View Single Post
February 6th, 2012 (6:53 PM).
Exiled to Siberia
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Section Eight
Originally Posted by
I never claimed it to be anything other than what it was lol
Actually, if you'll look back, you openly admit to simply building a strawman and posting it as fact. If you're going to speak on religion, like a true Atheist, you would, at the very least, research and understand the thing you are attempting to oppose, in order to form valid, well-constructed arguments.
I'm seeing none of that here, and I'm seeing a disturbing amount of questions that go along the lines of, "When did you realize you were better than the institution?"
I came here for intelligent discussion and rational debate about life, science, and such things. The majority of what I'm reading falls more along the lines of an average "Rebel" thread on the internet, with everyone patting themselves on the back telling themselves how cool they are.
That's not what I was saying at all; if it were evil or close-minded to stand by your beliefs, this club would not exist. A person of any faith can affirm and stick with their beliefs all they like; I would expect no different and I have experienced no different.
Looking back, the posts in this thread would argue with you. However, let's move on.
The issue I take is with the formal Confirmation structure set up by the Church itself, which makes it seem like some Holy door through which one has passed and would in my opinion create a further psychological barrier against leaving the Church should a person ever feel so inclined.
Because you've made a commitment, and a man's word isn't to be taken lightly?
Once again, you're confusing the stories of "The mean man made me say things I didn't like!" with "I received a valid Confirmation in the Holy Roman Catholic Church."
I took my Confirmation voluntarily. I as a rational, capable human being when I did so, and I did it of my own will. So many adults do so as well.
As for the children who claimed that they never wanted to do it... I'm actually on their side. I believe that schoolchildren should not have to get Confirmation, and it seems that many in the Church are shifting that way.
However, I simply ask people to remember that nobody forced them to agree to anything. "Peer pressure" is not a valid excuse, because I would expect the rational, intelligent people in here to choose their own path in life and have the cojones to stand up to things they don't believe in. The sticking point is that I believe that standing up should be done in a rational, mature way. I am seeing little of that here, and more of people sticking it to the man.
If you're going to argue Confirmation, then please do a little research. At the moment, you're denouncing something which is entirely of your own creation, something imaginary. The evil, evil occult ritual which you claim to dislike is one that is entirely of your own creation, with almost no basis in reality.
And yes, there are reasonable, thinking people that defend Confirmation. Reasonable, thinking men that see it as something besides some blood pact meant to coerce people into slavery.
My issue is not so much with the fact that it would make it more difficult to leave as it is that it seems designed specifically for that purpose.
It's designed to give people an opportunity to reaffirm their beliefs.
I'm going to ask you again, because I don't think I've gotten a straight answer from you yet.
If someone says they believe in something, and then they voluntarily confirm their beliefs, should they not be held to their word?
I'm old-fashioned. I believe that, yes, people should be held accountable for what they say and do. Not because of a higher power, but because that's what mature individuals do. If you say you do not believe, so be it. But to say that you believe, and then say something along the lines of "Neener neener, had my fingers crossed!", can hardly be called intelligent denial. If anything, it's the opposite.
You may hold your Church in high esteem and believe them to be above such intentional manipulation, but I can assure you that I do not.
My Church, as you call it, is run by humans. Humans are flawed, and beautifully so. Flawed humans cause schoolchildren to cry and weep later in their lives.
The original Sacraments established by Jesus Christ, however, are not flawed. As I said, a distorted sacrament that is done against the recipients will is an invalid sacrament. Therefore, as I said, when you argue against the coercive sacrament, you are arguing and fighting something that
does not truly exist.
I have no doubt. Brilliance is not faith-based, but rather founded on qualities external of religious belief entirely.
Such as rational thought, reasoning, and mastery of logic.
May I recommend Aquinas and, once again, Lewis?
"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Shanghai Alice
Find all posts by Shanghai Alice
Find threads started by Shanghai Alice