Why is the history of JESUS, HORUS, MITHRA, and, KRISHNA so god damn similar? [Archive]

Dubyah's revenge

07-01-2007, 01:34 AM

General Septem

07-01-2007, 07:12 AM

My official response is posts #2-#5 of this thread:

http://forum.bullshit.com/showthread.php?t=1405

hitekredneck

07-01-2007, 01:19 PM

My official response is posts #2-#5 of this thread:

http://forum.bullshit.com/showthread.php?t=1405

gen, you know they read it...they just refuse to listen to common sense:cool:

WhiteRaven

07-04-2007, 01:26 AM

Loseirdo

07-04-2007, 01:45 AM

"My official response is posts #2-#5 of this thread:

http://forum.bullshit.com/showthread.php?t=1405"

after reading that thread, there isn't even any real evidence that Jesus was born on december 25.

and as I said before, religions tend to borrow from other religions.

There's no evidence that Jesus was born on December 25, actually. In fact, we can very nearly prove that Jesus wasn't even born in December. Like GS mentioned, that date came from the Romans who agreed to change their holiday of Yule to a celebration of the birth of Christ. Ever wonder where the terms "yuletide" and "yule log" come from?

This does not disprove Jesus' existence, it merely goes to show that people had a much flimsier grasp of astronomy back then.

General Septem

07-04-2007, 08:59 AM

after reading that thread, there isn't even any real evidence that Jesus was born on december 25.

and as I said before, religions tend to borrow from other religions.

No, but December 25th is the day we celebrate the birth of Jesus. It would appear though that Jesus is the only religious figure whose birthday is even associated with December 25th.

You're right though, seeing as how we're not even sure Jesus was born on December 25, just goes to discredit this video even more.

Ausinus

07-24-2007, 06:36 AM

Simple, because religion is derivative ^_^

Walter Weiss

07-24-2007, 12:19 PM

Educated responses only please.

Is not some sort of divine birth a commone denominator?

Were these stories not written by men?

Some clergymen will say things like GOD is like a radio transmitter, transmitting a divine message. Clergymen are like the radio receiver, and they receive the message and teach it to man kind. They will cite that the reason there is other religions, is because the "radio receivers" in thos particular situations are not well tuned to the only correct station for them to hear, so they only receive bits and pieces to work with. This is a form of propaganda, is it not?

EACH religion will in some way proclaim themselves to be the only TRUE religion. By having similarities written into their propaganda, it is easier to recruit men and women and children away from a particular religious camp they already support. They are already wacked out with it, and supplying profits to the master....recruit them away from a competitor, so that you now can enjoy the profits from the wacked-out cash cows. Shear numbers equal power. Shear numbers directly impact profit. Shear numbers control electoral processes. Shear numbers create or topple the very kings of the Earth. Shear numbers provide harems, slaves, armies, labor forces, massive assets to convert, people from different cultures and countries to conduct propaganda experiments upon. Shear numbers are the ultimate power sources for any power-crazed king.

People in general might just consist of SHEEP....SHEPHARDS.....WOLVES....there is not much else I would not think.

You have to ask yourself what you feel you need or want to believe, or what is logical to believe, and what acts should or should not be committed in the name of your God. You can very easily become a tool of another....either wittingly or unwittingly.

Propaganda and organized religion work hand in had, so one has to be careful of what one studies. One can become a pawn or a cash cow in someone elses "divine criminal plan for profit and power." People have been slaughtered in the name of religion in connection with these activities. A real paradox. Man will worship a God and give praise to that God as the source of life, and then at the same time, Man can be induced to litterally torture and KILL all those who refuse to worship the same way.

The concept of "faith" could sometimes be descirbed as the ability of one to allow himself to believe or perceive some subject matter as absolute truth without ever having come into contact with suitable evidence or information that would logically indicate the subject matter to be accurate.

The concept "faith" could in some cases be described as "brainwashed."

The concept "faith" could also be described as, or to contain all the requisite acts and beliefs, of the concept "loyalty."

"Faith" is the hinge-point at which Mankind can be induced to accept certain propaganda, and be induced to carry out certain acts. "Heil, Mein Fuhrer"...."blessed be the Pope"....."I belive in comrade Mao with perfect faith"....."Hurrah Stalin"..."Jesus is the Lord"......"Follow Jim Jones"......"let's sacrifice a baby to the devil"......."Kill the infidel"......

"Faith".....is it a pre-requisite to establishing fanaticism?

The reality of the universe is that there is some viewable evidence of "creator activity," because many things are found to be so "mathematically perfect" in many respects in the universe; as if they were created and produced according to the planning and execution of a very capable and knowledgable being or entity. There is an architecture of sorts that is viewable in some subject matter connected with items and objects and elements in the universe. Logic, in it's purist form, is probably the only "true" path when studying as to whether or not a creator exists, what the creator actually is, what the creation actually is, and how the universe and life actually came into being, and whether or not there is a "soul" that is immortal.

You are a thoughtful poster....can you tell us more about your views and questions?

Limbo

07-28-2007, 08:23 PM

MrJim

07-29-2007, 04:28 AM

Dubya's Revenge,

I am disappointed to see you are spreading misinformation from the likes of Acharya S on this subject. It never ceases to amaze me when some blogger thinks they have fallen upon something that completely discredits Christianity after 2000 years.Something missed by legitimate scholars for close to 20 centuries.

Actually, Christian missionaries arrived in India in the 5th and 6th centuries, and it has been acknowledged by scholars that the copying is by hinduism from Christianity. Of course religions touch on similar things. That is what, by definition, makes them religions (after life, the nature of God, etc).

You are not as informed as you think you are.

I hate to break it to you (since you seem committed to church), but every form of science and common sense break the back of what you are saying. Rather than buying into fundamentalism, you should try to understand the way the world (and universe) works... you will find all of your answers this way.

Limbo

07-29-2007, 11:32 AM

I hate to break it to you (since you seem committed to church), but every form of science and common sense break the back of what you are saying. Rather than buying into fundamentalism, you should try to understand the way the world (and universe) works... you will find all of your answers this way.

I actually have spent a great deal of time trying to understand how the world works. I have a masters degree in computer science, and am an avid student of the history and philosophy of science.

My point, which you seem to have side stepped by using a personal attack, albeit subtle, is most of the items on that list are pure BS (after all this IS bullshit.com), others are a product of the fact that the hare krishna followers, especially in the west, have included some concepts from Christianity to help proselytize in western countries. Other items are just laughable, like both being from royalty. Jesus was born in a barn into poverty, unlike Krishna. Also, Joseph was not Jesus' father. Jesus is, according to Christians, God. Not one of many gods, like Krishna. These concepts are radically different.

Some other minor differences, Krishna was said to have had over 16,000 wives, fought in wars, and killed his uncle, to name but a few.

Let's make this simple. Please list the source(s) of that list. Original sources please. Not Acharya S, Higgins, Graves, or their ilk. Of course, they believe that some grand conspiracy of early Christians destroyed the evidence, or some such nonsense, and that's why there isn't any. But if you can find the original sources, I'm all ears (or should I say eyes)!

What exactly has science and common sense broken the back of? Please be a little more specific.

something

07-29-2007, 11:48 AM

It never ceases to amaze me when some blogger thinks they have fallen upon something that completely discredits Christianity after 2000 years.Something missed by legitimate scholars for close to 20 centuries.

thoose things aren't the ones that discredts christianity.

Limbo

07-29-2007, 12:57 PM

thoose things aren't the ones that discredts christianity.

Ah, I see you are from that center of enlightenment called Europe. Most Europeans have indeed turned their backs on God, and in so doing have become the dodo birds of the human race and will be extinct soon based on current birthrates. Most Europeans think that they have become so smart that they don't need God, and that somehow, the existence of God has been disproved by science.

I am so thankful my ancestors left Europe a long time ago. Europeans have lost their way after centuries of killing each other in senseless wars, and now are entering into an equally senseless period of abandoning all their traditional beliefs uncritically.

But anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, I will wait patiently for the source(s) of that list, but I won't hold my breath.

something

07-29-2007, 01:22 PM

Ah, I see you are from that center of enlightenment called Europe. Most Europeans have indeed turned their backs on God, and in so doing have become the dodo birds of the human race and will be extinct soon based on current birthrates. Most Europeans think that they have become so smart that they don't need God, and that somehow, the existence of God has been disproved by science.

I am so thankful my ancestors left Europe a long time ago. Europeans have lost their way after centuries of killing each other in senseless wars, and now are entering into an equally senseless period of abandoning all their traditional beliefs uncritically.

But anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, I will wait patiently for the source(s) of that list, but I won't hold my breath.

I agree with you. Most europeans have turned their backs on god.

But no, science hasn't disproven god, neither the opposite.

So you want me to say what I think discredits Christianity? Have you ever read the bible? It contians over 300 direct contradictions and is the bloodiest literature on earth.

Sure you can blame this on: out of context (Wierd thou, it could be, but in many cases it's just a bunch of rules), wrong version (So wich is the right one? They all contain fallacies anyway), just symbolic (It never says that it is "just symbolic", and what is it symbolic of then? And how do we know what's symbolic and what's not?)

Yea, that pretty much covers it.

Limbo

07-29-2007, 02:00 PM

I agree with you. Most europeans have turned their backs on god.

But no, science hasn't disproven god, neither the opposite.

So you want me to say what I think discredits Christianity? Have you ever read the bible? It contians over 300 direct contradictions and is the bloodiest literature on earth.

Sure you can blame this on: out of context (Wierd thou, it could be, but in many cases it's just a bunch of rules), wrong version (So wich is the right one? They all contain fallacies anyway), just symbolic (It never says that it is "just symbolic", and what is it symbolic of then? And how do we know what's symbolic and what's not?)

Yea, that pretty much covers it.

That would cover it I suppose if you could spell out those contradictions and if they were convincing. Can you give us some examples? I have seen lists of these supposed contradictions, and they have about as much credibility as the list of similarities between Krishna and Jesus. I have seen people making a big deal about the old testament saying things like "insects crawling around on all fours". Insects mostly have 6 or 8 legs. Big deal. Who really cares about such things. The bible is not meant to be a book on insects, or botany, or whatever, it is a book about the nature of God. Without nitpicking into insignificant details, the basic message of the bible is clear and consistent.

The history of mankind is violent and bloody, is it not (is Europe any exception)? Was Jesus' message not one of non-violence and love? Jesus spoke only in parables in public, so nothing can be taken literally. I don't think it is impossible to sift through and figure out what is literal and what is allegory, or metaphor.

Anyway, religion is a personal choice. If God came down and started blasting people with lightning bolts in plain sight, of course we would all believe. That would be a violation of the free will God has given us. He has set it up that we can believe or not believe. It's our choice.

something

07-29-2007, 02:34 PM

That would cover it I suppose if you could spell out those contradictions and if they were convincing. Can you give us some examples? I have seen lists of these supposed contradictions, and they have about as much credibility as the list of similarities between Krishna and Jesus.

I'll give you one:

Matthew and Luke both talk about the story and the birth of Christ. Matthew never says anything about Nasareth, or anything, he said they lived in Bethlehem. Later they go to egypt to escape king Harred.

Luke how ever said that they live in Nasaret, and that they had to go to Bethlehem. cause of taxes, or something else, depends on the version. Any way, they have to go to this town, by order of Agustus Ceasar, through the governer of Syria.

Now here's the problem. This thing they had be at, happend 6 AD, if it came from agustus ceasar. it is documented. Ceasar wasn't in control of Judea untill 6 AD. But it seems logical, he takes control, and he wants all the people to pay taxes.

And Matthew says that when king Harred gets to know about this birth, he decides to kill all the first born males, to get waste of this new king of Israel.

You see? King harred died 4 BC, and this is well known and documented and accepted, so they CAN'T BOTH BE TRUE.

I've already brought this one up once. I can give you more.

I have seen people making a big deal about the old testament saying things like "insects crawling around on all fours". Insects mostly have 6 or 8 legs. Big deal. Who really cares about such things. The bible is not meant to be a book on insects, or botany, or whatever, it is a book about the nature of God.

Then why is it in the bible in the first place then? If the bible is to describe the nature of God, but can't even be right on what bats are or how many legs an insect have, then why should it be right about how God is. And it doesn't give us a clear picture either.

Without nitpicking into insignificant details, the basic message of the bible is clear and consistent.

It isn't wrong about details. Entire genesis is false, and a lot of other things are just directly wrong.

The history of mankind is violent and bloody, is it not (is Europe any exception)? Was Jesus' message not one of non-violence and love? Jesus spoke only in parables in public, so nothing can be taken literally. I don't think it is impossible to sift through and figure out what is literal and what is allegory, or metaphor.

Yes the history of mankind is bloody, Europe especially I may say, and Jesus message was allright I guess. But why is only good stuff right and bad stuff wrong?

God could be a bastard, the bible shows both sides of him, we can't pick one without assuming stuff. Sure we can use common sense to know what's right and what's wrong but there's still nothing that says that god has any common sense.

Anyway, religion is a personal choice. If God came down and started blasting people with lightning bolts in plain sight, of course we would all believe. That would be a violation of the free will God has given us. He has set it up that we can believe or not believe. It's our choice.

And if we choose the wrong thing we're damned for eternity?

You know, free will is a theoretical impossibility with god. Without aswell for that matter.

freakazoid

07-29-2007, 02:35 PM

Educated responses only please.

The answer is simple...

Many people in history have claimed a similar position and background as Jesus Christ, only one proved who He was by coming out of the grave and presenting Himself to literally hundreds of witnesses who saw him both die and alive after...Jesus Christ. The rest are still in the grave, including "Krishna." I think that about sums it up.

"The wise still seek Him"

Limbo

07-29-2007, 04:45 PM

You say "You see? King harred died 4 BC, and this is well known and documented and accepted, so they CAN'T BOTH BE TRUE."

Yes, issues like this have been dealt with over and over again throughout the centuries. This is nothing new.

The answer is, of course, that there was more than one Herod. I am not a historian, but if you like you can read more about this issue here from someone much more expert than I: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Of course the accounts of Jesus' birth are in agreement on the truly important, non nitpickey aspects, such as the virgin birth.

About bats being birds, or insect classification, I really don't care about that. Besides, the concept of a "bird" is strictly a modern idea from biology, back in the bible days, they didn't have the modern animal classifications we use today. You are reading the bible through "post modern" glasses. You need to think of how people thought back 2000+ years ago. You are completely missing the point of what the bible is trying to say. Actually, I was an atheist/agnostic until I was about 25 years old, and I thought very much like you do now. I have had many similar discussions with friends I have had that are from Europe that live here in Canada now.

As for philosophical questions like why did God do bad things, or allow bad things to happen, sometimes "bad" things need to be done for the greater good, like culling overpopulated or diseased animals, and allowing some people to die, so that others can be saved (like emergency triage for example).

If you are happy to be separated from God now, why won't you be happy to be separated from God for eternity. For me, being separated from God would be hell, but for you, you have made that choice even here on earth.

Anyway, we are getting off topic for this thread, which is Christianity being merely a copied religion.

WhiteRaven

07-30-2007, 03:51 AM

"Many people in history have claimed a similar position and background as Jesus Christ, only one proved who He was by coming out of the grave and presenting Himself to literally hundreds of witnesses who saw him both die and alive after...Jesus Christ. The rest are still in the grave, including "Krishna." I think that about sums it up."

Of course, we no longer have any evidence that he did rise from the dead, or reveal himself to literally hundreds of witnesses, nor do we even have evidence that nazareth existed at that time...

"If the bible is to describe the nature of God, but can't even be right on what bats are or how many legs an insect have, then why should it be right about how God is. And it doesn't give us a clear picture either."

to be fair, bats probably would have been considered birds at that time. there are worse errors than that, though, the bible seems to imply that the earth is flat, for example.

"Jesus is, according to Christians, God. Not one of many gods, like Krishna. These concepts are radically different."

hate to tell you this, but 1 god + 1 god + 1 god does not equal one god.

something

07-30-2007, 04:08 AM

General Septem

07-30-2007, 09:10 AM

there are worse errors than that, though, the bible seems to imply that the earth is flat, for example.

Are you referring to "all the ends of the Earth" and "the four corners of the Earth" and whatnot? Because I've heard people say the same thing, and I don't see the connection. It's just a figure of speech.

something

07-30-2007, 09:11 AM

Are you referring to "all the ends of the Earth" and "the four corners of the Earth" and whatnot? Because I've heard people say the same thing, and I don't see the connection. It's just a figure of speech.

the bible do say that the earth is flat.

Limbo

07-30-2007, 10:39 AM

Of course, we no longer have any evidence that he did rise from the dead, or reveal himself to literally hundreds of witnesses, nor do we even have evidence that nazareth existed at that time...

"Jesus is, according to Christians, God. Not one of many gods, like Krishna. These concepts are radically different."

hate to tell you this, but 1 god + 1 god + 1 god does not equal one god.

Why is it that we "no longer" have any evidence. Is it because some people have proposed other alternatives as to why the grave was empty (eaten by wild dogs, body stolen by disciples)? Of course these alternatives don't have a scrap of evidence to back them up. All four of the gospels, written by different people at different times, as well as the epistles written by Paul and other books of the bible, say the exact same thing when it comes to his resurrection. This is far more evidence than we have for virtually any other figure in history going that far back. Why would the disciples have martyred themselves in horrible ways if he had turned out to be a fraud who just died like everyone else?

I can be a husband, a father and an employee, but I am still only one person. Can a person not have more than one role? Since God could not sit up in the clouds and speak to us directly, he chose human flesh to be his "word". That is why we say Jesus is the "word" of God, and the word became flesh. No Christian will ever say there is more than one God (although some sects like Mormons will). If God did not present himself in simple terms we humans could understand (like father, son, etc.), what use would the bible be? The only people who claim that Christianity has 3 gods are skeptics like yourself.

hitekredneck

07-30-2007, 11:07 AM

My point being, we only have the bible to show us God, and nothing else.

huh????...something, let me make you an offer...why don't you come to colorado sometime and let me show you around...i guarantee you i could show you a place called kebler pass in the fall that i swear has to be painted by the hand of god...what i'm trying to say, my skeptical friend, is that there's visual proof of god all around you if you only open your heart and mind to the possibilities....;)

Limbo

07-30-2007, 11:32 AM

My point being, we only have the bible to show us God, and nothing else.

The other problem atheists have is that they have to believe that everything around us happened by pure blind luck, just random chance. The universe, the galaxies, all the physical laws that are in perfect balance to support human life. All these things came about by fluke.

Evolution helps atheists somewhat, but of course evolution is pretty shaky when it comes to explaining how life began (primordial soup and all that), and says nothing at all about how the building blocks of life came into existence in the first place.

As pointed out earlier, we can see the handiwork of God all around us.

something

07-30-2007, 12:03 PM

huh????...something, let me make you an offer...why don't you come to colorado sometime and let me show you around...i guarantee you i could show you a place called kebler pass in the fall that i swear has to be painted by the hand of god...what i'm trying to say, my skeptical friend, is that there's visual proof of god all around you if you only open your heart and mind to the possibilities....;)

Sounds beutiful, but the idea of it being created by an intellegence, is insulting to the beauty of it.

something

07-30-2007, 12:06 PM

The other problem atheists have is that they have to believe that everything around us happened by pure blind luck, just random chance. The universe, the galaxies, all the physical laws that are in perfect balance to support human life. All these things came about by fluke..

It is infact only the Earth that supports human life, as far as we know.

Evolution helps atheists somewhat, but of course evolution is pretty shaky when it comes to explaining how life began (primordial soup and all that), and says nothing at all about how the building blocks of life came into existence in the first place.

That's not what evolution is supposed to do. But we do have a pretty clear picture of how life came about.

As pointed out earlier, we can see the handiwork of God all around us.

Wich I pointed out, would make the entire universe pointless and boring.

General Septem

07-30-2007, 12:18 PM

Didn't Einstein once say that either everything is a miracle, or nothing is? (Actually he probably didn't say that, but someone did.)

Loseirdo

07-30-2007, 12:24 PM

Didn't Einstein once say that either everything is a miracle, or nothing is? (Actually he probably didn't say that, but someone did.)

Einstein was quoted as saying, "God does not throw dice with the universe."

In other words, nothing happens purely by chance.

something

07-30-2007, 12:45 PM

Didn't Einstein once say that either everything is a miracle, or nothing is? (Actually he probably didn't say that, but someone did.)

Maybe. So?

something

07-30-2007, 12:46 PM

Einstein was quoted as saying, "God does not throw dice with the universe."

In other words, nothing happens purely by chance.

true of course.

Limbo

07-30-2007, 01:54 PM

Wich I pointed out, would make the entire universe pointless and boring.

If I thought I was the product of some random process, just a meaningless bag of chemicals that came about by fluke, that would make life pointless to me. Everything I do would be in vain, as I would just die and that would be the end of it, and eventually the Earth will burn up as the sun ages ending all civilization. Is that not more pointless?

something

07-30-2007, 02:08 PM

If I thought I was the product of some random process, just a meaningless bag of chemicals that came about by fluke, that would make life pointless to me. Everything I do would be in vain, as I would just die and that would be the end of it, and eventually the Earth will burn up as the sun ages ending all civilization. Is that not more pointless?

No I don't think so. I think weshould be happy over that we happend at all.
On this one little place in a big cld universe. The idea of a god places us in the centre of the creation, and I find that boring.

Also that something is above us, is insulting to our incredibly advanced brain and DNA.

hitekredneck

07-30-2007, 03:04 PM

Sounds beutiful, but the idea of it being created by an intellegence, is insulting to the beauty of it.

how do you make that as insulting?....you actually believe it to be better that everything comes from random chaos?...something, you must live a very sorrowful life if you believe that....what do you have against the idea of intelligent design?

hitekredneck

07-30-2007, 03:09 PM

No I don't think so. I think weshould be happy over that we happend at all.
On this one little place in a big cld universe. The idea of a god places us in the centre of the creation, and I find that boring.

Also that something is above us, is insulting to our incredibly advanced brain and DNA.

ok...now explain to me how the idea of god places us at the center of creation?....as for "our incredibly advanced brain"...that's very funny, something.....we can't agree on anything, even when there's common sense showing definitive proof of certain realities...nor can everybody comprehend the simple fact that anything and everything is possible in life, whether good or bad....with your ideals, something, there's nothing to keep you going...there's nothing to strive for....personally, i find that boring and it makes me despondent:cool:

conspiracy

07-30-2007, 07:27 PM

ok...now explain to me how the idea of god places us at the center of creation?....as for "our incredibly advanced brain"...that's very funny, something.....we can't agree on anything, even when there's common sense showing definitive proof of certain realities...nor can everybody comprehend the simple fact that anything and everything is possible in life, whether good or bad....with your ideals, something, there's nothing to keep you going...there's nothing to strive for....personally, i find that boring and it makes me despondent:cool:

Why do atheists fight so much about why God doesn't exist anyways?

WhiteRaven

07-31-2007, 01:00 AM

"Are you referring to "all the ends of the Earth" and "the four corners of the Earth" and whatnot? Because I've heard people say the same thing, and I don't see the connection. It's just a figure of speech."

no, the bible describes the earth as a circle in many places, and there's also the fact that when satan took jesus to the top of a mountain, they could see the entire world.

"Is it because some people have proposed other alternatives as to why the grave was empty (eaten by wild dogs, body stolen by disciples)?"

or could it be the fact that... uh...
A.We no longer know where the grave is?
B. We don't even know if Jesus ever existed
C. Both A and B

"I can be a husband, a father and an employee, but I am still only one person. Can a person not have more than one role?"

Yes, but god is one role, not three, and the bible implies that Jesus and god are two different beings.

"Since God could not sit up in the clouds and speak to us directly, he chose human flesh to be his "word". That is why we say Jesus is the "word" of God, and the word became flesh."

Hey, did you know that anything that is of something, cannot at the same time be that something?

"No Christian will ever say there is more than one God (although some sects like Mormons will)."

I'm pretty sure Mormons are considered Xians. Anyway, the best way to find proof of The Trinity in the bible would to look in the bible. Guess what. The Trinity is not there. If you think it is show me a bible verse that says it is.

"If I thought I was the product of some random process, just a meaningless bag of chemicals that came about by fluke, that would make life pointless to me. Everything I do would be in vain, as I would just die and that would be the end of it, and eventually the Earth will burn up as the sun ages ending all civilization. Is that not more pointless?"

At some point something had to happen without a cause, and if the first event happened without a cause then chaos is the truth, not order, but that doesn't mean everything is pointless, quite the contrary, chaos is far more beautiful than order, without chaos, nothing would ever change, nothing would ever grow. And just because Chaos rules does not mean everything is destined to end.

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 01:31 AM

Why do atheists fight so much about why God doesn't exist anyways?

That's an easy one. Fear. Pure and simple. They fight it so hard because they hope to God that they're wrong. Their pride will never let them admit it, but you and I can see it in their faces. They're terrified.

Almost makes you feel sorry for the poor saps. Almost.

WhiteRaven

07-31-2007, 01:36 AM

Loseirdo... that's dumb.

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 01:36 AM

At some point something had to happen without a cause, and if the first event happened without a cause then chaos is the truth, not order, but that doesn't mean everything is pointless, quite the contrary, chaos is far more beautiful than order, without chaos, nothing would ever change, nothing would ever grow. And just because Chaos rules does not mean everything is destined to end.

Chaos is the end result of our universe, not the beginning. We see this in nature; all things move away from order to disorder. The universe is becoming more chaotic all the time, and for this reason it will eventually end. All chaotic systems are destined to break down. This is a purely scientific view, so you shouldn't have a problem with it.

WhiteRaven

07-31-2007, 02:14 AM

disorder doesn't mean the end. And as I said, the universe could not even have begun without chaos.

something

07-31-2007, 02:26 AM

ok...now explain to me how the idea of god places us at the center of creation?....as for "our incredibly advanced brain"...that's very funny, something.....we can't agree on anything, even when there's common sense showing definitive proof of certain realities...nor can everybody comprehend the simple fact that anything and everything is possible in life, whether good or bad....with your ideals, something, there's nothing to keep you going...there's nothing to strive for....personally, i find that boring and it makes me despondent:cool:

Well my limited english forces me to use such a word as "insulting", but when did I say there was nothing to strive for?

something

07-31-2007, 02:28 AM

Why do atheists fight so much about why God doesn't exist anyways?

Cause religion is in the way of so many things.

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 02:57 AM

Cause religion is in the way of so many things.

Like what?

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 03:01 AM

disorder doesn't mean the end. And as I said, the universe could not even have begun without chaos.

All of the matter in the universe breaking down seems like the end to me.

The "Big Bang" theory suggests that the universe we know began as a tightly packed ball of energy that exploded into, well, everything. That would be an instance of a chaotic system balancing itself into equilibrium, but that doesn't mean it won't move back into chaos.

What was around before the "Big Bang"?

something

07-31-2007, 03:25 AM

Like what?

Do I really have to tell you?

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 03:26 AM

Do I really have to tell you?

That would be why I asked, yes. What does religion prohibit?

something

07-31-2007, 04:38 AM

That would be why I asked, yes. What does religion prohibit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

I posted this one time earlier.

hitekredneck

07-31-2007, 06:45 AM

i don't so much worry about why atheists refute the existence of god, i worry more about why they deny others those articles of faith....if somebody wants to believe in god, where does that interfere with an atheistic lifestyle, provided the believer doesn't enforce their views on said atheist?....as for chaos being beautiful...what you find beautiful is the order within chaos, not chaos itself...

General Septem

07-31-2007, 08:27 AM

Cause religion is in the way of so many things.

This is true. There are a lot of assholes out there who think that by being snobby cunts, they're doing the will of God. I'll give you that much.

something

07-31-2007, 08:28 AM

This is true. There are a lot of assholes out there who think that by being snobby cunts, they're doing the will of God. I'll give you that much.

Of course, I'm not sayin ALL religus people are assholes

General Septem

07-31-2007, 08:43 AM

Of course, I'm not sayin ALL religus people are assholes

Of course not. I'm more thinking along the lines of the people who are against abortion yet still have the balls to go up to any young woman with a baby they see and tell them they're going to Hell, even when the baby is just her nephew.

On the other hand, they're really not doing the will of God anyway.

I'm not saying religion breeds hatred, but hateful people do use religion to spread their hate. It's open to a lot of misinterpretation, which is unfortunate.

Limbo

07-31-2007, 12:09 PM

"they could see the entire world."

Big deal. If Jesus is God, then he can't see the whole world at any given time?

"or could it be the fact that... uh...
A.We no longer know where the grave is?
B. We don't even know if Jesus ever existed
C. Both A and B"

As I mentioned, there is more historical evidence for Jesus' existence than for any other figure in history going back that far. By your standard, we should doubt the existence of Plato, Aristotle, and so on. Can you name me even one historian who believes Jesus was not an actual historical figure? Or do you subscribe to the conspiracy theories where all historians are somehow in cahoots to propagate a lie?

"Yes, but god is one role, not three, and the bible implies that Jesus and god are two different beings."

Would you say that the terms father, son, etc. are terms that solely apply to people and NOT to God? Would it be possible that the language used in the
bible is for our benefit, so as to make it easier for us to understand? Salvation is not only for educated geniuses that can unravel some complex mystery, it's for everyone, that's why the bible uses allegory and metaphor, so that everyone can at least have a basic understanding of the nature of God, whose nature would otherwise be incomprehensible to us.

When Jesus said that you have to be "born again", did he mean you have to somehow enter the womb and physically have some kind of second birth? Of course not.

"At some point something had to happen without a cause, and if the first event happened without a cause then chaos is the truth, not order, but that doesn't mean everything is pointless, quite the contrary, chaos is far more beautiful than order, without chaos, nothing would ever change, nothing would ever grow. And just because Chaos rules does not mean everything is destined to end."

Huh? So you are saying nothing actually had to cause the universe to come into existence? You're grasping at straws on that one dude.

Limbo

07-31-2007, 12:21 PM

Cause religion is in the way of so many things.

This is an interesting read as to why atheists are becoming "evangelists" for disbelief, to actively try to discredit people of faith. They have been VERY successful in Europe, but much less so here in America.. That is why they are so frustrated and just spewing hatred against anyone advocating anything they see as traditional values. Check it out:

http://www.ex-atheist.com/from-skepticism-to-worship.html

hitekredneck

07-31-2007, 01:52 PM

This is an interesting read as to why atheists are becoming "evangelists" for disbelief, to actively try to discredit people of faith. They have been VERY successful in Europe, but much less so here in America.. That is why they are so frustrated and just spewing hatred against anyone advocating anything they see as traditional values. Check it out:

http://www.ex-atheist.com/from-skepticism-to-worship.html

very interesting and informative....unfortunately, religion, in any of it's many guises tends to cause more havoc and chaos that any other single subject in history....not sure why, because common sense dictates that it harms nobody to hedge their bets if there is a god, and it doesn't hurt the faithful to have atheistic neighbors....limbo, you've raised some interesting points, but i've yet to see any of your opinions on the matter of faith...clue us in, bubba ;)

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 03:37 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

I posted this one time earlier.

There are two problems with this video.

1. The guy in question seems to more have a vendetta against Christianity than religion itself.
2. The guy in question is blaming religion for things that people have done in the name of religion.

He shouldn't be pissed off at how stupid religion can be, he should be pissed off at how stupid people can be. The fanatics that blow up a building in the name of religion are the types of people who will blow up a building for any reason, and are simply using religion as a flimsy justification for their actions. Religion isn't what's wrong with the world -- hatred is. Atheists tend to be far more hateful than most Christians.

South Park actually made a two-part episode about what life would be like without religion, stemming from an atheistic movement started by Richard Dawkins. There was just as much hatred and war in the purely atheist future as there was in our time, only the cause of hatred was purely logical. In effect, nothing changed -- people didn't have religion to justify their hatred, so they found something else. I know it didn't really happen, but I think it really speaks to the heart of the matter; the flaw isn't with religion, it's with us.

Limbo

07-31-2007, 04:21 PM

limbo, you've raised some interesting points, but i've yet to see any of your opinions on the matter of faith...clue us in, bubba ;)

I think mankind IS basically evil by nature, and we must strive to overcome that. In fact, I think it is only possible through the grace of God. I think Jesus' message was revolutionary and ushered in a new era for mankind. Love one another, turn the other cheek, be in service to others, avoid the love of money and possessions, to name but a few. Of course, these things are hard to live out in the real world due to all sorts of pressures, but they are ideals for us to strive for.

Secularists, by and large, believe that mankind is basically good, and it is the structure and nature of our society and its institutions that causes people to do bad things. Most think that if we could just reform our society we could eradicate war, hunger, and so on. For them, organized religion is, of course, problem number one. This view has been discredited now that we have seen the evil perpetrated by officially atheistic governments and movements (Stalin, Pol Pot, and even Hitler come to mind).

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 05:23 PM

Limbo

07-31-2007, 06:08 PM

I wouldn't say mankind is inherently evil, just inherently sinful. Good and evil are paths that we choose for ourselves. All men have a natural tendency to commit sin, but that does not make our nature evil -- simply flawed. God's grace is what completes us, but even with that, only the very best among us never sin again. Thankfully, God's mercy knows no bounds, and we are ever forgiven for our sins -- even when God knows full well that we will sin again. I think that's what true love is.

Yes, exactly, nicely put.

hitekredneck

07-31-2007, 06:58 PM

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 07:34 PM

those were very good posts, guys...i would like to add a little food for thought....yeah, man is inherently sinful, but i feel we've misinterpreted what is truly sinful, not thru any fault of our own, but from all of the different interpretations of "god's word"...i don't see sex as a sin, provided it's all consentual between the interested parties....i don't see nudity as particularly sinful, as that's how we come into the world...i don't see disagreeing with fundementalists or the secular crowd as sinful one bit, tho they'll argue about that....many things that we consider "sin" nowadays is nothing more than trying to survive throughout the modern world of stress, violence, and stupidity...

I maintain that sex outside of marriage is sinful on the grounds that you should only have sex if you're prepared to have a child.

If nudity was sinful, none of us would ever be able to bathe. :rolleyes: Nudity for the sake of sexual pleasure -- i.e. pornography -- is sinful because it's a corruption of the beauty of the human body.

If disagreeing with fundies or secular society were sinful, I'd be on the fast-track to shaking hands with Satan. It's not sinful to disagree with someone about what you believe, but living by certain tenants might be sinful, depending on what they are.

I agree that there's a lot of disagreement over what is and is not sinful in our world today. Mostly, if society (particularly the American left) says it's okay, I try to avoid it.

hitekredneck

07-31-2007, 08:04 PM

I maintain that sex outside of marriage is sinful on the grounds that you should only have sex if you're prepared to have a child.

If nudity was sinful, none of us would ever be able to bathe. :rolleyes: Nudity for the sake of sexual pleasure -- i.e. pornography -- is sinful because it's a corruption of the beauty of the human body.

If disagreeing with fundies or secular society were sinful, I'd be on the fast-track to shaking hands with Satan. It's not sinful to disagree with someone about what you believe, but living by certain tenants might be sinful, depending on what they are.

I agree that there's a lot of disagreement over what is and is not sinful in our world today. Mostly, if society (particularly the American left) says it's okay, I try to avoid it.

you see, this is where we start to disagree...which is okay...i'm a firm beleiver that god gave us bodies and sensations to enjoy, not to hide as a shameful act...i do agree that anybody that has sex needs to be prepared for parenthood, and if you cannot be ready, then you shouldn't do it....

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 08:11 PM

you see, this is where we start to disagree...which is okay...i'm a firm beleiver that god gave us bodies and sensations to enjoy, not to hide as a shameful act...i do agree that anybody that has sex needs to be prepared for parenthood, and if you cannot be ready, then you shouldn't do it....

Then where do we disagree? I never said we should be ashamed of ourselves. I'm sure sex is great and it's meant to be enjoyed. But wouldn't you agree that only married couples are actually ready to take care of more children? I'm not saying that being a single parent is wrong -- simply that only married couples should do things that might give them children (i.e. sex).

hitekredneck

07-31-2007, 09:28 PM

Then where do we disagree? I never said we should be ashamed of ourselves. I'm sure sex is great and it's meant to be enjoyed. But wouldn't you agree that only married couples are actually ready to take care of more children? I'm not saying that being a single parent is wrong -- simply that only married couples should do things that might give them children (i.e. sex).

i guess it depends on your definition of marriage...in my mind, a piece of paper doesn't a marriage make...i've know many couples that survived together without splitting up, raising kids, doing that well, in fact, and they've never had a ceremony nor even a blood test....now, the god i believe in accepts this as a true marriage, provided they keep each other happy...yeah, i got the paper....and even my wife says that it doesn't seem as important as it was at the time....i don't think it would've made a difference in the world as to how i feel about her if we just continued "shacking up"...the only reason we did was because her parents are extremely old-school, and i respect them enough to try to make them happy as well....not that it ever happens, mind you:D

General Septem

07-31-2007, 09:33 PM

Nudity for the sake of sexual pleasure -- i.e. pornography -- is sinful because it's a corruption of the beauty of the human body.

A corruption of beauty? Do you mean art isn't meant to be enjoyed, or that sexual pleasure isn't really enjoyment?

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 09:39 PM

A corruption of beauty? Do you mean art isn't meant to be enjoyed, or that sexual pleasure isn't really enjoyment?

That's exactly not what I meant.

Art is different because it's an homage to the beauty of life and the human body. That's not what pornography is; pornography is made from lust for lust and is therefore a corruption of the sanctity and, yes, enjoyment of sex. Art is meant to be admired and to inspire. Pornography is meant to induce wanking. Clearly there's a difference between the two.

General Septem

07-31-2007, 09:42 PM

That's exactly not what I meant.

Art is different because it's an homage to the beauty of life and the human body. That's not what pornography is; pornography is made from lust for lust and is therefore a corruption of the sanctity and, yes, enjoyment of sex. Art is meant to be admired and to inspire. Pornography is meant to induce wanking. Clearly there's a difference between the two.

It's enjoyment nonetheless. Why should we feel bad about our sexual drive? Why shouldn't we enjoy it?

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 09:51 PM

It's enjoyment nonetheless. Why should we feel bad about our sexual drive? Why shouldn't we enjoy it?

We shouldn't do something just because it feels good. Maybe smoking pot feels good. Doesn't mean I should get baked all the time (or ever).

Part of being human is exercising self-control. There are certain times and situations when having sex is okay (and expected), such as with married couples. There are also times when having sex is not okay. It is a sin to use sex only as an indulgence of pleasure. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy it -- simply that we shouldn't always do it.

General Septem

07-31-2007, 09:56 PM

We shouldn't do something just because it feels good. Maybe smoking pot feels good. Doesn't mean I should get baked all the time (or ever).

Part of being human is exercising self-control. There are certain times and situations when having sex is okay (and expected), such as with married couples. There are also times when having sex is not okay. It is a sin to use sex only as an indulgence of pleasure. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy it -- simply that we shouldn't always do it.

Your logic makes no sense.

There's nothing wrong with marijuana, but let's say for instance you'd used heroin as an example. That's bad because there are definite negative side effects. There aren't any negative side effects to having sex.

Just because something is enjoyable doesn't make it wrong to "overindulge" in it.

Loseirdo

07-31-2007, 10:02 PM

Your logic makes no sense.

There's nothing wrong with marijuana, but let's say for instance you'd used heroin as an example. That's bad because there are definite negative side effects. There aren't any negative side effects to having sex.

Just because something is enjoyable doesn't make it wrong to "overindulge" in it.

No negative side effects? What about unexpected pregnancy? What about STDs? Both of these things result from having sex outside of marriage. Just because you won't get them every time you have sex doesn't mean they aren't real possibilities.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised at you, Gen. You might want to crack open the Catechism. I don't have one handy, but I'll go find it and post a few passages from it, if you want.

General Septem

07-31-2007, 10:17 PM

No negative side effects? What about unexpected pregnancy? What about STDs? Both of these things result from having sex outside of marriage. Just because you won't get them every time you have sex doesn't mean they aren't real possibilities.

They can result from having sex inside of marriage, too. Risks and side effects are two different things. You run the risk of getting into an accident when you drive a car, too.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised at you, Gen. You might want to crack open the Catechism. I don't have one handy, but I'll go find it and post a few passages from it, if you want.

What surprises you?

Limbo

07-31-2007, 11:38 PM

WhiteRaven

08-01-2007, 12:46 AM

"All of the matter in the universe breaking down seems like the end to me."

and after this matter breaks down, does it exit the universe through some back door? no, of course not, it is not the end any more than death is.

"What was around before the "Big Bang"?"

I don't know, maybe nothing, maybe another universe, maybe a giant turnip.

"what you find beautiful is the order within chaos, not chaos itself..."

How would you know?

"Huh? So you are saying nothing actually had to cause the universe to come into existence?" yes. "You're grasping at straws on that one dude."

no, I'm simply saying that at some point there had to be an independant point and it might as well be the universe as much as it might be god.

"Would you say that the terms father, son, etc. are terms that solely apply to people and NOT to God? Would it be possible that the language used in the
bible is for our benefit, so as to make it easier for us to understand?"

didn't do a very good job, did it? also, if god were trying to do that, why wouldn't the holy spirit instead be "god the mother"? again, show me a verse that proves the trinity is described in the bible.

"When Jesus said that you have to be "born again", did he mean you have to somehow enter the womb and physically have some kind of second birth? Of course not."

Well, that's good, because I never said he did, you Moron.

"As I mentioned, there is more historical evidence for Jesus' existence than for any other figure in history going back that far."

where is all this so called evidence? that is a blatant lie anyway, the evidence for Julius Caesar is far greater, we have sculptures from that time depicting Julius Caesar for crying out loud. When is the last time you saw a sculpture of Jesus? We have thousands of records of Julius Caesar, whereas the only places the words of Jesus are said to be recorded are: the canonical gospel, the Nag Hammadi Library, and the recently translated gospel of Judas.

Let's stop for a minute, let's say there was a radical Rabbi named Jesus(actually there were probably quite a few by that name, but Jesus of Nazareth was the only one that supposedly came from a town that was not yet built.) So what? As I said, we don't know where his grave is, If we did know, his body probably would have decayed by now.

Have you read the gospel of thomas? Jesus said some pretty retarded things in it, hardly what one would expect from the son of god, unless he was in the amsterdam part of heaven that day.

""Saying 7: Jesus says: 'Blessed is the lion which a man eats so that the lion becomes a man. But cursed is the man whom a lion eats so that the man becomes a lion!'""

"Saying 114: Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.""

seriously, what was he on when he said this, and where can I get some of it?

"By your standard, we should doubt the existence of Plato, Aristotle, and so on."

There's more evidence for Plato, and Aristotle as well, despite your nonsense.

"Can you name me even one historian who believes Jesus was not an actual historical figure?" maybe later. "Or do you subscribe to the conspiracy theories where all historians are somehow in cahoots to propagate a lie?" no.

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 01:14 AM

""All of the matter in the universe breaking down seems like the end to me."

and after this matter breaks down, does it exit the universe through some back door? no, of course not, it is not the end any more than death is."

Back door? No, it uses the front.

Matter breaking down means it no longer exists, genius. All matter has a life span. Some particles are extremely short lived (some existing no longer than 26 billionths of a second), while others last an extremely long amount of time. In the end, though, all particles "die", and eventually our Universe will be nothing but empty void as far as no one will be able to see. The proverbial end of the world.

""What was around before the "Big Bang"?"

I don't know, maybe nothing, maybe another universe, maybe a giant turnip."

Giant turnip? Interesting.

If nothing was around before the big bang, where did the big bang come from? If another Universe was there, where did that come from? If a giant turnip was there, by God, I'll renounce everything I've ever believed in.

My point is that at some point you must accept the idea of infinity. Either the universe has always been here, trapped in a never-ending cycle of implosion and explosion, or God has always been here and only recently (you know, relatively recently) created the Universe. Since we've already established that all matter breaks down over time, the former cannot be true -- therefore something had to have created the Universe.

General Septem

08-01-2007, 09:36 AM

Of course, sex is a weak spot, for men especially. Even a fanatic like Bin Laden has a whole bunch of wives to satisfy his urges, many of them young enough to be his daughters. Sometimes I think God overdid it when it comes to the sex drive he gave men, but I guess survival of the species was paramount :) .

You know how in Genesis, God told Adam, Eve, and all the creatures of the world to "be fruitful and multiply"? Do you really think God literally came down from Heaven and delivered these instructions personally? Or do you think it's more likely that Genesis is a literary reference to how God programmed our sex drive?

Having said that, I still think self control and self discipline is what we need to strive for. Adultery can be disastrous and wreck lives and families. Commitment is the way to go in my opinion and monogamy is possible with God's help.

That kind of argument doesn't make sense. You seem to be advocating that just because it's enjoyable that we should deprive ourselves of it in the name of "self control". I'm not advocating adultery; anyone who would cheat on their wife is scum in my opinion.

If Christians just screw around with no self control, how are we any different than non-believers?

There's a myriad things that non-believers don't do that would certainly set us apart from them if we did. Example: for the Muslims, it's blowing up buildings. I believe the key difference between believers and non-believers is a thing called belief.

Didn't Jesus or one of his apostles say something to the effect of, "they will know you by your love"?

BTW, new study out, 40% greater chance of serious mental illness with even casual marijuana use.

Did you read this study or did you just hear about it on the news? Also, was the study backed by the DEA or other government agency? Did the study determine correlation vs. causality? Did the study determine whether or not the mentally ill were already mentally ill beforehand, and that this illness caused their usage of marijuana, and whether or not the drug merely brought out the symptoms?

See, the problem with drug studies is that the findings are always stacked to make drugs out to be horrifying killers, but at the same time they completely ignore the scientific method.

By the way, if your dog ever asks you to stop smoking weed, maybe you better lay off the acid and 'shrooms too. :D

Walter Weiss

08-01-2007, 10:32 AM

I think mankind IS basically evil by nature, and we must strive to overcome that. In fact, I think it is only possible through the grace of God. I think Jesus' message was revolutionary and ushered in a new era for mankind. Love one another, turn the other cheek, be in service to others, avoid the love of money and possessions, to name but a few. Of course, these things are hard to live out in the real world due to all sorts of pressures, but they are ideals for us to strive for.

Secularists, by and large, believe that mankind is basically good, and it is the structure and nature of our society and its institutions that causes people to do bad things. Most think that if we could just reform our society we could eradicate war, hunger, and so on. For them, organized religion is, of course, problem number one. This view has been discredited now that we have seen the evil perpetrated by officially atheistic governments and movements (Stalin, Pol Pot, and even Hitler come to mind).

Evil acts are learned-behavior patterns. Evil has many definitions. Organized religion may contain more evil aspects than good aspects. Organized religion would definitely find it's placed among items that can be considered "learned behavior." Greed, sex with children, enrichment through deception, character assasination, fundamental hatred, racism, genocide, execution, forced marriage, forced impregnation, incest, the act of divide and conquer, propaganda, brainwash capmpaigns, slavery, faggotry, exploitation, disinformation campaigns, wars of armed conquest, ..... all of these evil things are a regular and usual part of organized christianity and other organized religions, and the physical evidence is there of that, in nearly every century in recorded history.

Proclaiming one-self a Christian does nothing, and serves nothing, other than self-serving of the person making the claim, and self-serving to the person who wishes another to make the claim in order to facillitate exploitation.

IF GOD MEANT FOR RELIGION TO BE ORGANIZED INTO PRESSURE GROUPS AND HATE GROUPS, THEN HE HIMSELF PROBABLY WOULD HAVE ORGANIZED IT HIMSELF, AND NOT LEFT THE PROJECT UP TO MAN.

A baby is born into this world without a "raising." The baby...aside from genetic and biological instinctual traits, has no concepts on which to base behavior, and is therefore not yet corrupted. Therefore, man is born without evil in his heart. Evil wills and acts are created when man is corrupted during the act of receiving education from his fellow man. Organized religion is designed to educate one's fellow man in a limited and narrow minded fashion.....and this opens the door for corruption.

Man is not inherently evil.....man is inherently without evil, and learns to become evil for personal gain, as taught him by other men....many of whom practice organized religion.

Organized Religion is an old and well known form of organized corruption. The act of organizing religion is the act of prohibiting members of the organization from questioning and learning anything outside of the collective....this is brainwashing....and that is corruption. The collective seeks personal gain through exploitation. Exploitation of one's fellow man is an evil act, and a corrupt act. Therefore there is strong evidence that organized religion can be considered in many cases, an evil act.

HOW CAN ORGANIZED RELIGION OVERCOME EVIL WHEN IT IS CORRUPTION IN ITSELF?

HOW CAN BABIES BE BORN EVIL? DO THEY HAVE HORNS AND FANGS, AND A DESIRE TO RAPE AND MURDER WHEN THEY CRAWL OUT OF MOMMY'S WOMB? JESUS WAS A BABY THAT CRAWLED OUT OF A WOMB....SO HE WAS IN-FACT "BORN"...SO IF HE WAS "BORN" THEN HE WAS "EVIL" BY YOUR DEFINITION THAT MEN ARE EVIL. JESUS MUST THEREFORE BE EVIL, BY YOUR DEFINITION, AND BY MY DEFINITION THAT ORGANIZED RELIGION WAS AND IS AN EVIL ACT, AND JESUS PRACTICED ORGANIZED RELIGION.....THAT SCORES OUT TO 2 / 2 THAT JESUS IS EVIL.....CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT PLEASE?

YOUR CONCEPTS, WHEN EVEN ONLY MARGINALLY TWISTED, WOULD INDUCE FANATICAL FREAKS AND OTHERS TO DESTROY BABIES ON THE THEORY THAT THEY ARE EVIL WHEN BORN OUTSIDE OF YOUR COLLECTIVE. YOUR CONCEPTS THEREFORE DEVALUE HUMAN LIFE, BECAUSE YOU CLAIM MAN IS BORN EVIL, RATHER THAN BORN WITHOUT EVIL IN HIS HEART. YOU ADVOCATE DESTROYING EVIL, THEREFORE IN YOUR WORLD, YOU UNWITTINGLY ADVOCATE DESTROYING BABIES. BABIES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED IN THE NAME OF RELIGION IN THE PAST, AND WILL NO DOUBT BE DESRTOYED BY ORGANIZED RELIGION IN THE FUTURE.

PERHAPS WE SHOULD CLEANSE OURSELVES OF ORGANIZED RELIGION???

Would you throw someone into a gas chamber in consequence for their beliefs? In your world, your followers would consider that an honor to carry out such an act.

STALIN studied to be a priest. HITLER studied to be a priest. POL POT was a christian, and studie catholicism as well.
ORGANIZED RELIGION AND IT'S TEACHINGS obviously had an impact on the thoughts and actions of these men, and most probably created these men for what they are. HAD THEY NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, THEY MIGHT HAVE PLACED A HIGHER VALUE ON HUMAN LIFE. They were taught to eliminate that which was evil....they believed others were evil, so they eliminated them. They were not born mass murderers. They became mass murderers after they were corrupted in their teachings by their fellow man.

Many of us have religious beliefs....and choose not to shackle our minds in joining organized religion. Organized religion presumes to define men and women. Many of us dont wish to be defined....or judged...any longer by those who practice organized religion and the fanatical prejudism that accompanies that. WE WHO DO NOT CONSENT TO JOIN YOUR JESUS COLLECTIVE ARE NOT WITHOUT GOD, AND IN SOME CASES WE ARE NOT WITHOUT JESUS.

If there is a hell....expect to see many of the followers and organizers of orgainzed religion in it, for they have much to atone for in this evil world. In some cases, they are the embodiment of evil, and have given religion the black eye it has now. Modern day terrorists are practicing organized religion as well.

Limbo

08-01-2007, 12:03 PM

"Evil acts are learned-behavior patterns. Evil has many definitions. Organized religion may contain more evil aspects than good aspects. Organized religion would definitely find it's placed among items that can be considered "learned behavior." Greed, sex with children, enrichment through deception, character assasination, fundamental hatred, racism, genocide, execution, forced marriage, forced impregnation, incest, the act of divide and conquer, propaganda, brainwash capmpaigns, slavery, faggotry, exploitation, disinformation campaigns, wars of armed conquest, ..... all of these evil things are a regular and usual part of organized christianity and other organized religions, and the physical evidence is there of that, in nearly every century in recorded history. "

I think a better wording is that mankind is born with a sinful nature. Can we learn about evil acts as we get older, of course, just as a child born with a natural mathematical ability can learn about mathematics as they mature and fine tune their skills.

"IA baby is born into this world without a "raising." The baby...aside from genetic and biological instinctual traits, has no concepts on which to base behavior, and is therefore not yet corrupted. Therefore, man is born without evil in his heart. Evil wills and acts are created when man is corrupted during the act of receiving education from his fellow man. Organized religion is designed to educate one's fellow man in a limited and narrow minded fashion.....and this opens the door for corruption.

Man is not inherently evil.....man is inherently without evil, and learns to become evil for personal gain, as taught him by other men....many of whom practice organized religion.

Organized Religion is an old and well known form of organized corruption. The act of organizing religion is the act of prohibiting members of the organization from questioning and learning anything outside of the collective....this is brainwashing....and that is corruption. The collective seeks personal gain through exploitation. Exploitation of one's fellow man is an evil act, and a corrupt act. Therefore there is strong evidence that organized religion can be considered in many cases, an evil act.

HOW CAN ORGANIZED RELIGION OVERCOME EVIL WHEN IT IS CORRUPTION IN ITSELF?"

Yes, you are articulating exactly what I said is the position of most on the hard political left, and invariably the position of atheists. So my observations are correct then. That is why they think you could conceivably create a utopian society here on earth if you could accomplish such things as destroying all religion.

"HOW CAN BABIES BE BORN EVIL? DO THEY HAVE HORNS AND FANGS, AND A DESIRE TO RAPE AND MURDER WHEN THEY CRAWL OUT OF MOMMY'S WOMB? JESUS WAS A BABY THAT CRAWLED OUT OF A WOMB....SO HE WAS IN-FACT "BORN"...SO IF HE WAS "BORN" THEN HE WAS "EVIL" BY YOUR DEFINITION THAT MEN ARE EVIL. JESUS MUST THEREFORE BE EVIL, BY YOUR DEFINITION, AND BY MY DEFINITION THAT ORGANIZED RELIGION WAS AND IS AN EVIL ACT, AND JESUS PRACTICED ORGANIZED RELIGION.....THAT SCORES OUT TO 2 / 2 THAT JESUS IS EVIL.....CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT PLEASE?"

Human nature is selfish and self centered. Any parent realizes that. Children have to be taught how to share. You don't have to teach a child to be selfish. I always laugh when I hear the story of feminists raising male children and making the decision not to have any toy guns in the house, only to have them turn dolls and brooms, etc., into guns. Jesus was not a human, Jesus is God, according to Christians. Immaculate conception, he was not of human DNA. Why are you "yelling" btw?

"YOUR CONCEPTS, WHEN EVEN ONLY MARGINALLY TWISTED, WOULD INDUCE FANATICAL FREAKS AND OTHERS TO DESTROY BABIES ON THE THEORY THAT THEY ARE EVIL WHEN BORN OUTSIDE OF YOUR COLLECTIVE. YOUR CONCEPTS THEREFORE DEVALUE HUMAN LIFE, BECAUSE YOU CLAIM MAN IS BORN EVIL, RATHER THAN BORN WITHOUT EVIL IN HIS HEART. YOU ADVOCATE DESTROYING EVIL, THEREFORE IN YOUR WORLD, YOU UNWITTINGLY ADVOCATE DESTROYING BABIES. BABIES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED IN THE NAME OF RELIGION IN THE PAST, AND WILL NO DOUBT BE DESRTOYED BY ORGANIZED RELIGION IN THE FUTURE.

PERHAPS WE SHOULD CLEANSE OURSELVES OF ORGANIZED RELIGION???

Would you throw someone into a gas chamber in consequence for their beliefs? In your world, your followers would consider that an honor to carry out such an act."

Dude, pop a Valium before you burst a blood vessel or something. That's a slippery slope argument if I have ever heard one.

"STALIN studied to be a priest. HITLER studied to be a priest. POL POT was a christian, and studie catholicism as well.
ORGANIZED RELIGION AND IT'S TEACHINGS obviously had an impact on the thoughts and actions of these men, and most probably created these men for what they are. HAD THEY NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, THEY MIGHT HAVE PLACED A HIGHER VALUE ON HUMAN LIFE. They were taught to eliminate that which was evil....they believed others were evil, so they eliminated them. They were not born mass murderers. They became mass murderers after they were corrupted in their teachings by their fellow man.

Many of us have religious beliefs....and choose not to shackle our minds in joining organized religion. Organized religion presumes to define men and women. Many of us dont wish to be defined....or judged...any longer by those who practice organized religion and the fanatical prejudism that accompanies that. WE WHO DO NOT CONSENT TO JOIN YOUR JESUS COLLECTIVE ARE NOT WITHOUT GOD, AND IN SOME CASES WE ARE NOT WITHOUT JESUS.

If there is a hell....expect to see many of the followers and organizers of orgainzed religion in it, for they have much to atone for in this evil world. In some cases, they are the embodiment of evil, and have given religion the black eye it has now. Modern day terrorists are practicing organized religion as well."

Pol Pot was a Christian, good one. And I am Santa Claus, Ho Ho Ho!

Jesus says that there will be many who claimed to be Christians in Hell, because it is not what you say, or even what you do (people can put on phoney appearances), it is what is in your heart that matters. So, in a sense I agree with you there.

I am not a moral relativist, so I don't believe that all religions are equal. The fact that some Muslims choose to blow up airplanes in the name of their religion says nothing of me as a Christian. The teachings of Mohamed and Jesus are in many ways diametrically opposed.

Limbo

08-01-2007, 12:36 PM

"Would you say that the terms father, son, etc. are terms that solely apply to people and NOT to God? Would it be possible that the language used in the
bible is for our benefit, so as to make it easier for us to understand?"

"didn't do a very good job, did it?"

IMO, the bible does a fantastic job. You obviously disagree.

"When Jesus said that you have to be "born again", did he mean you have to somehow enter the womb and physically have some kind of second birth? Of course not."

Well, that's good, because I never said he did, you Moron."

But you do take the bible literally when it suits your purpose of making it look stupid, or when it creates some supposed contradiction

"As I mentioned, there is more historical evidence for Jesus' existence than for any other figure in history going back that far."

where is all this so called evidence? that is a blatant lie anyway, the evidence for Julius Caesar is far greater, we have sculptures from that time depicting Julius Caesar for crying out loud. When is the last time you saw a sculpture of Jesus? We have thousands of records of Julius Caesar, whereas the only places the words of Jesus are said to be recorded are: the canonical gospel, the Nag Hammadi Library, and the recently translated gospel of Judas.

There's more evidence for Plato, and Aristotle as well, despite your nonsense."

You seem to be forgetting about Josephus, the rest of the new testament, and the voluminous writings of the early church fathers. We have a massively accelerating number of original fragments and sources widely scattered geographically starting about 100 years after Jesus' crucification that are in virtually complete agreement with each other. Can you say this is true for Aristotle or Plato? The idea that he is a myth just does not stand up to any form of scholarship.

Note that this is not true for the supposed Gospel of Thomas, where the first original sources or fragments are from the 3rd century. Of course some critics (apparently you included) take it as historical fact because it is in contradiction to the rest of the bible, which suits them quite nicely, while rejecting all earlier material as unreliable.

"Can you name me even one historian who believes Jesus was not an actual historical figure?" maybe later. "Or do you subscribe to the conspiracy theories where all historians are somehow in cahoots to propagate a lie?" no.

OK, have fun in your search. You might actually learn something.

Walter Weiss

08-01-2007, 12:54 PM

Hey Limbo....so Much For Your Theoreticals On The Hard Political Left....

Did You Know That I Am A Die-hard Republican, And Would Never, Ever, Ever, Ever, Consider To Vote For Anyone Who So Much As Offered Even A Respectful Comment Toward The Demorats?

I Am Not Of The Parties Of The Left, And Never Will Be. The Parties Of The Left Are Destroying This Nation....and The Religious Fanatics...many Who Claim To Be Of The Parties Of The Right....are Helping The Left Wing In These Destructive Acts. We Dont Need Your Organized Religious Fairey Tales To Run A Nation. We Need Freedom To Think....freedom To Educate....freedom To Speak, Act, To Protect Ourselves, To Teach Our Young Without Interference.

The Priests And Preachers Of This World Are Pure And Simple Silver Tongue Devils. They Are Trained To Be For A Certain Purpose, Hidden Beneath A Costume And Kaleidescope Of Effects Designed To Make Others Believe That They Serve God. They Dont Serve God. They Serve Organizations. If They Truly Served God, You Would Not Find Them Serving Organized Religion. Your Camp Has Driven People Away From Itself With Your Fanaticism And Hypocrisy....dont Blame The Morons On The Left Wing For Your Short Comings In Organized Religion. Stop Playing God....all Of You....let God Be God, And Let Politics Be Politics. You Manipulate Current Political Events And Trends In An Effort To Increase Your Fold....more In Your Fold, Meands More In Your Pocket....always Will, And Always Will Be.

We Are Done With Organized Religion Bending Our Religions Into Excuses And Pretzels For The Purpose Of Dividing Us As A Nation.

Even I, The Great Denouncer Of Democrats And The Left, Will Pick Up A Book Or A Weapon To Defend A Democrat's Right To Free Speech And Freedom To Choose.....while You....a Religious Nut....will Rather Manipulate The Printed Word In Order To Create A Hitlerian Movement Culminating In A Hate Campaign Under The Guise Of Organized Religion.

Go Home. Stay Home. Leave The Public Alone. Let Us Believe What We Choose To Believe With The Minds That God Gave Us.

Your bible has been bent into pretzels by your own camp. You bible has been perverted continuously....the original books indicate it....the evidence is overwhelming....heads have been cut off in the name of the bible. Murder has been carried out in the name of the bible. The bible is full of incest, hate, murder, death, deception, war, queerism, oppression....it was written by men...it is manipulated by men like you.....it has been perverted in translation to create outright lies about the teachings of Jesus,. and your group has reveled in those lies, and persecuted anyone that seeks the truth. May God damn organized religion and the nuts that perpetrate it for their great and evil deceptive acts against mankind in the name of GOD.

May GOD bless those who seek the truth, and many have found the truth....that there is great deception in organized religion.

May GOD open the eyes of the nuts who agitate us with their religious theories and divide us further as a Nation. May the Right Wing see fit to put away the religious nuts, for they destroy Gods teachings, and they destroy the right wing strength in this nation.

My appology for the condition of my typography....I had a problem with my word processor in the caps mode.

Limbo

08-01-2007, 01:05 PM

Hey Limbo....so Much For Your Theoreticals On The Hard Political Left....

Did You Know That I Am A Die-hard Republican, And Would Never, Ever, Ever, Ever, Consider To Vote For Anyone Who So Much As Offered Even A Respectful Comment Toward The Demorats?

I Am Not Of The Parties Of The Left, And Never Will Be. The Parties Of The Left Are Destroying This Nation....and The Religious Fanatics...many Who Claim To Be Of The Parties Of The Right....are Helping The Left Wing In These Destructive Acts. We Dont Need Your Organized Religious Fairey Tales To Run A Nation. We Need Freedom To Think....freedom To Educate....freedom To Speak, Act, To Protect Ourselves, To Teach Our Young Without Interference.

The Priests And Preachers Of This World Are Pure And Simple Silver Tongue Devils. They Are Trained To Be For A Certain Purpose, Hidden Beneath A Costume And Kaleidescope Of Effects Designed To Make Others Believe That They Serve God. They Dont Serve God. They Serve Organizations. If They Truly Served God, You Would Not Find Them Serving Organized Religion. Your Camp Has Driven People Away From Itself With Your Fanaticism And Hypocrisy....dont Blame The Morons On The Left Wing For Your Short Comings In Organized Religion. Stop Playing God....all Of You....let God Be God, And Let Politics Be Politics. You Manipulate Current Political Events And Trends In An Effort To Increase Your Fold....more In Your Fold, Meands More In Your Pocket....always Will, And Always Will Be.

We Are Done With Organized Religion Bending Our Religions Into Excuses And Pretzels For The Purpose Of Dividing Us As A Nation.

Even I, The Great Denouncer Of Democrats And The Left, Will Pick Up A Book Or A Weapon To Defend A Democrat's Right To Free Speech And Freedom To Choose.....while You....a Religious Nut....will Rather Manipulate The Printed Word In Order To Create A Hitlerian Movement Culminating In A Hate Campaign Under The Guise Of Organized Religion.

Go Home. Stay Home. Leave The Public Alone. Let Us Believe What We Choose To Believe With The Minds That God Gave Us.

My appology for the condition of my typography....I had a problem with my word processor in the caps mode.

So you are a Republican, and Pol Pot was a Christian, and I am Santa Claus. Come on dude, we are just not that stupid here. Nice try though.

Let me just ask you this, on what issues do you disagree with the Democrats? And while you are at it, why don't you fill us in on your religious beliefs? And if Christians are making such a mess of the nation, why don't you move to North Korea or Cuba or someplace where they have stamped out organized religion?

BTW, I would also fight to defend your right to have your confused beliefs, and for an atheist to have no beliefs whatsoever. That's the American way, Freedom. I not sure how you figured out the "camp" I was in from my few posts mostly regarding historical issues surrounding Christianity. Hmmm, you must be a mind reader or something.

General Septem

08-01-2007, 01:15 PM

Jesus was not a human, Jesus is God, according to Christians. Immaculate conception, he was not of human DNA.

The "Immaculate Conception" refers to that of Mary, not Jesus.

Jesus was "human like us in all things except sin". Jesus was both human and God. A ghost has no flesh, as Jesus says.

Limbo

08-01-2007, 01:54 PM

The "Immaculate Conception" refers to that of Mary, not Jesus.

Jesus was "human like us in all things except sin". Jesus was both human and God. A ghost has no flesh, as Jesus says.

But Jesus was the product of the immaculate conception, which is what I meant. He did not have and earthly father, but yes, he was human and God at the same time, and was without sin.

General Septem

08-01-2007, 02:41 PM

But Jesus was the product of the immaculate conception, which is what I meant. He did not have and earthly father, but yes, he was human and God at the same time, and was without sin.

I don't think you understand - the Immaculate Conception refers to the Catholic tradition that Mary was conceived without sin. It does not refer to Jesus's conception. What you're referring to is simply the Virgin Birth.

What did you mean when you said he was not human then?

Limbo

08-01-2007, 03:37 PM

I don't think you understand - the Immaculate Conception refers to the Catholic tradition that Mary was conceived without sin. It does not refer to Jesus's conception. What you're referring to is simply the Virgin Birth.

What did you mean when you said he was not human then?

Sorry, I am not a Catholic, and I was not using the term in the Catholic sense and I'm sure you are right about that.

I am not a theologian and have tried to avoid getting off topic into theology. I started posting in this thread because I know that the thesis that Christianity is just a copy cat religion is just plain bunk, but of course I have been drawn into other issues. I am familiar with many of the critical arguments against Christianity because I have researched them from time to time to see if they had any validity, and many of them are very easy to refute, even for a lay person.

General Septem

08-01-2007, 04:08 PM

Sorry, I am not a Catholic, and I was not using the term in the Catholic sense and I'm sure you are right about that.

I am not a theologian and have tried to avoid getting off topic into theology. I started posting in this thread because I know that the thesis that Christianity is just a copy cat religion is just plain bunk, but of course I have been drawn into other issues. I am familiar with many of the critical arguments against Christianity because I have researched them from time to time to see if they had any validity, and many of them are very easy to refute, even for a lay person.

You're right, we are getting a little off topic. That tends to happen around here, it seems just about every thread ends up being about exactly the same thing after enough pages. :D

MrJim

08-01-2007, 06:48 PM

MrJim

08-01-2007, 06:58 PM

The Priests And Preachers Of This World Are Pure And Simple Silver Tongue Devils. They Are Trained To Be For A Certain Purpose, Hidden Beneath A Costume And Kaleidescope Of Effects Designed To Make Others Believe That They Serve God. They Dont Serve God. They Serve Organizations. If They Truly Served God, You Would Not Find Them Serving Organized Religion. Your Camp Has Driven People Away From Itself With Your Fanaticism And Hypocrisy....dont Blame The Morons On The Left Wing For Your Short Comings In Organized Religion. Stop Playing God....all Of You....let God Be God, And Let Politics Be Politics. You Manipulate Current Political Events And Trends In An Effort To Increase Your Fold....more In Your Fold, Meands More In Your Pocket....always Will, And Always Will Be.

If people are dumb enough to buy into any organizations' promises, be it a church or a cereal company, it is not the organization that is to blame, it is the full-blown parade of dumbasses that can't think for themselves. If people were to suddenly start trusting themselves more than heresay, every greedy organization would no longer exist because the motivation to carry on would no longer be there.

We Are Done With Organized Religion Bending Our Religions Into Excuses And Pretzels For The Purpose Of Dividing Us As A Nation.

Who is "we"? btw, religions don't divide us a nation, money does.

MrJim

08-01-2007, 07:01 PM

BTW, new study out, 40% greater chance of serious mental illness with even casual marijuana use.

If it was the same story I read yesterday, it also explained that one joint is as harmful to the lungs as 2 (or was it 5) cigarettes. Interesting, since cigarettes cause cancer and emphysema, while pot does not. But, yeah, it brought up the mental illness aspect as well.

MrJim

08-01-2007, 07:05 PM

Why do atheists fight so much about why God doesn't exist anyways?

Cause once they get that ol' God out of the way, they can do whatever the hell they want without feeling guilty; suddenly everything that used to be clearly right and wrong is no longer so.

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 09:22 PM

Kinda sounds like this god of yours is giving his kid a Christmas present in March and saying 'now don't open it until Christmas'... at any rate, if people aren't ready to take risks, they shouldn't take them, but that little piece of paper you hand over to the JP doesn't say anything as far as readiness goes.

Which is why people shouldn't even get married unless they're ready for a lifelong commitment and the prospect of children. The state assumes that you are ready and that's why you are getting married. Perhaps we should create a "marital readiness" test in addition to the "prospective parent" test? If you fail the former, you aren't allowed to get married. If you fail the latter, you have your nuts blown off (hysterectomy for the women).

It is kind of like giving a kid a Christmas present in March and making him wait until December. It might seem cruel to you, but it's a matter of teaching self-control. God does not allow us to be tested with more than we can handle. At first, the kid is going to see the present every day and think, "I wonder what it is? Maybe I can just sneak a peek." Eventually, though, he'll learn to just ignore it until the time comes. Humans are incredibly adaptable and resilient creatures.

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 09:24 PM

Sorry, I am not a Catholic, and I was not using the term in the Catholic sense and I'm sure you are right about that.

I am not a theologian and have tried to avoid getting off topic into theology. I started posting in this thread because I know that the thesis that Christianity is just a copy cat religion is just plain bunk, but of course I have been drawn into other issues. I am familiar with many of the critical arguments against Christianity because I have researched them from time to time to see if they had any validity, and many of them are very easy to refute, even for a lay person.

Have you looked into the Catholic faith much? You have the makings of a fine Catholic, and you might like what you find. :cool:

General Septem

08-01-2007, 09:24 PM

Which is why people shouldn't even get married unless they're ready for a lifelong commitment and the prospect of children. The state assumes that you are ready and that's why you are getting married. Perhaps we should create a "marital readiness" test in addition to the "prospective parent" test? If you fail the former, you aren't allowed to get married. If you fail the latter, you have your nuts blown off (hysterectomy for the women).

It is kind of like giving a kid a Christmas present in March and making him wait until December. It might seem cruel to you, but it's a matter of teaching self-control. God does not allow us to be tested with more than we can handle. At first, the kid is going to see the present every day and think, "I wonder what it is? Maybe I can just sneak a peek." Eventually, though, he'll learn to just ignore it until the time comes. Humans are incredibly adaptable and resilient creatures.

God didn't design us to go the first twenty, thirty years of our life without some kind of sexual release. I can't even go a week for crying out loud. :D

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 09:28 PM

God didn't design us to go the first twenty, thirty years of our life without some kind of sexual release. I can't even go a week for crying out loud. :D

That's what masturbation is for. :D

But seriously, if it couldn't be done, He wouldn't have made us this way.

MrJim

08-01-2007, 09:31 PM

That's what masturbation is for. :D

Isn't that frowned on as well according to the Bible?

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 09:36 PM

Isn't that frowned on as well according to the Bible?

It is, and the Catholic Church views it as a Mortal Sin. For something to be a mortal sin, three conditions must be met:

1. The sin in question must be a grave matter.
2. The person in question must know that the sin is a grave matter.
3. The person in question must commit the sin of their own free will.

Since most teens begin masturbating before they know it's a sin, it becomes very difficult for them to stop once they do know -- therefore, they are not committing it of their own free will, but are rather acting out their addiction. At this point, masturbation is not a Mortal Sin and is a Venial Sin, allowing the person to break their addiction. Once they have, however, any subsequent case would be a Mortal Sin.

In other words, it's the lesser of two evils until they've built up enough willpower to refrain from both.

MrJim

08-01-2007, 09:39 PM

It is, and the Catholic Church views it as a Mortal Sin. For something to be a mortal sin, three conditions must be met:

1. The sin in question must be a grave matter.
2. The person in question must know that the sin is a grave matter.
3. The person in question must commit the sin of their own free will.

Since most teens begin masturbating before they know it's a sin, it becomes very difficult for them to stop once they do know -- therefore, they are not committing it of their own free will, but are rather acting out their addiction. At this point, masturbation is not a Mortal Sin and is a Venial Sin, allowing the person to break their addiction. Once they have, however, any subsequent case would be a Mortal Sin.

In other words, it's the lesser of two evils until they've built up enough willpower to refrain from both.

Somewhere, don't ask me where, but somewhere I remember a verse that read something like "It is better to plant your seed into the belly of a whore than to spill it on the ground"... I take that as "I fucked a hooker, but hey, at least I wasn't masturbating"... but then, no sin is supposed to be worse than another... so, yet another contradiction...

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 09:46 PM

Somewhere, don't ask me where, but somewhere I remember a verse that read something like "It is better to plant your seed into the belly of a whore than to spill it on the ground"... I take that as "I fucked a hooker, but hey, at least I wasn't masturbating"... but then, no sin is supposed to be worse than another... so, yet another contradiction...

That passage was referring to artificial contraception (specifically the "pull-out" method, here). If you're going to fuck a hooker, it's better to potentially get her pregnant than to pull out. The reason being that contraception destroys the purpose of sex, and therefore you should only be having sex if you are prepared to have children with your sexual partner. I've been pushing this idea for what seems like weeks now. :p

As for the matter of sins, it doesn't actually say anywhere that all sins are equal. That's Protestant propaganda. I can pull out the main passage where the Catholic Church derived the idea of Mortal and Venial sins, if you want.

MrJim

08-01-2007, 09:55 PM

If you're going to fuck a hooker, it's better to potentially get her pregnant than to pull out.

LMAO!! No it isn't!!! HA! That's just funny as hell! First off, you shouldn't touch one, second, if you do you should be wearing protection, not pulling out! And third... what the hell is good about getting a hooker pregnant?!? :D

The reason being that contraception destroys the purpose of sex, and therefore you should only be having sex if you are prepared to have children with your sexual partner. I've been pushing this idea for what seems like weeks now. :p

What is the purpose of having sex then? (other than cause it's GREAT obviously tho that's not your argument), but most people who have children are not prepared (there are exceptions)... even married people are often not prepared, and shouldn't have an assload of kids they can't take care of.

As for the matter of sins, it doesn't actually say anywhere that all sins are equal. That's Protestant propaganda. I can pull out the main passage where the Catholic Church derived the idea of Mortal and Venial sins, if you want.

I would definitely believe that not all sins are equal, I've just heard it a bunch. Of course if you believe in the hell-fire, etc., which I don't, all sins would amount to equal since they all send someone there.

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 10:09 PM

LMAO!! No it isn't!!! HA! That's just funny as hell! First off, you shouldn't touch one, second, if you do you should be wearing protection, not pulling out! And third... what the hell is good about getting a hooker pregnant?!? :D

That was my point, Jim. You should only have sex if you're prepared to have children. Therefore, if you're having sex with a hooker, it must mean you are prepared to have children with that hooker and you should not pull out.

The passage was meant to illustrate how we should view the act of sex -- that is, as a means of having children. Not that we should be getting hookers pregnant. I'm glad your misinterpretation made you laugh, though. :D

General Septem

08-01-2007, 10:17 PM

But seriously, if it couldn't be done, He wouldn't have made us this way.

Your logic is flawed. We're not designed to deprive ourselves of sexual activity, and God did design us. God specifically told us to be fruitful and multiply, and I believe this is a literary reference to our natural sex drive.

I'm not saying the model described in the Bible isn't ideal, but we're already not following it by not getting married at the age of fifteen, and not having arranged marriages. In a world where we choose our own spouses, love is very conditional.

Another thing you have to understand is that in those times, a woman belonged to her father until she got married, and then she belonged to her husband. For her to have relations was considered to be a defilement to the honor of whom she belonged to. Men who had premarital relations were not looked down upon nearly as much.

but are rather acting out their addiction.

It's not an addiction, it is a natural instinct.

I will give you this much: it is possible that our procreative instincts are stronger once an individual becomes sexually active, but unlike addictions, our natural instincts are not unhealthy, aren't something that will just go away in time, and wouldn't be healthy or natural to even try.

God told us to be fruitful and multiply. Thousands of years later, he designed a model of marital relations that worked perfectly with the society of that time.

At the same time, he also told us to stone anyone who did otherwise (the Catholic Church is now against the death penalty) and set guidelines on how to treat slaves (the Catholic Church is now against slavery).

Not everything in the Bible is "do this or go to Hell".

MrJim

08-01-2007, 10:17 PM

That was my point, Jim. You should only have sex if you're prepared to have children. Therefore, if you're having sex with a hooker, it must mean you are prepared to have children with that hooker and you should not pull out.

The passage was meant to illustrate how we should view the act of sex -- that is, as a means of having children. Not that we should be getting hookers pregnant. I'm glad your misinterpretation made you laugh, though. :D

All street corner sex aside, Los, many people are ready to have sex and ready to have children but would prefer not to have children if possible. Many of which already have children and don't need any more.

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 10:25 PM

All street corner sex aside, Los, many people are ready to have sex and ready to have children but would prefer not to have children if possible. Many of which already have children and don't need any more.

Then it comes down to a matter of faith. Like I've said, God will not burden you with more than you can handle. All it takes is some prayer and faith. If God wants you to have more kids, you'll have more kids, and He will see to it that you can take care of them. If He knows you're at your limit, He won't let you have more kids. It's very hard to have this kind of faith, but it isn't impossible.

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 10:27 PM

Your logic is flawed. We're not designed to deprive ourselves of sexual activity, and God did design us. God specifically told us to be fruitful and multiply, and I believe this is a literary reference to our natural sex drive.

I'm not saying the model described in the Bible isn't ideal, but we're already not following it by not getting married at the age of fifteen, and not having arranged marriages. In a world where we choose our own spouses, love is very conditional.

Another thing you have to understand is that in those times, a woman belonged to her father until she got married, and then she belonged to her husband. For her to have relations was considered to be a defilement to the honor of whom she belonged to. Men who had premarital relations were not looked down upon nearly as much.

It's not an addiction, it is a natural instinct.

I will give you this much: it is possible that our procreative instincts are stronger once an individual becomes sexually active, but unlike addictions, our natural instincts are not unhealthy, aren't something that will just go away in time, and wouldn't be healthy or natural to even try.

God told us to be fruitful and multiply. Thousands of years later, he designed a model of marital relations that worked perfectly with the society of that time.

At the same time, he also told us to stone anyone who did otherwise (the Catholic Church is now against the death penalty) and set guidelines on how to treat slaves (the Catholic Church is now against slavery).

Not everything in the Bible is "do this or go to Hell".

God did say "be fruitful and multiply." But what is your interpretation of this passage? Do you think it means, "nail every broad you come across to spread your seed to the far corners of the Earth"? Because I sure as hell don't.

The Catholic Church is against premarital sex and you should know that. It's also against masturbation. I've already suggested looking up why in the Catechism, but I'll gladly do it for you and post what I find here.

General Septem

08-01-2007, 10:27 PM

God will not burden you with more than you can handle.

No, but that's not going to stop some of his "followers" from trying.

General Septem

08-01-2007, 10:28 PM

The Catholic Church is against premarital sex and you should know that. It's also against masturbation. I've already suggested looking up why in the Catechism, but I'll gladly do it for you and post what I find here.

Yes, I do know that, and I know why they're against it. I happen to disagree.

God did say "be fruitful and multiply." But what is your interpretation of this passage? Do you think it means, "nail every broad you come across to spread your seed to the far corners of the Earth"? Because I sure as hell don't.

No, but I see our sexuality as a gift, not a burden.

MrJim

08-01-2007, 10:32 PM

Then it comes down to a matter of faith. Like I've said, God will not burden you with more than you can handle. All it takes is some prayer and faith. If God wants you to have more kids, you'll have more kids, and He will see to it that you can take care of them. If He knows you're at your limit, He won't let you have more kids. It's very hard to have this kind of faith, but it isn't impossible.

Sorry but I’m going to have to disagree again... God lets WAY too many people have WAY more kids than they need. If everyone had just the right number of kids there wouldn’t be adoption agencies, orphanages, and all the other institutions that exist just for this reason.

The only way to prevent having too many children is to a) not have sex, or b) use protection. This being said, if one of a couple opts for the (a) option, it would likely turn into the whole “You aren’t attracted to me boo-hoo I have needs whaaaa” affairs & anger.. drama mamma shit, etc, etc, etc...

Also, not having sex has been scientifically proven to be harmful to you... God doesn’t like self-destructiveness, so he must not be for abstinence, then... right??

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 10:32 PM

Yes, I do know that, and I know why they're against it. I happen to disagree.

I can only express puzzlement as to how you can so casually disregard a Church teaching while adamantly maintaining that the rest are true.

No, but I see our sexuality as a gift, not a burden.

It is a gift. It is also a burden. Perhaps you are merely afraid to admit that you are incapable of bearing this burden on your own?

General Septem

08-01-2007, 10:43 PM

I can only express puzzlement as to how you can so casually disregard a Church teaching while adamantly maintaining that the rest are true.

What makes you think I agree with everything else? I believe what I believe God has led me to believe throughout my life. I believe God gave the Church wisdom, and I always give their teachings much thought, but I will not blindly follow them or anyone else when I come to believe otherwise. Particularly when I'm hearing sexual/relationship advice from celibate Bishops.

It is a gift. It is also a burden. Perhaps you are merely afraid to admit that you are incapable of bearing this burden on your own?

I am not "incapable" of bearing this "burden" because I don't believe it's a burden in the first place. It would be like receiving a million dollars and burying it in a hole in the ground, where it will not only do no good, but actually depreciate in value.

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 10:47 PM

What makes you think I agree with everything else? I believe what I believe God has led me to believe throughout my life. I believe God gave the Church wisdom, and I always give their teachings much thought, but I will not blindly follow them or anyone else when I come to believe otherwise. Particularly when I'm hearing sexual/relationship advice from celibate Bishops.

I am not "incapable" of bearing this "burden" because I don't believe it's a burden in the first place. It would be like receiving a million dollars and burying it in a hole in the ground, where it will not only do no good, but actually depreciate in value.

Don't you think it would make more sense to take advice on sexuality from celibate Bishops? They have given up sex, so they aren't speaking with a sexual bias. I think you're just worried that you'll have to give up something you enjoy, which, as you'll remember, was the whole point of being Christian in the first place -- we must give everything unto God and keep nothing for ourselves. This means sacrificing those things we might enjoy to pursue the life that God has for us.

Remember the parable of the men and the talents? Burying your money in the ground is wasteful. (I know that doesn't actually address what you said, I just thought it was funny. :D)

MrJim

08-01-2007, 10:49 PM

It would be like receiving a million dollars and burying it in a hole in the ground, where it will not only do no good, but actually depreciate in value.

Hey, if it were gold instead of bills, it would have the opposite effect.. :cool:

...I think you're just worried that you'll have to give up something you enjoy, which, as you'll remember, was the whole point of being Christian in the first place -- we must give everything unto God and keep nothing for ourselves. This means sacrificing those things we might enjoy to pursue the life that God has for us.

Yeah, we must all give up sex for God... then... uh... well the human race will be gone forever, but we sure had that sacrificing thing in check! :rolleyes:

General Septem

08-01-2007, 10:55 PM

Don't you think it would make more sense to take advice on sexuality from celibate Bishops? They have given up sex, so they aren't speaking with a sexual bias.

No, because there's no reason to believe they know anything at all about women or relationships, or that they even possess any kind of knowledge required to sustain a relationship.

It would be like taking medical advice from a car mechanic.

I think you're just worried that you'll have to give up something you enjoy, which, as you'll remember, was the whole point of being Christian in the first place -- we must give everything unto God and keep nothing for ourselves. This means sacrificing those things we might enjoy to pursue the life that God has for us.

The whole point is being Christian is giving stuff up? I'll have to re-read the Bible one of these days, because I seem to remember the main focus of Christianity is to love one another, and to believe that Christ died for our sins. I don't remember seeing anything about giving anything up for the sake of giving it up.

Remember the parable of the men and the talents? Burying your money in the ground is wasteful. (I know that doesn't actually address what you said, I just thought it was funny. :D)

That is funny, but it's also very poignant, because it seems to go against what a lot of whom Jesus used to refer to as "scribes" and "pharisees" would have you believe.

(Oh, I forgot - the scribes' and pharisees' sins were that they were not Catholic, not that they were judgmental, self-righteous, pompous, holier-than-thou numbnuts.)

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 11:11 PM

No, because there's no reason to believe they know anything at all about women or relationships, or that they even possess any kind of knowledge required to sustain a relationship.

It would be like taking medical advice from a car mechanic.

This isn't a matter of taking relationship advice, it's a matter of taking faith advice. If you ask me, they are proof that you don't need sex to live a happy, productive life.

By-the-by, the priest at my church actually does have a family. He has five children, and while he claims that being married and having a family was one of the greatest experiences of his life, becoming a priest and growing that much closer to God was at least as wonderful. He still maintains that premarital sex and masturbation are wrong.

Oh, and his wife died, which is why he was allowed to become a priest.

The whole point is being Christian is giving stuff up? I'll have to re-read the Bible one of these days, because I seem to remember the main focus of Christianity is to love one another, and to believe that Christ died for our sins. I don't remember seeing anything about giving anything up for the sake of giving it up.

Giving things up for Christ, GS, not for the sake of giving it up. Remember when Christ said to leave behind your life to follow Him? He even said to leave behind your family for the sake of following Him. It seems like an extreme thing to say, but it really speaks to the heart of the matter: nothing is more important than following God. If anything holds you back, cast it aside. If your left eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. The main point of Christianity is to follow Christ, and to do so we must deny ourselves.

Limbo

08-01-2007, 11:34 PM

Have you looked into the Catholic faith much? You have the makings of a fine Catholic, and you might like what you find. :cool:

Sorry Loseirdo, I have a lot of respect for faithful Catholics but I just have too many differences now on various doctrinal issues. Besides my wife would divorce me and my family would disown me :).

The main difference I have with mainliners and Catholics is the whole concept of coat-tail riding. For example, the concept that somehow you can save your children just by having them baptized as infants. I think we all need to be accountable to God. Our parents can't save us. We need to make the decision to be Christians, or not be Christians, of our own free will. Nobody can do it for us.

No point dwelling on the differences though. The internet is filling up with bogus information even questioning whether Jesus even existed. We need to focus our energies on challenging this flood of misinformation rather than infighting on doctrinal issues.

BTW, you would make a good Baptist... :D

Loseirdo

08-01-2007, 11:39 PM

Sorry Loseirdo, I have a lot of respect for faithful Catholics but I just have too many differences now on various doctrinal issues. Besides my wife would divorce me and my family would disown me :).

The main difference I have with mainliners and Catholics is the whole concept of coat-tail riding. For example, the concept that somehow you can save your children just by having them baptized as infants. I think we all need to be accountable to God. Our parents can't save us. We need to make the decision to be Christians, or not be Christians, of our own free will. Nobody can do it for us.

No point dwelling on the differences though. The internet is filling up with bogus information even questioning whether Jesus even existed. We need to focus our energies on challenging this flood of misinformation rather than infighting on doctrinal issues.

BTW, you would make a good Baptist... :D

Agreed that the main issue is fighting misinformation on Christianity in general. We can still argue amongst ourselves a little bit, though. :p

We don't actually believe that anyone is ever "saved". That's strictly a protestant perspective. Therefore, we don't believe we are "saving" our babies by having them baptized -- merely "cleansing" them. If they were to die as infants, they would be "saved", but the choices they make in their lives will still determine whether or not they go to Heaven. We don't force them to be Christian, we merely raise them that way. I'm sure you do the same?

Are you of the "once saved, always saved" variety? I've never understood from where this idea originated.

Limbo

08-02-2007, 12:21 AM

Agreed that the main issue is fighting misinformation on Christianity in general. We can still argue amongst ourselves a little bit, though. :p

We don't actually believe that anyone is ever "saved". That's strictly a protestant perspective. Therefore, we don't believe we are "saving" our babies by having them baptized -- merely "cleansing" them. If they were to die as infants, they would be "saved", but the choices they make in their lives will still determine whether or not they go to Heaven. We don't force them to be Christian, we merely raise them that way. I'm sure you do the same?

Are you of the "once saved, always saved" variety? I've never understood from where this idea originated.

I am of the "all you have to do is believe" to be saved variety. I do get asked about that a lot. I would say there is about a 60/40 split in evangelical churches in regards to whether someone can choose to give up their salvation, but it is kind of a moot point, because you can just say they were never really "saved" to begin with. It is rare that someone who chooses to be baptized in front of the whole church and makes a public profession of faith later turns away from the church and becomes a complete atheist heathen. It does happen though I suppose. Evangelical churches are pretty picky about who they allow to be members and usually shun people of weak or nominal faith for membership. Of course they are welcome to attend, but a lot is expected if you want to become a member. No coat tail riding allowed!

I can't say exactly how God will judge people. Jesus mentions that people will be judged based on what they know. Of course I hope the concept of hell is exaggerated in the bible, and is not some fiery pit of burning sulfur. Jesus used hyperbole a lot in his teachings, so I hope hell is not a place of eternal suffering. My concept of hell is just separation from God for those who wish to be separated from God. As I mentioned, that would be hell for me.

Loseirdo

08-02-2007, 01:06 AM

I am of the "all you have to do is believe" to be saved variety. I do get asked about that a lot. I would say there is about a 60/40 split in evangelical churches in regards to whether someone can choose to give up their salvation, but it is kind of a moot point, because you can just say they were never really "saved" to begin with. It is rare that someone who chooses to be baptized in front of the whole church and makes a public profession of faith later turns away from the church and becomes a complete atheist heathen. It does happen though I suppose. Evangelical churches are pretty picky about who they allow to be members and usually shun people of weak or nominal faith for membership. Of course they are welcome to attend, but a lot is expected if you want to become a member. No coat tail riding allowed!

I can't say exactly how God will judge people. Jesus mentions that people will be judged based on what they know. Of course I hope the concept of hell is exaggerated in the bible, and is not some fiery pit of burning sulfur. Jesus used hyperbole a lot in his teachings, so I hope hell is not a place of eternal suffering. My concept of hell is just separation from God for those who wish to be separated from God. As I mentioned, that would be hell for me.

The Catholic Church maintains that Hell is a "total separation from God the Father", which really would be eternal suffering.

I still don't see where the "just believe" idea fits in, since there's a passage in the Bible that states, "man is not saved by faith alone". Paul maintained that man is saved by grace, which comes from faith and good works; man is not saved by one or the other alone, however.

The whole idea behind saying "If they give up their salvation, they were never saved to begin with" really emphasizes the inherent flaw in that type of thinking. If they were never saved to begin with, how can you be sure anyone is saved? I claim that you can't be sure, and therefore no one is ever actually "saved" until they're dead and in Heaven (though a quick stop in purgatory might be necessary).

This could potentially turn into a heated argument, so I hope you don't get the impression that I'm attacking you directly. I just love debating scriptural interpretation. :D

General Septem

08-02-2007, 09:12 AM

This isn't a matter of taking relationship advice, it's a matter of taking faith advice. If you ask me, they are proof that you don't need sex to live a happy, productive life.

The problem is, there are two reasons to do or abstain from doing something. One is "because God/the Church says so", and the other is "because I believe it is wrong". If they don't know anything about sex, how can they speak about whether or not it is wrong?

Yeah, by the time you're 70, abstaining from sex really doesn't take as much of a toll anymore. That's called impotence. I'm not saying they're impotent, but if you have no sex drive left, that can only really mean one thing.

There's also the matter of how you interpret it when the Bible says something leads to "Hell and destruction". Is it some authoritarian thing stating that if you do this, you'll be punished by an eternity in Hell? Or is it really just words of wisdom that state that certain things rarely end well?

For instance, I could say that trafficking cocaine can "lead to Hell and destruction". If you've ever seen the movie "Blow", which is based on a true story, you can see why. However, if trafficking cocaine were not illegal, the same wouldn't apply. This is just an example, and obviously the drug itself still has very negative side effects that will still cause suffering among many of those who use it.

By-the-by, the priest at my church actually does have a family. He has five children, and while he claims that being married and having a family was one of the greatest experiences of his life, becoming a priest and growing that much closer to God was at least as wonderful. He still maintains that premarital sex and masturbation are wrong.

How old is he?

Giving things up for Christ, GS, not for the sake of giving it up. Remember when Christ said to leave behind your life to follow Him? He even said to leave behind your family for the sake of following Him. It seems like an extreme thing to say, but it really speaks to the heart of the matter: nothing is more important than following God. If anything holds you back, cast it aside. If your left eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. The main point of Christianity is to follow Christ, and to do so we must deny ourselves.

"If anything holds you back". I agree with that. But if it's not holding you back, then you're just giving it up for the sake of giving it up.

Limbo

08-02-2007, 11:06 AM

The Catholic Church maintains that Hell is a "total separation from God the Father", which really would be eternal suffering.

I still don't see where the "just believe" idea fits in, since there's a passage in the Bible that states, "man is not saved by faith alone". Paul maintained that man is saved by grace, which comes from faith and good works; man is not saved by one or the other alone, however.

The whole idea behind saying "If they give up their salvation, they were never saved to begin with" really emphasizes the inherent flaw in that type of thinking. If they were never saved to begin with, how can you be sure anyone is saved? I claim that you can't be sure, and therefore no one is ever actually "saved" until they're dead and in Heaven (though a quick stop in purgatory might be necessary).

This could potentially turn into a heated argument, so I hope you don't get the impression that I'm attacking you directly. I just love debating scriptural interpretation. :D

I think we need to separate two different issues here. It seems to me there would be two ways of losing your salvation:

1) Committing some horrible sin that God will just find too heinous

2) Committing apostasy

I don't think 1) is possible (with one exception -see below). Although if someone is going around murdering people while claiming to be a follower of Christ, I think it would be fair to doubt that they really are a Christian in their heart of hearts. Remember God will judge us by what's in our hearts, not by what we say or even by our actions. When I say, maybe they never were Christians to begin with, that is what I mean. Like if a televangelist is just professing faith as a way to solicit donations for his/her benefit but doesn't really believe what they are saying.

I think the sin of disbelief (2) may actually be the unpardonable sin that could send you to H-E double hockey sticks on a hand cart.

I think the bible interpretation used by evangelicals is by far the most air-tight from a logical standpoint with only minor surface contradictions. That really appeals to me because of my science background. Theories that stand the test of time have an elegant simplicity, explain things in the most general way possible, and require few if any convoluted caveats and exceptions (like your definition of grace for example). Catholics have to do a lot of fancy footwork logic wise since so many ideas are contradictory

But, as I said, ultimately, I can barely tell the difference with outward appearances and actions between a devout Catholic, and an evangelical. It's just that there are so darn many nominal Catholics out there.

Where does the bible say "man is not saved by faith alone". Are you equivocating from James where he says "faith without works is dead"? It's not that works will save you, or you have to do X amount of good works to be saved, it is that if you claim to have faith, good works should be a natural consequence of your faith. If not, one could doubt you really have faith. It is what is in your heart that counts. Ceremony or tradition won't save you, or even good works. Faith will save you, and good works should come from having faith.

General Septem

08-02-2007, 11:09 AM

I think the sin of disbelief (2) may actually be the unpardonable sin that could send you to H-E double hockey sticks on a hand cart.

So you believe that anyone who doesn't believe in God is going to Hell, no questions asked? You don't think a non-believer can still do the work of God?

I believe any sin can be forgiven or pardoned, so long as one is not unrepentant, and you can't be unrepentant if you don't even know you're sinning.

Limbo

08-02-2007, 11:31 AM

So you believe that anyone who doesn't believe in God is going to Hell, no questions asked?

Definitely not. Jesus said we will be judged based on what we know (see Luke 12,41-48). If someone knows and understands the gospel and decides with a clear mind to reject it, and in so doing, reject God, they will be judged differently than someone who has never heard it, or never really understood it.

You don't think a non-believer can still do the work of God?

Non-believers can do good works. Bill Gates is an admitted atheist, but he still goes around giving away money to the poor. I don't think he is buying his way into heaven though. The bible even gives more credit to a poor widow giving a tiny gift than to a rich man giving massive sums, as it is more of a sacrifice to the poor widow. It may be, as I suspect, mostly a P.R. move on Gates' part, but who am I to judge him.

something

08-02-2007, 12:06 PM

Definitely not. Jesus said we will be judged based on what we know (see Luke 12,41-48). If someone knows and understands the gospel and decides with a clear mind to reject it, and in so doing, reject God, they will be judged differently than someone who has never heard it, or never really understood it.

Non-believers can do good works. Bill Gates is an admitted atheist, but he still goes around giving away money to the poor. I don't think he is buying his way into heaven though. The bible even gives more credit to a poor widow giving a tiny gift than to a rich man giving massive sums, as it is more of a sacrifice to the poor widow. It may be, as I suspect, mostly a P.R. move on Gates' part, but who am I to judge him.

If god punish disbelief before evil, he isnot good.

Limbo

08-02-2007, 12:56 PM

If god punish disbelief before evil, he isnot good.

Great Question/Comment.

Many sects have different notions of hell. Mormons have different levels of hell/heaven, with the really bad people being in the worst levels, and others who were not so bad in the better levels. Righteous people with a pile of wives can end up in the best levels of heaven. I believe Catholics have the notion of being in Limbo (my moniker, but with a different meaning), where somehow you can work your way out of there, and not be stuck there eternally.

The concept of eternal punishment is quite frightening to many people, especially if their children or family members end up there. I think this is why there have been so many attempts to repackage the notion of hell into something less frightening.

Since I am not a theologian, I can't really say anything definitive about your comment. All I know is hell sounds like a bad place to me, so I don't want to go there. Beyond that, I can't tell you much.

something

08-02-2007, 01:43 PM

Great Question/Comment.

Many sects have different notions of hell. Mormons have different levels of hell/heaven, with the really bad people being in the worst levels, and others who were not so bad in the better levels. Righteous people with a pile of wives can end up in the best levels of heaven. I believe Catholics have the notion of being in Limbo (my moniker, but with a different meaning), where somehow you can work your way out of there, and not be stuck there eternally.

The concept of eternal punishment is quite frightening to many people, especially if their children or family members end up there. I think this is why there have been so many attempts to repackage the notion of hell into something less frightening.

Since I am not a theologian, I can't really say anything definitive about your comment. All I know is hell sounds like a bad place to me, so I don't want to go there. Beyond that, I can't tell you much.

Yeah, well i don't think eternal punishent makes any sense.

Limbo

08-02-2007, 02:07 PM

Yeah, well i don't think eternal punishent makes any sense.

You are definitely not alone on that one.

General Septem

08-02-2007, 03:28 PM

I believe Catholics have the notion of being in Limbo (my moniker, but with a different meaning), where somehow you can work your way out of there, and not be stuck there eternally.

I believe you are thinking of Purgatory. The Church's stance on Purgatory is that people will go there if they are connected with God, but still have sin in their soul to be cleansed. Those in Purgatory are "saved" as it were, but they must now go through the process of cleansing their soul of sin.

Limbo originates from Dante's Inferno, and, in his philosophy, was where "virtuous pagans" go. Supposedly, people who led good lives but never knew God went here. As the story goes, Jesus shed his light upon Limbo for the three days he was dead, and those there who believed would go to Heaven. There was no suffering here except that associated with being separated from the light of God. Apparently, the Church used to believe that unbaptized babies went here if they died.

Problems with Limbo include:

The Church also states what it says in the Bible, that nobody is good except through the grace of Christ's death on the cross. The notion of "virtuous pagans" seems to be at odds with the Church's other teachings.

Another source states that separation from God is the primary reason Hell is so torturous. It doesn't make sense that one can be separated from God and not be in a state of torture.

Limbo

08-02-2007, 04:27 PM

I believe you are thinking of Purgatory. The Church's stance on Purgatory is that people will go there if they are connected with God, but still have sin in their soul to be cleansed. Those in Purgatory are "saved" as it were, but they must now go through the process of cleansing their soul of sin.

Limbo originates from Dante's Inferno, and, in his philosophy, was where "virtuous pagans" go. Supposedly, people who led good lives but never knew God went here. As the story goes, Jesus shed his light upon Limbo for the three days he was dead, and those there who believed would go to Heaven. There was no suffering here except that associated with being separated from the light of God. Apparently, the Church used to believe that unbaptized babies went here if they died.

Problems with Limbo include:

The Church also states what it says in the Bible, that nobody is good except through the grace of Christ's death on the cross. The notion of "virtuous pagans" seems to be at odds with the Church's other teachings.

Another source states that separation from God is the primary reason Hell is so torturous. It doesn't make sense that one can be separated from God and not be in a state of torture.

I am far from an expert on Catholic theology, but I think there is more to the concept of Limbo than that.

See here for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

Walter Weiss

08-02-2007, 05:32 PM

If people are dumb enough to buy into any organizations' promises, be it a church or a cereal company, it is not the organization that is to blame, it is the full-blown parade of dumbasses that can't think for themselves. If people were to suddenly start trusting themselves more than heresay, every greedy organization would no longer exist because the motivation to carry on would no longer be there.

Who is "we"? btw, religions don't divide us a nation, money does.

High Compliments....nail hit on head.....excellent post

Walter Weiss

08-02-2007, 05:34 PM

That passage was referring to artificial contraception (specifically the "pull-out" method, here). If you're going to fuck a hooker, it's better to potentially get her pregnant than to pull out. The reason being that contraception destroys the purpose of sex, and therefore you should only be having sex if you are prepared to have children with your sexual partner. I've been pushing this idea for what seems like weeks now. :p

As for the matter of sins, it doesn't actually say anywhere that all sins are equal. That's Protestant propaganda. I can pull out the main passage where the Catholic Church derived the idea of Mortal and Venial sins, if you want.

Man, you have got to be crazy.....impregnating a hooker is consider by you to be a religious experience???

Walter Weiss

08-02-2007, 05:42 PM

So you are a Republican, and Pol Pot was a Christian, and I am Santa Claus. Come on dude, we are just not that stupid here. Nice try though.

Let me just ask you this, on what issues do you disagree with the Democrats? And while you are at it, why don't you fill us in on your religious beliefs? And if Christians are making such a mess of the nation, why don't you move to North Korea or Cuba or someplace where they have stamped out organized religion?

BTW, I would also fight to defend your right to have your confused beliefs, and for an atheist to have no beliefs whatsoever. That's the American way, Freedom. I not sure how you figured out the "camp" I was in from my few posts mostly regarding historical issues surrounding Christianity. Hmmm, you must be a mind reader or something.

MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE A BELIEF IN GOD...NOT A BELIEF IN ORGANIZED RELIGION ON A COMMERCIAL PEDESTAL OR POLI-AGENDA OF POWER ENRICHMENT. THERE WAS NO "TRY" HERE AS YOU PUT IT.

I DONT MOVE FOR YOU OR ANYONE ELSE. I AM AN AMERICAN. I KNOW GARBAGE WHEN I SEE IT. I WANT THE GARBAGE PUT IN THE DUMP SITE.

YOU ARE NOT SANTA CLAUS, THOUGH YOU WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE OTHERS BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE IF IT WOULD FILL YOUR COLLECTION PLATE. WHEN CONFRONTED ON TRUTH, YOU WOULD THEN PULL OUT YOUR LITTLE BIBLE AND MANUFACTURE A BIBLE BABBLE EXCUSE AS TO WHY WHAT YOU DID WAS GOD'S WILL.

WOULD YOU LET YOUR LITTLE KIDS BE BABYSITTED BY A CATHOLIC PRIEST? I RATHER THINK THAT YOU WOULD.

Limbo

08-02-2007, 07:43 PM

MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE A BELIEF IN GOD...NOT A BELIEF IN ORGANIZED RELIGION ON A COMMERCIAL PEDESTAL OR POLI-AGENDA OF POWER ENRICHMENT. THERE WAS NO "TRY" HERE AS YOU PUT IT.

I DONT MOVE FOR YOU OR ANYONE ELSE. I AM AN AMERICAN. I KNOW GARBAGE WHEN I SEE IT. I WANT THE GARBAGE PUT IN THE DUMP SITE.

YOU ARE NOT SANTA CLAUS, THOUGH YOU WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE OTHERS BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE IF IT WOULD FILL YOUR COLLECTION PLATE. WHEN CONFRONTED ON TRUTH, YOU WOULD THEN PULL OUT YOUR LITTLE BIBLE AND MANUFACTURE A BIBLE BABBLE EXCUSE AS TO WHY WHAT YOU DID WAS GOD'S WILL.

WOULD YOU LET YOUR LITTLE KIDS BE BABYSITTED BY A CATHOLIC PRIEST? I RATHER THINK THAT YOU WOULD.

OK, THANKS FOR THE THOUGHTFUL REPLY.

Walter Weiss

08-02-2007, 08:12 PM

LIMBO WROTE:
OK, THANKS FOR THE THOUGHTFUL REPLY.

WALTER WEISS RESPONDS: I HAVE NOTED THAT YOU HAVE DENIED NOTHING. The concept of "thoughtful" in your camp is the conversion of another potential fanatic to your particular religious cause. Those who would not convert to your "cause" are "not thoughtful" and therefore "they are of Satan."

How do you sleep at night? How is it that brainwashing another human being in your camp is considered an honorable pursuit? Are you that blind as to what organized religion has done to religion in general? Commercialized Jesus? Jim Baker, Robert Tilton, the Pope....Oral Roberts....all of them take money from Women in the manner of pimps. You would call it "holy."

Fortunately, God provided man kind with a brain, and some use that brain in a manner of clear vision. When someone is trying to shove religion down your throat in the name of an "organization" it is time to open your eyes and understand that they are not saving souls....they are swelling their ranks and gaining more assets to enrich the handful of fruitflies who run the organization. God most probably looks upon it with a tear in his eye.

Limbo

08-02-2007, 08:59 PM

LIMBO WROTE:

WALTER WEISS RESPONDS: I HAVE NOTED THAT YOU HAVE DENIED NOTHING. The concept of "thoughtful" in your camp is the conversion of another potential fanatic to your particular religious cause. Those who would not convert to your "cause" are "not thoughtful" and therefore "they are of Satan."

How do you sleep at night? How is it that brainwashing another human being in your camp is considered an honorable pursuit? Are you that blind as to what organized religion has done to religion in general? Commercialized Jesus? Jim Baker, Robert Tilton, the Pope....Oral Roberts....all of them take money from Women in the manner of pimps. You would call it "holy."

Fortunately, God provided man kind with a brain, and some use that brain in a manner of clear vision. When someone is trying to shove religion down your throat in the name of an "organization" it is time to open your eyes and understand that they are not saving souls....they are swelling their ranks and gaining more assets to enrich the handful of fruitflies who run the organization. God most probably looks upon it with a tear in his eye.

Quite frankly, your message is so confused and full of hate, I wouldn't know where to start.

I guess I can start by denying all your silly accusations and absurd stereotyping.

I am a big believer in freedom, the freedom to associate with people who share my beliefs. It sounds like you would like to deny people the freedom of association. I believe in people having the freedom to choose their place and form of worship. Apparently you believe all organized religion should be wiped off the map. If I explain my religious beliefs, I believe people are free to ignore them, or research them of their own free will. If they should decide after exercising their own best judgment that they wish to accept some or all of the beliefs I have expressed, that is their choice, and it should not be denied by belligerent people like you. If others wish to share their beliefs with me, I believe they have the freedom to do so and I will consider what they say. If people should exercise their freedom, and decide to join the group of like minded believers in my church, that is their choice. If people like you decide they do not like my beliefs or practices, you are free to reject them and not practice them. I do not belong to a cult and we do not practice any form of brainwashing, and we don't shove religion down anybodys throat. People are free to come and go as they see fit, to listen or ignore, to join or to criticize my church, as long as they don't engage in slander. The leaders in our church are supported by the members as I don't think it would be appropriate for them to be paid by the government as they are in Europe. People are free to give or not give to the church as they see fit. The finances of the church are regularly audited and are open to the public for anyone to see.

As far as I'm concerned, Jim Baker, Robert Tilton, the Pope and Oral Roberts should be allowed the same freedoms as anyone else. I don't agree with many of the things they say or do (of course Baker broke the law and went to jail), but I respect their freedom as long as they obey the law. Why don't you?

Just answer me this one question that I posed in an earlier message, if you hate organized religion so much, why don't you go to a country that has forcibly suppressed it, like North Korea or Cuba?

We need to defend the constitution of the United States from people like you who would take away other peoples freedoms.

And one more thing, using all capitals is considered rude. This is considered shouting. You wouldn't want to come across as belligerent would you?

Loseirdo

08-02-2007, 10:03 PM

And one more thing, using all capitals is considered rude. This is considered shouting. You wouldn't want to come across as belligerent would you?

Belligerent? I assure you, ol' Wally barely knows the meaning of the word. :D

MrJim

08-03-2007, 12:02 AM

How do you sleep at night? How is it that brainwashing another human being in your camp is considered an honorable pursuit? Are you that blind as to what organized religion has done to religion in general? Commercialized Jesus? Jim Baker, Robert Tilton, the Pope....Oral Roberts....all of them take money from Women in the manner of pimps. You would call it "holy."

What I find funny (not haha funny but I'd like to kick somebody in the ribs funny) is that the Bible points out that "money is the root of all evil" in one place and calls to "bring your tithes into the storehouse" in another. Well, if money is the root of all evil, passing it onto to someone else (a minister) seems a lot like playing Hot Potato with the shit. The priest has to in turn pass it on to someone else... then them to someone else... so on and so forth... bleh... (I think I touched on this in my "More church economics post")...

Who was the ass clown that invented money in the first place? This world would have been so much better without it.

• Money divides families and friends
• Money hinders research into cures for diseases
• Money hinders technology
• Money divides the population
• Money puts too much power into the wrong hands
• Money allows greedy assholes to step all over those who are starving to death and be rewarded for it
• Finally, and most importantly, money has cornered civilization into an imbalance that can only be corrected once every world economy crumbles.

Limbo

08-03-2007, 01:06 AM

What I find funny (not haha funny but I'd like to kick somebody in the ribs funny) is that the Bible points out that "money is the root of all evil" in one place and calls to "bring your tithes into the storehouse" in another. ")...

Actually the bible never says "money is the root of all evil". Here is a blurb about the phrase:

“money is the root of all evil.” According to the Random House Dictionary of Proverbs and Sayings, the phrase first appeared in English circa 1000 A.D

The bible basically says don't get consumed by greed (to paraphrase). How exactly is a church, or any other organization supposed to operate without money? I'm not sure I understand your point. There are some pentecostal preachers who preach the "God is gonna make you rich" gospel which most, if not all, other churches do not agree with. Why lump everybody together though through some kind of guilt by association.

Loseirdo

08-03-2007, 01:29 AM

What I find funny (not haha funny but I'd like to kick somebody in the ribs funny) is that the Bible points out that "money is the root of all evil" in one place and calls to "bring your tithes into the storehouse" in another. Well, if money is the root of all evil, passing it onto to someone else (a minister) seems a lot like playing Hot Potato with the shit. The priest has to in turn pass it on to someone else... then them to someone else... so on and so forth... bleh... (I think I touched on this in my "More church economics post")...

Who was the ass clown that invented money in the first place? This world would have been so much better without it.

• Money divides families and friends
• Money hinders research into cures for diseases
• Money hinders technology
• Money divides the population
• Money puts too much power into the wrong hands
• Money allows greedy assholes to step all over those who are starving to death and be rewarded for it
• Finally, and most importantly, money has cornered civilization into an imbalance that can only be corrected once every world economy crumbles.

Money also allows us a means of trading for goods we want without needing goods the seller wants. In other words, it's a common form of trade that all people can gain and use. Money isn't the problem -- how we regulate it is. Unfortunately, most forms of monetary regulation have cons as well as pros. There really is no one "right" answer that leaves everybody happy.

Like Limbo pointed out, the Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil. There is a passage where Jesus says, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Money can produce all of the things you mentioned, but that isn't always the case, and it's possible to be a good, virtuous and faithful person and still have a high paying job and a nice house.

Tithing was originally implemented as a means of paying Priests (this goes back to the Old Testament) for acting as intermediaries between the people and God. They didn't farm or raise livestock, so they needed some way of staying alive -- the Israelites would pay them in grain or cheese or anything they had. Some churches these days take it way too far, and some pastors make a real killing off of their congregation, but that is by no means the standard for Christianity.

Wally is probably going to make some wild allogations about the Catholic Church now. The Church is not a corrupt, money-grubbing empire ruled through fear. It costs a lot of money to do everything the Church does, and it needs the support of its parishes. Not to mention the fact that each parish is responsible for paying for itself using only donations from its parishioners. If Wally wants to convict the Church of mindless greed, he better damn well pull some evidence out of his ass (since all his shit seems to be coming out of his mouth).

Loseirdo

08-03-2007, 01:53 AM

I think we need to separate two different issues here. It seems to me there would be two ways of losing your salvation:

1) Committing some horrible sin that God will just find too heinous

2) Committing apostasy

I don't think 1) is possible (with one exception -see below). Although if someone is going around murdering people while claiming to be a follower of Christ, I think it would be fair to doubt that they really are a Christian in their heart of hearts. Remember God will judge us by what's in our hearts, not by what we say or even by our actions. When I say, maybe they never were Christians to begin with, that is what I mean. Like if a televangelist is just professing faith as a way to solicit donations for his/her benefit but doesn't really believe what they are saying.

I think the sin of disbelief (2) may actually be the unpardonable sin that could send you to H-E double hockey sticks on a hand cart.

I think the bible interpretation used by evangelicals is by far the most air-tight from a logical standpoint with only minor surface contradictions. That really appeals to me because of my science background. Theories that stand the test of time have an elegant simplicity, explain things in the most general way possible, and require few if any convoluted caveats and exceptions (like your definition of grace for example). Catholics have to do a lot of fancy footwork logic wise since so many ideas are contradictory

But, as I said, ultimately, I can barely tell the difference with outward appearances and actions between a devout Catholic, and an evangelical. It's just that there are so darn many nominal Catholics out there.

Where does the bible say "man is not saved by faith alone". Are you equivocating from James where he says "faith without works is dead"? It's not that works will save you, or you have to do X amount of good works to be saved, it is that if you claim to have faith, good works should be a natural consequence of your faith. If not, one could doubt you really have faith. It is what is in your heart that counts. Ceremony or tradition won't save you, or even good works. Faith will save you, and good works should come from having faith.

Okay, you're saying that if you have faith you will do good works. If you don't do good works, it means you don't really have faith. Is that it? We will momentarily disregard the fact that none of us could ever possibly know if someone has faith or not, regardless of their actions, to address this issue.

If someone performs good works as a consequence of their faith, then the two are inseperable. If that is the case, you can't say that faith alone will save you -- faith and works will save you, because you can't have faith without good works. By your own reasoning, faith without works is not faith at all -- it is dead, as said in the Bible. Therefore, it is impossible to enter into the kingdom of heaven by the saving grace of faith alone, because one can never have faith alone.

To summarize, performing good works without faith is not enough. Having faith without good works is not enough. One must have both to be saved. We Catholics call what results from faith and good works "grace". Only grace can save us. Do you disagree with my reasoning on this matter?

We can start a new thread to debate baptism if you want. :D

MrJim

08-03-2007, 03:23 AM

Actually the bible never says "money is the root of all evil". Here is a blurb about the phrase:

“money is the root of all evil.” According to the Random House Dictionary of Proverbs and Sayings, the phrase first appeared in English circa 1000 A.D

The bible basically says don't get consumed by greed (to paraphrase). How exactly is a church, or any other organization supposed to operate without money? I'm not sure I understand your point. There are some pentecostal preachers who preach the "God is gonna make you rich" gospel which most, if not all, other churches do not agree with. Why lump everybody together though through some kind of guilt by association.

Okay, I won't argue the origin of the quote, but I think that it is a very true statement whether biblical or not, and any "organization" that gives into greed is disobedient... Wal-Mart, Oil Companies, Churches, anyone who takes more than their fair share is a greedy organization.

MrJim

08-03-2007, 03:33 AM

Money also allows us a means of trading for goods we want without needing goods the seller wants. In other words, it's a common form of trade that all people can gain and use. Money isn't the problem -- how we regulate it is. Unfortunately, most forms of monetary regulation have cons as well as pros. There really is no one "right" answer that leaves everybody happy.

Like Limbo pointed out, the Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil. There is a passage where Jesus says, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Money can produce all of the things you mentioned, but that isn't always the case, and it's possible to be a good, virtuous and faithful person and still have a high paying job and a nice house.

Tithing was originally implemented as a means of paying Priests (this goes back to the Old Testament) for acting as intermediaries between the people and God. They didn't farm or raise livestock, so they needed some way of staying alive -- the Israelites would pay them in grain or cheese or anything they had. Some churches these days take it way too far, and some pastors make a real killing off of their congregation, but that is by no means the standard for Christianity.

Wally is probably going to make some wild allogations about the Catholic Church now. The Church is not a corrupt, money-grubbing empire ruled through fear. It costs a lot of money to do everything the Church does, and it needs the support of its parishes. Not to mention the fact that each parish is responsible for paying for itself using only donations from its parishioners. If Wally wants to convict the Church of mindless greed, he better damn well pull some evidence out of his ass (since all his shit seems to be coming out of his mouth).

Ah, but guess what? If there had never been money, the world could have worked together to build the technology to cure diseases, to make sure everyone had food, to make life simpler and easier for everyone... who cares if computers & technology ran the world, there wouldn't be jobs lost, everyone would be living off the advantages of advanced technology.

Instead, the powers of the world belong to those who have the most money. As a result, desparate countries stage a dick measuring contest through the means of violence (ex. Nigeria) in order to fight against poverty. 99% of America's wealth is controlled by 1% of the population, and in Europe that 1% is the royal family...

It's too late of course, to do anything about it, we dug our own graves from the beginning... but I can bitch :D

I disagree with Wally on many, many things, but I can see eye-to-eye on the church aspect... A man preaches to a church full of people about how tough life is, how we need to give and sacrifice, then drives home in a BMW... maybe it's a Baptist and/or Methodist thing, I've seen it in both churches I have attended, but I didn't buy into it for long. I doubt the starving third-world kids would feel inspiration in an organization that passes them their table scraps in the name of God.

General Septem

08-03-2007, 10:19 AM

• Money divides families and friends
• Money hinders research into cures for diseases
• Money hinders technology
• Money divides the population
• Money puts too much power into the wrong hands
• Money allows greedy assholes to step all over those who are starving to death and be rewarded for it
• Finally, and most importantly, money has cornered civilization into an imbalance that can only be corrected once every world economy crumbles.

Unfortunately, were it not for money, there would be no doctors. :/

Limbo

08-03-2007, 10:42 AM

Do you disagree with my reasoning on this matter?

We can start a new thread to debate baptism if you want. :D

Yes I do disagree. If someone makes a genuine death bed conversion, they will be saved by faith alone. The sacraments (baptism communion, etc.), tradition, repetitive prayers, good works, priests, our parents or relatives can not save us. We are saved by faith alone, our own faith. Good works are a product of our faith. Some evangelicals believe that our reward will be based on the amount of our good works (more good works = better reward), but all believe that there is not some set bar of good works we need to accomplish to get into heaven. Although we as people can't judge what is really in peoples hearts, God can.

Grace is getting what we don't deserve, namely forgiveness of sins, and salvation through Christ. It has nothing to do with works. If we had to work to receive God's grace, it would not be grace anymore.

You see, that is what I mean when I say Catholics have to do fancy footwork to make their doctrine work and they have to rely heavily on extra biblical sources. Evangelicals don't have to fudge anything, we can take verses at face value. What could be more clear than Ephesians 2:8-9:"For it is by grace you have been saved. through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - NOT BY WORKS, so that no man can boast."

He goes on to say we are created in Christ Jesus (when we become Christians) to do good works. It is a separate issue from salvation. Christians can become complacent and self satisfied, Both Paul and James remind us we need to put our faith into action, and if the Catholic emphasis on works can spur us all on, then I see that as a good thing.

MrJim

08-03-2007, 10:56 AM

Unfortunately, were it not for money, there would be no doctors. :/

I guess this was under the assumption that the only reason anyone becomes a doctor was the make assloads of money... obviously, that may be the case with MANY doctors (protologists? :D) but there could be some other incentives in place to motivate people to use their skills and talents to help socitey even if money were not in the picture.

As it stands, it's just gotten way out of hand. The stinking rich gets stinking richer and the dirt poor get dirt poorer. The poor have jobs that are important to society as well, and if everyone is forced to abandon those jobs because no one can afford to live on their income, the entire economy will see some pretty nasty events.

General Septem

08-03-2007, 11:07 AM

What could be more clear than Ephesians 2:8-9:"For it is by grace you have been saved. through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - NOT BY WORKS, so that no man can boast."

The Bible also says "not by faith alone are we saved". Which is it?

Ephesians just means that our saving grace comes from Christ alone. We still must follow Christ by having pure hearts.

Limbo

08-03-2007, 12:45 PM

The Bible also says "not by faith alone are we saved". Which is it?

Can you give me the chapter and verse where it says that exactly? If you are talking about James 2:24, it says man is justified by what he does, not by faith alone. Of course this is true. If I say I want to protect the environment and yet I go around dumping toxic chemicals into rivers, I have no justification for my claim of wanting to protect the environment. Notice that justification is different that salvation. I don't know what version of the bible you are using, but I have never seen one that says "saved", but only "justified" which are two different things, of course.

And Baptism is not required for salvation or forgiveness of sins either. For proof, look at all the people who had their sins forgiven without baptism: Apostles (John 15:3), the penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the tax collector (Luke 18:13-14). All had their sins forgiven without baptism.

General Septem

08-03-2007, 01:19 PM

And Baptism is not required for salvation or forgiveness of sins either. For proof, look at all the people who had their sins forgiven without baptism: Apostles (John 15:3), the penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the tax collector (Luke 18:13-14). All had their sins forgiven without baptism.

Baptism entails cleansing oneself of original sin, not forgiveness of sins in general.

Walter Weiss

08-03-2007, 02:07 PM

Yeshua (jesus) and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS COME TO MIND:

(1) Is your research accurate? I rather think that you are very accurate.

(2) All of these acts are a part of a type or style of magic show that was proven to be effective. Human nature is quick to read and quick to exploit upon. In different parts of the globe, people look different, act a little different, but they share a common denominator in pleasure and pain, belief or doubt, anger or tolerance, interest or indifference, laziness or labors, greed and desire. Is it possible that these "magic acts" are common things that the masses are found to easily respond to based on their very natures as human beings? These things are certainly a blueprint for a quick-start power campaign that over and over again has provided an army of exploitable people readily subjectable to the will and whim of a clever man or woman working the magic or marketing the magic.

(3) Is it possible that a being or entity on a higher plain of existance has used certain subjects as instruments in communication with the Earth-Human races in an effort to bring forth rapid change in the core of their very culture? YES it is possible....but is it likely? Perhaps.

(4) Is the act of blindly following the magic with the beliefe of a fanatic worthy of being deemed "faith" or is it worthy of being deemed "ignorance?"

(5) Is man corrupt enough to use anything that he can to achieve wealth and power, irregardless of who suffers and dies in the process? YES.

(6) Is there a supreme being or beings that can be connected with creativity? There is evidence that many things in the universe are mathematically perfect and it can be concluded that a plan of some kind was methodically created and followed in order to achieve that which has been created. Was this accomplished by a single supreme being, or could there be multiple such beings?

Walter Weiss

08-03-2007, 02:12 PM

Yes I do disagree. If someone makes a genuine death bed conversion, they will be saved by faith alone. The sacraments (baptism communion, etc.), tradition, repetitive prayers, good works, priests, our parents or relatives can not save us. We are saved by faith alone, our own faith. Good works are a product of our faith. Some evangelicals believe that our reward will be based on the amount of our good works (more good works = better reward), but all believe that there is not some set bar of good works we need to accomplish to get into heaven. Although we as people can't judge what is really in peoples hearts, God can.

Grace is getting what we don't deserve, namely forgiveness of sins, and salvation through Christ. It has nothing to do with works. If we had to work to receive God's grace, it would not be grace anymore.

You see, that is what I mean when I say Catholics have to do fancy footwork to make their doctrine work and they have to rely heavily on extra biblical sources. Evangelicals don't have to fudge anything, we can take verses at face value. What could be more clear than Ephesians 2:8-9:"For it is by grace you have been saved. through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - NOT BY WORKS, so that no man can boast."

He goes on to say we are created in Christ Jesus (when we become Christians) to do good works. It is a separate issue from salvation. Christians can become complacent and self satisfied, Both Paul and James remind us we need to put our faith into action, and if the Catholic emphasis on works can spur us all on, then I see that as a good thing.

Is anyone being exploited in this process? Would GOD exploit? Does GOD exploit? Is Catholicism considered GODISM? Are we saved by a "book" or are we "saved" by GOD who has the power as to whether someone gets "saved" or not? Is there automatic "salvation" in exchange for the commission of a series of acts or self-proclamations? Can GOD change it's mind?

Walter Weiss

08-03-2007, 02:27 PM

Quite frankly, your message is so confused and full of hate, I wouldn't know where to start.

I guess I can start by denying all your silly accusations and absurd stereotyping.

I am a big believer in freedom, the freedom to associate with people who share my beliefs. It sounds like you would like to deny people the freedom of association. I believe in people having the freedom to choose their place and form of worship. Apparently you believe all organized religion should be wiped off the map. If I explain my religious beliefs, I believe people are free to ignore them, or research them of their own free will. If they should decide after exercising their own best judgment that they wish to accept some or all of the beliefs I have expressed, that is their choice, and it should not be denied by belligerent people like you. If others wish to share their beliefs with me, I believe they have the freedom to do so and I will consider what they say. If people should exercise their freedom, and decide to join the group of like minded believers in my church, that is their choice. If people like you decide they do not like my beliefs or practices, you are free to reject them and not practice them. I do not belong to a cult and we do not practice any form of brainwashing, and we don't shove religion down anybodys throat. People are free to come and go as they see fit, to listen or ignore, to join or to criticize my church, as long as they don't engage in slander. The leaders in our church are supported by the members as I don't think it would be appropriate for them to be paid by the government as they are in Europe. People are free to give or not give to the church as they see fit. The finances of the church are regularly audited and are open to the public for anyone to see.

As far as I'm concerned, Jim Baker, Robert Tilton, the Pope and Oral Roberts should be allowed the same freedoms as anyone else. I don't agree with many of the things they say or do (of course Baker broke the law and went to jail), but I respect their freedom as long as they obey the law. Why don't you?

Just answer me this one question that I posed in an earlier message, if you hate organized religion so much, why don't you go to a country that has forcibly suppressed it, like North Korea or Cuba?

We need to defend the constitution of the United States from people like you who would take away other peoples freedoms.

And one more thing, using all capitals is considered rude. This is considered shouting. You wouldn't want to come across as belligerent would you?

NO WHERE IN MY POSTS DO I ADVOCATE THE REMOVAL OF FREEDOMS NUMBNUTS! WHAT I ADVOCATED WAS "OPENING ONES EYES" AS ORGANIZED RELIGION IS ORGANIZED TO EXPLOIT PEOPLE. NEITHER DID I ADVOCATE HATING RELIGION. You show yourself to be a "sivler tongue devil" just like your esteemed "preachers" by inserting words into my expression that were not there in the original post. A fine example of what wack-jobs in organized religion are capable of.

MY POSTS WERE A POTSHOT AT ORGANIZED RELIGION IN GENERAL.

YOU STATE EVERYONE IS FREE IN YOUR CHURCH AS LONG AS THEY DONT "SLANDER" THE CHURCH? DO YOU MEAN TO CONVEY TO US THAT THERE IS "PUNISHMENT" IN YOUR CHURCH FOR THOSE WHO SPEAK OUT IN A MANNER THAT THE CHURCH WOULD DISAGREE WITH? WHO IN THE CHURCH DEFINES WHAT ACTUALLY CONSTITUTES THIS "SLANDER?" ANYONE AND EVERYONE IN THAT CHURCH COULD BE SUBJECTED TO A "SLANDER" ACCUSATION? IS THERE POWER IN GENERATING THE FEAR AMONG PEOPLE....FEAR OF SPEAKING THE TRUTH, AS IT MIGHT BE LABELED "SLANDER" AND THERE IS A PRICE TO PAY FOR "SLANDER?"

MAYBE YOUR CHURCH DOESNT PRACTICE "TURN THE OTHER CHEEK" WHEN SOMEONE "SLANDERS?"

TELL ME....WHAT KIND OF CAR DOES YOUR PREACHER DRIVE? WHAT KIND OF HOUSE DOES HE LIVE IN? WHAT BRAND OF WATCH DOES HE WEAR? WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM THAT BOUGHT HIM THOSE THINGS? DOES ANYONE IN THE CHOIR OR PERHAPS THE SUNDAY SCHOOL SLEEP WITH ANY OF THE PREACHERS OR ELDERS IN YOUR CHURCH? DO YOU SHAVE YOUR HEAD? ARE YOU OBEDIENT?

Limbo

08-03-2007, 03:44 PM

Is anyone being exploited in this process? Would GOD exploit? Does GOD exploit? Is Catholicism considered GODISM? Are we saved by a "book" or are we "saved" by GOD who has the power as to whether someone gets "saved" or not? Is there automatic "salvation" in exchange for the commission of a series of acts or self-proclamations? Can GOD change it's mind?

I don't claim to speak for God, but IMHO God made it real simple and did so on purpose. Genuine belief = Salvation, i.e., being with God for eternity as opposed to being separated from God. I will let the Catholics here, and there seems to be several, speak for themselves.

Limbo

08-03-2007, 04:15 PM

NO WHERE IN MY POSTS DO I ADVOCATE THE REMOVAL OF FREEDOMS NUMBNUTS! WHAT I ADVOCATED WAS "OPENING ONES EYES" AS ORGANIZED RELIGION IS ORGANIZED TO EXPLOIT PEOPLE. NEITHER DID I ADVOCATE HATING RELIGION.

That's good, you had me a little worried there, but you are, perhaps unwittingly, joining forces with those who would take away our freedoms.

YOU STATE EVERYONE IS FREE IN YOUR CHURCH AS LONG AS THEY DONT "SLANDER" THE CHURCH? DO YOU MEAN TO CONVEY TO US THAT THERE IS "PUNISHMENT" IN YOUR CHURCH FOR THOSE WHO SPEAK OUT IN A MANNER THAT THE CHURCH WOULD DISAGREE WITH?

By slander I mean intentionally spreading lies for the sake of damaging the reputation of the church or it's members. Our church is a completely voluntary assembly of people and is supported by it's members. If people disagree, they can go to any other church, or can stop going to church altogether if they want. Our statement of beliefs is clearly posted for anyone to see before they even enter the church.

TELL ME....WHAT KIND OF CAR DOES YOUR PREACHER DRIVE? WHAT KIND OF HOUSE DOES HE LIVE IN? WHAT BRAND OF WATCH DOES HE WEAR? WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM THAT BOUGHT HIM THOSE THINGS? DOES ANYONE IN THE CHOIR OR PERHAPS THE SUNDAY SCHOOL SLEEP WITH ANY OF THE PREACHERS OR ELDERS IN YOUR CHURCH? DO YOU SHAVE YOUR HEAD? ARE YOU OBEDIENT?

Our senior pastor makes around $52,000/yr. His wife doesn't work and spends a great deal of time involved in church activities for which she receives no remuneration. He drives a Chrysler mini-van that is a few years old. I will have to ask him about his watch.

Don't get me wrong, there are some crooked preachers out there. There are crooked people in all walks of life. Some do exploit people no question about it. There are also cults out there that exploit people big time, and I join you in condemning all such practices without reservation. Where you go wrong is in saying all churches are bad and all pastors are charlatans.

Loseirdo

08-03-2007, 04:50 PM

Can you give me the chapter and verse where it says that exactly? If you are talking about James 2:24, it says man is justified by what he does, not by faith alone. Of course this is true. If I say I want to protect the environment and yet I go around dumping toxic chemicals into rivers, I have no justification for my claim of wanting to protect the environment. Notice that justification is different that salvation. I don't know what version of the bible you are using, but I have never seen one that says "saved", but only "justified" which are two different things, of course.

And Baptism is not required for salvation or forgiveness of sins either. For proof, look at all the people who had their sins forgiven without baptism: Apostles (John 15:3), the penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the tax collector (Luke 18:13-14). All had their sins forgiven without baptism.

This is where the protestants have trouble. Allow me to explain.

The word "justification" is derived from the word "justice" and is not meant by the contemporary English definition. Here is a good page to look at for an explanation: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Baptism is required for salvation. Just look at this passage:
John 3:3-5 -- 3. Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." 4. Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" 5. Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.

Walter Weiss

08-03-2007, 04:53 PM

LIMBO WROTE: Our senior pastor makes around $52,000/yr. His wife doesn't work and spends a great deal of time involved in church activities for which she receives no remuneration. He drives a Chrysler mini-van that is a few years old. I will have to ask him about his watch.

Don't get me wrong, there are some crooked preachers out there. There are crooked people in all walks of life. Some do exploit people no question about it. There are also cults out there that exploit people big time, and I join you in condemning all such practices without reservation. Where you go wrong is in saying all churches are bad and all pastors are charlatans.

WALTER WEISS REPLIES: Again you silver tongue devil....I never said or even implied that all churches were bad, and I never said all pastors are charlatans.....I never said that at all. Is this nonsense coming out of you because you have been "programmed" to "demonize" that which you do not agree with as "anti-church, and you have been "programmed" to "preach down" all who dare speak against your cause?

I will tell you that GOD is for everyone, and who is anyone to decide how the concept of GOD is to be dictated for us all or the method of religious study one employs?

ANYONE that would exploit someone using religious propaganda and the false playing upon fear of death and the after life, or other manufactured fears; would be making a criminal and immoral use of someone afflicted with emotional or mental challenges or mental conditions. There are whole organizations dedicated to commercializing this form of exploitation. Over the millenia, the Christian religions and other religions have been twisted and turned into virtual pretzels and puzzles for the purpose of exploitation. IT IS THAT which has driven many a person from church, and lead to mistrust of many clergymen and organizations. IT IS A FACT that those who are guilty of this exploitation seldom have anything to fear from the criminal justice system. I HAVE HEARD IT SAID THAT IT IS LIKE TAKING CANDY FROM A BABY.

The concept of "faith" has been bent and twisted as well. "Faith" in that world is "blind belief" and not "enlightened belief."

YOU WONT NECESSARILY GET TO ANYONE'S IDEA OF HEAVEN BY SITTING ON THE FRONT ROW PEW IN A CHURCH EVERY SUNDAY. IF THERE IS A HELL, IT WILL BE FULL OF PEOPLE THAT YOU AND I WILL RECOGNIZE FROM SUNDAY MORNING TELEVISION SHOWS AND OTHER PLACES!

If your "Senior Pastor" is doing good works, then there is no reason to challenge him on his wristwatch value. He is not required to live in poverty to perform duties for a church, but he should not be given leave to exploit his way to riches either. Perhaps what you describe today is an honest Clergyman with a conscience and a genuine respect for religious beliefs in others....pray that he continues to remain such....but know that he is not GOD, and that he is a MAN after all else, and many men are capable of corruption as they fall hard into temptation. Do not bow down to him....instead, why not hold him up....help him to stay on the right path for his sake and that of the congregation. Dont be afraid to talk to him in private if you see him easing off the path into a bad direction. You might just give him the strength he needs to maintain his current walk and direction. We can help each other....not just blindly follow the shephard off the side of the cliff into the abyss.

Limbo

08-03-2007, 05:50 PM

This is where the protestants have trouble. Allow me to explain.

The word "justification" is derived from the word "justice" and is not meant by the contemporary English definition. Here is a good page to look at for an explanation: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Protestants are not the ones in trouble here:D. We don't have to fudge the definition of the word in this case to try and prove our point. Catholics have to deal with many explicit passages that say we are saved by faith alone (John 3:16, 18, 36; 11:25-6; Acts 16:31; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 John 5:1,Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 4:5,Galatians 2:16,Philippians 3:9, etc.), not works. I've always thought if you have several explicit passages, and one non-explicit, but fudgable passage, we need to stick to the explicit passages for direction.

Baptism is required for salvation. Just look at this passage:
John 3:3-5 -- 3. Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." 4. Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" 5. Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.

If he meant baptism, why didn't he just say baptism? You are equivocating again and putting words in his mouth. Nicodemus was Jewish, and he would have had no idea about what the sacrament of baptism was. For Jewish people, water was symbolic for spiritual or internal cleansing. He was definitely NOT talking about the church sacrament of Baptism.

I have seen a pattern in Catholic theology where meaning is read into passages that are definitely not explicit on the issue at hand. For example, where in the bible does it explicitly say children need to be baptized? Where in the bible do we hear explicitly of a infant being baptized? We don't, but passages are fudged to make it work. How can a baby believe in anything? If unbaptized infants go to hell, why on earth didn't God make sure that this was explicitly stated in the bible? This would be a pretty major oversight on his part for this only to be figured out by some church council hundreds of years later by complex and convoluted reasoning.

Did Jesus give the Pharisees any credit for their traditions or ceremony, like ceremonial washings, repetitive prayers and the like? If there was one message that was clear, explicit and unequivocal, it was that it is what's in your heart that matters. Making some act such as sprinkling water on an infant necessary for salvation would make a mockery of Jesus' clear message and teachings as it would make him a hypocrite for having criticized the religious leaders of the day for their reliance on tradition and ceremony.

Limbo

08-03-2007, 05:57 PM

WALTER WEISS REPLIES: Again you silver tongue devil....I never said or even implied that all churches were bad, and I never said all pastors are charlatans.....I never said that at all. Is this nonsense coming out of you because you have been "programmed" to "demonize" that which you do not agree with as "anti-church, and you have been "programmed" to "preach down" all who dare speak against your cause?

If you never meant to say all organized religion is bad, you might want to think about how you come across in your posts, because that's sure how I took it.

Loseirdo

08-03-2007, 06:12 PM

Protestants are not the ones in trouble here:D. We don't have to fudge the definition of the word in this case to try and prove our point. Catholics have to deal with many explicit passages that say we are saved by faith alone (John 3:16, 18, 36; 11:25-6; Acts 16:31; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 John 5:1,Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 4:5,Galatians 2:16,Philippians 3:9, etc.), not works. I've always thought if you have several explicit passages, and one non-explicit, but fudgable passage, we need to stick to the explicit passages for direction.

If he meant baptism, why didn't he just say baptism? You are equivocating again and putting words in his mouth. Nicodemus was Jewish, and he would have had no idea about what the sacrament of baptism was. For Jewish people, water was symbolic for spiritual or internal cleansing. He was definitely NOT talking about the church sacrament of Baptism.

I have seen a pattern in Catholic theology where meaning is read into passages that are definitely not explicit on the issue at hand. For example, where in the bible does it explicitly say children need to be baptized? Where in the bible do we hear explicitly of a infant being baptized? We don't, but passages are fudged to make it work. How can a baby believe in anything? If unbaptized infants go to hell, why on earth didn't God make sure that this was explicitly stated in the bible? This would be a pretty major oversight on his part for this only to be figured out by some church council hundreds of years later by complex and convoluted reasoning.

Did Jesus give the Pharisees any credit for their traditions or ceremony, like ceremonial washings, repetitive prayers and the like? If there was one message that was clear, explicit and unequivocal, it was that it is what's in your heart that matters. Making some act such as sprinkling water on an infant necessary for salvation would make a mockery of Jesus' clear message and teachings as it would make him a hypocrite for having criticized the religious leaders of the day for their reliance on tradition and ceremony.

First, we aren't "fudging" the definition. You're reading this passage in English, when it wasn't originally written that way. You have to think about how the word was originally meant -- not how it's meant today. You're the one who's fudging it.

If He wasn't talking about baptism, what was he talking about? Being born of water and spirit seems pretty straight-forward to me.

We can't rely on things to be explicitly mentioned in the Bible any more than we can rely on the Bible to be the final and definitive word of God. If we were only meant to read the Bible literally and believe things explicitly mentioned, why did Jesus speak in parables? Furthermore, why don't you believe that Jesus was speaking literally when He said, "You must eat my body and drink my blood"? The Catholics aren't the ones who are making stretches here.

The Catholic Church doesn't say that unbaptized infants go to hell, we simply say, "An unbaptized infant will probably go to heaven, whereas a baptized infant will definitely go to heaven."

You mentioned Acts 16:31. This is the passage that says, And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved." If you believe this explicitly, wouldn't that be an instance of "coat-tail riding"? Why are the other members of the household not required to believe?

Limbo

08-03-2007, 07:41 PM

First, we aren't "fudging" the definition. You're reading this passage in English, when it wasn't originally written that way. You have to think about how the word was originally meant -- not how it's meant today. You're the one who's fudging it.

Yes, context and going back to the original languages is important, but still, if you were to tally, it is about 20 to 1, faith versus works, and even the one works verse is pretty shaky if you are trying to make it say we are saved by faith and works. I agree we do need to take into account many factors when deducing the meaning of a passage in the bible.

If He wasn't talking about baptism, what was he talking about? Being born of water and spirit seems pretty straight-forward to me.

I have no idea. Many parables are hard to unravel. Maybe he was talking about physical childbirth. From seeing my kids being born, there is lots of water involved. We can ask him when we get to heaven what he meant exactly:). We have a physical birth (water) and a spiritual rebirth when we become followers of Christ? Like I said, I am no theologian, I am a computer scientist.

We can't rely on things to be explicitly mentioned in the Bible any more than we can rely on the Bible to be the final and definitive word of God. If we were only meant to read the Bible literally and believe things explicitly mentioned, why did Jesus speak in parables? Furthermore, why don't you believe that Jesus was speaking literally when He said, "You must eat my body and drink my blood"? The Catholics aren't the ones who are making stretches here.

Jesus spoke only in parables while in public, but Paul teaches us in a much more direct manner, as does John and others. If Paul says we are saved by faith alone, not by works, that doesn't sound like metaphor or allegory to me, sounds like a direct statement.

Evangelicals do take the bible as the final and definitive word of God. Catholics have accepted many ideas over the years from leaders in the church that are very hard to reconcile with what is stated in the bible.

The Catholic Church doesn't say that unbaptized infants go to hell, we simply say, "An unbaptized infant will probably go to heaven, whereas a baptized infant will definitely go to heaven.

You mentioned Acts 16:31. This is the passage that says, And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved." If you believe this explicitly, wouldn't that be an instance of "coat-tail riding"? Why are the other members of the household not required to believe?

Many mild mannered theologians have ended up at each others throats while debating such issues. I think we would be fooling ourselves if we thought we could put the controversy to rest here.

Loseirdo

08-03-2007, 08:28 PM

Yes, context and going back to the original languages is important, but still, if you were to tally, it is about 20 to 1, faith versus works, and even the one works verse is pretty shaky if you are trying to make it say we are saved by faith and works. I agree we do need to take into account many factors when deducing the meaning of a passage in the bible.

I have no idea. Many parables are hard to unravel. Maybe he was talking about physical childbirth. From seeing my kids being born, there is lots of water involved. We can ask him when we get to heaven what he meant exactly:). We have a physical birth (water) and a spiritual rebirth when we become followers of Christ? Like I said, I am no theologian, I am a computer scientist.

Jesus spoke only in parables while in public, but Paul teaches us in a much more direct manner, as does John and others. If Paul says we are saved by faith alone, not by works, that doesn't sound like metaphor or allegory to me, sounds like a direct statement.

Evangelicals do take the bible as the final and definitive word of God. Catholics have accepted many ideas over the years from leaders in the church that are very hard to reconcile with what is stated in the bible.

Many mild mannered theologians have ended up at each others throats while debating such issues. I think we would be fooling ourselves if we thought we could put the controversy to rest here.

Alright, I guess if we both admit that much of the Bible is open to interpretation, we'll never really convince each other of anything.

I don't believe the Bible to be the final word of God. Do you really believe that God has not spoken to man since the Bible was written? Neither do I think that anything accepted by the Church is at odds with the Bible. What are you referring to?

I suppose it really is pointless for us to argue these things with each other. I know what I believe and it makes sense to me. You know what you believe and it makes sense to you. I guess I'll have to live with that. :D

You never did answer my question, though. Why do you read the "body and blood" passage metaphorically when the only metaphors Jesus spoke in were in the form of parables? Furthermore, why do you read the book of Revelation literally (I'm assuming you do, correct me if I'm wrong), yet dismiss the concept of "saints", whom are explicitly mentioned in said book? Nobody I've talked to has been able to give me a straight answer about either of these.

Limbo

08-03-2007, 11:23 PM

You never did answer my question, though. Why do you read the "body and blood" passage metaphorically when the only metaphors Jesus spoke in were in the form of parables? Furthermore, why do you read the book of Revelation literally (I'm assuming you do, correct me if I'm wrong), yet dismiss the concept of "saints", whom are explicitly mentioned in said book? Nobody I've talked to has been able to give me a straight answer about either of these.

It would be impossible to read the book of Revelation literally. I have only really heard one preacher speak about Revelation in a way that made sense to me. That was years ago, and of course I have forgotten everything he said. It was like the fog lifted for a few hours, then boom, it's back again.

I think protestants view saints as any Christian.

God speaks to us today, but I don't think to radically alter the principles found in the Bible, like some liberal protestant churches seem to be claiming.

Sorry, can you refresh my memory, what's the "body and blood" passage?

Loseirdo

08-03-2007, 11:54 PM

It would be impossible to read the book of Revelation literally. I have only really heard one preacher speak about Revelation in a way that made sense to me. That was years ago, and of course I have forgotten everything he said. It was like the fog lifted for a few hours, then boom, it's back again.

I think protestants view saints as any Christian.

God speaks to us today, but I don't think to radically alter the principles found in the Bible, like some liberal protestant churches seem to be claiming.

Sorry, can you refresh my memory, what's the "body and blood" passage?

John 6:52-6 -- The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Walter Weiss

08-04-2007, 08:02 AM

If you never meant to say all organized religion is bad, you might want to think about how you come across in your posts, because that's sure how I took it.

Organized religon has but one function, and that is to pull as many people into the organization as possible in order to swell the ranks and coffers. What other purpose can it possibly serve?

hitekredneck

08-04-2007, 08:35 AM

Organized religon has but one function, and that is to pull as many people into the organization as possible in order to swell the ranks and coffers. What other purpose can it possibly serve?

walter, here we go again...i fully agree with you here....the big churches, whether catholic, protestant, baptist, etc. are doing whatever's necessary to gain new members and swell their ranks to gain revenue...it's a business like any other, and extremely successful due to the gullibility(is that a word?) of the general public....i need no building to worship...instead, i prefer the mountains...the beauty and solitude of gods great creation lifts me up whenever i'm stressed out or just generally depressed about things...nor do i need a book that's been probably mis-translated over and over for 2000 years by men fallible as you and i to tell me how to worship and live my life....

Limbo

08-04-2007, 10:25 AM

John 6:52-6 -- The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Here's my take on it for what it's worth, although I'm not sure this will answer your question, or even if I understand your question.

Jesus uses many many metaphors to describe himself, including: living water; vine; bread of life; light of the world; door; good shepherd; to name a few.

His flesh and blood are obviously being given as another metaphor. I think they are symbolic of his death on the cross, and whoever accepts his sacrifice will have everlasting life (i.e., spend eternity with God). For protestants, when we celebrate communion, we don't think the bread is literally Jesus' flesh, or that the wine/juice is literally Jesus' blood, they are purely symbolic, and of course that sets us apart from Catholics.

I doubt that answers your question though. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

Limbo

08-04-2007, 10:56 AM

Organized religon has but one function, and that is to pull as many people into the organization as possible in order to swell the ranks and coffers. What other purpose can it possibly serve?

To work together to spread the word of God (many people in the world live under repressive and even hateful religions and/or philosophies, they deserve to hear the gospel and make up their own minds about it). As a place for teaching and learning. As a place to be with fellow believers (fellowship) to support and pray for each other. A place to gather to partake of the sacraments (baptism, communion).

I think you have a very American-centric view of the church. We live in a country of great wealth, so some leaders in the church may be compromised by greed. Think about pastors in many other parts of the world, they may face persecution and death. Would you want to be a Christian pastor in Iran, Afghanistan, or China for example? Being a pastor is no picnic in many places of the world, and no one in their right mind would do it for material gain.

My brother is a pastor in Canada, he has 4 degrees and is paid less than $40,000 Canadian dollars/year. I can tell you he doesn't do it for the money. My sister in law married a man whose parents were missionaries in Japan, Now that his parents are retired, he and his siblings have to help support them because they have no pension or savings.

Walter Weiss

08-04-2007, 05:49 PM

walter, here we go again...i fully agree with you here....the big churches, whether catholic, protestant, baptist, etc. are doing whatever's necessary to gain new members and swell their ranks to gain revenue...it's a business like any other, and extremely successful due to the gullibility(is that a word?) of the general public....i need no building to worship...instead, i prefer the mountains...the beauty and solitude of gods great creation lifts me up whenever i'm stressed out or just generally depressed about things...nor do i need a book that's been probably mis-translated over and over for 2000 years by men fallible as you and i to tell me how to worship and live my life....

Hite; What you describe is the ultimate truth in it's purest form. In my opinion, you cant go wrong with what you have just said. There is a simple and direct logic to it that is healthy and good, and it does not create victims. My respect for you soars.......

These bible-babble freaks wander around like newly castrated caddle - dazed and confused - and trying to "out preach" each other....a wack-book in one hand....someone's young child in the other hand....no sense of logic....all wacked out on weird delusions and weird conclusions.....head full of rape and rage.....longing and following....instersperced with trips into the greed-factory, and an unhealthy hero-worship of any clergyman that they think they might identify with. It is all so stupid, so pointless, so destructive to mankind....such an assault on cultures in general.

The TRUTH was there for all to see in the form of the mountains, nature, the forest, wildlife, the night sky...the creativity is there for all to learn the logic and science of, and the truth of, the reality of it all. Yet instead, many of these bibble babblers choose to follow THE GANG right into the waiting arms of a preacher hovering near a collection plate. (Do they take debit cards now???) If you balk at the Preacher or the collection plate, then "YOU ARE THE DEVIL" ....they demonize you....and this type of peer pressure abounds in their sordid little worlds. They use it for "control" just like a terror campaign. Fear of embarassment. Fear of being demonized. Fear of being the subject of a group discusssion while their "leader" screams it from the pulpit. I could never, ever, possibly consider that any GOD wanted religion to be that way. That is "man manufactured bullshit." When called upon to explain their unethical practices, these bible babblers worm their way through it by making wacked excuses about GOD"S WILL and other such deception.

Gullibility....yes....an apt word....and it identifies potential victims so well and so easy for the bible-babblers to descend upon.

Blessed are the gullible, for they make many dollars from them!

Moral of the story: "Dont let your kids grow up gullible! "

Walter Weiss

08-04-2007, 05:54 PM

John 6:52-6 -- The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

YOU DO REALIZE that there is a sick bunch of freak-gay morons running around out there that claim this describes acts of oral sex, and that they "swallowed his flesh and blood" at the last supper, and they proclaim him "gay" because of this and because he never married....you do realize that dont you?

If these freaks can twist it so easily into something that fits their agenda, why should we believe that you arent twisting it into yours?

Walter Weiss

08-04-2007, 05:58 PM

To work together to spread the word of God (many people in the world live under repressive and even hateful religions and/or philosophies, they deserve to hear the gospel and make up their own minds about it). As a place for teaching and learning. As a place to be with fellow believers (fellowship) to support and pray for each other. A place to gather to partake of the sacraments (baptism, communion).

I think you have a very American-centric view of the church. We live in a country of great wealth, so some leaders in the church may be compromised by greed. Think about pastors in many other parts of the world, they may face persecution and death. Would you want to be a Christian pastor in Iran, Afghanistan, or China for example? Being a pastor is no picnic in many places of the world, and no one in their right mind would do it for material gain.

My brother is a pastor in Canada, he has 4 degrees and is paid less than $40,000 Canadian dollars/year. I can tell you he doesn't do it for the money. My sister in law married a man whose parents were missionaries in Japan, Now that his parents are retired, he and his siblings have to help support them because they have no pension or savings.

I have a cousin who was involved in gang activities. It provided fellowship. It provided a world of teaching and learning. He faced persecution and death. It provided a place for him to gather with his fellow members and they supported each other. They had places at which they gathered to partake of the items that an unsuspecting public sacrificed to the gang...."sacriments??"....and I have to tell you that the middle-leaders of the gang faced no picnics. They didnt get much in the way of material gains. In later years, my cousin too wound up very poor because of his "membership" in the gang.

What you say is an exact recipe to garner credibility, create fascination and produce a mass that will offer pity....and this recipe has been cooked up time and time again....in the gangs....the mob...the American Football League....fraternities....WHAT YOU DESCRIBE IS A RECIPE FOR A SIMPLE STREET GANG.

You try to buy credibility for these people by proclaiming that they live at lower income levels, or dedicated their lives to it in some way. Did you ever stop to think that maybe these people were exploited, just like gang members are exploited? Perhaps you might consider that they were victims who unwittingly created other victims.

Walter Weiss

08-04-2007, 06:02 PM

SOMEONE IN HERE WROTE: Jesus spoke only in parables while in public, but Paul teaches us in a much more direct manner, as does John and others. If Paul says we are saved by faith alone, not by works, that doesn't sound like metaphor or allegory to me, sounds like a direct statement.

WALTER WEISS REPLIES: How could you possibly know that to be true??? You would have others believe this to be true. Yet I ask you now....Were you there???? Did you hang out with these guys??? Did you know the original "translators" and if so, at which point in history did your particular translators work??? Are you smoking something??? DO YOU CALL THIS TRUTH???

In reality, what you put forth is hypothesis.

Limbo

08-04-2007, 06:11 PM

I have a cousin who was involved in gang activities. It provided fellowship. It provided a world of teaching and learning. He too wound up very poor because of it.

You try to buy credibility for these people by proclaiming that they live at lower income levels, or dedicated their lives to it in some way. Did you ever stop to think that maybe these people were exploited, just like gang members are exploited?

Exploited by whom? I thought the leaders in the church were the ones doing the exploiting?

Walter Weiss

08-04-2007, 06:18 PM

Exploited by whom? I thought the leaders in the church were the ones doing the exploiting?

WHAT???? Never heard of middle management have you???

Walter Weiss

08-04-2007, 06:23 PM

Walter Weiss

08-04-2007, 06:27 PM

LOSERIDO WROTE: Many mild mannered theologians have ended up at each others throats while debating such issues. I think we would be fooling ourselves if we thought we could put the controversy to rest here.

WALTER WEISS WROTE: Ended up at each other's throats??? Well....glad someone was there to stop those two holy men from crucifying each other over their interpretation of propaganda! Good thing there were no nails and lumber laying around in that room,....or a lance or two.....one of them might have wound up getting laid out in a big room with a big rock for a door.

Limbo

08-04-2007, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Limbo
Exploited by whom? I thought the leaders in the church were the ones doing the exploiting?

WALTER WEISS REPLIED: What??? Never heard of middle management have you???

WALTER WEISS FURTHER REPLIES: "Even your Jesus was in middle management wasnt he?"

Ok, we can all see that you are happy to criticize those of us who try to understand the nature of God. How about explaining a little more of your belief system.

Like, what is the nature of God, what is God like? How can we learn more about the nature of God? Is there good and evil? If so, how do you define good and evil? Does God answer prayer?

Is there a heaven or hell? You have mentioned that a pile of Christians will end up there, so you seem to believe it is real.

Is there an after life? Who will go to heaven. Will God judge us?

If babies are born without a sinful nature, is it possible for them to live a perfect life if they grow up in a perfect society? If yes, in your mind, what would a perfect society be like, and can it be achieved? How?

Loseirdo

08-04-2007, 08:27 PM

Here's my take on it for what it's worth, although I'm not sure this will answer your question, or even if I understand your question.

Jesus uses many many metaphors to describe himself, including: living water; bread of life; light of the world; good shepherd; to name a few.

His flesh and blood are obviously being given as another metaphor. I think they are symbolic of his death on the cross, and whoever accepts his sacrifice will have everlasting life (i.e., spend eternity with God). For protestants, when we celebrate communion, we don't think the bread is literally Jesus' flesh, or that the wine/juice is literally Jesus' blood, they are purely symbolic, and of course that sets us apart from Catholics.

I doubt that answers your question though. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

No, I think that covers it.

I find it difficult to believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically because of how his disciples responded. Many of them were appalled and walked away. Some of them said, "This saying is hard." They clearly understood that he was speaking literally. Did Jesus correct them? No, He basically told them to take it or leave it. If He was speaking metaphorically, and his disciples took what He said literally, why didn't He correct them?

My father brought another passage to my mind regarding the faith and good works issue. It's long, so I won't write it here, but I urge you to read Matthew 25:31-46. To summarize it, Jesus places the sheep (good people) on his right and the goats (wicked people) on his left, and says, "Whatever you did for the least of my brothers, you did for me. Whatever you did not do for the least of my brothers, you did not do for me." The sheep are brought to eternal salvation and the goats to eternal damnation. No mention of faith is made.

There's also a passage in Revelation, but I can't remember what it is right now.

Speaking of Revelation, you might be interested in reading Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper. It's a fascinating book about Revelation and how it applies to the Catholic Church.

Scott Hahn was an evangelical protestant until he attended a Catholic mass. He talks about his experience there and how his knowledge of the book of Revelation "opened his eyes". He goes on to discuss the book of Revelation and what it means for Christianity. It's short enough to get through in an afternoon or two, and I think you might enjoy it.

Walter Weiss

08-05-2007, 08:43 AM

Ok, we can all see that you are happy to criticize those of us who try to understand the nature of God. How about explaining a little more of your belief system.

Like, what is the nature of God, what is God like? How can we learn more about the nature of God? Is there good and evil? If so, how do you define good and evil? Does God answer prayer?

Is there a heaven or hell? You have mentioned that a pile of Christians will end up there, so you seem to believe it is real.

Is there an after life? Who will go to heaven. Will God judge us?

If babies are born without a sinful nature, is it possible for them to live a perfect life if they grow up in a perfect society? If yes, in your mind, what would a perfect society be like, and can it be achieved? How?

YOU ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF GOD????? DO YOU NOT ALREADY CLAIM TO KNOW THE NATURE OF GOD, AND CONDEMN ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT THINK AS YOU DO?

MR....I am about freedom of religion and freedom of mind. The path you, and many like you follow seems to be a shackle put upon the mind, to direct someone down a narrow path in which questions are barely tolerated, and the concept of FAITH is perverted into a concept of blind obediance. When you take the common sense and the tolerance out of religion, it becomes a CULT based on it's own wackos who will do great damage to others.

Babies? Sinful nature? Junior, common sense ought to tell you that a baby doesnt know how to do anything other than be a baby....because there is ZERO life experience. A Baby is neither perfect, nor corrupt....it has but one definition, and that is it is a BABY. If during the raising process it is exposed to or lead into, or taught corrupt practices likely to victimize others, then it becomes corrupt. Common sense ought to tell you that.

In your camp, the BABY EXCUSE has been used for eons to explain away the unexplainable. It is a path that a wack-job will take someone down in an effort to derail a common-sense approach to a matter that appears illogical. We have been hearing the BABY STORY from the religious nuts since a peanut farmer was president. It is old tough guy....too old...and it is the propaganda of the con artist.

This nation was founded on many principals....freedom of religion and tolerance for other cultures. Freedom to criticize one's government and one's peers. Freedom to question....freedom to learn....freedom to choose....freedom to be free. When you shackle someone's mind, and feed them a doctrine of bullshit and put a "GOD LABEL" on it, you will often be subjected to criticism by those who recognize your activities and disapprove of the exploitation attempts. Learn to expect it.

GREAT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY have been created and effected by many in the Christian camp....the Islamic camp....cults...and many other "man-made God systems" operating on a corrupt agenda based on greed and power. Lives have been lost over it. Innocence has been stolen over it. Genocide has been committed over it. Because of these nasty crimes against humanity, you have to expect to meet people who will not agree with your bible babble and your sordid efforts at "ministering to someone" until they agree to join your camp and you proclaim them "cured."

If you want to understand GOD....you might consider to first try to understand that what you are doing may not have anything to do with GOD....it has to do with man....corrupt man...and his own agendas.

You must also know that sheep will run off of a cliff into an abyss for their "shep." Others who are smarter than the sheep will certainly question the reason for the shep operating the flock on the edge of a cliff in the first place, and these folks will not agree to blindly follow anything.....because they are not fools. I should imagine that GOD is not a fool....and it is entirely possible that GOD may not be too appreciative of fools who shackle their own minds and enable similar bonds and shackes to be placed upon the minds of others, in the sordid acts and whims of the fanatic who engages in what he calls "ministering."

I would think that in general, GOD is a question mark.....as he most probably intended it to be.....and we all seem to be on some sort of journey through life, as we are all pursuing the possible answers to many questions. We were gifted with the ability to question and seek, and it is that ability that leads us instinctively to quest for the solving of the riddle of GOD and other things. GODS PLAN seems to be one of diverse paths and diverse people. CAN YOU THINK OUTSIDE OF YOUR INDOCTRINATION LONG ENOUGH TO HAZARD A WELL CONSIDERED GUESS ON THAT?

God intended that we should think and learn....not shackle up and become prisoner sheep! And not spout forth falsehoods in the name of GOD in an effort to con others into gang membership! Sheep are slaves. Sheps are slave owners. The Shep will strike off the head of a sheep from time to time and feed upon it's meat and blood. The sheep stands there in blissful ignorance until he sees the axe swinging his direction a split second before his head is shattered. Then it is too late to acquire further knowledge of GOD.

Limbo

08-05-2007, 11:08 AM

YOU ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF GOD????? DO YOU NOT ALREADY CLAIM TO KNOW THE NATURE OF GOD, AND CONDEMN ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT THINK AS YOU DO?

Ah, this is pretty much what I expect. More vitriol and personal attack. Again you have said a lot about me, but little of your own beliefs. So to sum up your beliefs then, we have:

A Baby is neither perfect, nor corrupt....it has but one definition, and that is it is a BABY. If during the raising process it is exposed to or lead into, or taught corrupt practices likely to victimize others, then it becomes corrupt. Common sense ought to tell you that.

You seem to have misunderstood the question. I'm really talking about human nature. Can humans lead a perfect life without doing anything wrong if they grew up under perfect conditions? What kind of society would allow people to live perfect lives free of misdeeds?

I should imagine that GOD is not a fool....and it is entirely possible that GOD may not be too appreciative of fools who shackle their own minds and enable similar bonds and shackes to be placed upon the minds of others, in the sordid acts and whims of the fanatic who engages in what he calls "ministering."

So you have said what God is not by attacking me again.

I would think that in general, GOD is a question mark.....as he most probably intended it to be.....and we all seem to be on some sort of journey through life, as we are all pursuing the possible answers to many questions. We were gifted with the ability to question and seek, and it is that ability that leads us instinctively to quest for the solving of the riddle of GOD and other things. GODS PLAN seems to be one of diverse paths and diverse people. CAN YOU THINK OUTSIDE OF YOUR INDOCTRINATION LONG ENOUGH TO HAZARD A WELL CONSIDERED GUESS ON THAT?

God intended that we should think and learn....not shackle up and become prisoner sheep! And not spout forth falsehoods in the name of GOD in an effort to con others into gang membership!

So if we were meant to seek with open minds (which I agree with - spent the first 25 years of my life doing just that), how does he reveal himself to us? Through people, through dreams? or? So what have you learned about God, other than we are to seek him? Seems like you haven't learned much in your search except that God hates Christians. If God is a big question mark, how do you know that YOU are not the one spouting falsehoods? So there are many paths then that are OK, except for the one I am on, of course.

Is there a heaven? Is there a hell? How does God decide who goes where? Will Ted Bundy go to heaven in your opinion? Will Billy Graham go to hell?

BTW, I am not debating you with the hope of "converting" you to anything. You are obviously an extremely closed-minded person. The only reason I respond to atheists, or people like you who just hate Christians, is to show the casual reader how bad their arguments are, so that people can make up their own minds without being flooded with misinformation that goes unchallenged.

Limbo

08-05-2007, 11:28 AM

No, I think that covers it.

I find it difficult to believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically because of how his disciples responded. Many of them were appalled and walked away. Some of them said, "This saying is hard." They clearly understood that he was speaking literally. Did Jesus correct them? No, He basically told them to take it or leave it. If He was speaking metaphorically, and his disciples took what He said literally, why didn't He correct them?

The reason I believe that he was speaking metaphorically is that if we take it literally, it leads to the absurd conclusion that we are saved by eating crackers and sipping wine. I don't believe a just God would create such a ridiculous and arbitrary path to heaven, besides this would be a direct contradiction to the vast majority of Jesus' message and to the rest of the new testament, including the huge number of explicit references to being saved by faith that I gave you earlier. When Jesus celebrated the last supper with his disciples, he said to do this "in remembrance of me", not to do it for salvation. Also at the last supper, Jesus said his disciples were the salt of the earth. Do you really think he meant they were literally table salt?

Scott Hahn was an evangelical protestant until he attended a Catholic mass. He talks about his experience there and how his knowledge of the book of Revelation "opened his eyes". He goes on to discuss the book of Revelation and what it means for Christianity. It's short enough to get through in an afternoon or two, and I think you might enjoy it.

Actually, he was a protestant, but not an evangelical (he was a Presbyterian I believe). Presbyterians are not Anabaptists as I am, but in fact hold many similar beliefs and practices in common with Catholics (including transubstantiation), so it was a minor step for him back into the Catholic church. I have read assertions by some Catholic apologists that there is a stampede of evangelicals back to Catholicism. I think this is pure fantasy. I have never even heard of one. Evangelical churches are full of former Catholics, and even among Catholics, only a very small minority believe in such things as the priest being able to change bread and wine into Jesus' body and blood. The powers that be in the Catholic church will resist reform forever though in my opinion.

My wife is Mennonite, and Mennonites remember to this day being killed as heretics by Catholics. I don't recall there having been any apologies from the Catholics leaders over the centuries.

Walter Weiss

08-05-2007, 07:57 PM

HEY LIMBO....THIS ONE'S FOR YOU BABY:
**********************************
WALTER WEISS WROTE: I should imagine that GOD is not a fool....and it is entirely possible that GOD may not be too appreciative of fools who shackle their own minds and enable similar bonds and shackes to be placed upon the minds of others, in the sordid acts and whims of the fanatic who engages in what he calls "ministering."

LIMBO WROTE: So you have said what God is not by attacking me again.

WALTER WEISS RESPONDS: There is no attack on you indicated anywhere in this. Br screaming "I'm a victim!" you attempt to create credibility for yourself. Try a doctrine of TRUTH if you want credibility. We are not having a CONTEST here.....we are having a discusssion. Remember that.

WALTER WEISS WROTE: A Baby is neither perfect, nor corrupt....it has but one definition, and that is it is a BABY. If during the raising process it is exposed to or lead into, or taught corrupt practices likely to victimize others, then it becomes corrupt. Common sense ought to tell you that.

LIMBO WROTE: You seem to have misunderstood the question. I'm really talking about human nature. Can humans lead a perfect life without doing anything wrong if they grew up under perfect conditions? What kind of society would allow people to live perfect lives free of misdeeds?

WALTER WEISS RESPONDS: Adolph Hitler strived for perfect conditions, a perfect race, perfect order, perfect life. He studied to be a priest. Jospeh Stalin strived for perfection. He studied to be a priest. Pol Pot strived for immediate change from struggle to perfect order. He studied with Jesuits and attended Catholic School. Idi Amin was a Christian, and one of the most "perfect" British Soldiers as a young man that many commanders had ever seen. Attilla the Hun at one point as a young man, studied with Christian Romans. Ivan the terrible commissioned the building of a beautiful cathedral in Moscow. Ivan broke down and wept in joy at the great beauty of the finished cathedral. Ivan then ordered the eyes burned from the sockets of the architect with a red hot iron rod so that the architect would not be able to produce anything more perfect than this particular cathedral. These men were indoctrined with the same thing that you are indoctrinated with. They did great crimes against humanity without batting an eye. Common Sense should tell you that THERE IS NO "PERFECT CONDITIONS." A Baby is still learning that THERE IS NO PERFECT CONDITIONS. Therefore there is no PERFECT LIFE. Babies are not born EVIL. Babies are born naive. Every man and Woman is born NAIVE. Furthermore the concept of "Perfect" has never been well described or really accurately defined. AS THERE IS NO PERFECT CONDITIONS, THERE IS NOTHING BY WHICH TO GAUGE OR COMPARE ANYTHING IN THE WAY OF ESTABLISHING TRUE PERFECTION. PERFECT IS NOT ACHIEVEABLE....YOUR CHRISITIAN-BROTHER-COLLEAGUES HITLER, POT, STALIN, AMIN, ATTILLA, AND IVAN HAVE ALREADY SHOWN YOU THAT.

WALTER WEISS WRITES: Perfect may possibly be that which becomes an obsession to achieve, resulting in ruthlessness that casts aside all empathy. A condition establishing lack of empathy is the founding stone of any holocaust to come. Christianity has produced holocausts and slavery among other things. Is it evil? Or is it Christians that are evil, and not the concepts of Christianity?

WALTER WEISS WRITES: THINK DEEPLY ABOUT THIS. I DONT CLAIM TO BE RIGHT. I DONT CLAIM TO BE PERFECT. I DONT CLAIM TO DEFINE PERFECT. I SHUN ANYONE WHO WOULD CLAIM GOD TO BE PERFECT. GOD CREATED IMPERFECTION. THE "DEVIL" CREATED NOTHING.

WALTER WEISS WRITES: If man has a "goal" that he calls "GOD," then what can man possibly do to achieve it? Do you know the answer to that? Some have tried acts of extermination to remove obstacles in their quest for GOD. Who and what do you feel yourself to be my bible babbling friend?

Walter Weiss

08-05-2007, 08:15 PM

LIMBO WROTE: So if we were meant to seek with open minds (which I agree with - spent the first 25 years of my life doing just that), how does he reveal himself to us? Through people, through dreams? or? So what have you learned about God, other than we are to seek him? Seems like you haven't learned much in your search except that God hates Christians. If God is a big question mark, how do you know that YOU are not the one spouting falsehoods? So there are many paths then that are OK, except for the one I am on, of course.

WALTER WEISS WRITES: A question is never a falsehood, or else it would not be a question....it would be a proclamation, exclamation or simple answer. Responses to QUESTIONS can be false. If GOD intended you to have all of the answers about GOD, there would be no questions. If GOD created everything, and planned everything, then GOD invented and created the concept of QUESTION. IF YOU HAD ALL THE ANSWERS, YOU WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO SEEK GOD. THAT WHICH YOU SEEK AND FIND IN YOUR JOURNEY WAS MEANT TO BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT OTHERS SEEK AND FIND IN THEIRS.

WALTER WEISS WRITES: You, my bible babbling evangelistical "christian" friend, are truly an experienced silver tongue devil after your own kind. YOU SAID IN YOUR POST that I conveyed that GOD HATES CHRISTIANS. No where in my post did I say that GOD hated anyone or anything. By twisting and turning what it said in your preaching, you perpetuate falsehoods and false witness. IT IS THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOR THAT HAVE DRIVEN MANY FROM THE CHURCHES IN DISGUST. When one enters a Church, one expects to find a slightly higher degree of respect for truth. When one finds intentional deception in ministry, one does not feel himself or herself to be in the company of someone who is truly dedicated to anything higher than personal gain.....this sort is never far from a cash register or collection plate, or the silk drawers on someone's teenage daughter. You are beginning to show yourself to be a great twister and manipulator....this can only mean that there is deception......but there again, when caught, you will merely say that GOD invented deception and that it was his will that you deceived someone, and that he will forgive you for it every time that you do it. OF COURSE, I COULD BE IMPERFECT ON THAT ONE......

Limbo

08-05-2007, 08:35 PM

Loseirdo

08-05-2007, 09:10 PM

The reason I believe that he was speaking metaphorically is that if we take it literally, it leads to the absurd conclusion that we are saved by eating crackers and sipping wine. I don't believe a just God would create such a ridiculous and arbitrary path to heaven, besides this would be a direct contradiction to the vast majority of Jesus' message and to the rest of the new testament, including the huge number of explicit references to being saved by faith that I gave you earlier. When Jesus celebrated the last supper with his disciples, he said to do this "in remembrance of me", not to do it for salvation. Also at the last supper, Jesus said his disciples were the salt of the earth. Do you really think he meant they were literally table salt?

You're absolutely right. It would be absurd to think that we could be saved by eating crackers and wine.

But that's not what Jesus said, is it? I recall him saying "body and blood".

That's what transubstantiation is all about. The bread and wine become his body and blood.

All things are comprised of two parts: substance and accident. Substance is what we physically see and feel. Accident is the inherent nature of the object.

As an example, look at me. My substance is human. I have flesh and blood. I have hair and muscles and bones, all of which are composed of proteins and minerals. My accident, though, is Loseirdo (real name has been withheld due to privacy issues) -- the nature of my person. If we were all simply substance, we would all be the same. Because we have different accidents, we are all different.

During transubstantiation, the accidents of the bread and wine become that of the body and blood of Christ while the substances remain those of bread and wine.

I can quote you passage after passage in the Bible in support of the Eucharist, but it would be a waste of time -- you would simply find alternate ways of interpreting them and throw just as many passages back at me. So instead, I ask you to research some of the Eucharistic miracles that have occurred in the Church since its inception. I assure you that you will find no shortage of them. Some of them are more miraculous than others (look up the miracle of Lanciano, Italy), but they all speak in testament to the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I would truly be surprised if you could turn a blind eye to these.

Actually, he was a protestant, but not an evangelical (he was a Presbyterian I believe). Presbyterians are not Anabaptists as I am, but in fact hold many similar beliefs and practices in common with Catholics (including transubstantiation), so it was a minor step for him back into the Catholic church. I have read assertions by some Catholic apologists that there is a stampede of evangelicals back to Catholicism. I think this is pure fantasy. I have never even heard of one. Evangelical churches are full of former Catholics, and even among Catholics, only a very small minority believe in such things as the priest being able to change bread and wine into Jesus' body and blood. The powers that be in the Catholic church will resist reform forever though in my opinion.

My wife is Mennonite, and Mennonites remember to this day being killed as heretics by Catholics. I don't recall there having been any apologies from the Catholics leaders over the centuries.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june00/apology_3-13.html

Perhaps he did not mention the Mennonites explicitly, but to name each and every instance of Church sin would take far too long (yes, I admit that the Church has sinned in the past, and I'm not proud of it). If your wife is waiting for a direct apology, she probably isn't going to get it. Not because we aren't sorry -- just because it would call for direct apologies for everyone, and we might not have records of everything we have done wrong. This apology was in the interest of everyone who has been wronged by the Church because that's the only way we can ensure that everyone receives an apology.

Those Catholics that don't believe in transubstantiation are not true Catholics, and I regret that they are a part of the Church at all. You're right, though -- the Catholic Church will never reform its policies or opinions on the Eucharist. Not because we're stubborn, but because we're right. If the Church changed every time somebody disagreed, we'd be...well, we'd be Baptist. :D

By the way, what did you think of that Matthew reference? Did you get a chance to read it?

Walter Weiss

08-05-2007, 09:28 PM

OK, I'll let you have the last word on this. I think I've made my point. No need to flog this dead horse any more than it has been.

Walter, best of luck on your Journey, and watch out for those Christians!

I am a Christian, and a Jew.....there is no last word....I dont need last word....good luck on your journey, and perhaps we shall chance to see one another during our respective journeys, and can compare maps and notes.

Is there such a thing as a compass on journeys like this?

Limbo

08-07-2007, 01:19 AM

You're absolutely right. It would be absurd to think that we could be saved by eating crackers and wine.

But that's not what Jesus said, is it? I recall him saying "body and blood".

That's what transubstantiation is all about. The bread and wine become his body and blood.

All things are comprised of two parts: substance and accident. Substance is what we physically see and feel. Accident is the inherent nature of the object.

As an example, look at me. My substance is human. I have flesh and blood. I have hair and muscles and bones, all of which are composed of proteins and minerals. My accident, though, is Loseirdo (real name has been withheld due to privacy issues) -- the nature of my person. If we were all simply substance, we would all be the same. Because we have different accidents, we are all different.

During transubstantiation, the accidents of the bread and wine become that of the body and blood of Christ while the substances remain those of bread and wine.

I can quote you passage after passage in the Bible in support of the Eucharist, but it would be a waste of time -- you would simply find alternate ways of interpreting them and throw just as many passages back at me. So instead, I ask you to research some of the Eucharistic miracles that have occurred in the Church since its inception. I assure you that you will find no shortage of them. Some of them are more miraculous than others (look up the miracle of Lanciano, Italy), but they all speak in testament to the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I would truly be surprised if you could turn a blind eye to these.

Is that like when someone sees the image of Christ or some saint on a grilled cheese sandwich or something?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june00/apology_3-13.html

Perhaps he did not mention the Mennonites explicitly, but to name each and every instance of Church sin would take far too long (yes, I admit that the Church has sinned in the past, and I'm not proud of it). If your wife is waiting for a direct apology, she probably isn't going to get it. Not because we aren't sorry -- just because it would call for direct apologies for everyone, and we might not have records of everything we have done wrong. This apology was in the interest of everyone who has been wronged by the Church because that's the only way we can ensure that everyone receives an apology.

My ancestors were French protestants who left France because of religious persecution from the Catholic majority back in the 18th century. They settled in the U.S., and some ended up going to Canada ultimately. Kind of a hard sell to get either me or my wife interested in Catholic theology, I should think.

By the way, what did you think of that Matthew reference? Did you get a chance to read it?

I remember you mentioning something about that. Doesn't that parable refer to sheep that "listen to his voice" or something? That's kind of a shift from doing good works. I just can't get over the fact that if God intended for us to have to do some kind of "works", or sacrements for salvation, there would be some explicit biblical reference to that (as there is over and over again to faith being all it takes). Why ignore the dozens of passages that explicitly state that we are saved by faith and faith alone? Who cares what some supposed Saint cooked up hundreds of years after the fact? When Jesus was here on earth, it was a special time of revelation of God's word to us, resulting in the New Testament. If other people many years later make statements or come up with doctrines that contradict what's in the bible, we should question that.

That was the beginning of trouble for the Catholic church, when people could start reading the bible for themselves and see what it explicitly states, instead of having a priest babble a bunch of Latin that no one can understand, and then ask them to cough up some money to get their relatives out of purgatory. I know the church has reformed itself over the years somewhat, and I don't blame you or other modern Catholics for what has happened in the past, but I don't see the Catholic church ridding itself of the ideas and doctrines that arose from the Church being corrupted by power and money. I fear any further reforms will be very slow in coming.

That's why Baptists like myself are so big on religious liberty and separation of church and state. We have seen how when the church and government get too intertwined, the church gets corrupted.

WhiteRaven

08-07-2007, 02:00 AM

"Back door? No, it uses the front.

Matter breaking down means it no longer exists, genius. All matter has a life span. Some particles are extremely short lived (some existing no longer than 26 billionths of a second), while others last an extremely long amount of time. In the end, though, all particles "die", and eventually our Universe will be nothing but empty void as far as no one will be able to see. The proverbial end of the world."

Ever heard of something called the Law of Conservation of Matter, When matter breaks down, it doesn't just vanish, the only loophole to that law is when matter turns into energy, and the Law of Conservation of Energy has no loopholes. Energy is always present.

"If nothing was around before the big bang, where did the big bang come from?"

*sighs* what I meant was, maybe all the matter in the universe just sat there until the big bang.

"If another Universe was there, where did that come from?" Perhaps nowhere, perhaps another big bang.

"My point is that at some point you must accept the idea of infinity."

Infinity of events? Or of substance? there is a difference.

"Either the universe has always been here, trapped in a never-ending cycle of implosion and explosion, or God has always been here and only recently (you know, relatively recently) created the Universe. Since we've already established that all matter breaks down over time, the former cannot be true -- therefore something had to have created the Universe."

And why does that something automatically have to have been a god?

"But you do take the bible literally when it suits your purpose of making it look stupid, or when it creates some supposed contradiction"

no, I take the bible literally when it seems to convey a literal meaning. Where did I say that the bible literally meant Father and Son(I really hope you don't find a quote)

"You seem to be forgetting about Josephus"

I believe Josephus also thought Hercules was an actual person, not that that makes him completely unreliable.

"the rest of the new testament"

not all of it, no.

"and the voluminous writings of the early church fathers."

well if the church said it, it must be true.

"We have a massively accelerating number of original fragments and sources widely scattered geographically starting about 100 years after Jesus' crucification that are in virtually complete agreement with each other."

Do we now?

"Can you say this is true for Aristotle or Plato?" Yes.

"Note that this is not true for the supposed Gospel of Thomas, where the first original sources or fragments are from the 3rd century.Of course some critics (apparently you included) take it as historical fact because it is in contradiction to the rest of the bible, which suits them quite nicely, while rejecting all earlier material as unreliable."

I think I've read almost these exact words in a book trying to prove Jesus' existence. are you plagiarizing? Naughty naughty, you'll go to hell for that you know.

Loseirdo

08-07-2007, 03:01 AM

Is that like when someone sees the image of Christ or some saint on a grilled cheese sandwich or something?

No. In fact, it's nothing like that. Since you seem reluctant to research it on your own, here's a list of Eucharistic miracles by country:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

If you only take the time to look at one of them, I would suggest the Lanciano, Italy miracle.

My ancestors were French protestants who left France because of religious persecution from the Catholic majority back in the 18th century. They settled in the U.S., and some ended up going to Canada ultimately. Kind of a hard sell to get either me or my wife interested in Catholic theology, I should think.

You assume the religion is bad because some of the people who believed it were bad? That's a crass assumption, don't you think?

I remember you mentioning something about that. Doesn't that parable refer to sheep that "listen to his voice" or something? That's kind of a shift from doing good works. I just can't get over the fact that if God intended for us to have to do some kind of "works", or sacrements for salvation, there would be some explicit biblical reference to that (as there is over and over again to faith being all it takes). Why ignore the dozens of passages that explicitly state that we are saved by faith and faith alone? Who cares what some supposed Saint cooked up hundreds of years after the fact? When Jesus was here on earth, it was a special time of revelation of God's word to us, resulting in the New Testament. If other people many years later make statements or come up with doctrines that contradict what's in the bible, we should question that.

That was the beginning of trouble for the Catholic church, when people could start reading the bible for themselves and see what it explicitly states, instead of having a priest babble a bunch of Latin that no one can understand, and then ask them to cough up some money to get their relatives out of purgatory. I know the church has reformed itself over the years somewhat, and I don't blame you or other modern Catholics for what has happened in the past, but I don't see the Catholic church ridding itself of the ideas and doctrines that arose from the Church being corrupted by power and money. I fear any further reforms will be very slow in coming.

That's why Baptists like myself are so big on religious liberty and separation of church and state. We have seen how when the church and government get too intertwined, the church gets corrupted.

Nowhere in the bible is the phrase "faith alone" used except in James 2:24, which says "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." I know we've been over the definition of "justified" in this instance, but here's an archaic definition of "justify" according to www.m-w.com:

2 a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : ABSOLVE c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation

I can understand why you would want to use the modern-day definition of "justify", but you have to admit that it's at least as, if not more likely that the archaic (archaic: 1 : having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses -- not to question your knowledge, just to make sure we're working from the same definition) definition would have been used in this case.

Consider the nature of God's relationship with his people. The coming of Christ was the establishment of the "new covenant", right? Here's the m-w definition of "covenant":

1 : a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement : COMPACT
2 a : a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action

The word "covenant" suggests a legal agreement. If we view it like this, it makes sense that the word "justify" would have been derived from the word "justice", which also suggests a legal agreement, and would therefore have used the archaic definition I supplied.

The bible mentions (many times) that faith is required for salvation; it never explicitly states that faith is the only thing required for salvation, however. You simply choose to read it that way.

I can guess what you're going to say -- only Catholics have to do this much legwork to "justify" their beliefs. I have two responses to this:

1. I don't need to justify anything. I'm simply trying to help you understand my belief by demonstrating a straightforward, logical interpretation, which is more than you have done for me.
2. At least I can justify my beliefs.

Now, back to the Matthew reference. Here is the entire passage, copied from www.biblegateway.com (since I'm too lazy to type the entire thing out myself):

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

The people are judged not by what they believed, but by what they did. Can you twist this into an explicit statement of "we are saved by faith alone"?

I think that's enough for one post. I eagerly await your reply.

Footnote: At no point in this or any of my posts did I intentionally attack you, and I apologize if anything came off that way. I merely wish to attack everything you believe and hold dear. :D

Walter Weiss

08-07-2007, 09:01 AM

Is God Unpredictable?

Limbo

08-07-2007, 11:04 AM

No. In fact, it's nothing like that. Since you seem reluctant to research it on your own, here's a list of Eucharistic miracles by country:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

This doesn't prove anything. What they have may be flesh and blood, but whose flesh and blood?

You assume the religion is bad because some of the people who believed it were bad? That's a crass assumption, don't you think?

If people do bad things in the name of religion, we need to figure out if:

1) The religious practices and beliefs are bad, and people were just doing what their religion tells them to do (Islam comes to mind)

2) The people who did it were bad, and the religious practices/beliefs had nothing to do with it.

If it seems like 1) is the cause, then the beliefs and practices need to be rethought and reformed

Nowhere in the bible is the phrase "faith alone" used

This is just semantics. I gave you a huge list of references that state we are saved by faith and that works are only necessary in the sense that they are an outward reflection of our rebirth in Christ. There are many examples of conversion in the bible where people turn from their old ways and immediately begin to show concern for their fellow man and do what they can to help others. In this way, I completely agree with James when he asks how we may claim to have faith when we won't lift a finger to help anyone. I think this covers the Matthew parable also that you mentioned. Faith and salvation are what lead you to do the Lord's work. You've got it bass-ackwards my friend.

As for the definition of justify, I think this just reflects the definition commonly used by Catholics. It doesn't prove anything as this is just circular reasoning. You would have a better argument if you could show that the original language (Greek) wording supported your view.

The bible mentions (many times) that faith is required for salvation; it never explicitly states that faith is the only thing required for salvation, however. You simply choose to read it that way.

Ephesians 2:8-9 seems crystal clear to me. Or John 3:16 is another good one.

I can guess what you're going to say -- only Catholics have to do this much legwork to "justify" their beliefs. I have two responses to this:

1. I don't need to justify anything. I'm simply trying to help you understand my belief by demonstrating a straightforward, logical interpretation, which is more than you have done for me.
2. At least I can justify my beliefs.

I think I explained this above. Many protestants are very wary of over-emphasizing any role works play in salvation. Part of this is due to the abuse we have seen from cults who use this verse to turn their followers into basically slaves, either to raise money, or to proselytize to try to gain new adherents to the cult. They teach that you must do X amount of good works, namely raising money and proselytizing others.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Catholics are guilty of what the cults do anymore. And furthermore, you don't have to justify your faith and belief system to me. If you are comfortable with it, so be it. In the body of Christ, different churches will have different roles based on how we emphasize different doctrinal issues. I don't agree with all Catholic doctrine, but if someone in the church has strong faith and puts their faith into action, I will respect that person for their faith.

Footnote: At no point in this or any of my posts did I intentionally attack you, and I apologize if anything came off that way. I merely wish to attack everything you believe and hold dear. :D

No worries, you are an extremely polite debater.

General Septem

08-07-2007, 12:53 PM

Ephesians 2:8-9 seems crystal clear to me. Or John 3:16 is another good one.

Then what does every other verse in the entire Bible mean to you?

Limbo

08-07-2007, 03:35 PM

Then what does every other verse in the entire Bible mean to you?

To sum up the law and prophets, be good to one another. Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself (that's hard to do with so many arseholes out there!), and don't, under any circumstances, sacrifice Democrats to the devil!! :D

Walter Weiss

08-08-2007, 12:27 AM

To sum up the law and prophets, be good to one another. Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself (that's hard to do with so many arseholes out there!), and don't, under any circumstances, sacrifice Democrats to the devil!! :D

Demorats would probably squeal loudly when sacrificed to the devil. They will throw down their yoghurt and run like hell for the gay bar when they learn what the gathering is all about.

Loseirdo

08-08-2007, 12:32 AM

This doesn't prove anything. What they have may be flesh and blood, but whose flesh and blood?

Whose flesh and blood, indeed.

I know you're inclined to believe that it's just a forgery set forth by the Catholic Church to lure suckers in, but several of these miracles are well-documented with many eyewitnesses. I mean, if you think about it, the Bible itself was created by Catholics. Wouldn't you say it's possible that it was created for just that purpose? But you don't believe that. Why would you believe that something admittedly created by the Catholic Church more than 16 or 17 hundred years ago, written about a man who lived 2000 years ago, is more credible than a miracle that was claimed to have happened 11 or 12 hundred years ago? Wait, I have more.

This miracle is dated back to the 8th or 9th century, right? That's the late 700's to early 800's. The first separation from the Catholic Church occurred in the 11th century, around 1054. This was the separation of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. Before that, Catholic was the only denomination of Christianity. What does this mean?

If the miracle was a fake, the only reason the Church would fake it would be to give credence to the Bible itself, since the validity of the Eucharist had never been disputed. Most Christians already believed the Church blindly on matters of interpretation, so really, the only reason they would do this would be to prevent people from suspecting that the Bible was a fake. Since no Christians were in the habit of questioning the Church already, the only reason I can think that the Church would fake this miracle would be because the Bible is fake. If the Bible was real, and there were no Christians disputing the Church's teachings, what other reason would they have to fake a miracle?

You don't believe the Bible is fake, so is it really such a stretch to believe that this miracle actually happened -- especially considering the scenario I gave you?

If people do bad things in the name of religion, we need to figure out if:

1) The religious practices and beliefs are bad, and people were just doing what their religion tells them to do (Islam comes to mind)

2) The people who did it were bad, and the religious practices/beliefs had nothing to do with it.

If it seems like 1) is the cause, then the beliefs and practices need to be rethought and reformed

Are you suggesting, then, that all bad acts ever committed by Catholics were due to bad teachings? 'Cause if you're not, I'm pretty sure most of those instances fall under 2). Some people got carried away with their faith.

Things like that haven't only happened in the Catholic Church, either, but I'm sure you're aware of that.

This is just semantics. I gave you a huge list of references that state we are saved by faith and that works are only necessary in the sense that they are an outward reflection of our rebirth in Christ. There are many examples of conversion in the bible where people turn from their old ways and immediately begin to show concern for their fellow man and do what they can to help others. In this way, I completely agree with James when he asks how we may claim to have faith when we won't lift a finger to help anyone. I think this covers the Matthew parable also that you mentioned. Faith and salvation are what lead you to do the Lord's work. You've got it bass-ackwards my friend.

As for the definition of justify, I think this just reflects the definition commonly used by Catholics. It doesn't prove anything as this is just circular reasoning. You would have a better argument if you could show that the original language (Greek) wording supported your view.

Sorry, I'm not the one who has it backwards. I never said good works alone will save you, but that you must have good works to have faith. You're right that faith saves you, just like all of those scriptures say. But faith alone does not save you because faith never comes alone. Faith is always paired with good works -- otherwise it is "dead". Following this reasoning, faith and good works are both required to be saved.

As for the word "justify", the original Greek word means "to declare/make righteous".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_%28theology%29#Roman_Catholic_views

If we are justified by our works, that means we are "made righteous" by our works.

1 Samuel 26:23 -- The Lord rewards every man for his righteousness and faithfulness.

Righteousness and faithfulness -- not just faithfulness.

Proverbs 11:8 -- The righteous man is rescued from trouble, and it comes on the wicked instead.

Proverbs 11:19 -- The truly righteous man attains life, but he who pursues evil goes to his death.

Righteousness is mentioned here with no mention of faithfulness at all.

Ezekiel 3:20 -- "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.

The man dies because he has ceased doing righteous things, not because he has stopped believing. Without righteous acts (good works), we will die. This verse also mentions that his righteous acts will be forgotten if he does evil and perishes, suggesting that no amount of good works alone will save us.

...et cetera. I think you get the picture.

So anyway, the point of all that was that we cannot be saved if we are not righteous; righteousness comes from justification, and justification comes from good works, as James 2:24 says -- You see that a person is justified by what a person does and not by faith alone.

Is this starting to make sense, or is it all just incoherent babbling? I'm really trying hard to build a logical foundation for my faith so that you have something substantial to go on.

Ephesians 2:8-9 seems crystal clear to me. Or John 3:16 is another good one.

Ephesians says we are saved by grace through faith. It doesn't say that we are saved by faith. It does say that we are not saved by works, but this was never really up for dispute. Neither I nor my Church believe that anyone can be saved by good works alone. We are saved by grace, grace comes through faith, and our faith is justified (made righteous) by good works.

Oy, that took a long time to write. I'm having fun, though -- no one has ever made me work this hard to support my faith. :D

General Septem

08-08-2007, 09:24 AM

I mean, if you think about it, the Bible itself was created by Catholics.

No, it wasn't; most of the Bible (the OT anyway) was written before the Catholic Church even came into existence. You might be referring to when the Catholic Church decided which books would be included.

It does say that we are not saved by works, but this was never really up for dispute. Neither I nor my Church believe that anyone can be saved by good works alone.

So you're basically saying that anyone who doesn't believe in God - whether it's because they live in India and never even heard of God, or perhaps they wanted to believe in God, or just someone who would've had to make themselves believe, which isn't really belief in the first place? These people, even if they were genuinely good people, would automatically go to Hell?

Limbo

08-08-2007, 10:53 AM

Whose flesh and blood, indeed.

I know you're inclined to believe that it's just a forgery set forth by the Catholic Church to lure suckers in, but several of these miracles are well-documented with many eyewitnesses. I mean, if you think about it, the Bible itself was created by Catholics. Wouldn't you say it's possible that it was created for just that purpose? But you don't believe that. Why would you believe that something admittedly created by the Catholic Church more than 16 or 17 hundred years ago, written about a man who lived 2000 years ago, is more credible than a miracle that was claimed to have happened 11 or 12 hundred years ago? Wait, I have more.

This miracle is dated back to the 8th or 9th century, right? That's the late 700's to early 800's. The first separation from the Catholic Church occurred in the 11th century, around 1054. This was the separation of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. Before that, Catholic was the only denomination of Christianity. What does this mean?

If the miracle was a fake, the only reason the Church would fake it would be to give credence to the Bible itself, since the validity of the Eucharist had never been disputed. Most Christians already believed the Church blindly on matters of interpretation, so really, the only reason they would do this would be to prevent people from suspecting that the Bible was a fake. Since no Christians were in the habit of questioning the Church already, the only reason I can think that the Church would fake this miracle would be because the Bible is fake. If the Bible was real, and there were no Christians disputing the Church's teachings, what other reason would they have to fake a miracle?

You don't believe the Bible is fake, so is it really such a stretch to believe that this miracle actually happened -- especially considering the scenario I gave you?

I don't know if these miracles are real, but I do believe God answers prayer, and that God can perform miracles if he so chooses. I never thought of miracles being used to confirm doctrine, rather, as God answering the prayers of faithful people whatever they may pray for.

Are you suggesting, then, that all bad acts ever committed by Catholics were due to bad teachings? 'Cause if you're not, I'm pretty sure most of those instances fall under 2). Some people got carried away with their faith.

Things like that haven't only happened in the Catholic Church, either, but I'm sure you're aware of that.

Some in the leadership of the church were corrupted by money and power. I think most of their corrupt theology has been banished (like buying relatives out of purgatory by giving money to the church for example), but we have to remain vigilant to make sure false teachings don't creep in.

Faith is always paired with good works -- otherwise it is "dead".

Now you're getting it! Remember the parable of the workers, where the workers hired at the last minute are paid the same as the ones who worked all day? This tells me that if someone should make a death bed conversion and have faith, they will be saved, just as someone who has had faith for many years and had the chance to put their faith into action by doing God's will.

As for the word "justify", the original Greek word means "to declare/make righteous".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_%28theology%29#Roman_Catholic_views

If we are justified by our works, that means we are "made righteous" by our works.

Hmmm... I am wondering if this isn't circular reasoning again, as this meaning was probably one that was created by the early church? Good effort on looking that up though.

1 Samuel 26:23 -- The Lord rewards every man for his righteousness and faithfulness.

Righteousness and faithfulness -- not just faithfulness.

Proverbs 11:8 -- The righteous man is rescued from trouble, and it comes on the wicked instead.

Proverbs 11:19 -- The truly righteous man attains life, but he who pursues evil goes to his death.

Righteousness is mentioned here with no mention of faithfulness at all.

Ezekiel 3:20 -- "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.

The man dies because he has ceased doing righteous things, not because he has stopped believing. Without righteous acts (good works), we will die. This verse also mentions that his righteous acts will be forgotten if he does evil and perishes, suggesting that no amount of good works alone will save us.

...et cetera. I think you get the picture.

Of course, Christ was unknown to the writers of the old testament, so there was no way to have had faith in him. Jesus changed all the rules by his death on the cross. The tearing of the veil in the temple was symbolic of our ability to have a relationship with God directly, through Jesus, and not need an intercessor like a priest. In the days of the old testament, this was not possible.

Is this starting to make sense, or is it all just incoherent babbling?

I'd say incoherant babbling...

Just Kidding:D. .

Walter Weiss

08-08-2007, 11:19 AM

THIS SEEMS ABSOLUTE CRAZY TO ME.....YOU GUYS CARRY ON LIKE A BUNCH OF RADICAL MUSLIMS IN AN ARGUEMENT ABOUT MOHAMMED!!!

How utterly typical of all the things that drive people crazy, and cause them to want to leave churches. What Arrogance we see here. What pompos bullshit do we see here in the name of "Jesus."

One claims "his church" invented the frigging bible. Another asserts to know more than the next one about "bible verse." Another portrays himself as taking the moral high road all of the time. Each tries to show the other "how smart" he is because he can cut-n-paste and theorize on biblical happenings faster and more deeply than the next man. Yet none of you cares to mention the wars, incest, torture, murder, mutilation, genocide, destruction, etc....etc...etc....that the book is rife in.

ONe of you in particular seems to assert a "superiority" to others, yet you avoid telling the truth like it is a plague...especially if that particular truth happens to derail any of your spoken theory.

You verse back and forth like a bunch of Sunni and Shiites arguing the theories and practices of Islam.

How long will it be before one of you kidnaps the other, and saws his head off with a kitchen knife to make a political statement? Do either of you own a backpack full of explosives? Would you put a bullet in the head of a Jewish person in the name of Jesus? I rather think that the Catholic would consider it.

You own all of the miracles? Miracles are only documented by the Catholics? Miracles are only for the Catholics?

Would either one of you be willing to climb up there on a large wooden cross, and let someone tack you to it with spikes in order to die for the sins of mankind? When either one of you is willing to do that, then we will believe that you are actually Christians for real. There are paper tigers in the world. There are paper christians as well.

What does God think about throwing common sense away in a "religious arguement?" What does GOD think about the elimination of simple logic in a religious arguement?

Walter Weiss

08-08-2007, 11:38 AM

JUDAISM predates Christianity by thousands of years. Christianity came from, and came after Judaism. The books of Moses are a collected works that were placed in the "bible." I dont think there were any Catholics around when the books of Moses were written.

The matter of Catholics inventing the bible: Please consider that there were Catholics sitting in cockpits bombing other Catholics in acts of war. There were Catholics on horseback swinging swords to strike down other Christians for the crime of not being Catholic Christians. There were Catholics serving in the SS, that worked the genocide in Europe. There were Catholics employed by the vatican to smuggle nazi war criminals out of Europe. There were people murdered in order to protect the reputation of the vatican. Catholic hierarchy relocated their own clergymen and continued to allow their access to children after it had been proven they were screwing little boys in the can. Catholics roamed Europe taking all the silver and gold by armed force to send it to the pope in the vatican. WHEN WILL THEY WRITE ALL OF THIS DOWN AND PUT IT IN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE? WAS IT GOD'S WILL?

Limbo

08-08-2007, 12:27 PM

Loseirdo

08-08-2007, 03:10 PM

I don't know if these miracles are real, but I do believe God answers prayer, and that God can perform miracles if he so chooses. I never thought of miracles being used to confirm doctrine, rather, as God answering the prayers of faithful people whatever they may pray for.

Miracles can occur for any reason God sees fit. Why would He not perform a miracle to bolster the faith of His people? That's what miracles in response to individual prayers are. It would be the same thing -- just on a larger scale.

I guess I can't expect you to believe in these miracles. But I would ask that you attend a Catholic adoration with an open mind. If you go in there thinking, "The Eucharist is bullshit, Christ isn't that little piece of bread," you won't get anything out of it. The best you could probably do is simply pray and reflect on Christ, and see where it goes from there.

Some in the leadership of the church were corrupted by money and power. I think most of their corrupt theology has been banished (like buying relatives out of purgatory by giving money to the church for example), but we have to remain vigilant to make sure false teachings don't creep in.

There were cases like that in the past, yes. All such teachings have been abolished, however, and the Church isn't likely to back that way any time soon.

Now you're getting it! Remember the parable of the workers, where the workers hired at the last minute are paid the same as the ones who worked all day? This tells me that if someone should make a death bed conversion and have faith, they will be saved, just as someone who has had faith for many years and had the chance to put their faith into action by doing God's will.

I'm getting it? That's what I said to begin with. If anything, you just admitted that faith alone cannot save us, since faith and works go hand in hand. Like I said, our faith is justified by our works and we are saved by grace through faith. If you leave one of them out, the entire chain breaks down and we lose salvation.

Hmmm... I am wondering if this isn't circular reasoning again, as this meaning was probably one that was created by the early church? Good effort on looking that up though.

How could it be? I gave you the Greek definition, like you asked. If that's how it was originally written, that's how it was originally meant, yes? To question that would be to question the validity of the original scriptural writers, which would throw the entirety of Christianity into question. And all that over just one little word.

Of course, Christ was unknown to the writers of the old testament, so there was no way to have had faith in him. Jesus changed all the rules by his death on the cross. The tearing of the veil in the temple was symbolic of our ability to have a relationship with God directly, through Jesus, and not need an intercessor like a priest. In the days of the old testament, this was not possible.

Christ was indeed unknown to the writers of the Old Testament. Does that make the Old Testament writings somehow invalid? Of course not! Christ came as a way of completing the Old Testament with the New. Unless Christ himself changed something that was said in the Old Testament, we are to assume that everything in the Old Testament is still important. It was still the word of God, was it not? If we only read the New Testament and disregard the Old, we'll be missing out on a huge piece of what Christ gave us. Yes, He created a new covenant with the people of the world by dying on the cross, and therefore the rules of the old covenant no longer apply -- that's only a small portion of the Old Testament, though.

Also, when Old Testament writers spoke of "faith", they meant "faith in God". Since Christ is God, this still applies. Just because Christ didn't exist yet doesn't mean the writers didn't write about him -- look at the very beginning of Genesis for an example (the "word of God" passage). They were writing with incomplete knowledge, but we can read it with complete knowledge. Remember that each book of the Bible was inspired by God himself, and He would not have inspired the writers to speak of things that made no sense.

Loseirdo

08-08-2007, 03:15 PM

No, it wasn't; most of the Bible (the OT anyway) was written before the Catholic Church even came into existence. You might be referring to when the Catholic Church decided which books would be included.

So you're basically saying that anyone who doesn't believe in God - whether it's because they live in India and never even heard of God, or perhaps they wanted to believe in God, or just someone who would've had to make themselves believe, which isn't really belief in the first place? These people, even if they were genuinely good people, would automatically go to Hell?

I didn't mean that all of the writers of the Bible were Catholic (though all of the New Testament writers could be considered Catholic), simply that the Catholic Church created what we know as the "Bible". We chose which books went into it.

I don't claim to know how God will choose to judge people. We can believe that everybody will be given a fair chance to believe, and that those who don't have a chance in this lifetime will somehow be compensated. If you actively deny the existence of God, however, no amount of good works will ever redeem you. That's all I meant.

General Septem

08-08-2007, 03:32 PM

I don't claim to know how God will choose to judge people. We can believe that everybody will be given a fair chance to believe, and that those who don't have a chance in this lifetime will somehow be compensated. If you actively deny the existence of God, however, no amount of good works will ever redeem you. That's all I meant.

You don't claim to know how God will judge people, but you do know that he will judge against anyone who actively denies his existence? I guess you have a point.

But in matters of faith, how can someone be expected to make themselves believe something they don't believe? I like that you at least acknowledge that some people aren't given a chance to believe, but it is presumptuous to assume that everyone else is given a fair chance. Nobody who was raised atheist has the same chance to believe in God that you or I did, having been raised Catholic.

Limbo

08-08-2007, 03:57 PM

I guess I can't expect you to believe in these miracles. But I would ask that you attend a Catholic adoration with an open mind.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting if I were you. I wouldn't avoid it, mind you, if I had a reason to go, like to avoid insulting a Catholic friend or relative or something. My aunt married a Catholic man, so if I was visiting and they invited me to mass, I would go out of respect. Other than that I have no reason to go.

I'm getting it? That's what I said to begin with. If anything, you just admitted that faith alone cannot save us

No I didn't, what about my death bed example?

How could it be? I gave you the Greek definition, like you asked. If that's how it was originally written, that's how it was originally meant, yes? To question that would be to question the validity of the original scriptural writers, which would throw the entirety of Christianity into question. And all that over just one little word.

I don't know what the original Greek word used in the new testament is (sorry if I missed something). I guess I could ask my brother who studied biblical Greek while in seminary, but I don't really see the point.

Christ was indeed unknown to the writers of the Old Testament. Does that make the Old Testament writings somehow invalid? Of course not! Christ came as a way of completing the Old Testament with the New. Unless Christ himself changed something that was said in the Old Testament, we are to assume that everything in the Old Testament is still important. It was still the word of God, was it not? If we only read the New Testament and disregard the Old, we'll be missing out on a huge piece of what Christ gave us. Yes, He created a new covenant with the people of the world by dying on the cross, and therefore the rules of the old covenant no longer apply -- that's only a small portion of the Old Testament, though.

Yeah, I admit my knowledge of the Old Testament is a little weak. It has lots of prophecy, some wacky stories, and lots of rules, most of which don't apply to Gentiles, thank goodness. I know the important basics though, and life's too short to be an expert on everything. I do like the heavily prophetic books like Isaiah and Daniel, and of course the Psalms and Proverbs.

General Septem

08-08-2007, 05:31 PM

No I didn't, what about my death bed example?

If someone repents on their death bed, that's one thing, but to continue doing evil is quite another.

Loseirdo

08-08-2007, 06:54 PM

If someone repents on their death bed, that's one thing, but to continue doing evil is quite another.

If someone has a true conversion of the heart on their deathbed, I don't think God would fault them for not doing good works, as their conversion would yield an understanding of the repentance necessary, which they would undoubtedly fulfill in purgatory. In fact, purgatory is a good way to explain how anyone could be saved by faith alone -- their faith would be justified in purgatory, and their souls would be cleansed. Beyond that, though, if we have faith but do nothing to repent or do good works, we will not be saved, because that wouldn't be true faith. Faith is justified (made righteous) by works.

And Limbo, I can't really tell if you truly just don't understand where I'm coming from, or if you're just being stubborn. From what I can tell, you've simply chosen to ignore the passages I presented that tell us that we cannot have true faith, and therefore cannot be saved, without good works. I showed you that the original Greek word for justify meant "to declare/make righteous". The problem, then, isn't that the original word was misinterpreted -- simply that there was no proper way to translate it. Do you really think it's a coincidence that dissent first started springing up in the Church after the Bible was translated?

The Bible was first translated into Latin (called the Vulgate) by St. Jerome around 400 AD. The Greek word would then have been translated into "justus", meaning "upright, just", or "justificare" -- which was derived from "justus" -- meaning "to forgive". This word would have adopted the meaning of the original Greek word at that time. Eventually, the English version would use the word "justify", which was derived from the Latin word "justificare". The word "justify" would retain the old Greek definition (as you can see by looking it up), but would also take on a more common use, which would later be seen to confuse Protestants everywhere.

In short, "justify" would not be the best word to use these days, but it was the best word they had at the time. The original meaning was applied to it in order to avoid misinterpretation, but we can see that this failed.

Anyway, if you use the original meaning of the word, as was meant, you can see that we cannot be righteous without good works. The only way to get around that is either to misinterpret the meaning of the word "justify", as you have done, or to ignore the passage altogether, which would mean that the Bible is contradictory and therefore none of it is true. In other words, there's only one way that it all fits together. Otherwise it's like trying to put a puzzle together with half the pieces wrong -- it just doesn't work, no matter how hard you push.

Limbo

08-08-2007, 08:54 PM

If someone has a true conversion of the heart on their deathbed, I don't think God would fault them for not doing good works, as their conversion would yield an understanding of the repentance necessary, which they would undoubtedly fulfill in purgatory.

Purgatory is another invented concept from implicit tangential reasoning with no explicit biblical support. The list is piling up.

And Limbo, I can't really tell if you truly just don't understand where I'm coming from, or if you're just being stubborn. From what I can tell, you've simply chosen to ignore the passages I presented that tell us that we cannot have true faith, and therefore cannot be saved, without good works. I showed you that the original Greek word for justify meant "to declare/make righteous". The problem, then, isn't that the original word was misinterpreted -- simply that there was no proper way to translate it.

You gave me a reference to the Catholic definition of justify if I remember correctly. That's just circular reasoning. The question is what is the Greek word, and what is the dictionary definition of the word. I don't want to know what the translation was, I want to know what the original word was.

Do you really think it's a coincidence that dissent first started springing up in the Church after the Bible was translated?

The controversy started when people could read the bible for themselves and see that what they were being taught by their leaders was not biblical. The leaders were giving the "flock" the mushroom treatment before that.

In short, "justify" would not be the best word to use these days, but it was the best word they had at the time. The original meaning was applied to it in order to avoid misinterpretation, but we can see that this failed.

So you are saying all the bible interpretors are wrong then?

Anyway, if you use the original meaning of the word, as was meant, you can see that we cannot be righteous without good works.

Works do not make us righteous. The bible says our righteousness is like filthy rags.

I will do some research on the original word that was translated as "justify" since apparently you think all the bible translators got it wrong.

BTW, how much good works do we have to do to be saved. Is helping one old lady across the street enough, or do we need to help two to be saved? Or do we have to help two old ladies, and feed a homeless person? So if we forget to feed the homeless person we may end up in purgatory? Can't you see the absurdity with this kind of reasoning? You are clinging to one single verse against a torrent of explicit verses, and in fact clinging to a definition of a single word in the face of a mountain of contrary evidence, and I'm the one being stubborn?

Loseirdo

08-08-2007, 09:20 PM

Purgatory is another invented concept from implicit tangential reasoning with no explicit biblical support. The list is piling up.

You gave me a reference to the Catholic definition of justify if I remember correctly. That's just circular reasoning. The question is what is the Greek word, and what is the dictionary definition of the word. I don't want to know what the translation was, I want to know what the original word was.

The controversy started when people could read the bible for themselves and see that what they were being taught by their leaders was not biblical. The leaders were giving the "flock" the mushroom treatment before that.

So you are saying all the bible interpretors are wrong then?

Works do not make us righteous. The bible says our righteousness is like filthy rags.

I will do some research on the original word that was translated as "justify" since apparently you think all the bible translators got it wrong.

BTW, how much good works do we have to do to be saved. Is helping one old lady across the street enough, or do we need to help two to be saved? Or do we have to help two old ladies, and feed a homeless person? So if we forget to feed the homeless person we may end up in purgatory? Can't you see the absurdity with this kind of reasoning? You are clinging to one single verse against a torrent of explicit verses, and in fact clinging to a definition of a single word in the face of a mountain of contrary evidence, and I'm the one being stubborn?

I gave you the original Greek meaning. I explained to you how it was translated and why people started misinterpreting it. I don't know why you keep putting words in my mouth or deliberately ignoring what I'm telling you.

Here, I'll make this font bigger so you have no excuse:

Justification, from the Greek δικαιοω (dikaioō), "to declare/make righteous". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_%28theology%29

Notice it says "from the Greek", not "from the Catholics". Stop saying I gave you the Catholic definition and ignoring everything else.

There is no set limit for the number of good works you have to do, and I never said there was. If you have faith, you will do good works, and you will continue to do good works as long as you are able. Otherwise your faith will die and, just like it says in scripture, the good works you performed will be forgotten.

I'm not clinging to one scripture against a torrent of scriptural passages, you are clinging to your "torrent" and ignoring the rest. The only reason you would do this is if that one little scripture negates your belief, thus invalidating everything in the Bible. The word of God can have no contradictions, and they are only found if we interpret it the way you do.

Go back and reread my previous post now that you know that I was working from the original definition of "justify". In fact, reread all of them if you actually want to stand a chance of sounding intelligent. I have given you plenty of evidence -- historical, logical and scriptural -- to support my claim while you have offered nothing.

I apologize for the way I wrote this post. I've had a long day and my temper is wearing thin.

General Septem

08-08-2007, 09:23 PM

Purgatory is another invented concept from implicit tangential reasoning with no explicit biblical support. The list is piling up.

"Rapture"...?

Loseirdo

08-08-2007, 09:49 PM

"Rapture"...?

Hahaha. Good point, there.

The list is piling up, eh, Limbo? Hardly. Let's see, so far there are two things -- the first of which I have already proven is explicit. You're down to one, and I haven't even started on that one, yet.

Limbo

08-08-2007, 11:37 PM

Hahaha. Good point, there.

The list is piling up, eh, Limbo? Hardly. Let's see, so far there are two things -- the first of which I have already proven is explicit. You're down to one, and I haven't even started on that one, yet.

I will admit that Catholics have more of a scriptural basis for being saved by faith and works than for other controversial doctrine. Even though James is not explicit, the verse can be fudged to make it sound like we are SAVED by faith and works, not saved by faith and JUSTIFIED by works, as the verse actually states. I will get back to you on this later in another post.

As for Catholic traditions/beliefs that are not biblical, here are a few that pop into mind:

-Purgatory
-Pope infallibility
-Praying to dead people instead of God (Mary, Saints)
-Priest celibacy
-Birth control
-Baptizing babies
-Holding church services in a language few can understand
-Holy water
-Prayer Beads
-Transubstantiation
-Confession of sins to a priest
-Holding that tradition is of equal authority with the Bible
-Indulgences

Are not some of these things (holy water for example) pagan traditions originally?

I still have some hope that the Catholic church will one day reform itself, but I'm not holding my breath.

MrJim

08-08-2007, 11:47 PM

You two are starting to sound like my grandparents used to. Arguing about the scripture, even when you're in the same religion…how silly…

Limbo

08-09-2007, 01:00 AM

You two are starting to sound like my grandparents used to. Arguing about the scripture, even when you're in the same religion…how silly…

Yeah, you're right, it is silly. But I probably riled him up with that list, so I doubt he won't respond. At some point I will just give him the last word and be done with it. I think we have come close to rehashing the issue just about every way possible, although he always seems to come up with a new angle on things...

MrJim

08-09-2007, 01:14 AM

Yeah, you're right, it is silly. But I probably riled him up with that list, so I doubt he won't respond. At some point I will just give him the last word and be done with it. I think we have come close to rehashing the issue just about every way possible, although he always seems to come up with a new angle on things...

Shit, you guys are nothing. When I was a kid, my grandparents would get into something like dinosaurs or biblical contradictions, or whatever, and they would be shouting across the house, PISSED OFF, bickering to no end… really made me wonder, wasn't the Bible supposed to help people? Seemed to have the opposite effect on them.

Hell, they cussed at me and sent me to bed because I (correctly) told them A.D. meant "anno domini (sp)" instead of "after death"… very odd life, it was.

Loseirdo

08-09-2007, 04:16 AM

I will admit that Catholics have more of a scriptural basis for being saved by faith and works than for other controversial doctrine. Even though James is not explicit, the verse can be fudged to make it sound like we are SAVED by faith and works, not saved by faith and JUSTIFIED by works, as the verse actually states. I will get back to you on this later in another post.

As for Catholic traditions/beliefs that are not biblical, here are a few that pop into mind:

-Purgatory
-Pope infallibility
-Praying to dead people instead of God (Mary, Saints)
-Priest celibacy
-Birth control
-Baptizing babies
-Holding church services in a language few can understand
-Holy water
-Prayer Beads
-Transubstantiation
-Confession of sins to a priest
-Holding that tradition is of equal authority with the Bible
-Indulgences

Are not some of these things (holy water for example) pagan traditions originally?

I still have some hope that the Catholic church will one day reform itself, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'll be waiting for your reply.

In the mean time, I'll go ahead and tackle as many of these right now as I can.

Note: This took a very long time to write, and it will take a long time to read. Only do so if you plan on actually listening to what I have to say. If you come into it expecting me to be wrong about everything, you won't get anything out of it.

Purgatory
Matthew 5:25-6: Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.

The judge here is God. This can be seen from the previous verses, where Jesus mentions that "whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment", and only God the father can cast judgment. He makes no mention of you handing your "opponent" over to the judge -- only the reverse. This suggests that your opponent either cannot be judged or has already been judged. We know that none can escape judgment, so it must be the latter. The word "opponent" is used elsewhere (1 Peter 5:8) in reference to Satan. Satan has already been judged, so this translation for the word "opponent" makes sense. So now, if we take judge to mean "God" and opponent to mean "Satan", if we do not settle with Satan before judgment, we will be "thrown into prison...until you have paid the last penny." According to this, we will be set free. We could never be released from Hell, so this means there must be some other form of punishment that is not final -- Purgatory.

Matthew 12:32 -- And whoever speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.

Jesus explicitly mentions that speaking against the Holy Spirit is a sin unforgivable in "this world or the next". This implies that there is such a thing as forgiveness after death. Forgiveness in Heaven is unnecessary, and there can be no forgiveness in Hell -- a third place must then exist. We call this Purgatory.

Papal Infallibility

This is often misunderstood. The Church does not teach that the Pope is never wrong no matter what -- simply that he reserves the right to present a Church dogma infallibly; that is, if the Pope decides something will be taught as Church dogma (which very rarely happens), he can claim infallibility on the subject. For more information, check out this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Conditions_for_papal_infallibi lity

Intercessory Prayer

First, we don't call this "praying to dead people". Technically, we aren't praying "to" them at all. All we are doing is requesting that these people, whom we believe to be in Heaven, pray for us. Since they are not on Earth, we cannot ask them directly -- we do so in the form of "prayer". It is no different than you asking your wife to pray for you. Since we believe these people to already be in Heaven, they have an "in" with God (Mary especially, who is the mother of God [she is the mother of Christ and Christ is God, therefore she is the mother of God]). I can find scriptural backing for this, but you believe in the power of intercessory prayer already, do you not? I will post verses later if you still want me to.

Priest Celibacy

The Catholic Church doesn't actually require that anyone give up marriage, as no one is required to join the Priesthood -- those that do do so willingly, knowing full well that they shall have to give up marriage. As Jesus says in Matthew 19:12 -- For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

We believe that Jesus himself was unmarried, so living a celibate life is not unprecedented. The Priests remain celibate so that they can devote their entire lives to the Church. Since no one is required to become a Priest, only those who feel called should do so. "The one who can accept this should accept it."

Contraception

The purpose of sex is procreation. When we use contraception, we are in direct defiance of that. We are permitted to engage in sexual relations only during times of infertility, but to use artificial means of contraception is to take the fate of our family and our children into our own hands, when it rightfully belongs in the hands of God. MrJim and I discussed this earlier -- he mentioned a passage that said something to the effect of, "it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than to spill it upon the ground." I told him this simply meant that you should only have sex if you are willing to have children, and one cannot possibly have children if you use artificial contraception. In this passage, you should only be having sex with a whore if you are prepared to have a child with her -- if this is the case, you should not "pull out" (the only form of contraception back then) to be spared the prospect of children.

Sorry, I'm getting really tired. I'll look up some actual verses tomorrow.

My original post was too long, so I have decided to end this post here and will post the rest in a following post.

Loseirdo

08-09-2007, 04:16 AM

This is a continuation of my previous post.

Infant Baptism

Mark 10:13-14 -- People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

In what way can Jesus continue to touch infants (Wally, I swear, if you make one obscene reference about this you will officially be the sickest person in the world) now that He is in Heaven except through Baptism? Do not keep your children from Jesus, bring them to him. The Greek word for children (paidia) meant "babes in arms". These were infants that were being brought to Jesus.

Furthermore, there are several instances of entire households being Baptized with no exceptions:
Acts 11:14
Acts 16:15,33
1 Corinthians 1:16
Beyond that, the Greek word for "household" is "oikon", which refers to everyone that lives in the household, including slaves, servants, infants and children.

Latin Services

The original books of the New Testament were written in Greek, but were translated into Latin when that became the common language of Rome. Masses were then said in Latin. Masses continued to be said in Latin afterwards both as tradition and as a way of staying as true to the original texts as possible. Eventually, the Church realized that not everyone (few people, actually) understood what was being said and that they needed to understand, so it ordered that masses be said in the official language of the area. Since Latin masses are no longer the norm, I don't even know why you would bring this up -- except to take another jab at the Church, of course.

Holy Water

Numbers 5:17 -- Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water.

Holy water is explicitly mentioned here -- what more proof do you need?

Prayer Beads

Prayer beads are found in many religions. I assume you are referring to the Rosary, here. The Rosary is simply a tool that we use to keep track of our repetitious prayers. Now, I know you're going to have a problem with that, so I'll cover it here, too.

Matthew 26:44 -- So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

Jesus prayed repetitively in the garden of Gethsemane -- it even says He prayed "the same thing". The problem, then, isn't the repetition -- it is the cause of the repetition. If our hearts are pure, praying repetitively gives credit to our faith and shows our devotion. If saying more than one of the same prayer was wrong, why did Jesus himself do it?

Transubstantiation

John 6:52-56 -- Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

You can't get more explicit than that. Real food and real drink -- not metaphorical food and metaphorical drink.

Reconciliation

John 20:22-23 -- And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Matthew 9:2-8 -- Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

Matthew 16:17-19 -- Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

You get the point.

Catholic Tradition

The Catholic Church is steeped in tradition. Is this a bad thing? Of course not. What traditions of ours go against what is in the Bible? None of them. Either they are supported by the Bible, or the Bible makes no mention of them at all. A lot of things are condemned in the Bible so that we may know exactly what we should do. No Catholic traditions are condemned in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, tradition is not a bad thing and allows for every Catholic church in the world to hold Mass the same way -- something that no Protestant church has.

Indulgences

I myself am not completely clear on what indulgences are or how they work, and I'm way too tired to tackle this one tonight. Here is some reading material on the subject (I myself will read it tomorrow):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

A Catholic Reformation?

No. It will never happen. Why? Because the Church has no reason to reform. Everything it teaches can be supported by scripture. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has had God's blessing from the beginning: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Peter was the first Pope. The New Testament writers were the first Catholics. Catholics were the first Christians. If anybody knows how the Bible is supposed to be read, it's us. We were there first.

Loseirdo

08-09-2007, 04:28 AM

General Septem

08-09-2007, 07:34 AM

-Praying to dead people instead of God (Mary, Saints)

Catholics don't pray to anyone "instead of" God, and the saints, by definition, are not dead, but more alive than we are. Since the saints are with God, we pray to them through God. In turn, they are our advocates before the Lord. It also reminds us that the saints, though no longer with us, are still our family. Every prayer said at 99% of all Masses is still prayed directly to God.

-Baptizing babies

The Bible says you have to be baptized. It does not say you have to be aware of it happening. I believe, now, you are the one believing something with no Scripture basis.

-Transubstantiation

Jesus took bread and said "this is my body". Do you think he was lying?

Limbo

08-09-2007, 10:34 AM

Loseirdo

08-09-2007, 03:23 PM

Look Gentlemen, I just will never be able to accept stuff like Peter being the first Pope, or infant baptism,etc., etc., but if you guys have thought it over, checked with the scriptures, studied their meaning and still find it works for you, I am totally OK with that.

I'm sure sure you guys feel the same way about my faith and beliefs, no?

God is gracious, so i don't think he will hold our doctrinal beliefs against us, so long as we believe and strive to do his will in good faith, so to speak. Let's just always seek to preserve the freedom for people to learn about God and to speak about God. People must be free to worship or not worship, whatever the case may be, in a way they choose. God will be the judge of our actions.

And Loseirdo, sorry if I kept you up all night working on that list.

All the best to you.

I just hope you realize now that we were never actually "making things up", but that all of our beliefs were derived from scripture. The Catholic Church believes that every scripture is in the Bible for a reason, so we have to take them all into express consideration. If there are any contradictions, we have to find a new way of interpreting them that works. We long ago ironed out any complications with our faith.

You never did reply to my faith and works argument. I would like to know what you think about it, so I'll post a recap here. (I actually wrote this for another site.)

James 2:24 -- See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

At first glance, this scripture means little. So what if we are justified by good works? That just means that we are proving that we're good people, right? Wrong. Allow me to explain why.

Justification, from the Greek δικαιοω (dikaioō), "to declare/make righteous". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifi...%28theology%29

The original Greek word that was used meant "to make righteous". We are therefore made righteous by our works and not by our faith alone. "Righteous" means "free from guilt or sin". So by being "made righteous", we are being made free of guilt, which is what we have after committing sin.

Matthew 13:49-50 -- This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The word "righteous" is used extensively in the Bible, but this passage sums it up rather nicely.

We must be righteous to be saved. In order to be righteous, we must have good works. The Bible says we are saved by grace. In order to be saved by grace, we must have faith. Therefore, we are saved by grace through faith made righteous by works. Remove any part of the chain and the entire thing fails.

As to why you are misinterpreting the word "justify":

The Bible was first translated into Latin (called the Vulgate) by St. Jerome around 400 AD. The Greek word would then have been translated into "justus", meaning "upright, just", or "justificare" -- which was derived from "justus" -- meaning "to forgive". This word would have adopted the meaning of the original Greek word at that time. Eventually, the English version would use the word "justify", which was derived from the Latin word "justificare". The word "justify" would retain the old Greek definition (as you can see by looking it up), but would also take on a more common use, which would later be seen to confuse Protestants everywhere.

I hope you see that at no point did I have to "fudge" anything -- I took it word-for-word how it was originally written.

Limbo

08-09-2007, 04:26 PM

Justification, from the Greek δικαιοω (dikaioō), "to declare/make righteous". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifi...%28theology%29

OK, since you insisted I checked into this.

I am not a Greek and/or New Testament Scholar so all I could do is look it up. From what I have found, the Greek word dikaioō has two common meanings:

1) Justify (as in English, hence the common translation), to bring into right relation.

2) To do the right thing, to be or to demonstrate we ARE in a right relationship.

If we go with 2), there is indeed no contradiction with all the other references in the bible about being saved by faith, not works. Makes sense to me to do that.

What do we give Abraham credit for, the deed of taking his son to kill him? Or do we give him credit for having enough faith and trust in God to actually do what God asked of him, as hard as it would have been? Obviously the latter. That's what gets credited as righteousness, simply faith. Capiche?

Loseirdo

08-09-2007, 05:48 PM

OK, since you insisted I checked into this.

I am not a Greek and/or New Testament Scholar so all I could do is look it up. From what I have found, the Greek word dikaioō has two common meanings:

1) Justify (as in English, hence the common translation), to bring into right relation.

2) To do the right thing, to be or to demonstrate we ARE in a right relationship.

If we go with 2), there is indeed no contradiction with all the other references in the bible about being saved by faith, not works. Makes sense to me to do that.

What do we give Abraham credit for, the deed of taking his son to kill him? Or do we give him credit for having enough faith and trust in God to actually do what God asked of him, as hard as it would have been? Obviously the latter. That's what gets credited as righteousness, simply faith. Capiche?

Neither do I find a contradiction by using the definition "to make righteous", as there is never explicit mention of faith being the only thing we need. We are saved by grace, and grace comes through faith. But in order to have faith, we must do good works, else our faith die. How do you interpret "faith without works is dead" otherwise?

Limbo

08-09-2007, 06:34 PM

there is never explicit mention of faith being the only thing we need.

You seem to conveniently keep forgetting about Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not by works, lest any man should boast."

How do you interpret "faith without works is dead" otherwise?

Faith without works is not real faith. How we act and what we do is a window on where our heart is at. If Abraham told God to just forget it, would he being demonstrating faith?

BTW, you never did answer my question. How much good work do we need to do to be saved? You said that we "just need to keep doing it". How much do we need to "keep doing" to be saved? How do you know when you have done enough to be saved?

Loseirdo

08-09-2007, 07:30 PM

You seem to conveniently keep forgetting about Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not by works, lest any man should boast."

Faith without works is not real faith. How we act and what we do is a window on where our heart is at. If Abraham told God to just forget it, would he being demonstrating faith?

BTW, you never did answer my question. How much good work do we need to do to be saved? You said that we "just need to keep doing it". How much do we need to "keep doing" to be saved? How do you know when you have done enough to be saved?

I haven't forgotten that passage at all. In fact, I quoted it. We are saved by grace through faith. I told you that. We have to have faith to be saved. But in order to have faith, we must have works. Now, if it said "we are saved by grace through faith alone", I wouldn't argue. But it doesn't say that. All it says is that we are not saved by our works. Which was never an argument to begin with.

There is no "set amount". As long as you have faith, you will do good works. If you stop doing good works, your faith will die. Basically, just live a good life. If I could tell you exactly what you needed to do to get into heaven, you wouldn't need faith, would you? Furthermore, if I told you that all you had to do was believe, you could do anything you want, so long as you believe that God exists. That isn't right, and you yourself have said that this isn't right. You said, and I quote, "Faith without works is not real faith." So in order to be saved by grace, we must have real faith. In order to have real faith, we must have works. This is by your logic.

Limbo

08-09-2007, 08:04 PM

Furthermore, if I told you that all you had to do was believe, you could do anything you want, so long as you believe that God exists. That isn't right, and you yourself have said that this isn't right. You said, and I quote, "Faith without works is not real faith." So in order to be saved by grace, we must have real faith. In order to have real faith, we must have works. This is by your logic.

Maybe this is nitpicking, but I think there is an important distinction between the Protestant view and the Catholic. Since we believe that faith is all that is required for salvation, someone, say on an airplane that is crashing, or dying in a foxhole, can call on God's name and be saved without actually being able to do good works. We don't have to invent non-biblical concepts like purgatory to allow for this, which in turn leads to all kinds of other problems like indulgences and so on.

Loseirdo

08-09-2007, 10:26 PM

Maybe this is nitpicking, but I think there is an important distinction between the Protestant view and the Catholic. Since we believe that faith is all that is required for salvation, someone, say on an airplane that is crashing, or dying in a foxhole, can call on God's name and be saved without actually being able to do good works. We don't have to invent non-biblical concepts like purgatory to allow for this, which in turn leads to all kinds of other problems like indulgences and so on.

But then that would go against the "justify" passage. Unless we have Purgatory, for which I gave you a scriptural backing.

Still, you admit that for the majority of the world, merely living your life in faith is not enough.

I do agree that someone can have a deathbed conversion and be saved. But do you really think it's fair that someone who lived their entire life in sin gets into heaven just because they converted before they died, but someone else doesn't go to Heaven because they lost faith right before they died? Or for that matter, the deathbed conversion gets into heaven just as easily as someone who lived their entire life in faith? Where is the justice in that?

Settle with your opponent, or he will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, there you will stay until the last penny is paid.

Simply being forgiven of your sins is not enough -- we must be filled with God's sanctifying grace, which is granted us by living a righteous life. If that righteous life is not lived here on Earth, it must be lived in the afterlife. We can't get into heaven if we don't have 100% grace, can we?

Here's how I always thought about it. Your soul is kind of like a pie chart. The blue portion represents grace and the red portion represents sin. When we are forgiven, the red is removed -- but it still needs to be replaced with grace. We receive this grace through penance, indulgences, and simply living righteously. If we don't do that, we go to purgatory when we die, where all remaining red is removed and any holes are replaced with blue grace. That is, if you die in good faith.

Okay, actually saying "pie chart" doesn't make sense, because pie charts always represent 100%. So let's just say that emptiness would be white. Removing sin leaves white. The more blue we add, the more white we lose until God's love fills us completely.

Does that make sense?

Limbo

08-10-2007, 12:53 AM

I do agree that someone can have a deathbed conversion and be saved. But do you really think it's fair that someone who lived their entire life in sin gets into heaven just because they converted before they died, but someone else doesn't go to Heaven because they lost faith right before they died? Or for that matter, the deathbed conversion gets into heaven just as easily as someone who lived their entire life in faith? Where is the justice in that?

I had to laugh. You sound like the angry vineyard workers... see Matt 20:1-16

Loseirdo

08-10-2007, 02:21 AM

I had to laugh. You sound like the angry vineyard workers... see Matt 20:1-16

First of all, thank you for ignoring everything I said again. That's a pretty shrewd tactic.

Second, you missed my point. I'm not saying that someone who converts at the last minute doesn't deserve Heaven -- I'm saying that they would be burdened down with a lifetime of sin, whereas someone who lived a righteous life would be relatively pure. They both go to Heaven, but the second person still needs to atone for his sins. That's why I explained the concept of "purgatory" and the whole "pie chart" thing.

Limbo

08-10-2007, 11:32 AM

First of all, thank you for ignoring everything I said again. That's a pretty shrewd tactic.
.

I am not ignoring what you said as a tactic, it's just that your explanation of Catholic doctrine is so convoluted, sort of like grasping at straws, that I just don't really know what to say. Like the verses used to justify the belief in purgatory. There are far more reasonable explanations than inventing a concept of purgatory. The next world is heaven and hell obviously. There will be no possibility for those in hell to have any contact with God, including having their sins forgiven.

If there are multiple explanations for what a verse means, why would we go off on some tangent by stretching the possible meaning to an extreme that has no other support in the bible and in fact is in contradiction to other clear teachings? The Catholics have woven an extremely complex web of doctrine that is just one big mess in a logical sense. When you study the history of science you see many examples of this. Theories that stand the test of time have an elegant simplicity to them and jive with our existing knowledge, and don't require a whole bunch of exceptions and caveats. They tend to unify what was considered separate areas of knowledge. I don't see the Catholic interpretations of scripture as meeting any of those criteria of a good theory (and we can consider our interpretation of the bible as our theory of what it really means).

If you want to try to justify those points I brought up further, feel free, but I will leave it to others to decide for themselves if those explanations seem reasonable. That's all you really can expect to do, explain your beliefs as best as you can, and allow other people to see if they want to accept them. Some will, some won't.

Limbo

08-10-2007, 12:54 PM

Just to change the subject, I would like to show you all something I read on a website posted by someone who considers himself to be a Christian (Anglican). I think this speaks to the issue of how our actions need to be in line with what we confess to be our beliefs. This guy hates evangelicals and conservative Catholics so much, he recommends doing the following:

-Opposition and closing of faith schools

-Removal of religion-specific legal rights

-Heavy promotion of scientific education

-Raising awareness of the threat of fundamentalism growing from within the Anglican communion

-Support of gay tolerance (to show up the immorality of fundamentalists)

-Removal of religious pathways of power

Few liberals would admit that this is really their agenda, and they try to dress up their agenda with flowery words and concepts, but I think this sums up the views of many on the left. This is exactly what the move-on, George Soros crowd would love to see happen.

This is why I could NEVER vote for a Democrat for president. We have to fight (politically) to protect our freedoms from people like this. Like someone said, voting for a Republican president is more a vote against liberals than anything else. They are just too damn scary.

Walter Weiss

08-10-2007, 02:47 PM

Let Us Now Tithe

*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****

Amen ! ! !

Loseirdo

08-10-2007, 10:30 PM

I am not ignoring what you said as a tactic, it's just that your explanation of Catholic doctrine is so convoluted, sort of like grasping at straws, that I just don't really know what to say. Like the verses used to justify the belief in purgatory. There are far more reasonable explanations than inventing a concept of purgatory. The next world is heaven and hell obviously. There will be no possibility for those in hell to have any contact with God, including having their sins forgiven.

If there are multiple explanations for what a verse means, why would we go off on some tangent by stretching the possible meaning to an extreme that has no other support in the bible and in fact is in contradiction to other clear teachings? The Catholics have woven an extremely complex web of doctrine that is just one big mess in a logical sense. When you study the history of science you see many examples of this. Theories that stand the test of time have an elegant simplicity to them and jive with our existing knowledge, and don't require a whole bunch of exceptions and caveats. They tend to unify what was considered separate areas of knowledge. I don't see the Catholic interpretations of scripture as meeting any of those criteria of a good theory (and we can consider our interpretation of the bible as our theory of what it really means).

If you want to try to justify those points I brought up further, feel free, but I will leave it to others to decide for themselves if those explanations seem reasonable. That's all you really can expect to do, explain your beliefs as best as you can, and allow other people to see if they want to accept them. Some will, some won't.

You keep saying that my beliefs are unfounded, but you're not really offering any evidence. We didn't just "decide" that we would invent a bunch of things like Purgatory -- while reading the Bible, the Church fathers discovered some interesting things about scripture that left them scratching their heads, like the passage where Jesus says "you will not be forgiven in this world or the next." Why would He say both if we can only be forgiven in this world? Beyond that, we cannot be forgiven once in Hell, and we don't need to be forgiven once in Heaven -- that leaves the question of how we can be forgiven after death. What do you think?

Take all the scriptures I gave you and give me alternate interpretations. I'm not saying you can't, I just want to know what you think about them.

Besides, if you agree that we can interpret all the scriptures multiple ways, you can't say with any certainty that my interpretation is wrong. I can't say that I know yours is wrong, either. I just know that I have felt the true presence of Christ in the Catholic Church, so I have more than just a scriptural basis for my belief. I'm sure you can say the same about your church, so I guess we're even. After all, Catholicism is right for everyone. I don't think that makes it wrong, though.

Walter Weiss

08-11-2007, 04:19 PM

THE ORIGINAL QUESTION FOR THIS THREAD IS:

Why is the history of JESUS, HORUS, MITHRA, and, KRISHNA so god damn similar? ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)

What we can now deduce from discussion is:

The reason for it is because that particular "story line" is a good sales pitch and marketing bullshit method for a bunch of sheep in need of a "master" to exploit them.

HO CHI MINH once fled over the line into China. He sent word back to the people: "Come to me regardless of your political or religious beliefs and we will build a nation." And people came. By the time HO was finished with his project (remember, he studied with the Jesuits) there was a photo of him in nearly every home, and the people were calling him FATHER HO and murder was often committed in his name. People went penniless in order to feed father HO's movement rather than themselves. HO became "Jesus." And he did it wearing cheap khaki slacks, old discarded military blouses without insignia, and sandalls made out of old car tires. He had access to millions of people, and millions of dollars because of it. He was power hungry, greedy, and bloodthirsty.

Why would any of these fruitcakes mentioned in the original question be any different than "Father Ho?" Murders were committed in the name of everyone one of them. War, strife, incest, torture, mass destruction, and genocide were common denominators as well.

What good came of any of it? Was it GOD? Or was it MAN?

The only thing that came of it was for a handful of organizers, came wealth, power, and a life of plenty won on the sweat of others who reeped nothing in return but oppression.

Loseirdo

08-11-2007, 07:17 PM

Walter Weiss

08-12-2007, 01:10 PM

Silly Wally. We were done talking about that a long time ago.

Check GS's posts if you don't believe me. They're right at the beginning of the thread. Even you should be able to find them.

Hey fruitcake....I said that we can deduce from your discussion....and your discussion is still flying under the original post....which is still open for posting.

I have noticed that you are working the hell out of the same old story line in an effort to have others adopt your belief system. We can therefore deduce from your discussion that the same old story line seems to be in use time and time again.

The difficulty you are now beginning to encounter with your bullshit is that as time went on, and individual freedoms were recognized in parts of the world like America, the public now QUESTIONS the same old story line...the public is allowed to POINT OUT THE VICTIMS of the same old story line.....while you, must merely attempt to create the "intellectual bullshit" needed to survive the scrutiny.

Good luck to you....and remember....taking money from Women is the act of a pimp. The world is growing tired of pimps.

*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****

Loseirdo

08-12-2007, 03:35 PM

Hey fruitcake....I said that we can deduce from your discussion....and your discussion is still flying under the original post....which is still open for posting.

I have noticed that you are working the hell out of the same old story line in an effort to have others adopt your belief system. We can therefore deduce from your discussion that the same old story line seems to be in use time and time again.

The difficulty you are now beginning to encounter with your bullshit is that as time went on, and individual freedoms were recognized in parts of the world like America, the public now QUESTIONS the same old story line...the public is allowed to POINT OUT THE VICTIMS of the same old story line.....while you, must merely attempt to create the "intellectual bullshit" needed to survive the scrutiny.

Good luck to you....and remember....taking money from Women is the act of a pimp. The world is growing tired of pimps.

*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****

:confused: I don't recall ever taking money from a woman. Are you smoking something?

Walter Weiss

08-12-2007, 04:15 PM

:confused: I don't recall ever taking money from a woman. Are you smoking something?

As a servant to the PIMP you are not allowed to take the money....unless the PIMP assigns you to collection plate or tithe duty.....silly boy.....you know you cant touch the money....your job is to recruit more women....and kids....and delicate guys.....what do you call them??? "Altered boys"???? Or is it "altar boys???"

*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****
*****$$$*****

Wanker King

11-30-2007, 09:07 AM

DO you want to know the secret to why all these so called ''gods'' had the near EXACT SAME STORY!!!! HUH?!!!! WELL ILL TELL YOU . A few CEnturies SOme stupid Christian evanglicals backed by the ancient roman BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!! went to all these places to convert these peaceful pagans into wood rapiNG CHRISTIANs!!!! no one knew about their presence much because really there were only about 100 in india , jew land , and al those other gods. AFTER FINDING THAT THEY WOULD NOT EMBRACE THE beautiful christian wood ra ping carpentry religion WHICH PROMOTED SEX FETISHES ON CROSSES !!!!!!!!!!!!! EVEN AFTER THEY WERE GIVEN A 50000000 percent tax cut by the bush administration they were like oh , snap..... SO LIKE THE RETARDED MONKEY IN GEORGE ORWELLS 1984 for years upon years upon decades upon decades THEY DEVOTED ALL THEIr TIME TO MAKING FALSE DOCUMENTS OF THE RELIGIONS WHICH PARRELELD CHRISTIANITY SO THAT PEOPLE WOULDNT SEE THAT MUCH OFF A DIFFERENCE AND CONVERT . What happened to the original scriptures you ask? THERE ARE SO MANY SCRIPTURES !!! THOSE THAT DIDNT AGREE WERE ASSUMED TO NOT LITERALLY AGREE BUT METAPHORICALLY AGREEE . the christian religion has one book . THE hindu religion has a whole wallmart of holy books . IT was ripe for the manpulation !!! i speak the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!for i am an apple user .

Also whats really weird is that muhammad doesnt follow any of these archetypes . AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!! which leads me to one conclusion - i must have wrote the quran and god did the rest . PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TheSpectacularSecularist

11-30-2007, 09:11 AM

:D
DO you want to know the secret to why all these so called ''gods'' had the near EXACT SAME STORY!!!! HUH?!!!! WELL ILL TELL YOU . A few CEnturies SOme stupid Christian evanglicals backed by the ancient roman BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!! went to all these places to convert these peaceful pagans into wood rapiNG CHRISTIANs!!!! no one knew about their presence much because really there were only about 100 in india , jew land , and al those other gods. AFTER FINDING THAT THEY WOULD NOT EMBRACE THE beautiful christian wood ra ping carpentry religion WHICH PROMOTED SEX FETISHES ON CROSSES !!!!!!!!!!!!! EVEN AFTER THEY WERE GIVEN A 50000000 percent tax cut by the bush administration they were like oh , snap..... SO LIKE THE RETARDED MONKEY IN GEORGE ORWELLS 1984 for years upon years upon decades upon decades THEY DEVOTED ALL THEIr TIME TO MAKING FALSE DOCUMENTS OF THE RELIGIONS WHICH PARRELELD CHRISTIANITY SO THAT PEOPLE WOULDNT SEE THAT MUCH OFF A DIFFERENCE AND CONVERT . What happened to the original scriptures you ask? THERE ARE SO MANY SCRIPTURES !!! THOSE THAT DIDNT AGREE WERE ASSUMED TO NOT LITERALLY AGREE BUT METAPHORICALLY AGREEE . the christian religion has one book . THE hindu religion has a whole wallmart of holy books . IT was ripe for the manpulation !!! i speak the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!for i am an apple user .

Also whats really weird is that muhammad doesnt follow any of these archetypes . AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!! which leads me to one conclusion - i must have wrote the quran and god did the rest . PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

xD :cool:

WhiteRaven

11-30-2007, 10:53 PM

"DO you want to know the secret to why all these so called ''gods'' had the near EXACT SAME STORY!!!! HUH?!!!! WELL ILL TELL YOU . A few CEnturies SOme stupid Christian evanglicals backed by the ancient roman BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!! went to all these places to convert these peaceful pagans into wood rapiNG CHRISTIANs!!!! no one knew about their presence much because really there were only about 100 in india , jew land , and al those other gods. AFTER FINDING THAT THEY WOULD NOT EMBRACE THE beautiful christian wood ra ping carpentry religion WHICH PROMOTED SEX FETISHES ON CROSSES !!!!!!!!!!!!! EVEN AFTER THEY WERE GIVEN A 50000000 percent tax cut by the bush administration they were like oh , snap..... SO LIKE THE RETARDED MONKEY IN GEORGE ORWELLS 1984 for years upon years upon decades upon decades THEY DEVOTED ALL THEIr TIME TO MAKING FALSE DOCUMENTS OF THE RELIGIONS WHICH PARRELELD CHRISTIANITY SO THAT PEOPLE WOULDNT SEE THAT MUCH OFF A DIFFERENCE AND CONVERT . What happened to the original scriptures you ask? THERE ARE SO MANY SCRIPTURES !!! THOSE THAT DIDNT AGREE WERE ASSUMED TO NOT LITERALLY AGREE BUT METAPHORICALLY AGREEE . the christian religion has one book . THE hindu religion has a whole wallmart of holy books . IT was ripe for the manpulation !!! i speak the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!for i am an apple user .

Also whats really weird is that muhammad doesnt follow any of these archetypes . AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!! which leads me to one conclusion - i must have wrote the quran and god did the rest . PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I hope you're kidding...

markv12584

12-12-2007, 03:04 AM

WhiteRaven

12-12-2007, 06:58 AM

Limbo

12-12-2007, 11:20 AM

I read through this whole thread and didn't learn shit. Jesus, HOrus, Mithra, and Krishna do have similar qualities, and didn't Horus come before jesus? the fact of the matter is Limbo was talking about the "Facts" and wanting all kinds of "examples" but never gave any "Facts" or "Examples" of his own. because truth be told, there are no "Facts" it is what you believe, and as proven here in this thread, people will argue for eternity to prove themselves right, when in all actuality they have no proof themselves. I think there has to be something out there that created all of this. The universe makes to much sense for it not to be created. Religion isn't something that I can get from a book written by man.... and yes kids, it was WRITTEN BY MAN, to fit the "socially acceptable" culture at that time, the mormons just updated it again, which goes to show just one more time, that the bible was WRITTEN BY MAN. Religion is a sense of who you are, the morals and standards you set for yourself, and if you don't set those standards, maybe you'll go to hell, maybe you won't, but you will definitely die without the peace of mind that you were a good person on this earth. that will eat at you until you breath your last breath, and that my friends is what I think would be hell.

How can I prove a negative here? All I can prove is that there is currently no known evidence from reliable sources that the similarities, if there are any, prove, or even hint at copying. People like Freke, Gandy, and Acharya S who make these claims are not legitimate scholars and they DO NOT provide any ancient sources to back up their claims. They are ultimately purveyors of bullshit, cleverly crafted, but bullshit nonetheless. If some archaeologists dig up some ancient books or tablets somewhere that show that the bible was indeed copied from earlier religions and sources, then that would be different. So far that has not happened.

Here is the simple logic behind what I am saying::D

A) Person "X" claims that idea "Y" in the bible was copied from source "Z"
B) Person "X" uses evidence "E" to prove it

Evidence "E" can be seen upon inspection to be bullshit "B"

Therefore claim A) is shown not to be proven.

Truth isn't something we can "invent" after hugging a tree or smoking a joint, truth either is or isn't.

Why would the Jews copy from their sworn enemies (Assyrians, Egyptians, and so on)? That makes no sense. And Christianity is radically different from other religions. In fact, Moses had the unthinkably radical idea for his time that there is one God, creator of everything, and Jesus claimed the radical notion that this God would become a man and live among us.

Whoever said that books of the bible were not written by men? Of course they were. The question is this: were they inspired by God.

markv12584

12-12-2007, 11:20 AM

"you will definitely die without the peace of mind that you were a good person on this earth. that will eat at you until you breath your last breath"

No it won't. The only thing that will eat at you is if you are not true to yourself, no matter how kind or cruel you are.

Do you thing maybe it is because there is no way to prove that Jesus is not similar to Horus, Mithra, or Krishna?

so you're saying that:
I could go on a killing spree and murder many different people, children, anybody that was in my way, and know that I'm taking not only these people's lives but the families of these people, but as long as I was myself when I was pulling the trigger I'll be able to rest easy? Sorry man, I just don't see how that could be true.

and......

"Do you thing maybe it is because there is no way to prove that Jesus is not similar to Horus, Mithra, or Krishna?

I think that's what I said, just in more words.

"Limbo was talking about the "Facts" and wanting all kinds of "examples" but never gave any "Facts" or "Examples" of his own. because truth be told, there are no "Facts" it is what you believe, and as proven here in this thread, people will argue for eternity to prove themselves right, when in all actuality they have no proof themselves."

And no there is no proof that jesus is or is not similar to any of these other people.

markv12584

12-12-2007, 12:04 PM

How can I prove a negative here? All I can prove is that there is currently no known evidence from reliable sources that the similarities, if there are any, prove, or even hint at copying. People like Freke, Gandy, and Acharya S who make these claims are not legitimate scholars and they DO NOT provide any ancient sources to back up their claims. They are ultimately purveyors of bullshit, cleverly crafted, but bullshit nonetheless. If some archaeologists dig up some ancient books or tablets somewhere that show that the bible was indeed copied from earlier religions and sources, then that would be different. So far that has not happened.

Here is the simple logic behind what I am saying::D

A) Person "X" claims that idea "Y" in the bible was copied from source "Z"
B) Person "X" uses evidence "E" to prove it

Evidence "E" can be seen upon inspection to be bullshit "B"

Therefore claim A) is shown not to be proven.

Truth isn't something we can "invent" after hugging a tree or smoking a joint, truth either is or isn't.

Why would the Jews copy from their sworn enemies (Assyrians, Egyptians, and so on)? That makes no sense. And Christianity is radically different from other religions. In fact, Moses had the unthinkably radical idea for his time that there is one God, creator of everything, and Jesus claimed the radical notion that this God would become a man and live among us.

Whoever said that books of the bible were not written by men? Of course they were. The question is this: were they inspired by God.

I'm not saying anybody is or is not right, what I am saying is that you have no more proof than they do about any of their "BS" as you so eliquently put it. But are you in any position yourself to call what they say "BS" when anyone of us could say the same thing about your beliefs. All's I'm saying is if you want to talk about facts of what other people's beliefs are, should you not have facts of your own?

"Whoever said that books of the bible were not written by men? Of course they were. The question is this: were they inspired by God."

could very well be inspired by God. But what church's are trying to get acrossed (atleast the church's I've been to) If I live my life as a good person, but deny Jesus Christ as my savior (not God by the way, but Jesus) that I am going to the same place as Charles Manson? sorry man, that doesn't sit right with me, just doesn't make sense. So is it possible that christianity has been bent in a way to try and control society. here, I'll answer for you, Yes, It is possible, but is there proof either way? No, there is not.

oh yea, You don't have to be a scholar to have an idea. BS comes from everywhere, Including scholars.

Limbo

12-12-2007, 12:27 PM

I'm not saying anybody is or is not right, what I am saying is that you have no more proof than they do about any of their "BS" as you so eliquently put it. But are you in any position yourself to call what they say "BS" when anyone of us could say the same thing about your beliefs. All's I'm saying is if you want to talk about facts of what other people's beliefs are, should you not have facts of your own?

Yes, I should. I have posted lots of stuff about my beliefs, and why I hold them on this board for all to see and criticize if they so desire.

"Whoever said that books of the bible were not written by men? Of course they were. The question is this: were they inspired by God."

could very well be inspired by God. But what church's are trying to get acrossed (atleast the church's I've been to) If I live my life as a good person, but deny Jesus Christ as my savior (not God by the way, but Jesus) that I am going to the same place as Charles Manson? sorry man, that doesn't sit right with me, just doesn't make sense. So is it possible that christianity has been bent in a way to try and control society. here, I'll answer for you, Yes, It is possible, but is there proof either way? No, there is not.

Maybe Charles Manson will repent of his evil deeds and accept God's free gift, as Jeffery Dahmer apparently did. What's wrong with telling God that if Jesus is the way to salvation, I accept it? Not exactly unshakable faith, but shows you have good intentions, no?

I don't see how this would help the church control people. If anything it is the opposite. It shows we accountable to God and God alone, not to men or organizations or even the church. It's more liberating than anything. Some call it the covenant of grace, in other words it is a way to not get what we deserve, because no one can live a perfect life.

oh yea, You don't have to be a scholar to have an idea. BS comes from everywhere, Including scholars.

Agreed. But this doesn't make a search for the truth hopeless and it doesn't mean that truth is relative. Just means that we have to try really hard.

markv12584

12-12-2007, 01:04 PM

Yes, I should. I have posted lots of stuff about my beliefs, and why I hold them on this board for all to see and criticize if they so desire.

Maybe Charles Manson will repent of his evil deeds and accept God's free gift, as Jeffery Dahmer apparently did. What's wrong with telling God that if Jesus is the way to salvation, I accept it? Not exactly unshakable faith, but shows you have good intentions, no?

I don't see how this would help the church control people. If anything it is the opposite. It shows we accountable to God and God alone, not to men or organizations or even the church. It's more liberating than anything. Some call it the covenant of grace, in other words it is a way to not get what we deserve, because no one can live a perfect life.

Agreed. But this doesn't make a search for the truth hopeless and it doesn't mean that truth is relative. Just means that we have to try really hard.

well, I'm not saying that church is a bad thing in any way, for those who need it, it is a very noble thought. Trying to keep society from destroying itself, which it hasn't kept from happening but it has prolonged it indefinitely I think. But, to say that everyone must accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior is insane. especially in the sense of which you said:
"What's wrong with telling God that if Jesus is the way to salvation, I accept it?"

The key word in that sentence is "IF." Jesus is the way to salvation. Isn't that slapping Christianity in the face? It's like saying "hey God, maybe you're lieing, maybe you're not. So I'm going to play this side of the fence because it's my safest bet, Just in case." The Christian teaching that I've recieved is that this logic is unacceptable because you should "know" that Jesus is your savior as far as the Christian belief goes, but as for me, I believe that it is not your choice of religion, but what you do on this earth that gets you salvation in the end. But, until then I guess most people that believe in God also to some degree can identify with this:

"We're all ants in a huge ant farm waiting to reap the fruits of our labor here on earth."

And as far as Charles Manson goes, I could of said any name. Charles Manson isn't the point of that text. The point is, there are people that rape and kill that have died without repenting, and sense I don't accept Jesus Christ as my savior I'm going to the same place they're going? No sir, I don't believe that's the case.

Limbo

12-12-2007, 01:23 PM

well, I'm not saying that church is a bad thing in any way, for those who need it, it is a very noble thought. Trying to keep society from destroying itself, which it hasn't kept from happening but it has prolonged it indefinitely I think. But, to say that everyone must accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior is insane. especially in the sense of which you said:
"What's wrong with telling God that if Jesus is the way to salvation, I accept it?"

The key word in that sentence is "IF." Jesus is the way to salvation. Isn't that slapping Christianity in the face? It's like saying "hey God, maybe you're lieing, maybe you're not. So I'm going to play this side of the fence because it's my safest bet, Just in case." The Christian teaching that I've recieved is that this logic is unacceptable because you should "know" that Jesus is your savior as far as the Christian belief goes, but as for me, I believe that it is not your choice of religion, but what you do on this earth that gets you salvation in the end. But, until then I guess most people that believe in God also to some degree can identify with this:

"We're all ants in a huge ant farm waiting to reap the fruits of our labor here on earth."

There are many problems with the notion of getting to heaven based on "good deeds" alone. How many good deeds do you have to do? What is the cut off line? How do you know when you've done enough? Do rich people who give more get more credit than those who can afford less? What happens if we do something really bad? Can we be forgiven? How bad is too bad, deed wise? murder? manslaughter? involuntary manslaughter? reckless endangerment? beating up a defenseless old lady? Is wanting to screw your neighbors wife just as bad as actually doing it? What if I had a heart attack and died on my way over to screw my neighbors wife? Would that be OK since I never actually did it? What if Charles Manson has a change of heart on his death bed? Can he be saved since he would have no time to do good deeds?

We are saved by God's grace my friend, not by our deeds.