The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

12324262829108

Comments

  • Posts: 15,234
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm not defeated. I just don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

    Changing the topic, sorta: If you've ever read Augustine's "City of God" do you remember the shape-eater?

    Actually back on topic what about your claims that Galileo was a jerk and how was it ok to condemn his discovery regardless?

    I never said it was okay to condemn his science. He sort of needed to stop picking fights with people and calling the Pope names. That generally didn't go down too well in that time period.

    Still he was condemned because he was right.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm not defeated. I just don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

    Changing the topic, sorta: If you've ever read Augustine's "City of God" do you remember the shape-eater?

    Actually back on topic what about your claims that Galileo was a jerk and how was it ok to condemn his discovery regardless?

    I never said it was okay to condemn his science. He sort of needed to stop picking fights with people and calling the Pope names. That generally didn't go down too well in that time period.

    Still he was condemned because he was right.

    The conflict of right and right, you could say.
  • Posts: 15,234
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm not defeated. I just don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

    Changing the topic, sorta: If you've ever read Augustine's "City of God" do you remember the shape-eater?

    Actually back on topic what about your claims that Galileo was a jerk and how was it ok to condemn his discovery regardless?

    I never said it was okay to condemn his science. He sort of needed to stop picking fights with people and calling the Pope names. That generally didn't go down too well in that time period.

    Still he was condemned because he was right.

    The conflict of right and right, you could say.

    I don't think the pope was right then. Don't think the current pope is right on much now.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    Then I sincerely apologise, ma'am. ;-) No hard feelings, I hope, that mistook you for a bloke.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm not defeated. I just don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

    Changing the topic, sorta: If you've ever read Augustine's "City of God" do you remember the shape-eater?

    Actually back on topic what about your claims that Galileo was a jerk and how was it ok to condemn his discovery regardless?

    I never said it was okay to condemn his science. He sort of needed to stop picking fights with people and calling the Pope names. That generally didn't go down too well in that time period.

    Still he was condemned because he was right.

    The conflict of right and right, you could say.

    I don't think the pope was right then. Don't think the current pope is right on much now.

    Well, I'm no Papist either, rather a Presbyterian, but I was thinking in more general terms of Christianity.
  • Posts: 15,234
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm not defeated. I just don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

    Changing the topic, sorta: If you've ever read Augustine's "City of God" do you remember the shape-eater?

    Actually back on topic what about your claims that Galileo was a jerk and how was it ok to condemn his discovery regardless?

    I never said it was okay to condemn his science. He sort of needed to stop picking fights with people and calling the Pope names. That generally didn't go down too well in that time period.

    Still he was condemned because he was right.

    The conflict of right and right, you could say.

    I don't think the pope was right then. Don't think the current pope is right on much now.

    Well, I'm no Papist either, rather a Presbyterian, but I was thinking in more general terms of Christianity.

    Christianity got it wrong a couple of times too.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Me during worship
    552feada08a55_putincandle630.jpg

    On my way to bomb muslim terrorists the next day
    f-putin-defense-a-20150119.jpg
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    Me during worship
    552feada08a55_putincandle630.jpg

    On my way to bomb muslim terrorists the next day
    f-putin-defense-a-20150119.jpg

    A Communist who believes in God. How novel!
  • Posts: 15,234
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Me during worship
    552feada08a55_putincandle630.jpg

    On my way to bomb muslim terrorists the next day
    f-putin-defense-a-20150119.jpg

    A Communist who believes in God. How novel!

    I don't know if we can consider Putin a communist, although he was at a time. But in any case, given that Communism is an economic and political ideology, nothing in its core prevent a believer in such ideology to also believe in God. yes, Marx was an atheist, and so were many Soviet leaders. But Stalin was a superstitious man, North Korea's brand of communism is by any practical mean both monarchist and theocratic (their leader being presented as godly) and of course even before the invention of the term there were many religious communities that had collectivist economies.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Add to that anyone who says the nazis were atheist which is nonsense.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Add to that anyone who says the nazis were atheist which is nonsense.

    Yes, they were Christians. Wiping out God's chosen race.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Chosen race. What could be worse?
  • Posts: 15,234
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Add to that anyone who says the nazis were atheist which is nonsense.

    Worse than nonsense that is one of the most vicious lies ever told.
  • Division_00Division_00 Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts: 66
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Then I sincerely apologise, ma'am. ;-) No hard feelings, I hope, that mistook you for a bloke.

    Hahaha! It happens quite a bit. There's an old adage that "there are no women on the Internet" because some people think that modern women are too sensitive to endure teasing or harassment. Here's the thing: Not once have I been harassed on the Internet. And I'm all OVER the place. I'm actually going to hazard that harassment on the Internet is not as common as people think it is.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    True that, @Division_00. Either way, this being a Bond forum and all, we certainly welcome more female contributions. ;-)
  • Division_00Division_00 Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts: 66
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    True that, @Division_00. Either way, this being a Bond forum and all, we certainly welcome more female contributions. ;-)

    Yeah, no sexist misogynist dinosaurs allowed!
  • Posts: 684
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I'm so glad we managed to get this sorted in a (relatively) straightforward fashion compared to what at one point seemed to me would surely require going down a nightmarish series of semantical rabbit holes from which we might never again see the light of our initial intentions.

    Everything you said was on point, as far as I'm concerned. This...
    To view human experience through the model of a scientist looking at rocks endangers one to think that their observations are more universal than they are and, in an ironic way, this could lead to the same universal belief and faulty sense of truth in those observations that atheists view the religious to have in what they believe.
    ...is bang on the money. And this...
    As I bumbled with your meaning of "storytelling," perhaps this was where my meaning was muddled in your head.
    sums up just where I think we both went wrong.
    That's the strange thing about language, in that we can write something and multiple people can take a different meanings from it (despite us knowing what we're trying to say) because of just a few words we chose to use. "Storytelling" in lieu of "human accounting" creates a totally different picture, and before you know it you're lost in a debate with someone you don't really disagree with because of how that viewpoint was presented.
    Agreed. Shaw once said something to the effect of, "I get into my most heated arguments with those I agree with most." The man had it perfectly right.
    I'd first like to start out by saying that self-deprecation isn't needed
    Always needed, my friend. ;) Helps me not to take my thoughts or my self too seriously. Wandering down a path of ideas entertains me, and I'd hate to have any seriousness spoil it.
    I think we got a lot cleared up, and it is great that we can have these kinds of discussions. You know I already respect you as a debater and thinker, but until this moment I have only been able to appreciate you for your thoughts on Bond and cinema. Now I see even more sides to your mind, and generally I think we come away agreeing far more than we disagree, semantics aside. ;)
    Well the respect is certainly mutual, and I agree re: the gratitude for such discussions. Not only am I clearer on your points, I'm clearer on my own, and we've realized we're largely in agreement to boot.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Cheers, @Strog. Glad to have it sorted. And though I was only picking, I'm of the same mind when it comes to self-deprecation. I think taking a bit out of yourself at times (without going too far into self-loathing) allows you to relax a bit and realize that not everything must be treated with heart-attack levels of seriousness. In the same token it's never a bad idea to have a little modesty, to know that you aren't aware of all the facets of life and that there is always something out there to learn through firsthand experience or from debating the views of another.

    The late, great Sir Roger was a prime believer in a deprecating and modest lifestyle, and it got him quite far. I also think that life choice and part of his personality made his existence much more pleasant because he rode life by the breeze instead of fighting the wind every step. A role model, in many ways, but especially for that attitude.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    This article is absolute gold:

    Wimbledon station commuters flee train in 'Bible' panic
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41466140
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    They should do the same everywhere! Religion should never be mixed with constitutional, jurisdictional or educational discussions.
  • Posts: 15,234
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They should do the same everywhere! Religion should never be mixed with constitutional, jurisdictional or educational discussions.

    Indeed. I think politicians are way behind the people on that, at least in the West.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They should do the same everywhere! Religion should never be mixed with constitutional, jurisdictional or educational discussions.

    Indeed. I think politicians are way behind the people on that, at least in the West.

    You need to believe in God to get elected, so religious faith is a bit of a pre-requisite for getting those votes!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They should do the same everywhere! Religion should never be mixed with constitutional, jurisdictional or educational discussions.

    Indeed. I think politicians are way behind the people on that, at least in the West.

    You need to believe in God to get elected, so religious faith is a bit of a pre-requisite for getting those votes!

    Not so much in the UK any more.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They should do the same everywhere! Religion should never be mixed with constitutional, jurisdictional or educational discussions.

    Indeed. I think politicians are way behind the people on that, at least in the West.

    You need to believe in God to get elected, so religious faith is a bit of a pre-requisite for getting those votes!

    Not so much in the UK any more.

    I was speaking more from a US perspective. An atheist president who didn't finish every speech with "God bless America" feels like the unicorn equivalent of a politician to me.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They should do the same everywhere! Religion should never be mixed with constitutional, jurisdictional or educational discussions.

    Indeed. I think politicians are way behind the people on that, at least in the West.

    You need to believe in God to get elected, so religious faith is a bit of a pre-requisite for getting those votes!

    Not so much in the UK any more.

    I was speaking more from a US perspective. An atheist president who didn't finish every speech with "God bless America" feels like the unicorn equivalent of a politician to me.

    Anyone can say that. It's Mum and Apple Pie. Doesn't mean they necessarily mean it. Hitler mentioned God in his speeches too.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They should do the same everywhere! Religion should never be mixed with constitutional, jurisdictional or educational discussions.

    Indeed. I think politicians are way behind the people on that, at least in the West.

    You need to believe in God to get elected, so religious faith is a bit of a pre-requisite for getting those votes!

    Not so much in the UK any more.

    I was speaking more from a US perspective. An atheist president who didn't finish every speech with "God bless America" feels like the unicorn equivalent of a politician to me.

    Anyone can say that. It's Mum and Apple Pie. Doesn't mean they necessarily mean it. Hitler mentioned God in his speeches too.

    Publicly though any prospective presidential candidate is dead in the water if he doesn't at least pretend to believe in public.* That in itself is extremely depressing.
    At least the notion that some of them just put it on for the sake of public appearances and don't actually believe is something of a comfort.

    *In Christianity obviously. To openly state you are a Muslim would kill your campaign as stone dead as if you admitted to being a nonce.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 15,234
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They should do the same everywhere! Religion should never be mixed with constitutional, jurisdictional or educational discussions.

    Indeed. I think politicians are way behind the people on that, at least in the West.

    You need to believe in God to get elected, so religious faith is a bit of a pre-requisite for getting those votes!

    Not so much in the UK any more.

    Maybe but theists do get a free pass they would not get otherwise. Theresa May is completely disconnected from the voters and I'd argue it is partially because of her backward vision of what Britain should be, i.e. a Christian nation. And that's the same with the bishops in the House of Lords and their anachronistic views that still influence the laws of the land.

    As for Hitler he never renounced Catholicism and there's no indication whatsoever that he was an atheist.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Did Hitler not make the top Nazi's renounce their religion ? As Himmler was a devout
    Catholic ( went to church every morning ) but have it up to follow the teachings of Hitler ?

    ( I'm not arguing with anyone, this is just what I've been told for years ? )
This discussion has been closed.