Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Door-step Proseletizing

1910111315

Posts

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand why the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is considered valid criticism once it's applied to religion. People can still be religious without following the guidelines 100% of the time.

    Where do you draw the line?

    Can a person be completely un-observant, follow 0% of the tenets of their faith, break every rule and still call themselves a practicing member of that religion?

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand why the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is considered valid criticism once it's applied to religion. People can still be religious without following the guidelines 100% of the time.

    Yeah but at the same time not following the more important guidelines does make claims about being a certain religion dubious.

    You don't have to live in Edingburgh to be a Scotsman, sure, but you do have to live in Scotland.

  • bwaniebwanie Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nobody's drawing lines, we were just ridiculing a horrendously warped idea of theocratic adherance

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    [Surah 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

    IOW, the Abrahamic faiths have a strong tradition in believing that God intentionally obfuscates things for the lulz, and the straightforward reading of a text is not necessarily the only one.

    Also, there's no hijab in the Qur'an, and no death penalty for adultery either.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    bwanie wrote: »
    nobody's drawing lines, we were just ridiculing an horrendously warped idea of theocratic adherance

    Yes you seem quite afraid to draw any lines, but you're quick to jump all over someone who suggests that someone who doesn't act like a proper muslim may, in fact, just maybe, be a full of shit person claiming to be a muslim.

    As if there has never been any instances of foolish people claiming to be something they really aren't. Happens all the time.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    [Surah 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

    IOW, the Abrahamic faiths have a strong tradition in believing that God intentionally obfuscates things for the lulz, and the straightforward reading of a text is not necessarily the only one.

    Also, there's no hijab in the Qur'an, and no death penalty for adultery either.

    So which sects allow eating pork and sleeping around?

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand why the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is considered valid criticism once it's applied to religion. People can still be religious without following the guidelines 100% of the time.

    Where do you draw the line?

    Can a person be completely un-observant, follow 0% of the tenets of their faith, break every rule and still call themselves a practicing member of that religion?

    I don't really see how setting a particular definition is useful, because the whole exercise will eventually devolve into shifting goalposts to suit the observer or the observed. I generally view it as a "I'll know it when I see it" situation (yes yes, I know it's arbitrary and is what I just said wasn't useful). If you want to be truly objective, though, then you'd view people who aren't perfectly observant as being observant except on issues X, Y, and Z.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Spoiler:
    Your holy book has rules, follow them or quit claiming to be religious. At least the fundies aren't bold faced liars and put their money where their mouth is.

    This is pretty dumb, Christianity pre-dates the bible. Furthemore, the idea of literal adherence to the bible is a pretty recent development put forth by protestants.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    [Surah 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

    IOW, the Abrahamic faiths have a strong tradition in believing that God intentionally obfuscates things for the lulz, and the straightforward reading of a text is not necessarily the only one.

    Also, there's no hijab in the Qur'an, and no death penalty for adultery either.

    So which sects allow eating pork and sleeping around?

    Wait, so your objection to Islam is that it doesn't permit eating pork or sleeping around? I thought we were talking about oppression of women.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    So, I was googling around for different things, such as the Suras which talk about women's inheritence being half that of men's and so forth. And I found this gem.

    http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/refuting-verses-in-quran-insult-women/

    I particularly enjoy the discussion of Lot.

    oh wow.

    I like how they say that while men have the right to marry multiple women, they don't have to so it's all good.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand why the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is considered valid criticism once it's applied to religion. People can still be religious without following the guidelines 100% of the time.

    Yeah but at the same time not following the more important guidelines does make claims about being a certain religion dubious.

    You don't have to live in Edingburgh to be a Scotsman, sure, but you do have to live in Scotland.

    Technically, to be Christian all you really have to do is believe that Christ is the son of God who died to save humanity from its sins, and to be truly penitent for all of your sins. The rest of the bible's strictures pretty much boil down to how you ought to live your life. You can ignore these completely and, so long as you meet those bare minimums upon death, you're still a Christian and are getting into heaven.

    Being religious doesn't mean you're 100% faithful and observant. It never has meant that.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    [Surah 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

    IOW, the Abrahamic faiths have a strong tradition in believing that God intentionally obfuscates things for the lulz, and the straightforward reading of a text is not necessarily the only one.

    Also, there's no hijab in the Qur'an, and no death penalty for adultery either.

    So which sects allow eating pork and sleeping around?

    Are you thinking I'm making an argument I'm not making?

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    [Surah 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

    IOW, the Abrahamic faiths have a strong tradition in believing that God intentionally obfuscates things for the lulz, and the straightforward reading of a text is not necessarily the only one.

    Also, there's no hijab in the Qur'an, and no death penalty for adultery either.

    So which sects allow eating pork and sleeping around?

    Wait, so your objection to Islam is that it doesn't permit eating pork or sleeping around? I thought we were talking about oppression of women.

    You presume I'm objecting to Islam at all (any moreso than I object to organized religions in general, which I do, they're all pretty awful).

    I'm actually objecting to the idea that anyone can claim to be a member of a religion even if they don't adhere to any of the tenets of it.

    It bothers me.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    [Surah 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

    IOW, the Abrahamic faiths have a strong tradition in believing that God intentionally obfuscates things for the lulz, and the straightforward reading of a text is not necessarily the only one.

    Also, there's no hijab in the Qur'an, and no death penalty for adultery either.

    So which sects allow eating pork and sleeping around?

    Are you thinking I'm making an argument I'm not making?

    No, but you're knowledgeable about Islam. I keep seeing a particular argument tossed around that there are oh so many sects of Islam, as if somewhere out there I'll find Islamic sects who believe in a rainbow unicorn deity and practice routine orgies.

    I kind of suspect that there is substantial common ground between the various sects, and that some people are exaggerating the amount of latitude that Muslims have in certain areas (food and alcohol being chief among them, I have absolutely never met a Muslim who ate pork or drank alcohol).

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    [Surah 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

    IOW, the Abrahamic faiths have a strong tradition in believing that God intentionally obfuscates things for the lulz, and the straightforward reading of a text is not necessarily the only one.

    Also, there's no hijab in the Qur'an, and no death penalty for adultery either.

    So which sects allow eating pork and sleeping around?

    Are you thinking I'm making an argument I'm not making?

    No, but you're knowledgeable about Islam. I keep seeing a particular argument tossed around that there are oh so many sects of Islam, as if somewhere out there I'll find Islamic sects who believe in a rainbow unicorn deity and practice routine orgies.

    I kind of suspect that there is substantial common ground between the various sects, and that some people are exaggerating the amount of latitude that Muslims have in certain areas (food and alcohol being chief among them, I have absolutely never met a Muslim who ate pork or drank alcohol).

    Thanks for clarifying. I honestly wasn't certain what you were trying to get at, before.

    No, there's no sect that says eating pork or drinking alcohol is okay, but there are sects that place less emphasis on the hellfire-and-brimstone and as a result trend towards more lenience where you might find more Muslims doing those things and not stoning one another to death. The Ismailis, for example, don't allow those things per se, but one might drink socially.

    My point was more about the specifics I addressed, namely that certain things associated with Islam can still be fiercely debated and are not explicit in the text, such as hijab (and the requirements thereof). Other things we come to think of as inherently Islamic, such as stoning, FGM, etc. are not even found in the Qur'an but come from hadith and scholarly interpretation, and have come under particularly fierce scrutiny in the scholarly community these days.

    Like the famous wife-beating verse, there's discussion as to what exactly the verb that has historically been translated as "to beat" actually means (the argument is that it can be used to mean "to separate"). That for 1500 years Muslim men have been taught it's okay to hit their wives (with a toothbrush, lol, as if that nullifies anything, I agree) is undoubtedly an issue, but that doesn't mean that every Muslim man hits his wife, or that the Muslim community isn't still hashing this issue out.

    I'm just trying to get that sort of thing across.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    [Surah 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

    IOW, the Abrahamic faiths have a strong tradition in believing that God intentionally obfuscates things for the lulz, and the straightforward reading of a text is not necessarily the only one.

    Also, there's no hijab in the Qur'an, and no death penalty for adultery either.

    So which sects allow eating pork and sleeping around?

    Are you thinking I'm making an argument I'm not making?

    No, but you're knowledgeable about Islam. I keep seeing a particular argument tossed around that there are oh so many sects of Islam, as if somewhere out there I'll find Islamic sects who believe in a rainbow unicorn deity and practice routine orgies.

    I kind of suspect that there is substantial common ground between the various sects, and that some people are exaggerating the amount of latitude that Muslims have in certain areas (food and alcohol being chief among them, I have absolutely never met a Muslim who ate pork or drank alcohol).

    Thanks for clarifying. I honestly wasn't certain what you were trying to get at, before.

    No, there's no sect that says eating pork or drinking alcohol is okay, but there are sects that place less emphasis on the hellfire-and-brimstone and as a result trend towards more lenience where you might find more Muslims doing those things and not stoning one another to death. The Ismailis, for example, don't allow those things per se, but one might drink socially.


    This is rather as I expected, thank you for pointing this out to me.

    sidhaethe wrote: »
    My point was more about the specifics I addressed, namely that certain things associated with Islam can still be fiercely debated and are not explicit in the text, such as hijab (and the requirements thereof). Other things we come to think of as inherently Islamic, such as stoning, FGM, etc. are not even found in the Qur'an but come from hadith and scholarly interpretation, and have come under particularly fierce scrutiny in the scholarly community these days.

    Like the famous wife-beating verse, there's discussion as to what exactly the verb that has historically been translated as "to beat" actually means (the argument is that it can be used to mean "to separate"). That for 1500 years Muslim men have been taught it's okay to hit their wives (with a toothbrush, lol, as if that nullifies anything, I agree) is undoubtedly an issue, but that doesn't mean that every Muslim man hits his wife, or that the Muslim community isn't still hashing this issue out.

    I'm just trying to get that sort of thing across.

    You see I knew already that there was substantial disagreement over dress codes and death penalty in Islam, so yes obviously the religion is not all in lockstep with one another. I just knew that there were areas of, shall we say, rock-hard theology that aren't reasonably open to debate, such as the dietary restrictions and alcohol, praying towards Mecca and so forth. The only Muslims I've been friends with have been converts, and converts tend to be extra-observant compared to people raised in a religion (not always the case, but it's true enough most of the time) so I wasn't sure where the commonalities started to splinter off into matters of sectarian interpretation.

  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand why the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is considered valid criticism once it's applied to religion. People can still be religious without following the guidelines 100% of the time.

    It's always seemed to me that religion was like language. There is no "correct" form of any particular religion, just the different things people do.

    Assuming your approaching it empirically anyway.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand why the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is considered valid criticism once it's applied to religion. People can still be religious without following the guidelines 100% of the time.

    Yeah but at the same time not following the more important guidelines does make claims about being a certain religion dubious.

    You don't have to live in Edingburgh to be a Scotsman, sure, but you do have to live in Scotland.

    More important guidelines, sure, but every single one? Bullshit. nstf is wrong, as always.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    So, I was googling around for different things, such as the Suras which talk about women's inheritence being half that of men's and so forth. And I found this gem.

    http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/refuting-verses-in-quran-insult-women/

    I particularly enjoy the discussion of Lot.

    oh wow.

    I like how they say that while men have the right to marry multiple women, they don't have to so it's all good.

    I also like "Don't be chaste with your slaves or wives."

    Answer: It's silly to be chaste with your wife, I mean really.

    That one got really got away from you there, didn't it sport

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010

    I like how they say that while men have the right to marry multiple women, they don't have to so it's all good.
    That was pretty much how it was throughout most of the Bible. Monogamy was a Roman thing.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    So, I was googling around for different things, such as the Suras which talk about women's inheritence being half that of men's and so forth. And I found this gem.

    http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/refuting-verses-in-quran-insult-women/

    I particularly enjoy the discussion of Lot.

    oh wow.

    I like how they say that while men have the right to marry multiple women, they don't have to so it's all good.

    I also like "Don't be chaste with your slaves or wives."

    Answer: It's silly to be chaste with your wife, I mean really.

    That one got really got away from you there, didn't it sport

    So, it's ok to fuck the help?

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • bwaniebwanie Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    bwanie wrote: »
    nobody's drawing lines, we were just ridiculing an horrendously warped idea of theocratic adherance

    Yes you seem quite afraid to draw any lines, but you're quick to jump all over someone who suggests that someone who doesn't act like a proper muslim may, in fact, just maybe, be a full of shit person claiming to be a muslim.

    As if there has never been any instances of foolish people claiming to be something they really aren't. Happens all the time.

    what? no.

    i put forward the notion, that claiming a devout follower of a religion needs to adhere to his holy scriptures word for word, is ridiculous.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    bwanie wrote: »
    bwanie wrote: »
    nobody's drawing lines, we were just ridiculing an horrendously warped idea of theocratic adherance

    Yes you seem quite afraid to draw any lines, but you're quick to jump all over someone who suggests that someone who doesn't act like a proper muslim may, in fact, just maybe, be a full of shit person claiming to be a muslim.

    As if there has never been any instances of foolish people claiming to be something they really aren't. Happens all the time.

    what? no.

    i put forward the notion, that claiming a devout follower of a religion needs to adhere to his holy scriptures word for word, is ridiculous.

    That's fine.

    I am putting forward the notion, that merely claiming to be a particular religion doesn't make that so.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It seems pretty arrogant for anyone but Christians to define what being a Christian means.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It seems pretty arrogant for anyone but Christians to define what being a Christian means.
    Does this apply to other groups, too? Like "convicted felons?"

    Apothe0sis
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    It seems pretty arrogant for anyone but Christians to define what being a Christian means.

    Well, then they should rewrite their book, again, so they can actually go about doing gods will and not have to worry about thrown in jail for truly following it. Let's get someone on that, I nominate the pope.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    It seems pretty arrogant for anyone but Christians to define what being a Christian means.
    Does this apply to other groups, too? Like "convicted felons?"

    No, the law works fine for that.

  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    It seems pretty arrogant for anyone but Christians to define what being a Christian means.
    Does this apply to other groups, too? Like "convicted felons?"

    They're different. I couldn't tell you how but Christians being able to choose what "Being Christian" means (as opposed to...say, a bunch of random guys on the net) vs the government (society?) defining "Convicted Felons" for the group just makes sense.

    Probably on a definite vs abstract sort of way. To be a Convicted Felon you have to be judged as a Felon and then Convicted. Bam.

    Being Christian? I guess the same logic can apply, you need to be...Christian? Who's on the authority to decide here?

    (Sorry, the post kind of followed a thought process)

    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Its funny how NSTF cites all the negative stuff in the bible and asks how people can be Christians if they don't follow it but ignores the stuff about "love thy neighbor" and such. By NSTF's own definition, its impossible to be a Christian at all because you would have to hold completely contradictory views on all manner of subjects simultaneously. Do you cast out the adulterer or do you not judge because that's god's place?

    Here's a thought, the Bible, like most dense and ancient texts, is chock full of contradictions and its up to the believer what they follow.

    sig.jpg
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    It seems pretty arrogant for anyone but Christians to define what being a Christian means.

    Well, then they should rewrite their book, again, so they can actually go about doing gods will and not have to worry about thrown in jail for truly following it. Let's get someone on that, I nominate the pope.

    Really though, who are you on authority to say "Sorry, you don't follow the book to a T. Not a Christian!"

    You're perfectly free to say it but it doesn't make it true and if you weren't on a forum discussing this, everyone would just ignore you anyways.

    Also, the Pope is the authority figure for Catholics. Christ, being the authority figure for Christians (also, dead if existed at all) would have to have a say in the matter to get the Christian side to agree.

    Then the Mormons would have a fit.

    Changing the bible isn't easy anymore.

    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    It seems pretty arrogant for anyone but Christians to define what being a Christian means.

    Well, then they should rewrite their book, again, so they can actually go about doing gods will and not have to worry about thrown in jail for truly following it. Let's get someone on that, I nominate the pope.

    Their book wasn't designed to be either a field manual or a rule book. By insisting they follow it like one, all you do is come across as an idiot.

  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Wait, are you saying Catholics aren't Christian?

    They are? I thought Christian dictated that you follow Christ.

    Catholics follow mary and god.

    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    Wait, are you saying Catholics aren't Christian?

    They are? I thought Christian dictated that you follow Christ.

    Catholics follow mary and god.

    What the fuck?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Wait, are you saying Catholics aren't Christian?

    They are? I thought Christian dictated that you follow Christ.

    Catholics follow mary and god.

    What the fuck?

    Yeah who is this guy then

    buddy_christ.jpg

    sig.jpg
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Wait, are you saying Catholics aren't Christian?

    They are? I thought Christian dictated that you follow Christ.

    Catholics follow mary and god.

    What the fuck?

    You could correct me if I'm wrong here, it would help a lot more.

    Christians: Follow Christ as their Messiah. Have several different sects, etc.

    Catholics: Follow Mary, God and the Holy Ghost (holy trinity). Have seperate schools so they can teach religion. Also has nuns and follows the Pope.

    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Wait, are you saying Catholics aren't Christian?

    They are? I thought Christian dictated that you follow Christ.

    Catholics follow mary and god.

    What the fuck?

    Yeah who is this guy then

    buddy_christ.jpg

    That's Jesus from Dogma.

    They do BELIEVE in Jesus, they just don't revere him as the christians do.

    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Wait, are you saying Catholics aren't Christian?

    They are? I thought Christian dictated that you follow Christ.

    Catholics follow mary and god.

    What the fuck?

    You could correct me if I'm wrong here, it would help a lot more.

    Christians: Follow Christ as their Messiah. Have several different sects, etc.

    Catholics: Follow Mary, God and the Holy Ghost (holy trinity). Have seperate schools so they can teach religion. Also has nuns and follows the Pope.

    Mary and the Saints are more prevelant in Catholicism and they do in general spend a little less time talking about Jesus than American style Protestants do, but to say they don't follow him is incorrect.

    The cross is the symbol of the Church after all.

    sig.jpg
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Wait, are you saying Catholics aren't Christian?

    They are? I thought Christian dictated that you follow Christ.

    Catholics follow mary and god.

    What the fuck?

    You could correct me if I'm wrong here, it would help a lot more.

    Christians: Follow Christ as their Messiah. Have several different sects, etc.

    Catholics: Follow Mary, God and the Holy Ghost (holy trinity). Have seperate schools so they can teach religion. Also has nuns and follows the Pope.

    Mary and the Saints are more prevelant in Catholicism and they do in general spend a little less time talking about Jesus than American style Protestants do, but to say they don't follow him is incorrect.

    The cross is the symbol of the Church after all.

    See post above.

    Where does he sit in the heiarchy then? I'm honestly curious. Do catholics actually pray to Jesus like the Christians do?

    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Wait, are you saying Catholics aren't Christian?

    They are? I thought Christian dictated that you follow Christ.

    Catholics follow mary and god.

    What the fuck?

    You could correct me if I'm wrong here, it would help a lot more.

    Christians: Follow Christ as their Messiah. Have several different sects, etc.

    Catholics: Follow Mary, God and the Holy Ghost (holy trinity). Have seperate schools so they can teach religion. Also has nuns and follows the Pope.

    No. Catholics follow Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit as God in the Holy Trinity. Catholics believe in Mary, mother of Jesus, as a revered saint and to whom they can pray in intercessory prayer (like other saints). The Pope is the head bishop of the Church which is the rock upon which the authority to interpret and guide the Church is derived.

    Edit: and yes, Catholics pray to Jesus!

    The sign of the cross, which the Catholics use to begin and end prayers, is recited: "In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Sign In or Register to comment.