religion do not operate as a strict binary because they have completely separate goals. Your conception of religion is purely based on premodern religious perspectives, which is hardly fair considering how religion has evolved in the past 2,000 years. seriously, go read some books for god's sake (lol).

I'll also wait for your argument as to what good deeds COULD NOT be done without the conduit of religion.

once again, you ignore the point that i made about how it's impossible to retroactively go back and look at events and strip them of specific causes while assuming history would not change. such modes of inquiry are based on pure speculation (ie: wouldn't be rational anyway, so you're not allowed to think it would have validity).

Though, I will say, my example about the church and its relation to African American cultures during slavery and before the Civil Rights movement sort of meets your demand. Nowhere in slave society did African American slaves have any rights, except in their congregations. Nowhere before the civil rights movement did African Americans really hold any positions of power, except in the church. It gave a lot of people strength that I'm not sure they would have had without that institution.

There are plenty of BAD things that happened that could have been avoided without religion i.e. Crusades, witch hunts, inquisition.

One can also claim that these were mere instances of one absolute dominant power merely asserting its power over others and ignore the religious aspect as similar things have been done by colonial powers again and again. The crusades were essentially genocides, which we see secular governments doing. The inquisition was done, in a sense, by the secular USSR. witch hunts were also done, in a sense, during the cold war.

but we can even ignore this point because nobody here is claiming religion is most important, merely that the perspective has some value. those cases where religion went wrong were obvious cases where people perverted religion. people perverted science to cause the holocaust. does that mean we should ignore science too?

Fundamentalist Christians aren't aspiring to beliefs that are rooted in objective reality. I am. If that's close-mindedness, so be it.

Yeah they are. That's why the debate tends to be focused on fundamentalist christianity vs. science.

Please go read the "who here believes in the one we call god" thread, because Dan, myself, and several other atheists have already responded to these questions a thousand times.
Glad I could provide the lols.

No, they haven't. I'm not going to read a thread about christians being dumb just because you can't win an argument in this thread.

[Bruised26]

Wow these people are awful. they give "christians" such a bad name. just so you all know, the better of us 'christians' dont act like that at all, this is just absurd and totally legalistic.

[WTG]

how can people not understand that Catholicism is just a denomination of Christianity? Same goes for Evangelicals, Mormonism, Protestants, ect. Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God, which all of those share a common ground. Doesn't matter if they all read different books or what not. They all have the same basic principals behind them.

Most denominations of Christians actually branched off from the catholic church

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/659px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png

I do have to say, I find it very hard to consider Mormanism as a Christian religion, due to the vast differences in the Trinity (they believe in three separate Gods), the fact that they think God was once a man and that any faithful Morman can become equal to God, and overall all the other cultish things about the "religion" (such as required donations or else excommunication). They have some very different views that do not concide at all with Christianity. I mean, they aren't even monotheistic...

[Adeniz19]

I do have to say, I find it very hard to consider Mormanism as a Christian religion, due to the vast differences in the Trinity (they believe in three separate Gods), the fact that they think God was once a man and that any faithful Morman can become equal to God, and overall all the other cultish things about the "religion" (such as required donations or else excommunication). They have some very different views that do not concide at all with Christianity. I mean, they aren't even monotheistic...Mormonism falls into the Restorationism branch of that chart.