FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Sin, original sin, devil;Fantasy or real?





loveandormoney
Or are this ideas, to make children afraid?
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Or are this ideas, to make children afraid?



The kids has just had a Sunday school lesson on the devil and on their way home one said to the other, "What do think about all this devil stuff," to which the other replied, " Remember how Santa Claus turned out. It is probably just your Dad."

Sin and original sin and the devil are all foundational doctrines of the Christian faith.

Without sin there is no redemption and no Savior and therefore no Christianity.

Without the devil there was no temptation and no original sin and no second Adam and therefore no Christianity.

Sad to say, all are living in sin and have no hope of making it. The devil loves that and does all he can to keep you right where you are.

Of course, if one is prepared to go through the cross he can enter the Kingdom of God right now.
LxGoodies
Hmm I would say devil and original sin are fantasy

Sin is real , alas Crying or Very sad

Lx
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
Hmm I would say devil and original sin are fantasy

Sin is real , alas Crying or Very sad

Lx



How do you know sin is real. What is sin for that matter. I had never heard of sin til I read it in the Bible.

If the devil and original sin is fantasy then the Bible is fantasy. If the bible is fantasy then sin is fantasy too.

Where did you get you moral judgment to identify sin as sin. Do animals sin or is it just us humans.

If you are an evolutionist then humans are animals and there is no sin. We are free to follow the animal rule of survival of the fittest. It is OK then to kill and destroy our fellow humans to enable us to survive as the fittest.

Sure, society has made a few rules but who are they to impose their rules on us. We don't need their rules and we can live outside them. We have our own rules, the rules of the gun and power, we are the fittest and will survive.
Ankhanu
nickfyoung wrote:
How do you know sin is real. What is sin for that matter. I had never heard of sin til I read it in the Bible.

This is kind of one of those crux of the discussion issues, really. One must define the terms before any real discussion can proceed.

- If one takes an everyday sort of use of the word sin, being an immoral (amoral at best) act, causes harm to one's self, or others, in short, an unpleasant act, then sins are real and it's kind of indisputable. It's a breach of contract, if it were, in social interaction.

- If one takes sin to mean a transgression against the wishes/tenets of a god/gods, or something of the like, then their existence is kind of a moot point if said god(s) do(es)n't exist, or if we humans don't actually know what such an entity's wishes/tenets might be (the religious assume they do, but, how could they be sure?)...

I find it interesting that you'd never heard of sin before reading the Bible; it's used pretty extensively in colloquial speech. Interesting.

nickfyoung wrote:
If the devil and original sin is fantasy then the Bible is fantasy. If the bible is fantasy then sin is fantasy too.

Doesn't necessarily follow; see above.
If the devil, original sin and the Bible are all fantasy, it does not necessarily mean that sin is fantasy... If sin is a moral transgression, independent of the existence or wishes/tenets of gods, then it would remain valid of those other aspects are fantasy... or if it is dependent upon deities, and the Bible's commentary is simply incorrect.

nickfyoung wrote:
Where did you get you moral judgment to identify sin as sin. Do animals sin or is it just us humans.

If you are an evolutionist then humans are animals and there is no sin. We are free to follow the animal rule of survival of the fittest. It is OK then to kill and destroy our fellow humans to enable us to survive as the fittest.

Sure, society has made a few rules but who are they to impose their rules on us. We don't need their rules and we can live outside them. We have our own rules, the rules of the gun and power, we are the fittest and will survive.

Ridiculous, and based on a pretty flawed understanding of evolution and the phrase "survival of the fittest". FYI - when you use the term fitness in an evolutionary context, it refers to reproductive success; an individual is fit if they manage to successfully pass on their genes to future generations... the fittest will have the most, most successful offspring. Fitness in this context does not mean mightiest/strongest... though there are instances where those traits directly translate to reproductive success, they are not necessarily the rule.

The struggle represented by natural selection is hardly a model of moral behaviour, though there is evidence that moral codes have an evolutionary origin. Something being evolved, however, does not mean that it utilized the mechanisms of evolution as its basis... only that it confers a reproductive benefit to individuals. To say that morality may be derived of evolutionary processes is not to say that morals should necessarily follow the "outlook" of the processes that selected for them.
Many social species have apparent codes of interaction, necessary to ensure that the social system works to the benefit of all those involved. In all of those social systems, there are individuals that cheat the system to gain benefit at minimal cost to themselves; but if the majority of individuals cheated the system, or sinned, if you like, then the system would collapse.

Of course, if sin is deity dependent, then I have no idea of other animals sin or not, as I have no way to determine the wishes/tenets of a deity, nor its relationship with other animals. It's possible, I suppose.

Also, "If you are an evolutionist then humans are animals..." - being an "evolutionist" and whether or not we're animals is pretty independent. If you're not an "evolutionist" is there some fundamental way that a human cell differs from other animal cells, particularly vertebrate or primate cells, that would indicate a non-animal state?


In the wider context of the rest of the thread questioning; Original sin and the devil, as far as I can tell, are allegory... I've no reason to assume that the tales are literal. Sin, it depends on context, as mentioned above.
Dialogist
LxGoodies wrote:
Hmm I would say devil and original sin are fantasy

Sin is real , alas Crying or Very sad

Lx



Begs a question about is and oughts. While I've always (quietly) held that the devil is an anthropomorphism of extreme free will/complete depravity of God, I don't really have a problem with it being a synonym, as free will also gets to decide what it won't entertain. Original Sin is similar in that it is not something one can ever atone for, even for the want of trying. I feel it is required that one tries to, justifying its reality, in that it is essentially a state of imperfection (not fantasy in the slightest) and an impetus needs a departure point. While sin is evident, its opposition is as real in that it requires something to oppose, making the Problem of Evil about as problematic as Einstein inventing nuclear weapons.
nickfyoung
Ankhanu wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
How do you know sin is real. What is sin for that matter. I had never heard of sin til I read it in the Bible.

This is kind of one of those crux of the discussion issues, really. One must define the terms before any real discussion can proceed.

- If one takes an everyday sort of use of the word sin, being an immoral (amoral at best) act, causes harm to one's self, or others, in short, an unpleasant act, then sins are real and it's kind of indisputable. It's a breach of contract, if it were, in social interaction.

- If one takes sin to mean a transgression against the wishes/tenets of a god/gods, or something of the like, then their existence is kind of a moot point if said god(s) do(es)n't exist, or if we humans don't actually know what such an entity's wishes/tenets might be (the religious assume they do, but, how could they be sure?)...

I find it interesting that you'd never heard of sin before reading the Bible; it's used pretty extensively in colloquial speech. Interesting.

nickfyoung wrote:
If the devil and original sin is fantasy then the Bible is fantasy. If the bible is fantasy then sin is fantasy too.

Doesn't necessarily follow; see above.
If the devil, original sin and the Bible are all fantasy, it does not necessarily mean that sin is fantasy... If sin is a moral transgression, independent of the existence or wishes/tenets of gods, then it would remain valid of those other aspects are fantasy... or if it is dependent upon deities, and the Bible's commentary is simply incorrect.

nickfyoung wrote:
Where did you get you moral judgment to identify sin as sin. Do animals sin or is it just us humans.

If you are an evolutionist then humans are animals and there is no sin. We are free to follow the animal rule of survival of the fittest. It is OK then to kill and destroy our fellow humans to enable us to survive as the fittest.

Sure, society has made a few rules but who are they to impose their rules on us. We don't need their rules and we can live outside them. We have our own rules, the rules of the gun and power, we are the fittest and will survive.

Ridiculous, and based on a pretty flawed understanding of evolution and the phrase "survival of the fittest". FYI - when you use the term fitness in an evolutionary context, it refers to reproductive success; an individual is fit if they manage to successfully pass on their genes to future generations... the fittest will have the most, most successful offspring. Fitness in this context does not mean mightiest/strongest... though there are instances where those traits directly translate to reproductive success, they are not necessarily the rule.

The struggle represented by natural selection is hardly a model of moral behaviour, though there is evidence that moral codes have an evolutionary origin. Something being evolved, however, does not mean that it utilized the mechanisms of evolution as its basis... only that it confers a reproductive benefit to individuals. To say that morality may be derived of evolutionary processes is not to say that morals should necessarily follow the "outlook" of the processes that selected for them.
Many social species have apparent codes of interaction, necessary to ensure that the social system works to the benefit of all those involved. In all of those social systems, there are individuals that cheat the system to gain benefit at minimal cost to themselves; but if the majority of individuals cheated the system, or sinned, if you like, then the system would collapse.

Of course, if sin is deity dependent, then I have no idea of other animals sin or not, as I have no way to determine the wishes/tenets of a deity, nor its relationship with other animals. It's possible, I suppose.

Also, "If you are an evolutionist then humans are animals..." - being an "evolutionist" and whether or not we're animals is pretty independent. If you're not an "evolutionist" is there some fundamental way that a human cell differs from other animal cells, particularly vertebrate or primate cells, that would indicate a non-animal state?


In the wider context of the rest of the thread questioning; Original sin and the devil, as far as I can tell, are allegory... I've no reason to assume that the tales are literal. Sin, it depends on context, as mentioned above.




If you're not an "evolutionist" is there some fundamental way that a human cell differs from other animal cells, particularly vertebrate or primate cells, that would indicate a non-animal state?



I think the fundamental difference is the human soul, missing in all other animals. The bit that is supposed to live forever.

While animals were created, human was made from mud and the soul inserted to make a man. Woman skipped the mud bit.
Ankhanu
nickfyoung wrote:
I think the fundamental difference is the human soul, missing in all other animals. The bit that is supposed to live forever.

While animals were created, human was made from mud and the soul inserted to make a man. Woman skipped the mud bit.

Then would we not be animals with souls... but animals all the same? I mean, a transistor radio and a computer, despite their different levels of sophistication and differences in exact components, are still both electronics... The computer has a CPU, where the radio does not, but they still have the same basis.
Dialogist
Ankhanu wrote:
but they still have the same basis.


Electricity.
Ankhanu
Dialogist wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
but they still have the same basis.


Electricity.

Well, the control and direction of the flow of electricity via various components (e.g. transistors, microchips, diodes, valves/vacuum tubes etc.). There's plenty to do with electricity that doesn't include being an electronic device. A Rhodes electric piano, for example, is based on a simple induction circuit, and, while electric, is not electronic. A Moog Minimoog synthesizer, on the other hand, is an electronic keyboard/synth.
Both the transistor radio and your computer, however, are like the Minimoog, in being electronic.
Dialogist
I think it's a great analogy. The electrochemical cells in batteries are saying, "We no need no phenomenon of electricity". But eventually they either run out or need recharging. I guess we could rub two sticks together or build a sundial but we're still going to run into naturalistic questions concerning genetic fallacies. What Nick is saying (I think) is that a naturalist can't consult morality, whether he's calling a creationist dishonest, or not. I opt to keep decidedly schtum on the subject however, as I gleam most of my theological understandings from Aquinas, who says animals have no souls. St Francis of Assisi begs to differ. But although "survival of the fittest" clearly, is a popularist misunderstanding and oversimplification of genetic inheritance, the (unlikely) appropriation and (mostly) discarding of beneficial/hindering attributes is problematic for the naturalist, concerning notions of evil and aspirational morality.
nickfyoung
Ankhanu wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I think the fundamental difference is the human soul, missing in all other animals. The bit that is supposed to live forever.

While animals were created, human was made from mud and the soul inserted to make a man. Woman skipped the mud bit.

Then would we not be animals with souls... but animals all the same? I mean, a transistor radio and a computer, despite their different levels of sophistication and differences in exact components, are still both electronics... The computer has a CPU, where the radio does not, but they still have the same basis.



There was a definite deliberate difference in the creation process making man distinct from animal.
LxGoodies
nickfyoung wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
Hmm I would say devil and original sin are fantasy

Sin is real , alas Crying or Very sad

Lx



How do you know sin is real. What is sin for that matter. I had never heard of sin til I read it in the Bible. (1)

If the devil and original sin is fantasy (2) then the Bible is fantasy. If the bible is fantasy then sin is fantasy too. (3)


Ah there you go.. logic again.. , I won't buy it Nick.. this is 2012. Your first assumption indicates you don't know of any sin outside the bible.. but how do you know there is none ? I can assure you there is.. There exists a sin-conciousness, which is quite universal ! If you ask for a definition that suits you, go read your Exodus, there are 10 excellent examples of rules in life, that all boil down to one single, easy to understand principle: don't hurt others. It happens, it's no fantasy. That is what I meant with my sad-smiley.

Quote:
Where did you get you moral judgment to identify sin as sin. Do animals sin or is it just us humans.

Humans without brain desease have certain rules in life, irrespective of any religion. In my view the concept of "sin" is just another way of saying "don't do this". The concience. Dunno about animals.. But non-christian humans are certainly aware of the idea of "sin". Suppose I'm a Chinese follower of Confucius, I've never read Exodus, in fact no Chinese person in 100 miles around me did. I can still understand, that I should not kill, I should not steal, I should not lie. Don't ****** others , don't be an ****** .. even the software this forum knows what I'm talking about. Using particular cultural rules, you can label certain words as "impolite" and activities as "immoral". What's so difficult about that ? Do I have to be a believer to adhere to some important principles ?

Quote:
If you are an evolutionist (1) then humans are animals and there is no sin (2) We are free to follow the animal rule of survival of the fittest. (3) It is OK then to kill and destroy our fellow humans to enable us to survive as the fittest.


Same fallacy. The second assumption does not hold. You assume non-creationists cannot have any ethics, because they don't believe in (all) your ethics. Anyone who is not a believer in fairy tales like Genesis does not know the distinction between sin and non-sin.. This is monopolizing ethics, monopolizing judgement. I call something a "sin" when I want. Religion does not have to tell me about sins. They happen and I'm perfectly capable of seeing them occur. And how people suffer as a result. I am a non-believer but I do regard murder as a sin, that is something I feel is not right. You do not define that feeling for me and you certainly cannot "nullify" my ethics, by yelliing evolutionist at me.

Lx
SonLight
nickfyoung wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I think the fundamental difference is the human soul, missing in all other animals. The bit that is supposed to live forever.

While animals were created, human was made from mud and the soul inserted to make a man. Woman skipped the mud bit.

Then would we not be animals with souls... but animals all the same? I mean, a transistor radio and a computer, despite their different levels of sophistication and differences in exact components, are still both electronics... The computer has a CPU, where the radio does not, but they still have the same basis.



There was a definite deliberate difference in the creation process making man distinct from animal.


I agree first, that man is an animal; second, that man (humanity, that is) is also fundamentally different and beyond anything implied by the word "animal". We are animals, but with the property (in naturalistic terms) of being sentient.

In my understanding what makes us unique is that we have a spirit. Our nature is so unique that it is more appropriate to say we are sentient or spiritual beings than to say we are animals, though we are clearly both. While some people get offended at the idea of being an animal, I believe it would be more accurate and appropriate to point out we are not just animals, or that we are more than animals, than to deny being animals. God "machined us on the same lathe", so to speak, but He added His image and likeness to us.

Genesis chapter 2 says "God breathed the breath of life" into Adam, and Adam "became a living soul." The word "breathed" is Hebrew ruach, which can mean breath, wind, or spirit. The Greek word is pneuma, which can have the same meanings. I believe it is intended to imply spirit as well as breath here.
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
Hmm I would say devil and original sin are fantasy

Sin is real , alas Crying or Very sad

Lx



How do you know sin is real. What is sin for that matter. I had never heard of sin til I read it in the Bible. (1)

If the devil and original sin is fantasy (2) then the Bible is fantasy. If the bible is fantasy then sin is fantasy too. (3)


Ah there you go.. logic again.. , I won't buy it Nick.. this is 2012. Your first assumption indicates you don't know of any sin outside the bible.. but how do you know there is none ? I can assure you there is.. There exists a sin-conciousness, which is quite universal ! If you ask for a definition that suits you, go read your Exodus, there are 10 excellent examples of rules in life, that all boil down to one single, easy to understand principle: don't hurt others. It happens, it's no fantasy. That is what I meant with my sad-smiley.

Quote:
Where did you get you moral judgment to identify sin as sin. Do animals sin or is it just us humans.

Humans without brain desease have certain rules in life, irrespective of any religion. In my view the concept of "sin" is just another way of saying "don't do this". The concience. Dunno about animals.. But non-christian humans are certainly aware of the idea of "sin". Suppose I'm a Chinese follower of Confucius, I've never read Exodus, in fact no Chinese person in 100 miles around me did. I can still understand, that I should not kill, I should not steal, I should not lie. Don't ****** others , don't be an ****** .. even the software this forum knows what I'm talking about. Using particular cultural rules, you can label certain words as "impolite" and activities as "immoral". What's so difficult about that ? Do I have to be a believer to adhere to some important principles ?

Quote:
If you are an evolutionist (1) then humans are animals and there is no sin (2) We are free to follow the animal rule of survival of the fittest. (3) It is OK then to kill and destroy our fellow humans to enable us to survive as the fittest.


Same fallacy. The second assumption does not hold. You assume non-creationists cannot have any ethics, because they don't believe in (all) your ethics. Anyone who is not a believer in fairy tales like Genesis does not know the distinction between sin and non-sin.. This is monopolizing ethics, monopolizing judgement. I call something a "sin" when I want. Religion does not have to tell me about sins. They happen and I'm perfectly capable of seeing them occur. And how people suffer as a result. I am a non-believer but I do regard murder as a sin, that is something I feel is not right. You do not define that feeling for me and you certainly cannot "nullify" my ethics, by yelliing evolutionist at me.

Lx



"sin
1    [sin] Show IPA noun, verb, sinned, sin·ning.
noun
1.
transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2.
any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3.
any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time. "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin


Sin usually is referred to something related to divinity. I am not saying sin is not real, just that you can't really call it that and separate it from God.

I do remember hearing it once in that song, "It's a sin to tell a lie'.

Just that prior to being a Christian the word sin was not really used, or I just can't remember it being used.
nickfyoung
SonLight wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I think the fundamental difference is the human soul, missing in all other animals. The bit that is supposed to live forever.

While animals were created, human was made from mud and the soul inserted to make a man. Woman skipped the mud bit.

Then would we not be animals with souls... but animals all the same? I mean, a transistor radio and a computer, despite their different levels of sophistication and differences in exact components, are still both electronics... The computer has a CPU, where the radio does not, but they still have the same basis.



There was a definite deliberate difference in the creation process making man distinct from animal.


I agree first, that man is an animal; second, that man (humanity, that is) is also fundamentally different and beyond anything implied by the word "animal". We are animals, but with the property (in naturalistic terms) of being sentient.

In my understanding what makes us unique is that we have a spirit. Our nature is so unique that it is more appropriate to say we are sentient or spiritual beings than to say we are animals, though we are clearly both. While some people get offended at the idea of being an animal, I believe it would be more accurate and appropriate to point out we are not just animals, or that we are more than animals, than to deny being animals. God "machined us on the same lathe", so to speak, but He added His image and likeness to us.

Genesis chapter 2 says "God breathed the breath of life" into Adam, and Adam "became a living soul." The word "breathed" is Hebrew ruach, which can mean breath, wind, or spirit. The Greek word is pneuma, which can have the same meanings. I believe it is intended to imply spirit as well as breath here.



And if you are a reformer, spirit and soul are the same thing as compared to some recent thinking that we are tripartite, body, soul and spirit.
Ankhanu
You'll note that your "quoted" definitions 1&2 relate to my second provided definition; and definition 3 relates to my first provided definition. Definition 3 is separated from the God concept.
This is why I said it's important to have the nature of the term defined from the start; without that frame work, we can't have a definitive position on the topic.

... well, no, I suppose there's only a potential problem if one doesn't believe in deity, or believes in non-personal, non-interventionist deity, as then definitions 1&2 lead to "no, sin isn't real" and 3 still leads to a maybe, depending on context.
Dialogist
LxGoodies wrote:


Ah there you go.. logic again.. , I won't buy it Nick.. this is 2012. Your first assumption indicates you don't know of any sin outside the bible.. but how do you know there is none ? I can assure you there is.. There exists a sin-conciousness, which is quite universal !


LOL.
LxGoodies
nickfyoung wrote:
Just that prior to being a Christian the word sin was not really used, or I just can't remember it being used.

Why do you quote me when you don't read Nick ? My protest about you monopolizing "sin" was not only a linguistic one. You made it mean far more than that. In the conclusion of your submit, the "evolutionist" as you tend to frame us non-believers, they end up with no morality at all. You concluded that for the evolutionist, men must be equal to animals. Because they do not recognize "sin". That is not the case ! non-religious people also have a concious. The problem is: you regard Christian "sin" as the only "sin". Outside your belief, no morality can exist.

Apparently you dont accept non-believer to use the word "sin". Ok so let me restate: original sin and the devil are fantasy, but people do a lot of wrong things in this world. Only difference between us is that I don't believe these wrong doings of human beings have anything to do with the devil, or genesis.

Dialogist wrote:
LOL.

@Dialogist you find it strange I refer to Nick's logic fallacies ? Or you wonder why I use the word "sin" as a non-believer ? I don't envy the modern believers, especially not creationists. It takes a lot of quirky logic to bring these thoughts on a level that can compete with modern scientific findings.

Lx
Dialogist
LxGoodies wrote:
@Dialogist you find it strange I refer to Nick's logic fallacies ?


Nihil Obstat. Your criticisms of Nick's arguments mirror my own. I laughed, as I found this thread both refreshing and amusing, in that both of your arguments mirror my own, in perhaps some of the most incompatible ways that I could have possibly imagined. Both yourself and Nick are arguing for Moral Objectivity. It's amusing to me because you're an atheist (I could stop there), who accepts sin (violation of divine request) and the Moral Absolute (le piece de resistance of all modern Apologetic's arguments) and Nick's a Christian who believes in reformist fatalism (a proposition, when stripped from its flowery God nods, can't seem to distinguish itself from methodical naturalism in terms of justifying the futility of existence or aspirational goal, that is actually being strived against). The David Hume reference I murmured was an allusion to Hume's Guillotine. Hume, like yourself was a skeptic, and much like yourself made a tremendously beautiful blunder that theists have been thanking him for in debates for the past 300 years. You'd actually get bonus points if you were to flip this one back on us. I've managed it with theodicies so nothing is impossible. If "modern science" with it's crystal clear logic, can slip a blindfold on the watchmaker and take all the plaudits, then fair play to them, really.

We had this game at school. We used to go up to a kid and say, "If the palm of your hand is longer than your face, it means you're gullible". And the kid would put his hand up to his nose and then we'd shove his hand into his nose and say "but don't beat yourself up over it". There's something about punching a person with their own fist which always gets a ludicrous laugh, but in terms of Moral Objectivity, there's pretty much only one person you can use to beat with it here, and you're looking right at him. You're not going to win friends and influence people round these parts inferring divine law, violation of such or perfection from imperfection, or moral external adjudication of such. Moral subjectivity isn't optional to the atheist, modern science, yourself and Nick, but as I say, who am I to judge?

I completely agree with you, by the way, and Nick. I guess I'm just bemused as to how you can hold to your respective worldviews in light of the blatant ought that ought to have occurred by now.
SonLight
nickfyoung wrote:

And if you are a reformer, spirit and soul are the same thing as compared to some recent thinking that we are tripartite, body, soul and spirit.


I'm surprised you consider it a matter of doctrine whether soul and spirit are two different things. The Bible doesn't say a lot about the distinction, if indeed there is one, but the two words are used separately.

It has been my experience among most of the Christians I know, not just those from a reformed background, that there is little distinction and I have always assumed it's because they hadn't thought much about it.

My own view, which I consider merely speculative based on what few clues there are in the Bible, is that body and spirit can be considered components of a human being, but soul refers to the resulting complete person. The Bible also states that at death "the spirit goes back to God, who gave it". Presumably our spirits reside with God between the time of death and being reunited with a body at resurrection. Whether it is correct to say that the person does not exist as a "soul" at that time, I do not know. I do know that the Hebrews always looked forward to a bodily resurrection whereas the Greeks did not value the body as important to continuing life after death.

With respect to the two views you listed, I would say,

1. I do not think soul and spirit are the same thing.
2. I do not think of three parts, but of a soul -- a complete person -- as being composed of body and spirit.
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Just that prior to being a Christian the word sin was not really used, or I just can't remember it being used.

Why do you quote me when you don't read Nick ? My protest about you monopolizing "sin" was not only a linguistic one. You made it mean far more than that. In the conclusion of your submit, the "evolutionist" as you tend to frame us non-believers, they end up with no morality at all. You concluded that for the evolutionist, men must be equal to animals. Because they do not recognize "sin". That is not the case ! non-religious people also have a concious. The problem is: you regard Christian "sin" as the only "sin". Outside your belief, no morality can exist.

Apparently you dont accept non-believer to use the word "sin". Ok so let me restate: original sin and the devil are fantasy, but people do a lot of wrong things in this world. Only difference between us is that I don't believe these wrong doings of human beings have anything to do with the devil, or genesis.

Dialogist wrote:
LOL.

@Dialogist you find it strange I refer to Nick's logic fallacies ? Or you wonder why I use the word "sin" as a non-believer ? I don't envy the modern believers, especially not creationists. It takes a lot of quirky logic to bring these thoughts on a level that can compete with modern scientific findings.

Lx



Quote:
You concluded that for the evolutionist, men must be equal to animals. Because they do not recognize "sin".



Sin is not a non Christian term. To sin is to transgress divine law or a religious law. Sure, a non Christian is a sinner but do you hear him call himself that.


Quote:
Only difference between us is that I don't believe these wrong doings of human beings have anything to do with the devil, or genesis.



Call them wrong doings if you like but as soon as you call them sin you are linking them to the devil and Genesis, because you are saying then that the wrong doings are a transgression of God some how.
LxGoodies
As long as you realize Nick... that accusing "evolutionists" of regarding humans as (just) animals without values or conscience is a similar mistake. Yes, I am prepared to accept "sin" as a christian idea, but at the same time, I ask of you not to insult people this way.

Again: just like you, I DO have norms and rules in life.. i DO HAVE principles that prevent me to steal, or kill people. I DO have a concious. And for that concious, I don't need belief at all. I invented it for myself, reading several holy books, literature, learning from life and REFLECTING ON the subject of good and evil.

I don't need a fixed framework carved in stone thousands of years ago, to tell me what to reject and what to accept.

Smile Lx
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
As long as you realize Nick... that accusing "evolutionists" of regarding humans as (just) animals without values or conscience is a similar mistake. Yes, I am prepared to accept "sin" as a christian idea, but at the same time, I ask of you not to insult people this way.

Again: just like you, I DO have norms and rules in life.. i DO HAVE principles that prevent me to steal, or kill people. I DO have a concious. And for that concious, I don't need belief at all. I invented it for myself, reading several holy books, literature, learning from life and REFLECTING ON the subject of good and evil.

I don't need a fixed framework carved in stone thousands of years ago, to tell me what to reject and what to accept.

Smile Lx


Someone told me on this forum recently that humans were just animals because we evolved from animals.

You do have norms and rules and principals in life regardless of where they came from. You read holy books etc to formulate those principals.

Can't I have principals too, reflected from my religion and my experience of life. Why do my principals have to be told to me by a fixed framework. Are they any less valuable than yours reflected from holy books.

My principals are a little different in that they come under more intense scrutiny and attack. My views on homosexuals and gay marriage and abortion etc., are they any less my views just because some say the Bible condemns such stuff.

Regardless of where my views are reflected from, does that make them less valued than yours.

There seems to be a misconception that Christians have this fixed rigid frame work based on Biblical teaching. Christianity is one of the most diverse systems out there with many many interpretations and value systems. There are literally hundreds of denominations and cults and churches all based on the Bible and all teaching something different.
LxGoodies
nickfyoung wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
As long as you realize Nick... that accusing "evolutionists" of regarding humans as (just) animals without values or conscience is a similar mistake. Yes, I am prepared to accept "sin" as a christian idea, but at the same time, I ask of you not to insult people this way.

Again: just like you, I DO have norms and rules in life.. i DO HAVE principles that prevent me to steal, or kill people. I DO have a concious. And for that concious, I don't need belief at all. I invented it for myself, reading several holy books, literature, learning from life and REFLECTING ON the subject of good and evil.

I don't need a fixed framework carved in stone thousands of years ago, to tell me what to reject and what to accept.

Smile Lx


Someone told me on this forum recently that humans were just animals because we evolved from animals.

You do have norms and rules and principals in life regardless of where they came from. You read holy books etc to formulate those principals.

Yep, i did. And I also suspect that I am an ape of some kind (human). Apparently, there are apes that can develop a moral system. And type that on an internet forum.

Quote:
Can't I have principals too, reflected from my religion and my experience of life. Why do my principals have to be told to me by a fixed framework. Are they any less valuable than yours reflected from holy books.

I don't deny you that concious either. I respect you for getting these rules in life from the bible. But In do have the impression that you have a very fixed framework. A few weeks ago, you defended the opinion of 100% predestination. In that perspective it's even worse: if 100% predestination would be true, outside your belief nothing else can exist. Good and bad are predestined, it is even useless to regard "conscious" because you can't choose if you would perform a sin, God will. That is what I meant with stone-carved.

Quote:
My principals are a little different in that they come under more intense scrutiny and attack. My views on homosexuals and gay marriage and abortion etc., are they any less my views just because some say the Bible condemns such stuff.

They are your views AND the bible agrees.. because you agree with the bible, you get this opinion about homosexuals from the bible.

Quote:
Regardless of where my views are reflected from, does that make them less valued than yours.

Nope.. the only thing I reminded you in my prvious submits is that "evolutionists" do have a concious too.. despite they regard themelves as animals. People that accept evolution view higher animals as being subject to (development) of conscious. For example, are you really sure that e.g. dolphins don' t have consciousness ?

Quote:
There seems to be a misconception that Christians have this fixed rigid frame work based on Biblical teaching. Christianity is one of the most diverse systems out there with many many interpretations and value systems. There are literally hundreds of denominations and cults and churches all based on the Bible and all teaching something different.

Okay now I strongly hope that my opponents in this section keep an open mind indeed.. that would make it far more easier for me to communicate properly. Again: I respect your beliefand also the rules of life that you derive from that.

Lx
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
As long as you realize Nick... that accusing "evolutionists" of regarding humans as (just) animals without values or conscience is a similar mistake. Yes, I am prepared to accept "sin" as a christian idea, but at the same time, I ask of you not to insult people this way.

Again: just like you, I DO have norms and rules in life.. i DO HAVE principles that prevent me to steal, or kill people. I DO have a concious. And for that concious, I don't need belief at all. I invented it for myself, reading several holy books, literature, learning from life and REFLECTING ON the subject of good and evil.

I don't need a fixed framework carved in stone thousands of years ago, to tell me what to reject and what to accept.

Smile Lx


Someone told me on this forum recently that humans were just animals because we evolved from animals.

You do have norms and rules and principals in life regardless of where they came from. You read holy books etc to formulate those principals.

Yep, i did. And I also suspect that I am an ape of some kind (human). Apparently, there are apes that can develop a moral system. And type that on an internet forum.

Quote:
Can't I have principals too, reflected from my religion and my experience of life. Why do my principals have to be told to me by a fixed framework. Are they any less valuable than yours reflected from holy books.

I don't deny you that concious either. I respect you for getting these rules in life from the bible. But In do have the impression that you have a very fixed framework. A few weeks ago, you defended the opinion of 100% predestination. In that perspective it's even worse: if 100% predestination would be true, outside your belief nothing else can exist. Good and bad are predestined, it is even useless to regard "conscious" because you can't choose if you would perform a sin, God will. That is what I meant with stone-carved.

Quote:
My principals are a little different in that they come under more intense scrutiny and attack. My views on homosexuals and gay marriage and abortion etc., are they any less my views just because some say the Bible condemns such stuff.

They are your views AND the bible agrees.. because you agree with the bible, you get this opinion about homosexuals from the bible.

Quote:
Regardless of where my views are reflected from, does that make them less valued than yours.

Nope.. the only thing I reminded you in my prvious submits is that "evolutionists" do have a concious too.. despite they regard themelves as animals. People that accept evolution view higher animals as being subject to (development) of conscious. For example, are you really sure that e.g. dolphins don' t have consciousness ?

Quote:
There seems to be a misconception that Christians have this fixed rigid frame work based on Biblical teaching. Christianity is one of the most diverse systems out there with many many interpretations and value systems. There are literally hundreds of denominations and cults and churches all based on the Bible and all teaching something different.

Okay now I strongly hope that my opponents in this section keep an open mind indeed.. that would make it far more easier for me to communicate properly. Again: I respect your beliefand also the rules of life that you derive from that.

Lx



Quote:
I don't deny you that concious either. I respect you for getting these rules in life from the bible. But In do have the impression that you have a very fixed framework. A few weeks ago, you defended the opinion of 100% predestination. In that perspective it's even worse: if 100% predestination would be true, outside your belief nothing else can exist. Good and bad are predestined, it is even useless to regard "conscious" because you can't choose if you would perform a sin, God will. That is what I meant with stone-carved.



Unfortunately, it is not that simple. God is a very complex being, is he a being.? If one believes he created everything out of nothing then one must believe he is almost incomprehensible by a puny 'ape like' mind. Sorry, couldn't resist that.

One also believes that he has revealed all we need to know about him in his word, for now. We believe that there is a lot more to come. So, from his word we formulate conceptions of what maybe God is a little like.

Remember, there are dozens of these conceptions out there and mine is one of them. Just one conception trying to grasp some reality of God, futile exercise really, but we keep trying.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. God is a very complex being, is he a being.? If one believes he created everything out of nothing then one must believe he is almost incomprehensible by a puny 'ape like' mind. Sorry, couldn't resist that.

One also believes that he has revealed all we need to know about him in his word, for now. We believe that there is a lot more to come. So, from his word we formulate conceptions of what maybe God is a little like.

Remember, there are dozens of these conceptions out there and mine is one of them. Just one conception trying to grasp some reality of God, futile exercise really, but we keep trying.



You forgot this part, Nick:

LxGoodies wrote:

A few weeks ago, you defended the opinion of 100% predestination. In that perspective it's even worse: if 100% predestination would be true, outside your belief nothing else can exist.


I hope it's good... I'm intrigued, myself.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. God is a very complex being, is he a being.? If one believes he created everything out of nothing then one must believe he is almost incomprehensible by a puny 'ape like' mind. Sorry, couldn't resist that.

One also believes that he has revealed all we need to know about him in his word, for now. We believe that there is a lot more to come. So, from his word we formulate conceptions of what maybe God is a little like.

Remember, there are dozens of these conceptions out there and mine is one of them. Just one conception trying to grasp some reality of God, futile exercise really, but we keep trying.



You forgot this part, Nick:

LxGoodies wrote:

A few weeks ago, you defended the opinion of 100% predestination. In that perspective it's even worse: if 100% predestination would be true, outside your belief nothing else can exist.


I hope it's good... I'm intrigued, myself.



At the moment I am leaning towards supralapsarianism.

"Lapsarianism is the set of Calvinist doctrines describing the logical order of God's decree (in his mind, before Creation), in particular concerning the order of his decree for the fall of man and reprobation. The name of the doctrine comes from the Latin lapsus meaning fall.

Supralapsarianism (also antelapsarianism) is the view that God's decrees of election and reprobation logically preceded the decree of the fall "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsarianism


What if God, being a pretty big God, put the whole thing together before he started on it.
Interesting concept.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Calvinist doctrines


That's up there with "Military Intelligence".

Nickfyoung wrote:

At the moment I am leaning towards [the latest theological trend]


Right, forget I asked. Lex asked you how you can refer to outside sourcing, external to the Bible and maintain your predestination... You're now leaning elsewhere. Gotcha.
LxGoodies
NickYoung wrote:
What if God, being a pretty big God, put the whole thing together before he started on it.
Interesting concept.

I find that an abhorring concept. Because it would make your God an awfull entity. He would have foreseen or precalculated (created, prepared) the witch hunting, the inquisition, the pogroms and the holocaust. All sin: all kills, all death penalties following kills. All acts of theft and betrayal. All child abuse. Wars were planned by God, also the asymmetric and unjust wars. All brutal acts of torture that ever occurred in history. For what ?? may I ask.. all to punish Eve ??

People wind up in mental institutions for far less.

Lx
Dialogist
Augustine predestination works like this:

<Alpha| <--------------------All you, good luck!----------------->|Omega>

And funnily enough, it's always worked. It's the Calvinists who like to count "every grain of sand". Faith requires free will. etc. Once you start making God responsible for all outcomes of the gift free will, we're seeing God as a benevolent despot. But we're appreciating, in that, that God didn't make robots (aka Calvinists) because that would be fatalism and perfect everything not only has no point, but it makes God redundant in the process because He has no distinction from his nature. So the problem of evil is part of God's nature in that God made man in his own likeness with the propensity to (quite omnipotently) be anything he wishes, almost omnipotent, not too dissimilar to God who can't not be omnipotent (I know right, but give me time, I'm working on this!). Still we have sin as a violation of God's law. The sin is a lack of God. The problem of evil (sin) thus proves God existence and any will to not sin (for a good reason) is moral objectivity, thus proving God's existence again. It can't be found in the animal world and it is not a case of intellect as we've seen, with that chimp pressing squares on the tv monitor. It's a case of aspirational motive, which isn't present in the animal kingdom and couldn't evolve simply for the fact that natural selection discards useless survival traits and creates no new ones. And if it could could create new ones, it certainly wouldn't create meekness, pity, devotional love, thankless loyalty, guilt and a God complex. It couldn't create "fuzzy logic" either. So no, nobody is saying people who subscribe to natural selection are restricted to be without morals. They are saying that are restricted to act within a code of moral objectivity. Just because they don't recognize it, or reject it, doesn't mean that they don't do so because they find "witch hunts, holocausts, inquisitions etc" to be morally repugnant. You don't need a set in stone law to abide by to live under the umbrella blanket of a predominantly Christian heritage either, concerning morals. And if what you say is true, and you derived them from reading the Holy Book, then I'm not sure what to tell you, other than the fact that you could read Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins and find the same exact moral indignation about what God "ought" to be doing.


And that's all that Hume ever really needed to say.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Calvinist doctrines


That's up there with "Military Intelligence".

Nickfyoung wrote:

At the moment I am leaning towards [the latest theological trend]


Right, forget I asked. Lex asked you how you can refer to outside sourcing, external to the Bible and maintain your predestination... You're now leaning elsewhere. Gotcha.



I am not fixed in concrete. Always open to learning, revelation and whatever comes along. Basics are set but there is much deeper stuff than basics which make the whole exercise interesting.


It is not the latest theological trend at all. I have come from a new Christian perspective into a Pentecostal perspective and a Calvinist perspective and am now looking at a strict reformed perspective which is beyond Calvinism in some areas with stricter Biblical views.

All theology is based on the Bible and differing views represent differing perspectives. You are happy with the Catholic perspective and that is fine. I believe there is far more to learn that the Catholic perspective and that is where my interest lies.
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
NickYoung wrote:
What if God, being a pretty big God, put the whole thing together before he started on it.
Interesting concept.

I find that an abhorring concept. Because it would make your God an awfull entity. He would have foreseen or precalculated (created, prepared) the witch hunting, the inquisition, the pogroms and the holocaust. All sin: all kills, all death penalties following kills. All acts of theft and betrayal. All child abuse. Wars were planned by God, also the asymmetric and unjust wars. All brutal acts of torture that ever occurred in history. For what ?? may I ask.. all to punish Eve ??

People wind up in mental institutions for far less.

Lx



Certainly a difficult concept to get ones head around. Still trying to do that without the mental institution bit.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

You are happy with the Catholic perspective and that is fine. I believe there is far more to learn that the Catholic perspective and that is where my interest lies.


I'd believe you if I believed you. I doubt you've even looked twice at it. The "Catholic perspective" as you so flagrantly singularize "it" goes back BC. It goes back in Judaism to get a handle on before Christ. It continues right through his life until becomes a first hand eye-witness account of Jesus' life and acts themselves. That's the primary catholic "perspective". The first Pope was his best mate. It continues through the dark and middle ages, throughout the birth of the renaissance and modern science. It birthed theology itself. It battled against pagan and scientist alike (and what's changed really). It took philosophy and applied properly to theology. It understood your predestination nearly a millennia before you were even thought of. It's been driven underground, it's been victorious. It's been named and shamed, inventive, deep, rich and bloody and most of all, it's been right. It's never been wrong on any 'perspective' and it's had just about every single one you can think. It's Doctors of the church, the church fathers themselves are Gods compared to your workaday hacks in suits (but what else is new). Every thought since Augustine and Aquinas has been inspired by him, or revolting hard against him. Whether it be theology, philosophy or even science itself. The name is in the art, the sciences, the math, the humanities. It's in the signature cell. It is the history of western civilization. And it hasn't changed one bit. It pretty much invented everything from the scissors on your desk to the credit card you use them on. There's nothing... of any notable mention that didn't pass through the church on it's way to your singularity 2000 years later. And here you are drumming insane ill researched crap into a keyboard about what a "lie" she is. "How evil she is". You don't know anything about our good. What do you care to tell us about our evils?

"Interest". That's all it boils down. This is why you flitter around in your Christian suit shopping for a new church to pose at. Why you buy in controversially stupid and illogical 'theological' fads from the middle ages because you know it'll get some talk-time. Why you look an atheist in the eye tell him that you speak in tongues. You're obviously just looking for ridicule because you're ridiculous. "Interest". I don't have any interest in Catholicism, I'm afraid, Nick. I am Catholicism. And yeah, I'm a complete bastard because of that. Because I actually care. I am passionate. Come see in me in 40 years if I'm still alive. Ask me if I've changed the record. You hum tunes. You're a charlatan. That's why you're a far better Christian than me (on the surface). Passive, submissive, placid. Because you simply just couldn't give two shits. You'll probably be a buddhist next week anyway so I don't know why I'm wasting my time.

"Interest"... Interest. Eh, don't talk about life and death in hobby speak, ok? I find you offensive.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

You are happy with the Catholic perspective and that is fine. I believe there is far more to learn that the Catholic perspective and that is where my interest lies.


I'd believe you if I believed you. I doubt you've even looked twice at it. The "Catholic perspective" as you so flagrantly singularize "it" goes back BC. It goes back in Judaism to get a handle on before Christ. It continues right through his life until becomes a first hand eye-witness account of Jesus' life and acts themselves. That's the primary catholic "perspective". The first Pope was his best mate. It continues through the dark and middle ages, throughout the birth of the renaissance and modern science. It birthed theology itself. It battled against pagan and scientist alike (and what's changed really). It took philosophy and applied properly to theology. It understood your predestination nearly a millennia before you were even thought of. It's been driven underground, it's been victorious. It's been named and shamed, inventive, deep, rich and bloody and most of all, it's been right. It's never been wrong on any 'perspective' and it's had just about every single one you can think. It's Doctors of the church, the church fathers themselves are Gods compared to your workaday hacks in suits (but what else is new). Every thought since Augustine and Aquinas has been inspired by him, or revolting hard against him. Whether it be theology, philosophy or even science itself. The name is in the art, the sciences, the math, the humanities. It's in the signature cell. It is the history of western civilization. And it hasn't changed one bit. It pretty much invented everything from the scissors on your desk to the credit card you use them on. There's nothing... of any notable mention that didn't pass through the church on it's way to your singularity 2000 years later. And here you are drumming insane ill researched crap into a keyboard about what a "lie" she is. "How evil she is". You don't know anything about our good. What do you care to tell us about our evils?

"Interest". That's all it boils down. This is why you flitter around in your Christian suit shopping for a new church to pose at. Why you buy in controversially stupid and illogical 'theological' fads from the middle ages because you know it'll get some talk-time. Why you look an atheist in the eye tell him that you speak in tongues. You're obviously just looking for ridicule because you're ridiculous. "Interest". I don't have any interest in Catholicism, I'm afraid, Nick. I am Catholicism. And yeah, I'm a complete bastard because of that. Because I actually care. I am passionate. Come see in me in 40 years if I'm still alive. Ask me if I've changed the record. You hum tunes. You're a charlatan. That's why you're a far better Christian than me (on the surface). Passive, submissive, placid. Because you simply just couldn't give two shits. You'll probably be a buddhist next week anyway so I don't know why I'm wasting my time.

"Interest"... Interest. Eh, don't talk about life and death in hobby speak, ok? I find you offensive.



Sorry you find me so offensive. Just because I am not a Catholic? I don't find you offensive because you are a Catholic.

It is difficult to pick words that wont offend you. Can I not be content where I am. Do I have to be a Catholic to be accepted.

What I am and where I am at is an offense to you. I can't help that. It is not my problem. I am quite happy right here and if that offends you then I am sorry.

Incidentally. I am very passionate about my 'religion'. If you really wanted a gloves off debate on it and yours topic by topic I would be happy to oblige as long as we leave the insults out. They only tend to inflame emotions and cloud judgement.

Christian suit?. You really have me confused with your stereo typed Protestant. I generally attend church in shorts and casual shirt, sometimes quite loud shirt although I did put some long pants on yesterday because I was doing communion but definitely no tie.

I am not doubting that your church is a great institution complete with it's history and many traditions. There has probably never been such an institution as far as longevity and steadfastness but it is not for all. Can't you grant some the option of something different.

Surly the ultimate aim is to get man into heaven when he dies. That was the purpose of the cross and the sacrifice of Jesus, to redeem man back to God.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

Surly the ultimate aim is to get man into heaven when he dies. That was the purpose of the cross and the sacrifice of Jesus, to redeem man back to God.


I'm sorry if I offended you but this generally what happens when you offend somebody. For what its worth, I read all your kiddie-fiddler posts and I found them partially amusing (not in a serious way, but in a juvenile way). I can take insults and ridicule. If it's well done, I sometimes appreciate it. What I don't take kindly to is people who I would expect more from, handing out judgement on something they haven't bothered to research or just don't seem to care two figs about themselves. A passive slight from a apathetic demeanor ususally generates more frustration than a furious attack, because at least if somebody has gone to the trouble, you know that they care enough to warrant it. I knew you were a short and loud shirt wearer though. I could tell by your "rough and scratchy man and soft and gentle woman who smells nice" post. Do you wear socks with sandals too? I don't want to convert you. But I think you should convert into something a little bit more palatable. Like Megatron or something. I mean you change every week any week anyway, so why not choose something cool?
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

Surly the ultimate aim is to get man into heaven when he dies. That was the purpose of the cross and the sacrifice of Jesus, to redeem man back to God.


I'm sorry if I offended you but this generally what happens when you offend somebody. For what its worth, I read all your kiddie-fiddler posts and I found them partially amusing (not in a serious way, but in a juvenile way). I can take insults and ridicule. If it's well done, I sometimes appreciate it. What I don't take kindly to is people who I would expect more from, handing out judgement on something they haven't bothered to research or just don't seem to care two figs about themselves. A passive slight from a apathetic demeanor ususally generates more frustration than a furious attack, because at least if somebody has gone to the trouble, you know that they care enough to warrant it. I knew you were a short and loud shirt wearer though. I could tell by your "rough and scratchy man and soft and gentle woman who smells nice" post. Do you wear socks with sandals too? I don't want to convert you. But I think you should convert into something a little bit more palatable. Like Megatron or something. I mean you change every week any week anyway, so why not choose something cool?



Quote:
For what its worth, I read all your kiddie-fiddler posts and I found them partially amusing (not in a serious way, but in a juvenile way).



Can't recall ever doing any 'kiddie fiddler' posts. In fact I have taken great pains to stay away from them on purpose. First time I heard the 'kiddie fiddler' bit was from Bikerman recently.


Quote:
Do you wear socks with sandals too?



No socks. Can't get down there to put socks on any more.


Quote:
But I think you should convert into something a little bit more palatable
.


Like I said, I am not set in concrete although I am a born again Spirit filled Christian first and just like reading a bit of theology as a hobby. I do get in trouble at the church I attend because I am the only one who tends more towards Calvinism than your Arminiaism.

Most of the modern church including Pentecostalism adhere to a similar doctrine as you guys. The only thing they object to is the doctrine of transubstantiation and the doctrine involving Mary.

I would add one more, the practice of calling one a Christian without the born again experience.

After all, if you have not been born again how are you certain without doubt that you are going to heaven. That would worry me a little.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
I am the only one who tends more towards Calvinism than your Arminiaism.


Arminiaism is a protestant teaching and even if it wasn't, I have no problem with God authoring sin as I've already said above this thread. I would kind of expect that from omniscience. As opposed to Calvinism, I support a much more intellectually and spiritually rewarding theology of Thomism. Well, not "opposed", as that shoe would be firmly on the other foot being that came 13th century before 16th century Calvinism or 17th century Arminiaism (which both attempted to break something that never for one minute looked broken). There's still areas of Summa Theologica I prefer to consult others on. And not all are Catholics. Some aren't even religious or theologians. William Blake, for example. Some oppose Doctor Angelicus, some attempt to refine his teachings but all do so with good faith and benevolence. None of them attempt to make God so depraved that only the depraved are eligible. None them pull the lever on athiests or people who didn't make the mark (Arminiaism).

H.G. Wells' letter to G.K. Chesterton on his deathbed wrote:
"If after all my Atheology turns out wrong and your Theology right I feel I shall always be able to pass into Heaven (if I want to) as a friend of G.K.C.'s. Bless you."


G.K. Chesterton's letter back wrote:

"If I turn out to be right, you will triumph, not by being a friend of mine, but by being a friend of Man, by having done a thousand things for men like me in every way from imagination to criticism. The thought of the vast variety of that work, and how it ranges from towering visions to tiny pricks of humor, overwhelmed me suddenly in retrospect; and I felt we have none of us ever said enough. . .Yours always, G. K. Chesterton."


You're talking to somebody who believes Christopher Hitchens is in Heaven, so I doubt those Arminiaism shoes fit me.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The only thing they object to is the doctrine of transubstantiation and the doctrine involving Mary.


They object to transubstantiation because they haven't had the blessing which would grant you personally the permission or authority to administer Holy Communion (which is why I don't know why you would attempt to or even seek to receive it). Stay at home, eat a piece of toast. It tastes better.

As for Marian dogma, I struggle to respect anyone inside or out who fails to "Honour thy father and thy mother" (even if they don't want to). I mean from Jesus Himself not wanting to perform that miracle in Cana (and the reasons he eventually did), to the Life of Brian ("He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" etc) to LL Cool J's "Mamma said, 'Knock you out' now I gotta knock you out!". You don't get to be the "Mother of God (Μήτηρ Θεοῦ)" without getting some respect. While I fully support the Catholic dogma on this one, I only wish it applied to John the Baptist too (who was basically the teacher, priest and baptizer of God), who reputedly had Jesus deep in books, prayer and philosophy for all those 12-30 years that you have Jesus "partying and dating girls". I often feel like John was intentionally made less divine by the apostles out of sheer envy. The ministry of Jesus and the 2000 year on legacy of his teachings, morality and example owes a certain debt to this 'caveman' does it not?

Nickfyoung wrote:
the practice of calling one a Christian without the born again experience.


Again, being Christian doesn't depend on being a Christian and being Christian isn't validated simply by being a Christian (as I myself prove). So a person can call themselves whatever they want (lest ye should boast). It's hardly a boast to lay claim to nowadays, though. More of stigma (blessed ye should admit). Confirmation is enough for adult recognition/declaration. It actually holds that the Holy Spirit never left you (which is nice) and also sees you eligible/worthy enough to write the application form (which even all the workplaces and universities of man require) which is more consistent and logical (in terms of depravity, I mean).

Nickfyoung wrote:
if you have not been born again how are you certain without doubt that you are going to heaven. That would worry me a little.


What should worry you more is that you think your pass is guaranteed and/or is best sought by telling "non-born-agains" that they have no chance. I would also worry if I held to a god whose "elect" was done and dusted before I even got the chance to partake in a Baptist ritual. I would think, "but I don't feel like it". That must be what he has planned for me. Then probably get (re?)baptised out of fear anyway, and issue damnation tickets to all those who haven't been blessed/chosen to feel my ultimatum of faith. Then I'd depressingly file my "predestined elect" papers, in the "futile garbage" cabinet. Like all of you eventually do. Some even become atheists, seamlessly, having already embraced the meaninglessness of moralistic motive. It's called fatalism.

I guess I'd have to ask you how being "born-again" (once) is any better than Baptism after birth (welcome to God youngun) push on to Catechism (preparation for first Holy Communion - the understanding of receiving the Body of Christ along with with Confessional and repentance and the eligibility to do so, being that one can't atone for what one doesn't see as wrong and one can't entertain the Holy Spirit yet - aged 11+) and then push on to Confirmation - which is an adult clarifying his/her desire to stay as an adherent to baptism/communion/confession/confirmation of Christianity.

4-1.

Only...haha, your one doesn't count without the prior 3!

4-0.

It's not a sacrament point score, or any of the sort. As you can see, it is a lifetime of solid preparation/education/training making one eligible to recieve and maintain the Holy Spirit. You just waltz in and click your fingers. The day after you're speaking in tongues and performing faith healings. Please. I'm being offensive if I say, "charlatan"? I don't think so.

Tell me how your 'quick fix' instantly granting supernatural powers is more believably proficient and why I'm unreasonable to suspect fraudulent claims, or...follow a life time of consecutive doctrines which rigorously and constantly prepare you to receive God, complete with initial checks, test runs, initialization and installment, updates and easter eggs. Your software never gets installed, Nick. It's a bloody virus!
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
I am the only one who tends more towards Calvinism than your Arminiaism.


Arminiaism is a protestant teaching and even if it wasn't, I have no problem with God authoring sin as I've already said above this thread. I would kind of expect that from omniscience. As opposed to Calvinism, I support a much more intellectually and spiritually rewarding theology of Thomism. Well, not "opposed", as that shoe would be firmly on the other foot being that came 13th century before 16th century Calvinism or 17th century Arminiaism (which both attempted to break something that never for one minute looked broken). There's still areas of Summa Theologica I prefer to consult others on. And not all are Catholics. Some aren't even religious or theologians. William Blake, for example. Some oppose Doctor Angelicus, some attempt to refine his teachings but all do so with good faith and benevolence. None of them attempt to make God so depraved that only the depraved are eligible. None them pull the lever on athiests or people who didn't make the mark (Arminiaism).

H.G. Wells' letter to G.K. Chesterton on his deathbed wrote:
"If after all my Atheology turns out wrong and your Theology right I feel I shall always be able to pass into Heaven (if I want to) as a friend of G.K.C.'s. Bless you."


G.K. Chesterton's letter back wrote:

"If I turn out to be right, you will triumph, not by being a friend of mine, but by being a friend of Man, by having done a thousand things for men like me in every way from imagination to criticism. The thought of the vast variety of that work, and how it ranges from towering visions to tiny pricks of humor, overwhelmed me suddenly in retrospect; and I felt we have none of us ever said enough. . .Yours always, G. K. Chesterton."


You're talking to somebody who believes Christopher Hitchens is in Heaven, so I doubt those Arminiaism shoes fit me.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The only thing they object to is the doctrine of transubstantiation and the doctrine involving Mary.


They object to transubstantiation because they haven't had the blessing which would grant you personally the permission or authority to administer Holy Communion (which is why I don't know why you would attempt to or even seek to receive it). Stay at home, eat a piece of toast. It tastes better.

As for Marian dogma, I struggle to respect anyone inside or out who fails to "Honour thy father and thy mother" (even if they don't want to). I mean from Jesus Himself not wanting to perform that miracle in Cana (and the reasons he eventually did), to the Life of Brian ("He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" etc) to LL Cool J's "Mamma said, 'Knock you out' now I gotta knock you out!". You don't get to be the "Mother of God (Μήτηρ Θεοῦ)" without getting some respect. While I fully support the Catholic dogma on this one, I only wish it applied to John the Baptist too (who was basically the teacher, priest and baptizer of God), who reputedly had Jesus deep in books, prayer and philosophy for all those 12-30 years that you have Jesus "partying and dating girls". I often feel like John was intentionally made less divine by the apostles out of sheer envy. The ministry of Jesus and the 2000 year on legacy of his teachings, morality and example owes a certain debt to this 'caveman' does it not?

Nickfyoung wrote:
the practice of calling one a Christian without the born again experience.


Again, being Christian doesn't depend on being a Christian and being Christian isn't validated simply by being a Christian (as I myself prove). So a person can call themselves whatever they want (lest ye should boast). It's hardly a boast to lay claim to nowadays, though. More of stigma (blessed ye should admit). Confirmation is enough for adult recognition/declaration. It actually holds that the Holy Spirit never left you (which is nice) and also sees you eligible/worthy enough to write the application form (which even all the workplaces and universities of man require) which is more consistent and logical (in terms of depravity, I mean).

Nickfyoung wrote:
if you have not been born again how are you certain without doubt that you are going to heaven. That would worry me a little.


What should worry you more is that you think your pass is guaranteed and/or is best sought by telling "non-born-agains" that they have no chance. I would also worry if I held to a god whose "elect" was done and dusted before I even got the chance to partake in a Baptist ritual. I would think, "but I don't feel like it". That must be what he has planned for me. Then probably get (re?)baptised out of fear anyway, and issue damnation tickets to all those who haven't been blessed/chosen to feel my ultimatum of faith. Then I'd depressingly file my "predestined elect" papers, in the "futile garbage" cabinet. Like all of you eventually do. Some even become atheists, seamlessly, having already embraced the meaninglessness of moralistic motive. It's called fatalism.

I guess I'd have to ask you how being "born-again" (once) is any better than Baptism after birth (welcome to God youngun) push on to Catechism (preparation for first Holy Communion - the understanding of receiving the Body of Christ along with with Confessional and repentance and the eligibility to do so, being that one can't atone for what one doesn't see as wrong and one can't entertain the Holy Spirit yet - aged 11+) and then push on to Confirmation - which is an adult clarifying his/her desire to stay as an adherent to baptism/communion/confession/confirmation of Christianity.

4-1.

Only...haha, your one doesn't count without the prior 3!

4-0.

It's not a sacrament point score, or any of the sort. As you can see, it is a lifetime of solid preparation/education/training making one eligible to recieve and maintain the Holy Spirit. You just waltz in and click your fingers. The day after you're speaking in tongues and performing faith healings. Please. I'm being offensive if I say, "charlatan"? I don't think so.

Tell me how your 'quick fix' instantly granting supernatural powers is more believably proficient and why I'm unreasonable to suspect fraudulent claims, or...follow a life time of consecutive doctrines which rigorously and constantly prepare you to receive God, complete with initial checks, test runs, initialization and installment, updates and easter eggs. Your software never gets installed, Nick. It's a bloody virus!



Quote:
I support a much more intellectually and spiritually rewarding theology of Thomism.



"Pope Pius X cautioned that the teachings of the Church cannot be understood without the basic philosophical underpinnings of Thomas' major theses:"

Smacks of people like Ellen White. Can't seem to find anywhere that the church was founded on the teachings of scripture alone.

Found this little piece if his that helps with the understanding of freewill.

"Thomas argues that there is no contradiction between God's providence and human free will:

... just as by moving natural causes [God] does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism


Quote:
Summa Theologica



"Justification by grace comprises four elements: "the infusion of grace, the influencing of free will toward God through faith, the influencing of free will respecting sin, and the remission of sins." It is a "transmutation of the human soul," and takes place "instantaneously."

Almost sounds like being born again.


"Hence follows predestination: from eternity some are destined to eternal life"...."Since God is the first cause of everything, he is the cause of even the free acts of men through predestination. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica


"the effect of the sacraments is to infuse justifying grace into men. That which Christ effects is achieved through the sacraments."

Can't seem to find any justifying Scripture for this.


Quote:
You're talking to somebody who believes Christopher Hitchens is in Heaven



Would have to disagree there.


Quote:
I only wish it applied to John the Baptist too



Why doesn't it? Does it not seem a little as if the church has cherry picked and not stuck to Scripture alone.


Quote:
Confirmation is enough for adult recognition/declaration.



Do you not think that confirmation is just a replacement for the baptism in the Spirit and sort of evolved into that from the original baptism in the Spirit.


Quote:
it is a lifetime of solid preparation/education/training making one eligible to recieve and maintain the Holy Spirit.



I can understand your point there and also your skepticism of our 'quick fix'.

There is far too little education in the protestant system and indeed, the study of theology is even frowned upon in some circles. My wife scorns my study of theology and claims, as many Christians do that the Bible is all you need to study.

So your process of sacraments may be admirable, still trying to find Scriptural justification for them, as Thomas alluded to above, they are a bit pointless if they are administered to a dead non responsive soul, don't you think.
LxGoodies
Sprankling conversation between a catholic and a protestant, interesting (sorry I look at this from a distance Cool I'm not adhering to any "doctrine" .. )

Quote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

if you have not been born again how are you certain without doubt that you are going to heaven. That would worry me a little.



What should worry you more is that you think your pass is guaranteed and/or is best sought by telling "non-born-agains" that they have no chance. I would also worry if I held to a god whose "elect" was done and dusted before I even got the chance to partake in a Baptist ritual.


Agree with Dialogist .. I would like to add.. I'm always not certain (agnostic) and.. I don't even care about it (that's atheist actually)

(proceed, don't mind me Razz )

Lx
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
Sprankling conversation between a catholic and a protestant, interesting (sorry I look at this from a distance Cool I'm not adhering to any "doctrine" .. )

Quote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

if you have not been born again how are you certain without doubt that you are going to heaven. That would worry me a little.



What should worry you more is that you think your pass is guaranteed and/or is best sought by telling "non-born-agains" that they have no chance. I would also worry if I held to a god whose "elect" was done and dusted before I even got the chance to partake in a Baptist ritual.


Agree with Dialogist .. I would like to add.. I'm always not certain (agnostic) and.. I don't even care about it (that's atheist actually)

(proceed, don't mind me Razz )

Lx



Quote:
Agree with Dialogist



I agree with Scripture.

Jesus said it, You must be born again to see the kingdom of God. Black and white.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Smacks of people like Ellen White. Can't seem to find anywhere that the church was founded on the teachings of scripture alone.


Thomism is founded on scripture. What do you think he was writing about? Ellen White? And how can a theology be founded on scripture alone? We already have that. It's called scripture. Where everything you quoted from Angelicus differs from Calvin is that Catholicism rightly understands that predestination, no matter how obvious an attribute of omniscience requires faith to have grace in and faith cannot be computed, just as free will cannot be computed to any kind of eventual fatalism. What you were presented with there:

Quote:
He operates in each thing according to its own nature


Is something that you just can't seem to wrap your head around. "In his own likeness/nature". Operating in a thing according to its own nature. Like a talent. Or a "gift" maybe. Hmm. Where have I read this in scripture before? Oh that's right. That one single verse (Ephesians 2:8 ) which you've built your whole incorrect and completely illogical worldview upon.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Almost sounds like being born again.


No it doesn't. Being born again sounds similar to that. Until you read the "free will toward God through faith" part again and the penny drops that this particular model actually worked and still works, before "Calvin Alone" took a huge steamy dump all over it.

As I say, Thomism is based on scripture and Calvinism is based on what John Calvin doesn't like about Thomism.

Nickfyoung wrote:

"the effect of the sacraments is to infuse justifying grace into men. That which Christ effects is achieved through the sacraments."

Can't seem to find any justifying Scripture for this.


Maybe you should stop going to church and regard your baptism as irrelevant as the rest of Christianity already does. I suggest you also ignore the seven sacraments that Henry VIII stole from Thomas More and perhaps all of Luther's Sola Fide. I can't believe a layman who hands out communion doesn't believe in transubstantiation or even sacraments. Please stop doing that. You have less business doing that than you had before you said this. If that's possible.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Would have to disagree there.


Christopher Hitchens arguably did more for mankind than certain saints did. He provided the Christian with questions, comment and criticisms, some of which, only a self-analytic sense of humility could ensue from. Some Christians don't like being told they are acting improperly. Others are grateful for the reality check. Other than criticisms and insight, he provided the atheist with comfort and assurance that he wasn't alone and there was hope for them, at least in this life to find some kind of camaraderie meaning to their own sense of being. In comforting the atheist, he did something that a saint could never do. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair speaks remarkably fondly of him after Hitchens obliterated him in a debate, and the same sentiment has been echoed by many Christian apologetics after his loss. Not because "He's dead now" but because they appreciated his challenging input and also his dexterous writing. For all my arguments about moral objectivity, I honestly can't say the man could be distinguished from that of his opponent, whether Christian, Muslim or Jew. What it boils down to, and you'll discover this eventually, is that the atheist wants the same thing as you do. The same thing as Jesus wanted. He wants to save the world. This is why Chesterton was best friends with G.B. Shaw and H.G. Wells and why they had so much in common. His God, like mine, lets people in (by grace) who have showed the objective effort to go out and actually earn it. And where's the harm in telling a bunch of zealous Christians that they aren't up to scratch, really? I presume that he's sat next to Calvin.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Why doesn't it? Does it not seem a little as if the church has cherry picked and not stuck to Scripture alone.


The problem is in the scripture, itself actually. They were divinely inspired, but not divinely computed (please understand this distinction for many areas of free will concerning humans). The apostles purposefully wrote-down John the Baptist and Mary Magdalena a few pegs. Many pegs with the latter. They did this purposefully.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Do you not think that confirmation is just a replacement for the baptism in the Spirit and sort of evolved into that from the original baptism in the Spirit.


Genetically? No. See Romans 8:15. See it being around in old Judaism. It wasn't invented to counter-reform some medieval trend, if that's what you're suggesting. Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist were sacraments in the early church. St. Peter's church. It is according to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church to be the special outpouring of The Holy Spirit given to the apostles on Pentecost. What does it say in the Catechism of the Pentecostal church about this? No confirmation, huh? Aw. No Catechism either? Ho hum.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I can understand your point there and also your skepticism of our 'quick fix'.

There is far too little education in the protestant system and indeed, the study of theology is even frowned upon in some circles. My wife scorns my study of theology and claims, as many Christians do that the Bible is all you need to study.

So your process of sacraments may be admirable, still trying to find Scriptural justification for them, as Thomas alluded to above, they are a bit pointless if they are administered to a dead non responsive soul, don't you think.


I've given you scriptural justification for them, but the theology doesn't need theology of itself to be theology no more than the scripture needs scripture to verify itself.

I don't know what a dead responsible soul can or can't do. I wasn't sure a soul could die. I personally haven't been dead. I have had prayers hurried up on their way by dead people though, if that's anything to go on. You can study the Bible and evaluate it by your own intelligence. You should also ask yourself how you personally feel about because there's two different kinds of knowledge. However, there's always somebody smarter than you, and this is why we need theology. In most cases, is so that you don't run around telling every one that a Behemoth is a hippopotamus. Or that "a flat disk" looks anything close to "circular" from a front elevation or indeed the center of a 12 756.2 kilometer disk. It's basic logic that tells you this requires either a Birdseye view. It is theology that informs that this requires revelation.
LxGoodies
Nick wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:

Agree with Dialogist

I agree with Scripture.

Jesus said it, You must be born again to see the kingdom of God. Black and white.


Somehow, the catholic church must have accepted the same text.. it's the same bible isn't it ?

What do you think of this, the Greek "born again" would mean something else, "gennathei anothen"

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0022.html

Lx
Dialogist
LxGoodies wrote:
Nick wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:

Agree with Dialogist

I agree with Scripture.

Jesus said it, You must be born again to see the kingdom of God. Black and white.


Somehow, the catholic church must have accepted the same text.. it's the same bible isn't it ?

What do you think of this, the Greek "born again" would mean something else, "gennathei anothen"

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0022.html

Lx


I don't really have a problem with that article, only the author seems like he's playing apologetic to protestants. He should be genetically aware that this isn't required of him. While he's correct to say we have fullfilled the critera (4 times over, as I said before). We generally don't need to refer to it as "born again" because we consider ourselves to have been born correctly the first time. This is perhaps why they speak in gobbledygook and pass out every time somebody touches their forehead.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
Nick wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:

Agree with Dialogist

I agree with Scripture.

Jesus said it, You must be born again to see the kingdom of God. Black and white.


Somehow, the catholic church must have accepted the same text.. it's the same bible isn't it ?

What do you think of this, the Greek "born again" would mean something else, "gennathei anothen"

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0022.html

Lx


I don't really have a problem with that article, only the author seems like he's playing apologetic to protestants. He should be genetically aware that this isn't required of him. While he's correct to say we have fullfilled the critera (4 times over, as I said before). We generally don't need to refer to it as "born again" because we consider ourselves to have been born correctly the first time. This is perhaps why they speak in gobbledygook and pass out every time somebody touches their forehead.



I don't really have a problem with that article either. Scripture says , by their fruits you will know them. That doesn't mean that good works is enough on their own.

I can only speak from my own experience where it is a definite spiritual experience and feel you have missed something if you got there you way.


Quote:
his is perhaps why they speak in gobbledygook and pass out every time somebody touches their forehead.[



Have you ever experience deliverance, you may call it exorcism and do you think there is a need to.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Smacks of people like Ellen White. Can't seem to find anywhere that the church was founded on the teachings of scripture alone.


Thomism is founded on scripture. What do you think he was writing about? Ellen White? And how can a theology be founded on scripture alone? We already have that. It's called scripture. Where everything you quoted from Angelicus differs from Calvin is that Catholicism rightly understands that predestination, no matter how obvious an attribute of omniscience requires faith to have grace in and faith cannot be computed, just as free will cannot be computed to any kind of eventual fatalism. What you were presented with there:

Quote:
He operates in each thing according to its own nature


Is something that you just can't seem to wrap your head around. "In his own likeness/nature". Operating in a thing according to its own nature. Like a talent. Or a "gift" maybe. Hmm. Where have I read this in scripture before? Oh that's right. That one single verse (Ephesians 2:8 ) which you've built your whole incorrect and completely illogical worldview upon.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Almost sounds like being born again.


No it doesn't. Being born again sounds similar to that. Until you read the "free will toward God through faith" part again and the penny drops that this particular model actually worked and still works, before "Calvin Alone" took a huge steamy dump all over it.

As I say, Thomism is based on scripture and Calvinism is based on what John Calvin doesn't like about Thomism.

Nickfyoung wrote:

"the effect of the sacraments is to infuse justifying grace into men. That which Christ effects is achieved through the sacraments."

Can't seem to find any justifying Scripture for this.


Maybe you should stop going to church and regard your baptism as irrelevant as the rest of Christianity already does. I suggest you also ignore the seven sacraments that Henry VIII stole from Thomas More and perhaps all of Luther's Sola Fide. I can't believe a layman who hands out communion doesn't believe in transubstantiation or even sacraments. Please stop doing that. You have less business doing that than you had before you said this. If that's possible.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Would have to disagree there.


Christopher Hitchens arguably did more for mankind than certain saints did. He provided the Christian with questions, comment and criticisms, some of which, only a self-analytic sense of humility could ensue from. Some Christians don't like being told they are acting improperly. Others are grateful for the reality check. Other than criticisms and insight, he provided the atheist with comfort and assurance that he wasn't alone and there was hope for them, at least in this life to find some kind of camaraderie meaning to their own sense of being. In comforting the atheist, he did something that a saint could never do. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair speaks remarkably fondly of him after Hitchens obliterated him in a debate, and the same sentiment has been echoed by many Christian apologetics after his loss. Not because "He's dead now" but because they appreciated his challenging input and also his dexterous writing. For all my arguments about moral objectivity, I honestly can't say the man could be distinguished from that of his opponent, whether Christian, Muslim or Jew. What it boils down to, and you'll discover this eventually, is that the atheist wants the same thing as you do. The same thing as Jesus wanted. He wants to save the world. This is why Chesterton was best friends with G.B. Shaw and H.G. Wells and why they had so much in common. His God, like mine, lets people in (by grace) who have showed the objective effort to go out and actually earn it. And where's the harm in telling a bunch of zealous Christians that they aren't up to scratch, really? I presume that he's sat next to Calvin.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Why doesn't it? Does it not seem a little as if the church has cherry picked and not stuck to Scripture alone.


The problem is in the scripture, itself actually. They were divinely inspired, but not divinely computed (please understand this distinction for many areas of free will concerning humans). The apostles purposefully wrote-down John the Baptist and Mary Magdalena a few pegs. Many pegs with the latter. They did this purposefully.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Do you not think that confirmation is just a replacement for the baptism in the Spirit and sort of evolved into that from the original baptism in the Spirit.


Genetically? No. See Romans 8:15. See it being around in old Judaism. It wasn't invented to counter-reform some medieval trend, if that's what you're suggesting. Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist were sacraments in the early church. St. Peter's church. It is according to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church to be the special outpouring of The Holy Spirit given to the apostles on Pentecost. What does it say in the Catechism of the Pentecostal church about this? No confirmation, huh? Aw. No Catechism either? Ho hum.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I can understand your point there and also your skepticism of our 'quick fix'.

There is far too little education in the protestant system and indeed, the study of theology is even frowned upon in some circles. My wife scorns my study of theology and claims, as many Christians do that the Bible is all you need to study.

So your process of sacraments may be admirable, still trying to find Scriptural justification for them, as Thomas alluded to above, they are a bit pointless if they are administered to a dead non responsive soul, don't you think.


I've given you scriptural justification for them, but the theology doesn't need theology of itself to be theology no more than the scripture needs scripture to verify itself.

I don't know what a dead responsible soul can or can't do. I wasn't sure a soul could die. I personally haven't been dead. I have had prayers hurried up on their way by dead people though, if that's anything to go on. You can study the Bible and evaluate it by your own intelligence. You should also ask yourself how you personally feel about because there's two different kinds of knowledge. However, there's always somebody smarter than you, and this is why we need theology. In most cases, is so that you don't run around telling every one that a Behemoth is a hippopotamus. Or that "a flat disk" looks anything close to "circular" from a front elevation or indeed the center of a 12 756.2 kilometer disk. It's basic logic that tells you this requires either a Birdseye view. It is theology that informs that this requires revelation.



Quote:
And how can a theology be founded on scripture alone



Theology is the study of God. God has revealed himself through his word and nowhere else. What else can you found theology on if not Scripture.

Quote:
He operates in each thing according to its own nature


Need to read the complete quote.

'He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them;'


"Hence follows predestination: from eternity some are destined to eternal life"...."Since God is the first cause of everything, he is the cause of even the free acts of men through predestination. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica "


That is far enough for this one. these posts are getting too long.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
What else can you found theology on if not Scripture.


Ah, plurium interrogationum. Of course it is founded on scripture but the founding itself should answer your loaded question. In that it is a founding. A simple reading of scripture in epistemological terms is a series of sentences and words (semiotics). All you really have at this point is syntax but it's still dependent on a framework of linguistics (no different from any other piece of communicative text). It is the semantics that need to be rationalized to form pragmatics. We call this stage Theology. You could, as you do, assume a singular kind of existentialism (and you need to before and after the theology), but in terms of phenomenology, you're going to notice that there's 'others' sooner or later, and with intersubjectivity being what it is, it's not theology if it exists merely inside your own head.

So the short answer, is that

Wikipedia wrote:
Theology (from Ancient Greek Θεός meaning "God" and λόγος, -logy, meaning "study of") is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary.


So no offense, but nobody cares what your wife thinks.

Nickfyoung wrote:

God has revealed himself through his word and nowhere else.


Did God not reveal Himself in order have His Word recorded? Which came first? The Bible or the revelations it was written about? Did Jesus have a script? How about all the officially accepted miracles? How about your weekly exorcisms? Are you saying those are false?

The premise is faulty too, in that you haven't even got the right word of God, and yet you still claim to have found God. I mean I could explain, till I'm blue in the face how you don't even have the correct 'English' Bible. That the one you read was a monarch's play thing, and has no basis in credulity. That the theologians you cheerlead are not qualified to be "theologians" by the extremely accurate definition of Theology given above. That your 'priests' all fail in the same requirements. That your dogma, theology and sacraments are non-existent. And that all of your religion from the scripture, to the theology, to the church, to the teaching, to the practice, to overall appearance and evaluation of your "faith" alone, all share one extremely common attribute: Apathy.

Anti-intellectualism, to be exact.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
What else can you found theology on if not Scripture.


Ah, plurium interrogationum. Of course it is founded on scripture but the founding itself should answer your loaded question. In that it is a founding. A simple reading of scripture in epistemological terms is a series of sentences and words (semiotics). All you really have at this point is syntax but it's still dependent on a framework of linguistics (no different from any other piece of communicative text). It is the semantics that need to be rationalized to form pragmatics. We call this stage Theology. You could, as you do, assume a singular kind of existentialism (and you need to before and after the theology), but in terms of phenomenology, you're going to notice that there's 'others' sooner or later, and with intersubjectivity being what it is, it's not theology if it exists merely inside your own head.

So the short answer, is that

Wikipedia wrote:
Theology (from Ancient Greek Θεός meaning "God" and λόγος, -logy, meaning "study of") is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary.


So no offense, but nobody cares what your wife thinks.

Nickfyoung wrote:

God has revealed himself through his word and nowhere else.


Did God not reveal Himself in order have His Word recorded? Which came first? The Bible or the revelations it was written about? Did Jesus have a script? How about all the officially accepted miracles? How about your weekly exorcisms? Are you saying those are false?

The premise is faulty too, in that you haven't even got the right word of God, and yet you still claim to have found God. I mean I could explain, till I'm blue in the face how you don't even have the correct 'English' Bible. That the one you read was a monarch's play thing, and has no basis in credulity. That the theologians you cheerlead are not qualified to be "theologians" by the extremely accurate definition of Theology given above. That your 'priests' all fail in the same requirements. That your dogma, theology and sacraments are non-existent. And that all of your religion from the scripture, to the theology, to the church, to the teaching, to the practice, to overall appearance and evaluation of your "faith" alone, all share one extremely common attribute: Apathy.

Anti-intellectualism, to be exact.



You got theology right exactly. I would dispute the Bible thing. The version I use could be even more accurate than yours. After all, yours was just a re-translation from Latin. Mine is translating the closest original texts.

I could also debate your theologian assertion. The theologians I cheer lead are probably far more qualified than yours having the benefit of yours to add to.


Our dogma, theology and sacraments are probably non existent because they superfluous additions by tradition of your church and not necessary at the very least and damaging at best.

We are all priests, we are all saints, we don't need an puffed up ponce in a fumy suit intermediate, we have direct access to the throne room.

From all indications it would appear we have a far superior system, the right system, without all that non scriptural tradition, the added extras, the non necessary bits that are actually leading people to hell instead of vice versa, filling them full of false hope. That is a lot to answer for and she will have to answer, eventually.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

I could also debate your theologian assertion. The theologians I cheer lead are probably far more qualified than yours having the benefit of yours to add to.






Matthew 5:16: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Matthew 7:24-27 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Matthew 12:36-37: "I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."



Matthew 16:27: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done."

Matthew 19:16-21: "And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”

Matthew 24:10-20 "Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved."



Matthew 25:31-46 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All 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. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 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. For 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, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 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.' 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. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I 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.' 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?' 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.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."



Matthew 28:19-20 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Luke 8:21: "But He answered and said to them, 'My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.'"

Luke 10:25-28: "On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. 'Teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' 'What is written in the Law?' he replied. 'How do you read it?' He answered: ' "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" '; and, ' "Love your neighbor as yourself." ' 'You have answered correctly,' Jesus replied. 'Do this and you will live.'"

John 5:29: "And will come out--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."

Acts 26:20: "First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds."

Romans 2:6,7; 13: "For he will repay according to each one's deeds. To those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; for it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified."

Romans 2:16: "on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all."

Galatians 6:7b-9: "A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up."

1 Corinthians 7: 19: "Circumcision means nothing and uncircumicsion means nothing; what matters is keeping God's commandments."

1 Corinthians 10:12: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."



1 Corinthians 13:2-3: "And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."

1 Corinthians 13:13: "And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."

2 Corinthians 5:10: "For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done is his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."

Philippians 2:12b-13: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, For God is one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work."
1 Timothy 4:16: "Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you."

1 Timothy 6:18-19: "That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life."

Hebrews 10:24: "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds."

James 1:22: "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says."

James 2 "... What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ... Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? ... Ye see then how that by works a man is justified."

James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."



1 Peter 1:17: "Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one's works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning."

1 Peter 2:12: "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."

1 John 2:3-7: "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard."

Revelation 2:23: "Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

Revelation 14:12-13: "Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and hold fast to the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who from now on die in the Lord.’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘they will rest from their labours, for their deeds follow them.’ "

Revelation 20:13: "All the dead were judged according to their deeds."

Revelation 22:12: "Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds."

nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

I could also debate your theologian assertion. The theologians I cheer lead are probably far more qualified than yours having the benefit of yours to add to.






Matthew 5:16: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Matthew 7:24-27 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Matthew 12:36-37: "I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."



Matthew 16:27: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done."

Matthew 19:16-21: "And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”

Matthew 24:10-20 "Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved."



Matthew 25:31-46 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All 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. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 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. For 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, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 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.' 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. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I 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.' 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?' 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.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."



Matthew 28:19-20 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Luke 8:21: "But He answered and said to them, 'My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.'"

Luke 10:25-28: "On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. 'Teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' 'What is written in the Law?' he replied. 'How do you read it?' He answered: ' "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" '; and, ' "Love your neighbor as yourself." ' 'You have answered correctly,' Jesus replied. 'Do this and you will live.'"

John 5:29: "And will come out--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."

Acts 26:20: "First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds."

Romans 2:6,7; 13: "For he will repay according to each one's deeds. To those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; for it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified."

Romans 2:16: "on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all."

Galatians 6:7b-9: "A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up."

1 Corinthians 7: 19: "Circumcision means nothing and uncircumicsion means nothing; what matters is keeping God's commandments."

1 Corinthians 10:12: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."



1 Corinthians 13:2-3: "And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."

1 Corinthians 13:13: "And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."

2 Corinthians 5:10: "For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done is his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."

Philippians 2:12b-13: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, For God is one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work."
1 Timothy 4:16: "Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you."

1 Timothy 6:18-19: "That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life."

Hebrews 10:24: "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds."

James 1:22: "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says."

James 2 "... What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ... Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? ... Ye see then how that by works a man is justified."

James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."



1 Peter 1:17: "Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one's works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning."

1 Peter 2:12: "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."

1 John 2:3-7: "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard."

Revelation 2:23: "Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

Revelation 14:12-13: "Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and hold fast to the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who from now on die in the Lord.’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘they will rest from their labours, for their deeds follow them.’ "

Revelation 20:13: "All the dead were judged according to their deeds."

Revelation 22:12: "Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds."





Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."
Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Gal. 3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."

Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."

Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
nickfyoung
Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built?

It most obviously is not

For a run down through the Greek to show what Jesus was really saying there is an informative article at, http://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built?

It most obviously is not

For a run down through the Greek to show what Jesus was really saying there is an informative article at, http://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock



Why must you insist on being denied three times?

A rock representing a church cannot be a male rock. And on 'this rock'. I shall built my church. "Jesus is talking about Himself! It can't be Peter! Because Peter is male!" Okay, then why is Jesus calling Himself a pussy?

Matt Slick wrote:

"You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie."


Means: "Christ, He is female".

Matt. 16:18 wrote:

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church


Means: The Church, She is female.

I say to you that are Nick, and on the rock that is your head I will bounce My truth.

Matt Slick wrote:

Jesus is the rock on which the church is built.


Revelation 22:19 Means: Matt Slick is headed for Hades for promulgating this purposefully manipulated self-serving bigotry. Not because he's misunderstood it. That often happens. It is because he's willfully gone out of his way to dishonestly search into Greek translations to make the Bible (and thus Word of God) fit with his "faith". That alone, is telling, that he's took the 'initiative' to go to the trouble. Does he know what the Greek for "heretic" is? I don't, because I don't have any incentive for finding out! MOTIVE. It is your deeds that shall be judged, as Luther painfully found out just two posts above from a hobbyist apologetic with no "law" training whatsoever.

When "Slick" finds his Greek translation, and it has a feminine noun. He jumps for glee because "Peter can't be female":

Matt Slick wrote:

"You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie."


Yet seems to be male right here. The rock then, must be female? We know that, that's why we call a church a SHE, idiot. He then misogynistically attempts to conflate femininity with unreliability (for some bizarre non-sequitur about attribution). Peter denied Christ thrice, etc. Peter was unstable. Must be female! Real Slick, Matt. You must be a killer with the petra. So how does Peter having unreliable "Female" qualities make him "male" and therefore not "feminine" enough to be to the rock of the church? Is this guy dumber than a box of rocks or I am misunderstanding his "logic"?

It gets much, much worse, I'm afraid. Slick's proposition is that Jesus calls Himself a woman or his Church a she, either/or. Guess which one it has to be?

Slick then goes routing around for petros/petra in other verses (when one verse denies you, find others than that deny it, right)? Dishonesty. He fails miserably in finding anything to do with Christ being a "rock" or other inanimate objects (like the rock in front of Christ's tomb) forming any anthropomorphism of any personable individual who could satisfy the "Rock by name, Rock by nature" semantics (and thus whole entire point) of the exchange in the verse.

And why is he even telling Peter if it's got sod-all to do with Peter?

"And I say unto you that you are Peter".

Gee, thanks, why are you telling me my name, that presumably I've forgot, for no reason whatsoever, that you yourself had already changed it from Simon to Peter for a specific purpose, like you didn't do with any of the other 12?

"Because I am... shut up! You're spoiling it for the proddies"

"And I say unto you, That you Si.. PETER! And I am hungry and fancy a Cornish pasty!"

But why for art thou telling this unto me, Lord?

"Verily, verily, I say unto you. That you are Peter! And I am tired and my back hurts."

But why are you telling me this, Lord?

Oh, because you're the bloody rock, OK? Jeez. Do I have to spell everything out for you P.E.T.E.R? Petros/Petra/Rock/Church? Do I have qualify every single pun I make? Why can't you be a masculine nominative reliable apostle like Judah? And why does your name have to mean the exact same thing as the rock I want to build my church on, and her resilience against the gates of hades? Why, Peter? Why did I call you Peter personally when your name was Simon (Matt. 16:18.) and we could have avoided all this confusion. I'm supposed to be omniscient for My's sake. Why do these errors keep tripping me up. First of all, I name you Cephas (rock), then I build my Cephas on myself (creating such confusion!) And then, the world believes the Roman Catholic church managed to hoodwink this in the bible prior to the Greek translation, which it is translated from, which was originally written in Hebrew! Oh woe, is me. Now I have to think of new predestiny for WORD, all the translations of my WORD, My church and all of her faithful true believers. Note to self: Must plan ahead.

Your "theology", Nick, resembles Dan Brown, if he was like really, really, really drunk. Your logic resembles "Matt Slick" calling himself a "Christian Apologetic". If Matt Slick ever reads this, like a guy naming himself "Slick" doesn't google himself, come and see me. I have some words for you that I won't apologize for. And Nick, you'll post crap again next week, won't you? When you're stuck for something to say? As the saying goes: 3 strikes and you're out. You're officially out on this one. If I ever see this argument again, I will take it as-read that not one of the responses of mine to this claim have ever been taken as-read - by you. And I'll just regard you as either illiterate and/or suffering from acute Amnesia/Dementia or (perhaps more likely) not really ever believing any of this crap, but still just posting it anyway, when it has already been slated to pieces three times over, beyond any shadow of a doubt and you are in fact, just kicking your little legs up under your desk with glee everytime you piss somebody off enough to type this much to you. If it is the prior of the two, you have learning difficulties and help can be sought from a priest qualified enough to heal you. If it is the latter of the two (which I strongly suspect it is): I'm honestly just done looking at you.

Because yeah, I'd love a verse about Jesus saying "I say unto you that you are Dialogist! And on this Dialogue I shall speak my Word" but unfortunately, it's just not there. And I can't magick it in there. And I wouldn't try to because a) "What God meant to say" is not doable and by all accounts dangerous. b) Changing the Bible is not doable (and apparently perishable by damnation). And c) Lying to oneself is the real punishment.

No more of this.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built?

It most obviously is not

For a run down through the Greek to show what Jesus was really saying there is an informative article at, http://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock



Why must you insist on being denied three times?

A rock representing a church cannot be a male rock. And on 'this rock'. I shall built my church. "Jesus is talking about Himself! It can't be Peter! Because Peter is male!" Okay, then why is Jesus calling Himself a pussy?

Matt Slick wrote:

"You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie."


Means: "Christ, He is female".

Matt. 16:18 wrote:

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church


Means: The Church, She is female.

I say to you that are Nick, and on the rock that is your head I will bounce My truth.

Matt Slick wrote:

Jesus is the rock on which the church is built.


Revelation 22:19 Means: Matt Slick is headed for Hades for promulgating this purposefully manipulated self-serving bigotry. Not because he's misunderstood it. That often happens. It is because he's willfully gone out of his way to dishonestly search into Greek translations to make the Bible (and thus Word of God) fit with his "faith". That alone, is telling, that he's took the 'initiative' to go to the trouble. Does he know what the Greek for "heretic" is? I don't, because I don't have any incentive for finding out! MOTIVE. It is your deeds that shall be judged, as Luther painfully found out just two posts above from a hobbyist apologetic with no "law" training whatsoever.

When "Slick" finds his Greek translation, and it has a feminine noun. He jumps for glee because "Peter can't be female":

Matt Slick wrote:

"You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie."


Yet seems to be male right here. The rock then, must be female? We know that, that's why we call a church a SHE, idiot. He then misogynistically attempts to conflate femininity with unreliability (for some bizarre non-sequitur about attribution). Peter denied Christ thrice, etc. Peter was unstable. Must be female! Real Slick, Matt. You must be a killer with the petra. So how does Peter having unreliable "Female" qualities make him "male" and therefore not "feminine" enough to be to the rock of the church? Is this guy dumber than a box of rocks or I am misunderstanding his "logic"?

It gets much, much worse, I'm afraid. Slick's proposition is that Jesus calls Himself a woman or his Church a she, either/or. Guess which one it has to be?

Slick then goes routing around for petros/petra in other verses (when one verse denies you, find others than that deny it, right)? Dishonesty. He fails miserably in finding anything to do with Christ being a "rock" or other inanimate objects (like the rock in front of Christ's tomb) forming any anthropomorphism of any personable individual who could satisfy the "Rock by name, Rock by nature" semantics (and thus whole entire point) of the exchange in the verse.

And why is he even telling Peter if it's got sod-all to do with Peter?

"And I say unto you that you are Peter".

Gee, thanks, why are you telling me my name, that presumably I've forgot, for no reason whatsoever, that you yourself had already changed it from Simon to Peter for a specific purpose, like you didn't do with any of the other 12?

"Because I am... shut up! You're spoiling it for the proddies"

"And I say unto you, That you Si.. PETER! And I am hungry and fancy a Cornish pasty!"

But why for art thou telling this unto me, Lord?

"Verily, verily, I say unto you. That you are Peter! And I am tired and my back hurts."

But why are you telling me this, Lord?

Oh, because you're the bloody rock, OK? Jeez. Do I have to spell everything out for you P.E.T.E.R? Petros/Petra/Rock/Church? Do I have qualify every single pun I make? Why can't you be a masculine nominative reliable apostle like Judah? And why does your name have to mean the exact same thing as the rock I want to build my church on, and her resilience against the gates of hades? Why, Peter? Why did I call you Peter personally when your name was Simon (Matt. 16:18.) and we could have avoided all this confusion. I'm supposed to be omniscient for My's sake. Why do these errors keep tripping me up. First of all, I name you Cephas (rock), then I build my Cephas on myself (creating such confusion!) And then, the world believes the Roman Catholic church managed to hoodwink this in the bible prior to the Greek translation, which it is translated from, which was originally written in Hebrew! Oh woe, is me. Now I have to think of new predestiny for WORD, all the translations of my WORD, My church and all of her faithful true believers. Note to self: Must plan ahead.

Your "theology", Nick, resembles Dan Brown, if he was like really, really, really drunk. Your logic resembles "Matt Slick" calling himself a "Christian Apologetic". If Matt Slick ever reads this, like a guy naming himself "Slick" doesn't google himself, come and see me. I have some words for you that I won't apologize for. And Nick, you'll post crap again next week, won't you? When you're stuck for something to say? As the saying goes: 3 strikes and you're out. You're officially out on this one. If I ever see this argument again, I will take it as-read that not one of the responses of mine to this claim have ever been taken as-read - by you. And I'll just regard you as either illiterate and/or suffering from acute Amnesia/Dementia or (perhaps more likely) not really ever believing any of this crap, but still just posting it anyway, when it has already been slated to pieces three times over, beyond any shadow of a doubt and you are in fact, just kicking your little legs up under your desk with glee everytime you piss somebody off enough to type this much to you. If it is the prior of the two, you have learning difficulties and help can be sought from a priest qualified enough to heal you. If it is the latter of the two (which I strongly suspect it is): I'm honestly just done looking at you.

Because yeah, I'd love a verse about Jesus saying "I say unto you that you are Dialogist! And on this Dialogue I shall speak my Word" but unfortunately, it's just not there. And I can't magick it in there. And I wouldn't try to because a) "What God meant to say" is not doable and by all accounts dangerous. b) Changing the Bible is not doable (and apparently perishable by damnation). And c) Lying to oneself is the real punishment.

No more of this.



You can't rant and rave and ridicule and hope that it will go away. It doesn't work like that.

I could post dozens of Slicks for you and you would just say the same.

I have looked at your position and it just doesn't fit. I would be quite happy to accept it if it did. You love your church and it can do no wrong, has never done any wrong and will never do any wrong regardless of what the evidence is.


Quote:
A rock representing a church cannot be a male rock. And on 'this rock'. I shall built my church. "Jesus is talking about Himself! It can't be Peter! Because Peter is male!" Okay, then why is Jesus calling Himself a pussy?



The Greek uses male and female words referring to Peter with a male word and the rock as a female word. Two different words which you have confused together.


Quote:
Means: "Christ, He is female".



You have more sense than to make stupid statements like that. You know what he is referring to with that example. If not, read it again, carefully.


Quote:
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church


Means: The Church, She is female.[/quote]


Means the church will be build upon the rock, not Peter.



Quote:
he world believes the Roman Catholic church managed to hoodwink this in the bible prior to the Greek translation, which it is translated from, which was originally written in Hebrew!




Do you want to rethink that one.


Do realize that all you have done is ridicule and put down without presenting any logical argument. Is that how you debate, write enough nonsensical rubbish to try and hide the issue and hope it goes away.

I would love for you to refute slick with logic and reasoning and understanding. All you are doing is defending your faith by attacking every other faith.

Don't you think there is enough reason for your faith to be challenged, don't you think there was a reason the reformation happened.

A faith is OK as long as it is not blind.
Dialogist
If I dismantle his argument line for line without one single sidecrack, will this (perhaps the biggest straw-grasp I've ever seen layed claim to, including Kennedy, Roswell, 9/11, etc in my entire lifetime) please, then go away? Will you please read it? Will you please email it to "Slick" too so we can ascertain some kind intellectual responsibility? Because right now it is entirely beneath me. It the equivalent of looking at a red circle and insisting it is a blue square out of sheer belligerence. The Catholic envy should flatter me, I guess. I've always taken it for granted that Jesus founded us. Sorry? Give me the word I'll tear it down like a scholar. You don't want that, though, trust me. You want me to ridicule it because it is ridiculous and then you can just find yourself a new "Slick-man" (even his name sounds dishonest) and go about your blissful anti-intellectualism. Because me just making fun of this clown doesn't harm your faith. Me systematically taking him to pieces brings down Protestantism with it. And I'm not sure you've finished paying for those new carpets yet.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
If I dismantle his argument line for line without one single sidecrack, will this (perhaps the biggest straw-grasp I've ever seen layed claim to, including Kennedy, Roswell, 9/11, etc in my entire lifetime) please, then go away? Will you please read it? Will you please email it to "Slick" too so we can ascertain some kind intellectual responsibility? Because right now it is entirely beneath me. It the equivalent of looking at a red circle and insisting it is a blue square out of sheer belligerence. The Catholic envy should flatter me, I guess. I've always taken it for granted that Jesus founded us. Sorry? Give me the word I'll tear it down like a scholar. You don't want that, though, trust me. You want me to ridicule it because it is ridiculous and then you can just find yourself a new "Slick-man" (even his name sounds dishonest) and go about your blissful anti-intellectualism. Because me just making fun of this clown doesn't harm your faith. Me systematically taking him to pieces brings down Protestantism with it. And I'm not sure you've finished paying for those new carpets yet.



Quote:
I've always taken it for granted that Jesus founded us.



Yes, Jesus founded his church, his saints, his sons, his bride. Nothing to do with an institution.
Church means people, not institution, not buildings.

So all of us who are saved and washed by his blood are his church, founded by Jesus, kept by Jesus.

Those who have not been saved and washed by his blood, regardless if they are faithful to an institution, are not of his church and are the goats you mentioned before.

So the argument is that the protestants are the sheep and the Catholics are the goats unless they have been saved and washed by his blood as a few have.

The problem is there are many who have been disillusioned into thinking that the institution will save them and are going to get a rude shock.


Quote:
Give me the word I'll tear it down like a scholar



Tear away and see how you go but be careful, it may be the Catholic institution that crumbles.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
Nothing to do with an institution.
Church means people, not institution, not buildings.


A church is an institution of religious people, otherwise, it's just a religion (not really "just a religion", in that a religion requires a fairly definite set of doctrines, morals or teachings pertaining to a worldview concerning spirituality). A religion without an institution is merely just a personal musing. When a person calls themselves "a [title]" they enlist themselves in that respective institutionalism. So in that a person can oppose "the church" without ever visiting a building or opposing its people, a church definitely requires an institution. An institution is a structure of social order governing the behavior of a set of individuals within a given community. Clearly institutions have different sets of principals so let's look at how your institution differs to mine.

Unwelcome comparisons of my institution could be made with that of a penal institution, were sinners go to repent and succumb to a higher power, for penance for a transgression of ubiquitous law, and that it unfortunately sometimes shares real estate with sex offenders and crooks. One can be on house arrest/curfew or community service, and never attend the building, and still be considered an "inmate". Meaning that, institutionalized racism doesn't depend on a club house, uniform, or name tag to still be an indoctrinated institution.

Unwelcome comparisons of your institution could be made with that of a mental institution, were the deranged go to be restrained by a higher power, who often foam at the mouth, claim to harness special powers, speaking in gibberish and lapsing consciousness between rapture and exorcism. The admitted can sometimes just voice extremely absurd views or claims pertaining to ones own perception of reality. They can be in private care or a secured single padded unit, or deferred to a drip in a nursing home and never attend the brick and mortar asylum, and still be considered a patient.

Nickfyoung wrote:

So all of us who are saved and washed by his blood are his church, founded by Jesus, kept by Jesus.

Those who have not been saved and washed by his blood, regardless if they are faithful to an institution, are not of his church and are the goats you mentioned before.

So the argument is that...


The argument is that we can infer BC Judea ritual whenever it suits us pertaining to genetic arguments against organized religion, in order to champion medieval trends which came out in the 17th Century, in order to claim the true authenticity of a singular and errantly befuddled and laboriously manipulated hegemony of Jesus Christ, which still owes its entire framework to the Catholic Church (minus one not so shrinking point about Jesus changing Peter's name to rock in the first place and then referring specifically to it, requesting his attention, to use "rock/Peter" as a preempt to presumably inform Peter (for no apparent reason) that Christ has now decided (out of the blue) that it is He that is "a rock" umm, too). Blow it out of your arse?

I'm going to wipe the floor with Slick later on. I have to digest food first, and I'd like to keep it down.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Nothing to do with an institution.
Church means people, not institution, not buildings.


A church is an institution of religious people, otherwise, it's just a religion (not really "just a religion", in that a religion requires a fairly definite set of doctrines, morals or teachings pertaining to a worldview concerning spirituality). A religion without an institution is merely just a personal musing. When a person calls themselves "a [title]" they enlist themselves in that respective institutionalism. So in that a person can oppose "the church" without ever visiting a building or opposing its people, a church definitely requires an institution. An institution is a structure of social order governing the behavior of a set of individuals within a given community. Clearly institutions have different sets of principals so let's look at how your institution differs to mine.

Unwelcome comparisons of my institution could be made with that of a penal institution, were sinners go to repent and succumb to a higher power, for penance for a transgression of ubiquitous law, and that it unfortunately sometimes shares real estate with sex offenders and crooks. One can be on house arrest/curfew or community service, and never attend the building, and still be considered an "inmate". Meaning that, institutionalized racism doesn't depend on a club house, uniform, or name tag to still be an indoctrinated institution.

Unwelcome comparisons of your institution could be made with that of a mental institution, were the deranged go to be restrained by a higher power, who often foam at the mouth, claim to harness special powers, speaking in gibberish and lapsing consciousness between rapture and exorcism. The admitted can sometimes just voice extremely absurd views or claims pertaining to ones own perception of reality. They can be in private care or a secured single padded unit, or deferred to a drip in a nursing home and never attend the brick and mortar asylum, and still be considered a patient.

Nickfyoung wrote:

So all of us who are saved and washed by his blood are his church, founded by Jesus, kept by Jesus.

Those who have not been saved and washed by his blood, regardless if they are faithful to an institution, are not of his church and are the goats you mentioned before.

So the argument is that...


The argument is that we can infer BC Judea ritual whenever it suits us pertaining to genetic arguments against organized religion, in order to champion medieval trends which came out in the 17th Century, in order to claim the true authenticity of a singular and errantly befuddled and laboriously manipulated hegemony of Jesus Christ, which still owes its entire framework to the Catholic Church (minus one not so shrinking point about Jesus changing Peter's name to rock in the first place and then referring specifically to it, requesting his attention, to use "rock/Peter" as a preempt to presumably inform Peter (for no apparent reason) that Christ has now decided (out of the blue) that it is He that is "a rock" umm, too). Blow it out of your arse?

I'm going to wipe the floor with Slick later on. I have to digest food first, and I'd like to keep it down.



Quote:
A church is an institution of religious people



"The word "church" literally means "those called out," and often means an assembly or congregation. See Acts 19:32, Greek; Acts 7:38. It is applied to Christians as being "called out" from the world. It means sometimes the whole body of believers, Ephesians 1:22; 1 Corinthians 10:32."http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm


I think you will find that the meaning for church when Jesus used it was a body of believers. This was referring to believers or Christians specifically and it has now grown to represent an institution of religious people, not necessarily believers or Christians. Changed some what.


Quote:
were sinners go to repent and succumb to a higher power,



This probably is the main difference. We don't go to church to do that. We teach that one can do that, as the bible teaches, directly to God. We don't need an institution to intermediate.


A Christian does not claim to be religious. Organized religion was frowned upon by Jesus. I wonder how he would react if he walked into a Catholic church today and indeed, many other churches.


Your absolute contempt for Protestantism comes through in your postings as does your absolute blind faith in the infallibility of your church. I have faithfully and honestly portrayed to you some of the church styles within Protestantism and you have just added that to your arsenal of ridicule.

The Catholic church is just as ridicules to me but I don't go on about it to you.

I respect your respect for your church. That respect to me is misguided but I don't make issue out of it. I prefer to just discuss the differing points from a scriptural point of view and then if we have to we can agree to disagree.

From my point of view my faith is just a legitimate as yours and you should respect that.
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
From my point of view my faith is just a legitimate as yours and you should respect that.

I only see it important to respect a persons right to have faith, the faith itself deserves no particular respect as far as I'm concerned.
Although if you were to ask me do I think Dialogists zealous brand of vociferous defence for Catholic dogma helps his church attract any new members, my answer would be probably not Laughing
nickfyoung
watersoul wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
From my point of view my faith is just a legitimate as yours and you should respect that.

I only see it important to respect a persons right to have faith, the faith itself deserves no particular respect as far as I'm concerned.
Although if you were to ask me do I think Dialogists zealous brand of vociferous defence for Catholic dogma helps his church attract any new members, my answer would be probably not Laughing



Just that we are debating two differing faiths, we each believe ours to be more correct than the others. It just seems to make a more affable debate when we each respect each others faith.

I respect his believe more so because he is so zealous in it's defense. I respect the fact that he has a strong attachment to his faith and a strong love for his church. That certainly comes through but unfortunately so does his distaste for anything with a differing view.
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
That certainly comes through but unfortunately so does his distaste for anything with a differing view.

Thats faith I guess, N.Ireland, Middle East, certainly lots of passion and blood in religious circles around the world. I read the term 'proddy' in posts here at Frihost and it reminds me of a ranting Irish Catholic family who lived in my street as a kid and used the label with contempt.
I don't believe in any gods/spirits/ghosts/pixies/etc, having seen nothing ever in my life to convince me otherwise but I do not expect particular respect for my stance, just the right to form my own opinion. I have that here on Frihost and hope the often angry religious rants in response to my posts help many others form their own reasoned opinion.
nickfyoung
watersoul wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
That certainly comes through but unfortunately so does his distaste for anything with a differing view.

Thats faith I guess, N.Ireland, Middle East, certainly lots of passion and blood in religious circles around the world. I read the term 'proddy' in posts here at Frihost and it reminds me of a ranting Irish Catholic family who lived in my street as a kid and used the label with contempt.
I don't believe in any gods/spirits/ghosts/pixies/etc, having seen nothing ever in my life to convince me otherwise but I do not expect particular respect for my stance, just the right to form my own opinion. I have that here on Frihost and hope the often angry religious rants in response to my posts help many others form their own reasoned opinion.



Quote:
I don't believe in any gods/spirits/ghosts/pixies/etc, having seen nothing ever in my life to convince me otherwise



Very understandable position. It is a shame when one's faith is ridiculed especially when it is based on interaction with 'gods/spirits/ghosts/pixies/etc'. That interaction is often labelled as delusion just because one hasn't had a similar interaction.

There is a difference between an interaction with a spiritual realm and just blind faith.
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
watersoul wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
That certainly comes through but unfortunately so does his distaste for anything with a differing view.

Thats faith I guess, N.Ireland, Middle East, certainly lots of passion and blood in religious circles around the world. I read the term 'proddy' in posts here at Frihost and it reminds me of a ranting Irish Catholic family who lived in my street as a kid and used the label with contempt.
I don't believe in any gods/spirits/ghosts/pixies/etc, having seen nothing ever in my life to convince me otherwise but I do not expect particular respect for my stance, just the right to form my own opinion. I have that here on Frihost and hope the often angry religious rants in response to my posts help many others form their own reasoned opinion.



Quote:
I don't believe in any gods/spirits/ghosts/pixies/etc, having seen nothing ever in my life to convince me otherwise



Very understandable position. It is a shame when one's faith is ridiculed especially when it is based on interaction with 'gods/spirits/ghosts/pixies/etc'. That interaction is often labelled as delusion just because one hasn't had a similar interaction.

There is a difference between an interaction with a spiritual realm and just blind faith.


I had clients with paranoid schizophrenia some years ago, one chap was in a secure unit after stabbing his mother multiple times in the stomach. He told me he believed he was stabbing the demon inside his mother at the time, trying to save her after the voice told him to.
Thats an extreme example, but the magic voices and demon thing shares attributes with many faiths so I see the delusional accusations.
I personally prefer to say, haven't experienced it myself so don't believe it, I doubt it but cannot say absolutely X or Y is not true...it's an honest position.

Going back to the topic I presume it's established that I do not believe in any devils.
Regarding 'sin' though, depends on if it's meant as something only a god can instruct or generally as something a society considers a crime or otherwise unkind.

Lets assume a 'sin' is something immoral yeh.
I don't see how an alleged gods instruction can automatically be moral when there are so many argually immoral dictates in different faiths holy books in history.

I do see many examples of people who do not believe in gods following good kind lives just because that stuff makes the world nice if we all do it.
We all share the same things we like happening to us and the things we don't - not hard to figure out without a deity to worry about.

If one looks at 'sin' as something special, then yep it exists in the particular faith it's important to - Outside of that I consider it essentially just a religious term to describe their specific religious type of 'bad thing' they don't like happening to them.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

Tear away and see how you go but be careful, it may be the Catholic institution that crumbles.


Matt Slick wrote:

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built?


Yes, as I shall attempt to show.

Matt Slick wrote:

by Matt Slick

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18 ).

The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.

Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).
"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm).

The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).


The basic a priori of the semantics of the entire passage has a very definite exchange of possessive pronoun, attribution and relationship. The obvious understanding at this point is that Peter is the rock that Christ has chosen to build his church upon. Not just by the consecutive affirmations of what this appointment entails concerning administration of keys to salvation, but especially in the exchange of naming before the appointment. Jesus takes a man named Simon Bajona and changes his name to Peter (which means "rock"). Slick does not dispute this claim. Slick does not explain why Jesus chooses to do this, and cannot explain that. Slick also cannot take comfort in the back-and-fourth exchange of the naming, such as "You are Christ" relating to "And I say to you that you Peter", when Peter was clearly not Simon Bajona's name. Slick is no disagreement that Peter means "rock" and that "On this rock I shall build my church" offers a logical, semantic and congenial explanation for both the naming of Simon Bajona to Peter (Rock) and also the reference to the "rock" on which Christ's church shall be built. The Catholic Church has an unassailable claim, at this point, that Peter was indeed the rock on which Christ built His church upon.

Matt Slick wrote:

There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (p?t???, petros) and upon this rock (p?t?a, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress.


It is not similar to the English words "actor" and "actress" which derive gender from the already established empirical gender of the stage performer it describes, rather than using a noun to prescribe gender to that stage performer, based upon whether we would like them to be female because we have already called them actresses. This is basic semiotics. It is similar (exactly the same as) the Latin word "Pencillus" which has a masculine form yet in no way suggests that Pencils are actually male, or that we should deny that our English "Pencil" is any less of a "Pencil" because it is a "movable" singular entity of the collective of Pencils (plural) or that its ability to be "a pencil" is in any way tarnished by its etymological nominative identity being derived from "Pencillus".

Matt Slick wrote:

The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine.


Petra isn't feminine. Petra is plural or collective. Rock and Rock(s). Since a body of rock has no plural until it becomes fragmented, the singular is actually the plural causing the anomaly. The Rock of Gibraltar for example has many rocks on it. But we don't (and can't) refer to the plural in the plural form but only the singular. Hence the Rock of Gibraltar. While Petros is masculine, pencils don't infer sexuality in terms of pragmatics or anthropomorphism and a packet of pencils is not "Pencil" in the same way that "rocks" are "rock". Please see: Plurale tantum for "a scissor" or "a clothe" if agree with Slick's chosen avenue of argumentation.

If we are to completely forget semantic structure of the passage, complete with the exchanges in identifying one another, and Jesus re-identifying Simon as Peter for the purpose of the "rock" metaphor, at this point (which we are being begged to by Slick) we are requested to believe that Peter is merely a rock erosion of the body of Christ. In terms of providence, Christians, Catholics or otherwise, never for one minute question this. What they claim (quite rationally, as it seems as clearly rational as the nose on one's face), is that Peter is the Rock that Christ did build his church upon, complete with keys, Rock puns and salvation/damnation promises.

Matt Slick wrote:

Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros.


Perhaps because the Greek nouns have a masculine form and Peter was a man and the Greeks had prettier names for females that didn't infer masculine nouns? Not that the Greek matters one Iota, as I will get to.

Matt Slick wrote:

But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra."


Again, there's no female nominative stipulated, only a masculine one in which we would be rational to presume has a feminine counterpart. A body (such as a church, an institution, a ship, country, a rock, etc) is commonly referred to as "She" even in English. If the etymology of English is congruent with Greek, then perhaps they did too? I haven't checked this, but I feel it is an elementary point anyway, as the Greek doesn't matter, as I say, as I will get to.

Matt Slick wrote:

Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood?


I see how using semantics can influence how a sentence should be understood, yes. But as I said above, there is accidental misunderstandings and purposeful trickery. An actress is not the same as a body of rock which is not denoted from the actual sexuality of a object with an actual gender. If anything, it supports the argument about the church being a "She".

Matt Slick wrote:

Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else.


This is unsupported and somewhat of a leap of faith. Slick hasn't established a female noun, and we have no evidence of one. If one is be sought it would need be sought for; in the atypical anti-Occam's razor approach of his whole argument. Such an example of a female noun can only be found in the "Church" herself, in regards to the criteria of the content of the sentence. Rock and Church, meaning, as they were clearly intended, to mean the same thing.

Matt Slick wrote:

What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?


The Church. The Petros of Peter and the Petra of the Church are both inferred in the single usage of the word "Rock" only once. The word "Rock" appears only once as opposed to "Peter" in the English reading. But in the standard semantics of the original verse, we are looking at:

"You are Kephas and on this kephas I will build My Church."

Which has no anomaly whatsoever. But I will relish getting to this part.

Matt Slick wrote:

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."


Slick needs the parenthesis to convolute a perfectly rational verse which only stays broken with them added. Even after his Greek translations.

Matt Slick wrote:

Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."


"In the rock" (Petra) again with the plural/collective not feminine.

Matt Slick wrote:

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."


There is no such thing as "Petras". Slick has invented this word. Petra meaning Christ should either bear a similar respect to masculine noun or in the least, just infer that Christ is the overall origin (Which nobody ever doubts). "My" Church. etc.

Matt Slick wrote:

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular;


Oh, now it is a nominative singular? As opposed to female?

Matt Slick wrote:

"petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:Cool. Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?


We should trust the word of Peter over Christ, yes. That is why we call ourselves Peterians? Using the errancy of Peter's character to deny the inerracy of Jesus' Word is quite an interesting avenue of appeal. But it's not one that either of us are clearly serious about with respects to this argument.

Matt Slick wrote:

In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:

Petros:
Petros, "p?t???, a stone, distinguished from p?t?a (Source: Liddell, H., 1996. A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
Petros, ??t???, Peter, meaning stone. The masc. of the fem. pétra (4073), a massive rock or cliff.” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, electronic ed., G4074, Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993).
Petros, ??t???, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
Petra:
Petra, p?t?a , Ion. and Ep. p?t??, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, p?t?a is a fixed rock, p?t??? a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
Petra, p?t?a , (4073) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved." Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell)
Petra, p?t?a, a?, ? (1) literally, living rock, bedrock (MT 7.24), in contrast to p?t??? (isolated stone); (Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker's Greek New Testament library, 311, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000).
Petra, p?t?a, noun feminine; = bedrock, (James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed., GGK4376 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
Petros & Petros
p?t?a petra; a prim. word; a (large mass of) rock:— rock(10), rocks(3), rocky(2). ??t??? Petros, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
"On this rock (?p? ta?t? t? p?t??). The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (p?t???, above)." (Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 1:91, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002).
Petros, "p?t???, a stone, distinguished from p?t?a. Petra, p?t?a , Ion. and Ep. p?t??, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, p?t?a is a fixed rock, p?t??? a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)


More Greek, that is entirely irrelevant to the "original" meaning of this verse.

Matt Slick wrote:

A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.


Reason 2 why we should believe Peter's word over the Word of Christ?

Matt Slick wrote:

Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built.


No, he clearly was, as the before and after, renaming of Peter to: use the pun/metaphor pertaining Cephas/Petros/Peter to build the church upon and the later designation of keys and kindgoms proves. One could argue that, "You are Peter - and on this name-change I shall built my pun upon" makes absolutely no sense if Christ is talking about himself. Nor does the reply of "You are Peter" in response to "You are Christ", nor does the metaphor of "Rock" in the same sentence as Simon-Peter's name-change, making any sense whatsoever, unless Christ builds His Church upon Peter.

Matt Slick wrote:

Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16).


You don't affirm things with pointless name-changes that happen to have exactly the same meaning as Rock, nor infer the name change mid-affirmation for no reason. It makes absolutely no logical sense. It is purely grasping at straws.

Matt Slick wrote:

This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.


A convincing argument of a priori doesn't need to go routing around for a posteriori supporting material to back up ones self-admittedly unsupported (in the very act of searching for them) "claims". Yet it does so anyway, and speaks volumes:

Matt Slick wrote:

Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."


We've established that "Rock" has also been used to refer to Jesus, congratulations. It still does not work in the verse mentioned for all of the reasons stated. Bonus points are to awarded for Psalm 18:31 (which is true "zinger") but however, Nobody is a "rock" expect our God (and Petros) apparently.

Matt Slick wrote:

It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.


What is "obvious" is that it was Peter. This is what everyone has found "obvious" for centuries. Whether or not that is true, is not related to about what is "obvious". It is "obvious" that Peter was the rock that the Church was built upon. It required no deep searching of Greek texts (which are irrelevant) and it required no obtrusion of understanding. While it makes for plausibly interesting sophistry, it seems a little bit contrived, convoluted and illogical and the "straight of the box" model, works perfectly, congenially and complimentary, to itself. This version however, does not. There is nothing "obvious" about Slick's assertion. It requires suspension of disbelief, extensive reading and research and a frivolous approach to chronological logic. I'm afraid in the case of pure parsimony or economy, regardless of deeply held "beliefs", one cannot afford Slick such an expensive proposition.

Matt Slick wrote:

The Aramaic Kepha


Thank God. Finally.

Matt Slick wrote:

In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'." The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek.


That is problematic isn't it? In that the Greek was derived from the Aramaic?

Matt Slick wrote:

Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position.


Saint Jerome did have access to the Aramaic text when he translated the Sacra Vulgata. This is a well known fact. Is is all a well known fact that translator skills where stupendous for a man without google translator, many books or translator tools to get the job. The fact that Saint Jerome did have access to Aramaic texts and wrote the Latin Vulgate before any English translations were formed, and the Catholic Church uses the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible, which was the Douay-Rheims, which was written before any Protestant or English bible. It was completed in 1609, making it older than the KJV, which was not published until 1611. The fact that the Rheims New Testament was published in 1582 meant that it appeared almost thirty years before the KJV New Testament. The Douay-Rheims is the Latin Vulgate in English, originally translated by Saint Jerome from the Greek and the Aramaic. So yes, it is proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position, because they are in fact holding that proof in their very hands.

Matt Slick wrote:

We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the Aramaic text.


Because they have it, as I have proved.

Matt Slick wrote:

Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?


You can sense here, from Slick's defensiveness that he knows that something is improper here. Yet he's not sure if the survival of Aramaic text can save him, so he's turning to ad hominem of the Catholic Church to project his dishonesty on to his opponent. Stawman are usually beneficial, but sometimes they portray more about the weakness in ones argument that would one like to reveal. So let's infer some Aramaic text that we don't have, anyway? Seems plausible:

Matt Slick wrote:

Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.


Strange isn't it? Is it strange that Slick knows about what names we have in Aramaic and what names we don't? It's strange that Slick knows more than he's letting on.

Matt Slick wrote:

"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kephás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....


Simon who?

Matt Slick wrote:

The translation supports the view that Kephás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."1


So the Greeks made up Peter all together?

Sudden Conclusion:

Matt Slick wrote:

Jesus is the rock on which the church is built


Deary me.

You forgot a part, Slick:

In Aramaic, nouns do not have the same gender as they do in Greek. Is this why it wasn't proper to "look into texts that we do not have"? What we do have is Bible scholars who speak Aramaic and Hebrew and in semitic languages nouns do not have a neuter gender as they do in Greek. Aramaic only has two genders, and not three in Greek. Spanish and French are the same. Two sexes only and not always; there are two grammatical genders: masculine and feminine. These "genders" have no attributional consistency with the referent's sex, and so a noun that is grammatically feminine can be used to describe a man, and a noun that is grammatically masculine can be used to describe a woman.

Mark Twain wrote:

Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl.


Poor Petros.

So basically, the gender specific rules Slick applies to Greek are not consistent (don't work whatsoever due to lack of neuter) in the Aramaic that the Greek was translated from. This is why Slick is cagey about dealing with the Aramaic texts, not because he cannot find them, and he knows Saint Jerome could but because he knows the neuter gender forms of nouns in Aramaic does not exist. And that's when he concluded his argument. With the affirmation: "Jesus is the rock on which the church is built". Which is not qualified, I'm afraid. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, it is impossible that the Greek could translate genders which could not have existed in Aramaic, and therefore Slick has no argument whatsoever, other than defending himself against the facts, which are stated clearly above, concerning the structure and attribution within the verse.

Matt Slick wrote:

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him.


To make sure His Truth doesn't say anything we don't like.

Matt Slick wrote:

We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built.


Amen.

Matt Slick wrote:

The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.


Wishful thinking and impossible. As I have proved.

Matt Slick wrote:

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11 ).


Cor. 3:12-15 wrote:

12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.


And that's the problem with convenient cherry picking. Good luck, Slick.
watersoul
Lol, I'll leave you to that Nick, I've contributed my views on 'sin' but I'm not really interested in which translation or interpretation may or may not have failed, however long ago in the murky past of religious writings, it proves nothing due to unreliable evidence...if it's even on-topic.

The way I see it, the more unknown bits there are in historical writings, the less reliability we can award the 'evidence'.
Is the testimony of the 'keepers of the scripts' absolutely true?
No vested interests with anyone involved?
Nobody part of some big lie which benefits them to conceal?
Lol, thats why I leave the 'my ancient unprovable text is more true than yours' comments alone usually.

...media and personal public expression was pretty controlled back in the day so I would have to doubt the assertions of any of it in the limited copies existing currently.
If one sees it as a way to 'prove' sin as something special in this topic they would have to see the holes in the argument that one assumes the parchments/scrolls (or whatever) correctly represent the truth of the times Rolling Eyes
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

Tear away and see how you go but be careful, it may be the Catholic institution that crumbles.


Matt Slick wrote:

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built?


Yes, as I shall attempt to show.

Matt Slick wrote:

by Matt Slick

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18 ).

The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.

Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).
"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm).

The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).


The basic a priori of the semantics of the entire passage has a very definite exchange of possessive pronoun, attribution and relationship. The obvious understanding at this point is that Peter is the rock that Christ has chosen to build his church upon. Not just by the consecutive affirmations of what this appointment entails concerning administration of keys to salvation, but especially in the exchange of naming before the appointment. Jesus takes a man named Simon Bajona and changes his name to Peter (which means "rock"). Slick does not dispute this claim. Slick does not explain why Jesus chooses to do this, and cannot explain that. Slick also cannot take comfort in the back-and-fourth exchange of the naming, such as "You are Christ" relating to "And I say to you that you Peter", when Peter was clearly not Simon Bajona's name. Slick is no disagreement that Peter means "rock" and that "On this rock I shall build my church" offers a logical, semantic and congenial explanation for both the naming of Simon Bajona to Peter (Rock) and also the reference to the "rock" on which Christ's church shall be built. The Catholic Church has an unassailable claim, at this point, that Peter was indeed the rock on which Christ built His church upon.

Matt Slick wrote:

There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (p?t???, petros) and upon this rock (p?t?a, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress.


It is not similar to the English words "actor" and "actress" which derive gender from the already established empirical gender of the stage performer it describes, rather than using a noun to prescribe gender to that stage performer, based upon whether we would like them to be female because we have already called them actresses. This is basic semiotics. It is similar (exactly the same as) the Latin word "Pencillus" which has a masculine form yet in no way suggests that Pencils are actually male, or that we should deny that our English "Pencil" is any less of a "Pencil" because it is a "movable" singular entity of the collective of Pencils (plural) or that its ability to be "a pencil" is in any way tarnished by its etymological nominative identity being derived from "Pencillus".

Matt Slick wrote:

The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine.


Petra isn't feminine. Petra is plural or collective. Rock and Rock(s). Since a body of rock has no plural until it becomes fragmented, the singular is actually the plural causing the anomaly. The Rock of Gibraltar for example has many rocks on it. But we don't (and can't) refer to the plural in the plural form but only the singular. Hence the Rock of Gibraltar. While Petros is masculine, pencils don't infer sexuality in terms of pragmatics or anthropomorphism and a packet of pencils is not "Pencil" in the same way that "rocks" are "rock". Please see: Plurale tantum for "a scissor" or "a clothe" if agree with Slick's chosen avenue of argumentation.

If we are to completely forget semantic structure of the passage, complete with the exchanges in identifying one another, and Jesus re-identifying Simon as Peter for the purpose of the "rock" metaphor, at this point (which we are being begged to by Slick) we are requested to believe that Peter is merely a rock erosion of the body of Christ. In terms of providence, Christians, Catholics or otherwise, never for one minute question this. What they claim (quite rationally, as it seems as clearly rational as the nose on one's face), is that Peter is the Rock that Christ did build his church upon, complete with keys, Rock puns and salvation/damnation promises.

Matt Slick wrote:

Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros.


Perhaps because the Greek nouns have a masculine form and Peter was a man and the Greeks had prettier names for females that didn't infer masculine nouns? Not that the Greek matters one Iota, as I will get to.

Matt Slick wrote:

But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra."


Again, there's no female nominative stipulated, only a masculine one in which we would be rational to presume has a feminine counterpart. A body (such as a church, an institution, a ship, country, a rock, etc) is commonly referred to as "She" even in English. If the etymology of English is congruent with Greek, then perhaps they did too? I haven't checked this, but I feel it is an elementary point anyway, as the Greek doesn't matter, as I say, as I will get to.

Matt Slick wrote:

Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood?


I see how using semantics can influence how a sentence should be understood, yes. But as I said above, there is accidental misunderstandings and purposeful trickery. An actress is not the same as a body of rock which is not denoted from the actual sexuality of a object with an actual gender. If anything, it supports the argument about the church being a "She".

Matt Slick wrote:

Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else.


This is unsupported and somewhat of a leap of faith. Slick hasn't established a female noun, and we have no evidence of one. If one is be sought it would need be sought for; in the atypical anti-Occam's razor approach of his whole argument. Such an example of a female noun can only be found in the "Church" herself, in regards to the criteria of the content of the sentence. Rock and Church, meaning, as they were clearly intended, to mean the same thing.

Matt Slick wrote:

What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?


The Church. The Petros of Peter and the Petra of the Church are both inferred in the single usage of the word "Rock" only once. The word "Rock" appears only once as opposed to "Peter" in the English reading. But in the standard semantics of the original verse, we are looking at:

"You are Kephas and on this kephas I will build My Church."

Which has no anomaly whatsoever. But I will relish getting to this part.

Matt Slick wrote:

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."


Slick needs the parenthesis to convolute a perfectly rational verse which only stays broken with them added. Even after his Greek translations.

Matt Slick wrote:

Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."


"In the rock" (Petra) again with the plural/collective not feminine.

Matt Slick wrote:

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."


There is no such thing as "Petras". Slick has invented this word. Petra meaning Christ should either bear a similar respect to masculine noun or in the least, just infer that Christ is the overall origin (Which nobody ever doubts). "My" Church. etc.

Matt Slick wrote:

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular;


Oh, now it is a nominative singular? As opposed to female?

Matt Slick wrote:

"petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:Cool. Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?


We should trust the word of Peter over Christ, yes. That is why we call ourselves Peterians? Using the errancy of Peter's character to deny the inerracy of Jesus' Word is quite an interesting avenue of appeal. But it's not one that either of us are clearly serious about with respects to this argument.

Matt Slick wrote:

In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:

Petros:
Petros, "p?t???, a stone, distinguished from p?t?a (Source: Liddell, H., 1996. A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
Petros, ??t???, Peter, meaning stone. The masc. of the fem. pétra (4073), a massive rock or cliff.” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, electronic ed., G4074, Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993).
Petros, ??t???, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
Petra:
Petra, p?t?a , Ion. and Ep. p?t??, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, p?t?a is a fixed rock, p?t??? a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
Petra, p?t?a , (4073) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved." Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell)
Petra, p?t?a, a?, ? (1) literally, living rock, bedrock (MT 7.24), in contrast to p?t??? (isolated stone); (Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker's Greek New Testament library, 311, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000).
Petra, p?t?a, noun feminine; = bedrock, (James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed., GGK4376 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
Petros & Petros
p?t?a petra; a prim. word; a (large mass of) rock:— rock(10), rocks(3), rocky(2). ??t??? Petros, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
"On this rock (?p? ta?t? t? p?t??). The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (p?t???, above)." (Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 1:91, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002).
Petros, "p?t???, a stone, distinguished from p?t?a. Petra, p?t?a , Ion. and Ep. p?t??, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, p?t?a is a fixed rock, p?t??? a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)


More Greek, that is entirely irrelevant to the "original" meaning of this verse.

Matt Slick wrote:

A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.


Reason 2 why we should believe Peter's word over the Word of Christ?

Matt Slick wrote:

Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built.


No, he clearly was, as the before and after, renaming of Peter to: use the pun/metaphor pertaining Cephas/Petros/Peter to build the church upon and the later designation of keys and kindgoms proves. One could argue that, "You are Peter - and on this name-change I shall built my pun upon" makes absolutely no sense if Christ is talking about himself. Nor does the reply of "You are Peter" in response to "You are Christ", nor does the metaphor of "Rock" in the same sentence as Simon-Peter's name-change, making any sense whatsoever, unless Christ builds His Church upon Peter.

Matt Slick wrote:

Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16).


You don't affirm things with pointless name-changes that happen to have exactly the same meaning as Rock, nor infer the name change mid-affirmation for no reason. It makes absolutely no logical sense. It is purely grasping at straws.

Matt Slick wrote:

This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.


A convincing argument of a priori doesn't need to go routing around for a posteriori supporting material to back up ones self-admittedly unsupported (in the very act of searching for them) "claims". Yet it does so anyway, and speaks volumes:

Matt Slick wrote:

Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."


We've established that "Rock" has also been used to refer to Jesus, congratulations. It still does not work in the verse mentioned for all of the reasons stated. Bonus points are to awarded for Psalm 18:31 (which is true "zinger") but however, Nobody is a "rock" expect our God (and Petros) apparently.

Matt Slick wrote:

It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.


What is "obvious" is that it was Peter. This is what everyone has found "obvious" for centuries. Whether or not that is true, is not related to about what is "obvious". It is "obvious" that Peter was the rock that the Church was built upon. It required no deep searching of Greek texts (which are irrelevant) and it required no obtrusion of understanding. While it makes for plausibly interesting sophistry, it seems a little bit contrived, convoluted and illogical and the "straight of the box" model, works perfectly, congenially and complimentary, to itself. This version however, does not. There is nothing "obvious" about Slick's assertion. It requires suspension of disbelief, extensive reading and research and a frivolous approach to chronological logic. I'm afraid in the case of pure parsimony or economy, regardless of deeply held "beliefs", one cannot afford Slick such an expensive proposition.

Matt Slick wrote:

The Aramaic Kepha


Thank God. Finally.

Matt Slick wrote:

In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'." The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek.


That is problematic isn't it? In that the Greek was derived from the Aramaic?

Matt Slick wrote:

Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position.


Saint Jerome did have access to the Aramaic text when he translated the Sacra Vulgata. This is a well known fact. Is is all a well known fact that translator skills where stupendous for a man without google translator, many books or translator tools to get the job. The fact that Saint Jerome did have access to Aramaic texts and wrote the Latin Vulgate before any English translations were formed, and the Catholic Church uses the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible, which was the Douay-Rheims, which was written before any Protestant or English bible. It was completed in 1609, making it older than the KJV, which was not published until 1611. The fact that the Rheims New Testament was published in 1582 meant that it appeared almost thirty years before the KJV New Testament. The Douay-Rheims is the Latin Vulgate in English, originally translated by Saint Jerome from the Greek and the Aramaic. So yes, it is proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position, because they are in fact holding that proof in their very hands.

Matt Slick wrote:

We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the Aramaic text.


Because they have it, as I have proved.

Matt Slick wrote:

Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?


You can sense here, from Slick's defensiveness that he knows that something is improper here. Yet he's not sure if the survival of Aramaic text can save him, so he's turning to ad hominem of the Catholic Church to project his dishonesty on to his opponent. Stawman are usually beneficial, but sometimes they portray more about the weakness in ones argument that would one like to reveal. So let's infer some Aramaic text that we don't have, anyway? Seems plausible:

Matt Slick wrote:

Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.


Strange isn't it? Is it strange that Slick knows about what names we have in Aramaic and what names we don't? It's strange that Slick knows more than he's letting on.

Matt Slick wrote:

"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kephás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....


Simon who?

Matt Slick wrote:

The translation supports the view that Kephás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."1


So the Greeks made up Peter all together?

Sudden Conclusion:

Matt Slick wrote:

Jesus is the rock on which the church is built


Deary me.

You forgot a part, Slick:

In Aramaic, nouns do not have the same gender as they do in Greek. Is this why it wasn't proper to "look into texts that we do not have"? What we do have is Bible scholars who speak Aramaic and Hebrew and in semitic languages nouns do not have a neuter gender as they do in Greek. Aramaic only has two genders, and not three in Greek. Spanish and French are the same. Two sexes only and not always; there are two grammatical genders: masculine and feminine. These "genders" have no attributional consistency with the referent's sex, and so a noun that is grammatically feminine can be used to describe a man, and a noun that is grammatically masculine can be used to describe a woman.

Mark Twain wrote:

Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl.


Poor Petros.

So basically, the gender specific rules Slick applies to Greek are not consistent (don't work whatsoever due to lack of neuter) in the Aramaic that the Greek was translated from. This is why Slick is cagey about dealing with the Aramaic texts, not because he cannot find them, and he knows Saint Jerome could but because he knows the neuter gender forms of nouns in Aramaic does not exist. And that's when he concluded his argument. With the affirmation: "Jesus is the rock on which the church is built". Which is not qualified, I'm afraid. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, it is impossible that the Greek could translate genders which could not have existed in Aramaic, and therefore Slick has no argument whatsoever, other than defending himself against the facts, which are stated clearly above, concerning the structure and attribution within the verse.

Matt Slick wrote:

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him.


To make sure His Truth doesn't say anything we don't like.

Matt Slick wrote:

We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built.


Amen.

Matt Slick wrote:

The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.


Wishful thinking and impossible. As I have proved.

Matt Slick wrote:

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11 ).


Cor. 3:12-15 wrote:

12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.


And that's the problem with convenient cherry picking. Good luck, Slick.



There have been many interpretations of the verse in question by Protestants trying get away from the obvious meaning that the word 'rock' refers to Peter himself.

That is the easiest obvious meaning of the verse as you have pointed out.

However, the Catholic church has taken it a step further and built their whole doctrine of Peter being the foundation of the church and the first pope etc.

The verse was never intended to have this meaning. Peter built a church foundation by taking the gospel to the Jews ,Acts 2:14-36, and then to the Gentiles, Acts 10.

Peter had the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and the gentiles, the meaning of the verse.

Peter, James and John were recognized as pillars of the church, Galatians 2:9.

"1 Peter 2:4-9

4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”[b]

7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”[c]

8 and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”[d]

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."


Hardly what Peter would say if he was the foundation of the church.
Dialogist
Matt. 16:18 wrote:

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.


nickfyoung wrote:


That is the easiest obvious meaning of the verse as you have pointed out.

However, the Catholic church has taken it a step further and built their whole doctrine of Peter being the foundation of the church and the first pope etc.



They have taken it a step further? By reading the line which follows directly after it?

Matt. 16:18-19 wrote:

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


How bold of them.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Matt. 16:18 wrote:

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.


nickfyoung wrote:


That is the easiest obvious meaning of the verse as you have pointed out.

However, the Catholic church has taken it a step further and built their whole doctrine of Peter being the foundation of the church and the first pope etc.



They have taken it a step further? By reading the line which follows directly after it?

Matt. 16:18-19 wrote:

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


How bold of them.



We believe that applies to all believers. We have the authority in the name of Jesus although not all use that authority.

I had a niece who became completely possessed over a period of a year. Her pastor would come every night with several of his elders to sit on her while he tried deliverance.

He was unable to appropriate his authority and after a year of this every night he had a nervous break down and lost his ministry.

As you can imagine, her parents were frantic to get some help for her. I found a pastor experienced in deliverance and he came over the next time she manifested. He was able to walk in the door and take immediate control and bound the demons in her. He knew his authority and walked in it.

After ministry she had 80 demons delivered and was ministered to over a period of a year.


Your church may be founded on Peter but the church of God is founded on Jesus.
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:

Lets assume a 'sin' is something immoral yeh.
I don't see how an alleged gods instruction can automatically be moral when there are so many argually immoral dictates in different faiths holy books in history.


It is your secular morality that proves the moral absolute - that you can easily determine what God ought to be doing. This is moral objectivity. The claimant makes no claim to ownership or proprietary usage by simply being a theist. The claimant suggests that man can derive an ought from an is. A perfection from imperfection. The fact that the secular keep saying, "but I don't need god(s) to be moral" does not hurt this position, as I'm sure you can see.

Watersoul wrote:

I do see many examples of people who do not believe in gods following good kind lives just because that stuff makes the world nice if we all do it.
We all share the same things we like happening to us and the things we don't - not hard to figure out without a deity to worry about.

If one looks at 'sin' as something special, then yep it exists in the particular faith it's important to - Outside of that I consider it essentially just a religious term to describe their specific religious type of 'bad thing' they don't like happening to them.


It's not just sin they can see in others. It is mostly sin they can see in themselves, even though they (we) generally see themselves (ourselves) as 'good people'. And the sin isn't best evidenced to the secular in terms of misdemeanors or wrist-slaps. It's best presented in its most evil, disgusting and repugnant form, which to all humans seems shocking, inhumane (inhuman) and upsetting (as the example you gave above). Although some evil people throughout history have clearly not been insane. The term is evil is easily applied as certain despicable and evil acts of man can seem supernatural to us and our nature. If such demons can exist, surely they have an opposite and surely they are transgressing some kind of law pertaining to that opposite if we can feel estranged to them.

Watersoul wrote:

reminds me of a ranting Irish Catholic family who lived in my street.


I get the impression that you're a scouser. Not just from this but from other posts too. Am I warm/cold?
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
I get the impression that you're a scouser. Not just from this but from other posts too. Am I warm/cold?

Cold, got a scouse friend though, but irrelevant either way.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

From my point of view my faith is just a legitimate as yours and you should respect that.


But can any one be educated for teaching by vision? And if you shall say, "It is possible," why did the Teacher remain and converse with waking men for a whole year? And how can we believe you even as to the fact that he appeared to you? And how can he have appeared to you seeing that your sentiments are opposed to his teaching? But if you were seen and taught by him for a single hour, and so became an apostle, then preach his words, expound his meaning, love his apostles, fight not with me who had converse with him. For it is against a solid rock, the foundation-stone of the Church, that you have opposed yourself in opposing me. If you were not an adversary, you would not be slandering me and reviling the preaching that is given through me, in order that, as I heard myself in person from the Lord, when I speak I may not be believed, as though forsooth it were I who was condemned and I who was reprobate. Or, if you call me condemned, you are accusing God who revealed the Christ to me, and are inveighing against Him who called me blessed on the ground of the revelation. But if indeed you truly wish to work along with the truth, learn first from us what we learnt from Him, and when you have become a disciple of truth, become our fellow-workman.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
The term is evil is easily applied as certain despicable and evil acts of man can seem supernatural to us and our nature. If such demons can exist, surely they have an opposite and surely they are transgressing some kind of law pertaining to that opposite if we can feel estranged to them.

Never considered any act by a human being to another as supernatural - just moral/immoral/amoral, or in plain terms nice/nasty/neutral. I also don't believe 'such demons exist' so equally do not believe in any opposite - Hardly an argument that 'sin' exists in a form anymore special than a simple word outside of the religious organisations who believe in it.

'Living in sin' out of wedlock for example, just a religious term, no relevance to my thoughts about moral behaviour with a woman.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

From my point of view my faith is just a legitimate as yours and you should respect that.


But can any one be educated for teaching by vision? And if you shall say, "It is possible," why did the Teacher remain and converse with waking men for a whole year? And how can we believe you even as to the fact that he appeared to you? And how can he have appeared to you seeing that your sentiments are opposed to his teaching? But if you were seen and taught by him for a single hour, and so became an apostle, then preach his words, expound his meaning, love his apostles, fight not with me who had converse with him. For it is against a solid rock, the foundation-stone of the Church, that you have opposed yourself in opposing me. If you were not an adversary, you would not be slandering me and reviling the preaching that is given through me, in order that, as I heard myself in person from the Lord, when I speak I may not be believed, as though forsooth it were I who was condemned and I who was reprobate. Or, if you call me condemned, you are accusing God who revealed the Christ to me, and are inveighing against Him who called me blessed on the ground of the revelation. But if indeed you truly wish to work along with the truth, learn first from us what we learnt from Him, and when you have become a disciple of truth, become our fellow-workman.



Luther found the truth and , shock horror, it was different to the truth he had been preaching all those years. Can there be two truths? Surly not. There is only one truth and when two claim to have different truths one must be in error.
Being a Protestant, I hate that word, being a believer, a follower of Jesus, one very often comes across ex-Catholics who became believers. It seems that when one becomes a believer ones eyes are opened to the truth.
You claim that the millions of believers are misguided or delusioned or are some how in error. Using the same logic, is it not possible that the millions of Catholics are in the same boat especially since they have founded their whole philosophy on a man instead of God.
That is why, as was explained before, believers refer to your faith as Catholicism as compared to Christianity.
It started with believers and added lots of man made extras over the centuries until it lost it's way. It no longer resembles pure Christianity but is a horrible mix of all sorts.
Christianity is in there somewhere but you are not seeing it as it is confused with all the other. Can you not divorce yourself from the church temporarily and just look to Jesus. Look for the pure Christianity, unadulterated, you will find it in your bible. Then when you have that revelation you can mix all that other church stuff back in, if you want to.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Can there be two truths? Surly not.


Truth is knowable through reason (natural revelation) and faith (supernatural revelation). Supernatural revelation is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is available through the teaching of the prophets, Holy Scripture, and administered by the Magisterium. Natural revelation is truth available to all humans through their human nature. Certain truths can be attained by all men from correct human reasoning. This can apply to rational ways to know the existence of God. It is natural revelation that, for example, tells you that certain smug modern Christian apologetics are rational. It is supernatural revelation that tells you that certain smug modern Christian apologetics are irrational. I prefer to assess them with the prior and judge them with the latter. Two truths. Forming a codependent dichotomy of truth (double-edged sword).

However, "that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act", applies to the ability of myself to judge a fellow smug modern Christian apologetic, who is, by all accounts, fighting a beneficial and noble battle on my behalf (naturally). I need divine revelation to humbly deny his vein efforts. It's not that I am not grateful, or course. I am. It is that one questions his ability to use his own supernatural revelations to judge his own natural revelations, qualifying them to be heard.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Being a Protestant, I hate that word


If you hate your title you cannot believe-in it. You can believe-that it. For example, a tomato is such a sour tasting proposition, but it has an intrinsic and essential value that overrides its appearance, taste and experience. It is good for you. It's true quality cannot be seen, tasted, smelt, heard nor touched. It is felt before it has even proved beneficial to ones health. It is valued before it has begun to reward. If you really believed in your mistress, "her eyes may be nothing like the sun" as Shakespeare put it, "And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare, as any she belied with false compare."

Nickfyoung wrote:

being a believer, a follower of Jesus, one very often comes across ex-Catholics who became believers. It seems that when one becomes a believer ones eyes are opened to the truth.


See the part about Magisterium. Infer previous posts about "snapping ones fingers" and expecting the Holy Spirit to make exceptions upon the behalf of the n00b who wants it all today, now, this minute, who can only actually receive it, from that wretched, weary soul who sat his solace in constant penitence and sentience. All for your benefit. Whose divine assess you claim, and even deny. Ones eyes, then, cannot be opened to the Truth (as Saint Peter said to Simon Magus in the showdown in my previous posting) unless one's are indeed looking in the correct direction. And without such natural revelations of where to look, one cannot expect a divine revelation upon how to look.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You claim that the millions of believers are misguided or delusioned or are some how in error. Using the same logic, is it not possible that the millions of Catholics are in the same boat especially since they have founded their whole philosophy on a man instead of God.


Again, read "that man"'s requests above. He challenges Simon Magus, "But if you were seen and taught by him for a single hour, and so became an apostle, then preach his words, expound his meaning, love his apostles, fight not with me who had converse with him." Saint Peter is asking for proof of concept from this magician, Nick. He is echoing his good friend, Matthew, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." Now, your criticisms of me so far have been thus: You think I discriminate against all false teachings. Correct! You think I don't respect your faith. Correct! You think I use ridicule to belittle a teaching, that I believe I would rather see evaporate, completely and replace with nothing, so that the truly faithful may seek out a replacement and find the true Truth, with no other option. Correct. Because: The true teaching was the only one that was ever worth anything anyway. Fraudulent teachings, grant you minus points. At least in my book. And Matthew's.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Catholics are in the same boat especially since they have founded their whole philosophy on a man instead of God.


Protestants are underneath that boat because they have founded their whole entire religion on hating Catholics:

Saint Peter to you wrote:

For it is against a solid rock, the foundation-stone of the Church, that you have opposed yourself in opposing me.


The solid Rock we've already qualified that Jesus Himself laid - complete with the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. How can you reconcile this with your "Christianity"?

Saint Peter to you wrote:

That is why, as was explained before, believers refer to your faith as Catholicism as compared to Christianity.


Believers, "I hate that word." Protestants have referred to such faith faithfully with faith they never had, because it was definitely placed over here, rather than over there. They cannot lay claim to finding in the bottom of their sock drawer, no more than I can lay claim to be being a self-trained prime minister of the sovereignty of my own toilet. I mean, it has a throne and anal disperse and everything. I believe this title of "Prime Minister" is valid. And that's all that counts. Sound familiar? There's gentleman in Longhouse who believe that they are Napoleon (so there). They are in there for a very good reason: They are mentally deluded.

Saint Peter to you wrote:

It started with believers and added lots of man made extras over the centuries until it lost it's way. It no longer resembles pure Christianity but is a horrible mix of all sorts.


And every time one is reminded that one has the incorrect Christian teaching, one resorts to "Popish" claims, "Reasons for reform", and anti-Catholic vitriol. One's true truth, then, is that Protestantism is merely true in not being as true as Catholicism, by its own admission. How peculiar? To form a religion based upon hatred/envy? How absurd? To call this the true faith.

Saint Peter to you wrote:

Christianity is in there somewhere but you are not seeing it as it is confused with all the other.


Christianity, Nick, is about loving thy neighbour, but it is also about throwing money changers from out of my father's house. Is about rebuking satan and it is about "I am who I say I am" and standing tall, proud and honorable and facing the consequences which face you, from those whose entire institutions are founded on hate and systematic God-polluting.

My Molinism, has been careful to look at God and Jesus in all respects. I have been careful to always see God in a perfect and loving way. I defend that fiercely against those who want to humanise Jesus, against those who want to vilify God's providence and against those who want to shatter my Rock into pieces. If you wonder why you always get the table-turning Jesus from me, then stop being actually worse than an atheist, who holds to no gods, rather than a "Christian" who attempts to replace the real God with satan. Get thee behind me.
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
The term is evil is easily applied as certain despicable and evil acts of man can seem supernatural to us and our nature. If such demons can exist, surely they have an opposite and surely they are transgressing some kind of law pertaining to that opposite if we can feel estranged to them.

Never considered any act by a human being to another as supernatural - just moral/immoral/amoral, or in plain terms nice/nasty/neutral. I also don't believe 'such demons exist' so equally do not believe in any opposite - Hardly an argument that 'sin' exists in a form anymore special than a simple word outside of the religious organisations who believe in it.

'Living in sin' out of wedlock for example, just a religious term, no relevance to my thoughts about moral behaviour with a woman.


You think that you are more moral than succumbing to religious ideologies concerning martial arrangement? This is interesting. I am not challenging you on this, I am simply asking where this is coming from? This idealism, I mean? This perfection from imperfection.

Watersoul wrote:

Never considered any act by a human being to another as supernatural


Do you think a person incinerating 8-12 million jews is natural? Do you think it's "not nice"?

Are you sure you don't think that it is evil?
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Can there be two truths? Surly not.


Truth is knowable through reason (natural revelation) and faith (supernatural revelation). Supernatural revelation is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is available through the teaching of the prophets, Holy Scripture, and administered by the Magisterium. Natural revelation is truth available to all humans through their human nature. Certain truths can be attained by all men from correct human reasoning. This can apply to rational ways to know the existence of God. It is natural revelation that, for example, tells you that certain smug modern Christian apologetics are rational. It is supernatural revelation that tells you that certain smug modern Christian apologetics are irrational. I prefer to assess them with the prior and judge them with the latter. Two truths. Forming a codependent dichotomy of truth (double-edged sword).

However, "that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act", applies to the ability of myself to judge a fellow smug modern Christian apologetic, who is, by all accounts, fighting a beneficial and noble battle on my behalf (naturally). I need divine revelation to humbly deny his vein efforts. It's not that I am not grateful, or course. I am. It is that one questions his ability to use his own supernatural revelations to judge his own natural revelations, qualifying them to be heard.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Being a Protestant, I hate that word


If you hate your title you cannot believe-in it. You can believe-that it. For example, a tomato is such a sour tasting proposition, but it has an intrinsic and essential value that overrides its appearance, taste and experience. It is good for you. It's true quality cannot be seen, tasted, smelt, heard nor touched. It is felt before it has even proved beneficial to ones health. It is valued before it has begun to reward. If you really believed in your mistress, "her eyes may be nothing like the sun" as Shakespeare put it, "And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare, as any she belied with false compare."

Nickfyoung wrote:

being a believer, a follower of Jesus, one very often comes across ex-Catholics who became believers. It seems that when one becomes a believer ones eyes are opened to the truth.


See the part about Magisterium. Infer previous posts about "snapping ones fingers" and expecting the Holy Spirit to make exceptions upon the behalf of the n00b who wants it all today, now, this minute, who can only actually receive it, from that wretched, weary soul who sat his solace in constant penitence and sentience. All for your benefit. Whose divine assess you claim, and even deny. Ones eyes, then, cannot be opened to the Truth (as Saint Peter said to Simon Magus in the showdown in my previous posting) unless one's are indeed looking in the correct direction. And without such natural revelations of where to look, one cannot expect a divine revelation upon how to look.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You claim that the millions of believers are misguided or delusioned or are some how in error. Using the same logic, is it not possible that the millions of Catholics are in the same boat especially since they have founded their whole philosophy on a man instead of God.


Again, read "that man"'s requests above. He challenges Simon Magus, "But if you were seen and taught by him for a single hour, and so became an apostle, then preach his words, expound his meaning, love his apostles, fight not with me who had converse with him." Saint Peter is asking for proof of concept from this magician, Nick. He is echoing his good friend, Matthew, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." Now, your criticisms of me so far have been thus: You think I discriminate against all false teachings. Correct! You think I don't respect your faith. Correct! You think I use ridicule to belittle a teaching, that I believe I would rather see evaporate, completely and replace with nothing, so that the truly faithful may seek out a replacement and find the true Truth, with no other option. Correct. Because: The true teaching was the only one that was ever worth anything anyway. Fraudulent teachings, grant you minus points. At least in my book. And Matthew's.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Catholics are in the same boat especially since they have founded their whole philosophy on a man instead of God.


Protestants are underneath that boat because they have founded their whole entire religion on hating Catholics:

Saint Peter to you wrote:

For it is against a solid rock, the foundation-stone of the Church, that you have opposed yourself in opposing me.


The solid Rock we've already qualified that Jesus Himself laid - complete with the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. How can you reconcile this with your "Christianity"?

Saint Peter to you wrote:

That is why, as was explained before, believers refer to your faith as Catholicism as compared to Christianity.


Believers, "I hate that word." Protestants have referred to such faith faithfully with faith they never had, because it was definitely placed over here, rather than over there. They cannot lay claim to finding in the bottom of their sock drawer, no more than I can lay claim to be being a self-trained prime minister of the sovereignty of my own toilet. I mean, it has a throne and anal disperse and everything. I believe this title of "Prime Minister" is valid. And that's all that counts. Sound familiar? There's gentleman in Longhouse who believe that they are Napoleon (so there). They are in there for a very good reason: They are mentally deluded.

Saint Peter to you wrote:

It started with believers and added lots of man made extras over the centuries until it lost it's way. It no longer resembles pure Christianity but is a horrible mix of all sorts.


And every time one is reminded that one has the incorrect Christian teaching, one resorts to "Popish" claims, "Reasons for reform", and anti-Catholic vitriol. One's true truth, then, is that Protestantism is merely true in not being as true as Catholicism, by its own admission. How peculiar? To form a religion based upon hatred/envy? How absurd? To call this the true faith.

Saint Peter to you wrote:

Christianity is in there somewhere but you are not seeing it as it is confused with all the other.


Christianity, Nick, is about loving thy neighbour, but it is also about throwing money changers from out of my father's house. Is about rebuking satan and it is about "I am who I say I am" and standing tall, proud and honorable and facing the consequences which face you, from those whose entire institutions are founded on hate and systematic God-polluting.

My Molinism, has been careful to look at God and Jesus in all respects. I have been careful to always see God in a perfect and loving way. I defend that fiercely against those who want to humanise Jesus, against those who want to vilify God's providence and against those who want to shatter my Rock into pieces. If you wonder why you always get the table-turning Jesus from me, then stop being actually worse than an atheist, who holds to no gods, rather than a "Christian" who attempts to replace the real God with satan. Get thee behind me.


I have to look up some of the words you use here. You forget that some of your common word usages are unheard of outside your church.

In doing so I came across papal infallibility. If you look at that with any of your truths it is a fallacy based on your Petrine doctrine. No man can be infallible through any doctrine no matter how much you wish him to be.
I would be very surprised if any of your Popes even made it into heaven based on Biblical understanding.

Pentecostal Christians will tell you that they have supernatural revelation and are constantly in tune with the Holy Spirit.


Quote:
Christianity, Nick, is about loving thy neighbour, but it is also about throwing money changers from out of my father's house. Is about rebuking satan and it is about "I am who I say I am" and standing tall, proud and honorable and facing the consequences which face you, from those whose entire institutions are founded on hate and systematic God-polluting.



Yes, all those things but you missed the most important. It is loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. It is about loving Jesus, accepting that he died to atone for your sins, living a daily personal walk with him.
That is the difference between us.


"
Quote:
Christian" who attempts to replace the real God with satan.



I am afraid that is what your church has done.


Quote:
And every time one is reminded that one has the incorrect Christian teaching, one resorts to "Popish" claims, "Reasons for reform", and anti-Catholic vitriol. One's true truth, then, is that Protestantism is merely true in not being as true as Catholicism, by its own admission. How peculiar? To form a religion based upon hatred/envy? How absurd? To call this the true faith.



You are clutching at straws here. Us believers just believe we are Bible believing. We don't take any notice of the Catholic church. It is just another one of those peculiar cults.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

I have to look up some of the words you use here. You forget that some of your common word usages are unheard of outside your church.


There is nothing which forbids. There is nothing which has forbade since before the Abolition of 1966, even. And even then, the ceremonious tradition of unsound Christian thought was never set in stone and had been left unmonitored and largely defunct for the best part of two centuries anyway. Newton was able to access Kepler's heresies, and able to derive highly influential science from them. You conflate Catholic understanding with medieval theocracies, which would be unfair, and according to many Catholics, would be a welcomed return to tradition as some still see Vatican II as a capitulation rather than a ecumenical public relations "reform", as as far as "reform" goes, you still seem to think that you're being controversial or subversive.

If I refer to monilism, it is because while I accept those views (nihil obstat), I only accept them on the grounds that I see value in their alternative explanations or otherwise refinement of Aquinan teaching which I already knew was the truth anyway. Certain theology which came about post-middle ages, dealt specifically in addressing the issues raised by the emergence of methodical naturalism or the belligerence of reformism, naturally and chronologically. It often resides outside the interests of the church and is best promulgated by either scientific based critics or European philosophy. The church never saw some of your so-called theologians as particularly threatening, I'm afraid, and in turn, have not included them in Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Kierkegaard once joked that you have to be outstanding to get yourself onto that list), so in kind, no particular effort has been to champion or even acknowledge "counter-reform" literature. Simply for the fact that it is not considered to have registered highly in her personal interests.

Likewise, nobody is wielding a large stick over me for reading with fascination about the evolution of birds. Nobody minds if I find amusement within the atheistic shrieks of Schopenhauer or Russel or Kant. Simply for the fact that we are not Islam. We are Catholicism. And we know more swear-words than all of you.

The Papal infallibility, if you had researched it as you have said you have, is clear to draw the distinction between adjudicator and dictator. The Pope makes no claims. He resides as judge over Catholic theology. And of course he should, otherwise who else? He either allows or forbids. He is not considered free of error.

He has, and will no longer (it should be noted), provide judgements such as "nihil obstat" or "imprimi potest". This hasn't cared what your name was or how many bells or whistles your name came with. It doesn't care what your religious persuasion is, nor does it discriminate between Catholic and non-catholic. It has historically adjudicated over Sartre, Voltaire, Diderot, Hugo, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, Bacon, Milton, Locke, Galileo and even Kepler, Pascal and Descartes. It should be noted that the works of Charles Darwin and his ilk were never considered heresy, and only those of certain Catholic authors who attempted to reconcile Darwin with Catholicism made it on the black-list. The role then, is not one which postures itself as infallibility or claimant, but rather, one which faithfully resides as a loyal adjudicator over the defense of the Church's own personal interests.

Nickfyoung wrote:

If you look at that with any of your truths it is a fallacy based on your Petrine doctrine.


This is a fallacy in itself. Nobody has a Petrine doctrine which resides over anything than internal episcopal hierarchy. The Pope is in charge of his bishops and priests and theologians. The Pope's "infallibility" has already been fleshed out. We could even take it a step further if we wanted to:

Nickfyoung wrote:

No man can be infallible through any doctrine no matter how much you wish him to be.


Matthew 16: 18-19 states: "18 And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

And therefore we shall.

The Pope is infallible according Matthew, and Matthew is infallible as inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that scripture, according to God.

Any more ideas? Or are these standard and incredibly basic requirements of the tenets of Christianity itself just "how I'd like it to be"? How can you sit there saying "Scripture only" when it is actually, "but only scripture I cherry pick only"? Like Luther, Calvin and pretty much all protestants. If you deny Matthew, you deny Peter. If you deny Peter, you deny Christ.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I would be very surprised if any of your Popes even made it into heaven based on Biblical understanding.


You clearly never read the teaching about natural revelation and divine revelation. Some of finest Biblical scholars are Jewish. Some are even agnostic and know one of them at least to be an atheist. They understand the Bible, perfectly, they speak all the mother tongues of all the translations, they understand the historicity and moral attributions, personal vendettas and agendas, anomalies and politics of all of the prose and allusion espoused by all of the individual authors. They just reject it. But they definitely understand its meaning. They believe-that it is. They don't believe-in it. This is what the distinction is. The believing-in part, requires divine revelation. So nobody is saying that intellectual (natural) revelation is beyond the non-christian or protestant. They are saying that the divine revelation is the understanding. And the divine revelation both depends on the natural revelation (ie: The Church was founded by Jesus on Peter - which you still struggle with) which is just basic and obvious logic -- to gain otherwise divine revelations within the framework of natural revelations. As I say, you're looking for God in the bottom of your sock drawer. God is everywhere, but God is not free. It is by your works that shall be judged. Why do we keep coming back to this? That you expect salvation for nothing? It is a definite theme that keeps emerging. You expect everything (and even claim you own it) through personal faith but it is impossible for two reasons. It is impossible because your personal faith denies Jesus' intentions. And it is impossible while you're still trying to bring down Catholicism. A man who has the Truth doesn't ask others how true their 'truth' is. Which is why I haven't ever bothered to ask you about the truth of protestantism. It's because I know there's no truth in it. As I have that Truth here.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Pentecostal Christians will tell you that...


Nothing! I will listen to the Church of England's warblings. I will not listen to Christian fundamentalists. I won't be willing to stoop that far down. It's not a reasonable request to make of me, I'm afraid. The only reason that I will indulge medieval Christianity is because that it was born of disgruntled Catholics like Luther and Calvin, and I know they already had a respectable framework of theology and principals of study to work with, which they had to learn to attempt to challenge, and therefore can present barely adequate dialogue. But as for "Pentecostal Christians", I'm sorry but no. I simply do not have time for Teen Wolf.

The reason Christ chose to build the Church on Saint Peter was precisely for all the reasons that you say made it unlikely. His incredulity. His dismissal (Mass means dismissal). His skepticism. His shrewd, sober rationalisation. He saw the Son of God walk on water and said, "naaaah, I'm not having that". Peter, who doubted everything walked up to Christ leading all of his men and said, completely out of character, 'You. You are the Christ'. And Christ then said, you. You're the one. Here, this is where I shall I build. So take your exorcisms, faith healings, blabbering tongues and divine visions and give them back to Simon Magus. The Chruch of Christ is founded on Saint Peter's natural revelations forming divine revelations, and it simply does not believe you.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Yes, all those things but you missed the most important. It is loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. It is about loving Jesus, accepting that he died to atone for your sins, living a daily personal walk with him.
That is the difference between us.


I don't think you can properly lay claim to access of the Holy Spirit. I have seen your fruits. They are fruits of predestination (fatalism), lapsarianism (planned fall), Jesus' sexual relations, Spiritual egotism, Spiritual egocentricity, singular existentialist authority, apathy of sacrament, scripture and duty, depravity, abortion, gay marriage, divination, witchcraft, occultism, damnation and issuing damnation, Celestial despotism. You are not interested in the salvation of Jesus theologically. Just the punishment of Jehovah (Judaism). Your every waking divine thought hinges on damnation, or new ways in your God can damn or in most cases already have damned you. These are not the fruits of Jesus. These are the fruits of false prophecy. "Ye will know them by their fruits".

In short, I don't believe you can access the Holy Spirit because I see only negativity in your objectivity.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I am afraid that is what your church has done.


You know nothing of our evils, as I have said. You know nothing of them because you don't know of our good (natural/supernatural revelation). You shall never find our good while you view us through the eyes of resentment. You should probably take time out to honestly soul-search the reason why you mistrust Catholicism, and you'll find it probably predates Luther's and Calvin's writings, as theirs did. It is a problem within you concerning some kind of emotion you have or have had concerning Catholicism. It is a personal affliction which attempts to disguise itself in theological discourse. It fails because I see through the flimsiness of all of them. None of them concur and they share no common ground or consistency in regarding motive. The only theme that constantly keeps emerging is Apathy. Wanting it all for nothing. Entitlement, maybe. Feeling unworthy or incapable of achieving the level of "chosen" divinity that the likes of Padre Pio exhibited, from your external perspective, as a proponent of (many) lesser and paltry Christian sects. Your problem is with envy and showmanship. This is why I call you Simon Magus. You want everyone to see how elect you are. Yet lack the framework to keep you levitated.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You are clutching at straws here. Us believers just believe we are Bible believing. We don't take any notice of the Catholic church. It is just another one of those peculiar cults.


Cult. That's rich:

"But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the great power of God.” 11And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19saying, “Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.” 20But Peter said unto him, “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." source

"The apocryphal Acts of Peter gives a legendary tale of Simon Magus' death. Simon is performing magic in the Roman Forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he flies up into the air. The apostle Peter prays to God to stop his flying, and he stops mid-air and falls, breaking his legs, whereupon the crowd, previously non-hostile, stones him to death." source

lol.

"The church of Santa Francesca Romana claims to have been built on the spot where Simon fell (thus claiming that he could indeed fly). Within the Church is a dented slab of marble that purports to bear the imprints of the knees of Peter and Paul during their prayer." source

The Rock's knees were immovable. We'll pray for you Simon, with both St. Peter and St. Paul, only, you might want to not be twenty feet up in the air, professing your stolen/"nicked" divinity, while we're doing it.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Yes, all those things but you missed the most important. It is loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. It is about loving Jesus, accepting that he died to atone for your sins, living a daily personal walk with him.
That is the difference between us.


I'm actually going to address this too since no other Christians have the balls or honesty to tackle it.

It's absolute bullshit.

You've never walked with Jesus, and you do not love Him with all of your heart, mind and soul.

Be honest about it: You cannot humanly do any of these things.

It's a rhetorical trap usually set by religious fundamentalists (and only religious fundamentalists, I might add). A special pleading claim made by them to demonstrate their spiritual superiority and confirmation bias, knowing other Christians can't lay claim to it (and expecting them to keep quiet about this) and can't deny it is possible due to this. If they do deny it, they simultaneously infer that they haven't experienced it because they are less spiritual/chosen/worthy. No sale.

Here's an example of a fundamentalist trying it with an atheist:



While I have a strong dislike for Mr Dawkins, and felt he dealt with this man in quite a cold and uncompassionate way, I do detect a level of awkwardness about his demeanor in doing so, suggesting a hint of guilt. But not a great deal - as even I can see, Dawkins is dealing with a nut-case here (who is also lying).

This man has never walked with Jesus.

It is impossible to love an unfathomable entity such as a God in the way we generally refer and understand the unfathomable concept of "love" itself. The people I love most, are my family, and some of them, I barely even "like" most of the time. But I definitely love them. These are people I know, through and through. The love is embedded and solid yet incredibly difficult to describe. It can't be found in a Mills & Boon novel. These are people that I know and understand the intrinsic nature of. People that I can identify and identity with. The gooey-starry-eyed teenager in love thing has never applied to real love in my experience. It it best found in obsession or temporary delusion. This homo-sensual rhetoric fundamentalists apply to Jesus is not, has never been, and may never be, available to me. I am not the "Bride of Christ" - and in terms of marriage, the love of a wife does not mirror this juvenile starry-eyed description. So they are either lousy poets, or even lousier liars.

As far loving attributes or legacy go, I have many artists who I admire the works of. Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Picasso, Dali. I love their works. I love everything they ever did. I would perhaps attempt to physically embrace them if I ever met them (I have sat in Picasso's chair). But I can't meet them. Even if I could meet them, I doubt that I could find gooey love in their character, essence or nature as personable beings. Yet I really do love, respect and admire their works.

In terms of role models, I can't see a more perfect or worthy role model than Jesus. If I could be like anyone I would like to emulate Jesus. Again, I love his work. I love his artistry. If I met him, I am sure that I would be moved by him. I am sure that I would love him. But drooling at the mouth? I am a man.

So again, I don't believe you. I think you would like to have this kind of devotion, but it doesn't even resemble the devotion that the apostles had for him (who knew him). Which was a teacher/student respect/awe love/loyalty relationship. This "all of my heart, mind and soul" thing resembles a teenager with Justin Bieber posters on her wall. It's not even as believable as that, being that it relates to somebody that you haven't ever even seen.

The great saints who meditated their entire days length, knowing and feeling and being visited by Christ by apparition and some bearing his stigmata have made similar claims. Being agape, The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa, etc. But it seems like it's on a much deeper, spiritual level than "fascination" or "crush". And it seems like so much more hard work, blood, sweat and tears was put into to achieving this level of sanctity for the proposition of it, to be believable, to me at least.

I don't believe that a man who knows Christ personally needs to attend a conference to tell an atheist about it. I don't believe my fellow Christians when they say that they love Christ in this way. A God is not something you can love in that way, when it's barely something you can even understand.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
The term is evil is easily applied as certain despicable and evil acts of man can seem supernatural to us and our nature. If such demons can exist, surely they have an opposite and surely they are transgressing some kind of law pertaining to that opposite if we can feel estranged to them.

Never considered any act by a human being to another as supernatural - just moral/immoral/amoral, or in plain terms nice/nasty/neutral. I also don't believe 'such demons exist' so equally do not believe in any opposite - Hardly an argument that 'sin' exists in a form anymore special than a simple word outside of the religious organisations who believe in it.

'Living in sin' out of wedlock for example, just a religious term, no relevance to my thoughts about moral behaviour with a woman.


You think that you are more moral than succumbing to religious ideologies concerning martial arrangement?

Sometimes perhaps, depends on the particular ideology, but generally nope, I just do not hold the same views as your particular religion.
Speaking of other religions, how about polygamy as a 'sin' - Clearly the Catholics are against it but Islam is pretty chilled about the idea - Two Abrahamic religions with completely differing opinions on the 'sin' - Kind of reinforces my opinion that 'sin' is just a religious term appropriate to the people who believe in the teachings of specific organisations. My gosh, if I trawled the writings of loads of faiths I'd find many more differences. In Buddhism for example, marriage is not even a sacrament.
It's not difficult to be amused by the 'sin' idea when differing religions have conflicting ideas of right and wrong. I do not need Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism or any other religious teachings to teach me moral values - Especially when some are clearly ridiculous.

Dialogist wrote:
This is interesting. I am not challenging you on this, I am simply asking where this is coming from? This idealism, I mean? This perfection from imperfection.

Silly loaded question.
I mentioned nothing about perfection, all your imagination, just making the point that my ideas of moral/immoral/amoral often conflict with the rules of your religion.

Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:

Never considered any act by a human being to another as supernatural


Do you think a person incinerating 8-12 million jews is natural? Do you think it's "not nice"?

Are you sure you don't think that it is evil?

Another stupid question.
I never use the word 'evil' really. It is one I also consider to have religious undertones.
I will say that every act of genocide from Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia and anywhere else is a horrible act to be condemned by humanity.
It is not supernatural in any way.

Was it 'supernatural' when the many thousands of kids were sexually abused by the priests in your church? I'm curious as in another thread you argue that priests actually represent your Jesus.
I think it more likely that it was just another example of human beings abusing others in a position of power.
But, if you insist 'sin' is something special that is decreed by only your god, I guess it was a bad move to allow these priests represent him for all those years raping children - or was it his plan? Shocked
Dialogist
Your argument that different religions have differing values of sin fails as miserably as your attempt to place sin in the "religion" only category does, especially as an atheist, who is riddled with sin. See: Morality doesn't care what you accept or not. A sin is different to crime against a state. A sin is different to an ethical faux pas. A sin can be intrisic. It is therefore a moral crime. A moral crime requires a law, and poof! God. It doesn't exist with animals. You can't put it down to evolution because it definitely separates you (well me at least) from the animal world. You're blatantly sinning though, in that you're prepared to sit there and dishonestly tell me Hitler wasn't evil for the sake of winning an argument that you've already lost by typing that.

By the way: Monotheism is distinctly different from Polytheism (paganism) and one might do well to remember that concerning credibility. Buddhism isn't monotheistic or polytheistic (it's a joke). However all the religions that are to be taken seriously in terms of credible dialogue about morality: Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Islam all recognize Jesus in some form of divinity. Jesus, Yeshu, Ishu, and Isa (respectively). This is why you believe in Jesus. Because by your rationale, religions differing proves falsehood. If Independent testimony is good enough for historians, I guess that's good enough for you. Bow down to the Christ. If you must insist on Buddhism, check out the Gautama Buddha. But really, I'm hardly having an argument with you about religion... you're incapable of not talking about pixies and goblins in the same sentence as the world's most popular religions. Hence, not to be taken seriously as anyone making any serious attempt to have some respectable dialogue on the particulars of morality. And therefore, just a complete puerile waste of time. Am I wrong?

Also, nobody cares what you don't believe in when discussing these things. It's completely irrelevant to the debate. Your personal faith is not important, and since it is faith in nothing, it carries no absolutely no authority whatsoever concerning the topic at hand. Yeah we know you're an atheist, Watersoul. We get it! Great. You're so subversive and controversial and edgy. Nobody can tell you what to do. That's really useful to religious debate. What other tricks can you do?

Watersoul wrote:
Was it 'supernatural' when the many thousands of kids were sexually abused by the priests in your church?


It was the devil incarnate.

Watersoul wrote:

I think it more likely that it was just another example of human beings abusing others in a position of power.


Then you're deranged, sick, evil and a misanthropic sociopath on a similar, yet not as severe level as they are, and need help (if you truly believe that). The fact they took the guise of a priest and the sanctity and trust of priests, to perform this disgusting evil sacrilege on the most pure possible... actually it makes me hurl just talking about it. And... You think it's on a par with an overbearing boss. That makes me hurl too.

Watersoul wrote:

was it his plan?


Oooh, free will, omniscience, the problem of evil etc. How original. Can I check Wikipedia? I haven't encountered this one before. Honestly, it's like a really bad joke book I've read about sixteen million times.

God(s): check
Zeus, Apollo etc: check
I'm an atheist: check
Paedophiles: check

Grow an idea!
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
Your argument that different religions have differing values of sin fails as miserably as your attempt to place sin in the "religion" only category does, especially as an atheist, who is riddled with sin. See: Morality doesn't care what you accept or not. A sin is different to crime against a state. A sin is different to an ethical faux pas. A sin can be intrisic. It is therefore a moral crime. A moral crime requires a law, and poof! God.

Which is why I think the 'sin' idea is silly nonsense as I do not believe in any gods.
Dialogist wrote:
It doesn't exist with animals. You can't put it down to evolution because it definitely separates you (well me at least) from the animal world.

If thats what you and your church believe, cool, doesn't prove your ranting 'sin' claims.
Dialogist wrote:
You're blatantly sinning though, in that you're prepared to sit there and dishonestly tell me Hitler wasn't evil for the sake of winning an argument that you've already lost by typing that.

Usual childlike attempt to twist my words.
I stated that I avoid the term 'evil' due to it's religious undertones (devils and other rubbish).
Hitler committed vile acts of hatred to humankind. I condemn all such acts - clear enough for you now?

Dialogist wrote:
By the way: Monotheism is distinctly different from Polytheism (paganism) and one might do well to remember that concerning credibility.

Never said or implied it wasn't
Dialogist wrote:
Buddhism isn't monotheistic or polytheistic

Never claimed it was or wasn't, used it as an example of a faith...more pathetic twisting of my words.
Dialogist wrote:
(it's a joke).

As are you...a bad zealous one.
Dialogist wrote:
However all the religions that are to be taken seriously in terms of credible dialogue about morality: Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Islam all recognize Jesus in some form of divinity. Jesus, Yeshu, Ishu, and Isa (respectively).

And all disagree wildly about various 'sins'.
Dialogist wrote:
This is why you believe in Jesus. Because by your rationale, religions differing proves falsehood. If Independent testimony is good enough for historians, I guess that's good enough for you. Bow down to the Christ.

Nope, don't believe in your Jesus.
Dialogist wrote:
If you must insist on Buddhism, check out the Gautama Buddha.

No insistance, your words again, just used as an example of a faith which differs in view on marriage.
Dialogist wrote:
But really, I'm hardly having an argument with you about religion... you're incapable of not talking about pixies and goblins in the same sentence as the world's most popular religions.

Haven't mentioned pixies or goblins in this discussion, your own words again.
***EDIT*** Just gone back and seen my use of the word Pixie in this thread, I'll happily let it stand though as it was in context of the particular reply.***/EDIT***
I do not believe in any magical entities though, from gods to tooth fairies.
Dialogist wrote:
Hence, not to be taken seriously as anyone making any serious attempt to have some respectable dialogue on the particulars of morality. And therefore, just a complete puerile waste of time. Am I wrong?

As long as your arguments remain so deeply clouded by Catholic dogma, well, the tragic answer is yes.
Dialogist wrote:
Also, nobody cares what you don't believe in when discussing these things. It's completely irrelevant to the debate. Your personal faith is not important, and since it is faith in nothing, it carries no absolutely no authority whatsoever concerning the topic at hand.

So, please clarify, if I do not share the same faith as you I have no authority in this topic about 'sin' you say?
That must mean that 'sin' is exclusively for the religious folk, and nothing more important than a simple word outside these circles. Exactly what I suggested Wink
Dialogist wrote:
Yeah we know you're an atheist, Watersoul. We get it! Great. You're so subversive and controversial and edgy. Nobody can tell you what to do. That's really useful to religious debate. What other tricks can you do?

Don't really know why you decided to rant that but curiously it would be an apt descrition for your good self if you replaced the 'A' word with 'Catholic'
Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:
Was it 'supernatural' when the many thousands of kids were sexually abused by the priests in your church?


It was the devil incarnate.

As I don't believe in devils I return to my earlier thoughts that the rapist priests chose to commit the acts due to their particular repugnant lustful emotions and hatred for humanity.

Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:

I think it more likely that it was just another example of human beings abusing others in a position of power.


Then you're deranged, sick, evil and a misanthropic sociopath on a similar, yet not as severe level as they are, and need help (if you truly believe that). The fact they took the guise of a priest and the sanctity and trust of priests, to perform this disgusting evil sacrilege on the most pure possible... actually it makes me hurl just talking about it. And... You think it's on a par with an overbearing boss. That makes me hurl too.

Childishly twisting my words again, that the best you got? - I refer you to my previous paragraph above.
Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:

was it his plan?


Oooh, free will, omniscience, the problem of evil etc. How original. Can I check Wikipedia? I haven't encountered this one before. Honestly, it's like a really bad joke book I've read about sixteen million times.

God(s): check
Zeus, Apollo etc: check
I'm an atheist: check
Paedophiles: check

Grow an idea!

I have, thats why I do not meekly follow the often ridiculous instructions of the Catholic church.

So, back on topic, I've still read nothing from you or anyone else that in anyway makes me think 'sin' is anything special (apart from being a word) outside of religious circles.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

I have to look up some of the words you use here. You forget that some of your common word usages are unheard of outside your church.


There is nothing which forbids. There is nothing which has forbade since before the Abolition of 1966, even. And even then, the ceremonious tradition of unsound Christian thought was never set in stone and had been left unmonitored and largely defunct for the best part of two centuries anyway. Newton was able to access Kepler's heresies, and able to derive highly influential science from them. You conflate Catholic understanding with medieval theocracies, which would be unfair, and according to many Catholics, would be a welcomed return to tradition as some still see Vatican II as a capitulation rather than a ecumenical public relations "reform", as as far as "reform" goes, you still seem to think that you're being controversial or subversive.

If I refer to monilism, it is because while I accept those views (nihil obstat), I only accept them on the grounds that I see value in their alternative explanations or otherwise refinement of Aquinan teaching which I already knew was the truth anyway. Certain theology which came about post-middle ages, dealt specifically in addressing the issues raised by the emergence of methodical naturalism or the belligerence of reformism, naturally and chronologically. It often resides outside the interests of the church and is best promulgated by either scientific based critics or European philosophy. The church never saw some of your so-called theologians as particularly threatening, I'm afraid, and in turn, have not included them in Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Kierkegaard once joked that you have to be outstanding to get yourself onto that list), so in kind, no particular effort has been to champion or even acknowledge "counter-reform" literature. Simply for the fact that it is not considered to have registered highly in her personal interests.

Likewise, nobody is wielding a large stick over me for reading with fascination about the evolution of birds. Nobody minds if I find amusement within the atheistic shrieks of Schopenhauer or Russel or Kant. Simply for the fact that we are not Islam. We are Catholicism. And we know more swear-words than all of you.

The Papal infallibility, if you had researched it as you have said you have, is clear to draw the distinction between adjudicator and dictator. The Pope makes no claims. He resides as judge over Catholic theology. And of course he should, otherwise who else? He either allows or forbids. He is not considered free of error.

He has, and will no longer (it should be noted), provide judgements such as "nihil obstat" or "imprimi potest". This hasn't cared what your name was or how many bells or whistles your name came with. It doesn't care what your religious persuasion is, nor does it discriminate between Catholic and non-catholic. It has historically adjudicated over Sartre, Voltaire, Diderot, Hugo, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, Bacon, Milton, Locke, Galileo and even Kepler, Pascal and Descartes. It should be noted that the works of Charles Darwin and his ilk were never considered heresy, and only those of certain Catholic authors who attempted to reconcile Darwin with Catholicism made it on the black-list. The role then, is not one which postures itself as infallibility or claimant, but rather, one which faithfully resides as a loyal adjudicator over the defense of the Church's own personal interests.

Nickfyoung wrote:

If you look at that with any of your truths it is a fallacy based on your Petrine doctrine.


This is a fallacy in itself. Nobody has a Petrine doctrine which resides over anything than internal episcopal hierarchy. The Pope is in charge of his bishops and priests and theologians. The Pope's "infallibility" has already been fleshed out. We could even take it a step further if we wanted to:

Nickfyoung wrote:

No man can be infallible through any doctrine no matter how much you wish him to be.


Matthew 16: 18-19 states: "18 And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

And therefore we shall.

The Pope is infallible according Matthew, and Matthew is infallible as inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that scripture, according to God.

Any more ideas? Or are these standard and incredibly basic requirements of the tenets of Christianity itself just "how I'd like it to be"? How can you sit there saying "Scripture only" when it is actually, "but only scripture I cherry pick only"? Like Luther, Calvin and pretty much all protestants. If you deny Matthew, you deny Peter. If you deny Peter, you deny Christ.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I would be very surprised if any of your Popes even made it into heaven based on Biblical understanding.


You clearly never read the teaching about natural revelation and divine revelation. Some of finest Biblical scholars are Jewish. Some are even agnostic and know one of them at least to be an atheist. They understand the Bible, perfectly, they speak all the mother tongues of all the translations, they understand the historicity and moral attributions, personal vendettas and agendas, anomalies and politics of all of the prose and allusion espoused by all of the individual authors. They just reject it. But they definitely understand its meaning. They believe-that it is. They don't believe-in it. This is what the distinction is. The believing-in part, requires divine revelation. So nobody is saying that intellectual (natural) revelation is beyond the non-christian or protestant. They are saying that the divine revelation is the understanding. And the divine revelation both depends on the natural revelation (ie: The Church was founded by Jesus on Peter - which you still struggle with) which is just basic and obvious logic -- to gain otherwise divine revelations within the framework of natural revelations. As I say, you're looking for God in the bottom of your sock drawer. God is everywhere, but God is not free. It is by your works that shall be judged. Why do we keep coming back to this? That you expect salvation for nothing? It is a definite theme that keeps emerging. You expect everything (and even claim you own it) through personal faith but it is impossible for two reasons. It is impossible because your personal faith denies Jesus' intentions. And it is impossible while you're still trying to bring down Catholicism. A man who has the Truth doesn't ask others how true their 'truth' is. Which is why I haven't ever bothered to ask you about the truth of protestantism. It's because I know there's no truth in it. As I have that Truth here.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Pentecostal Christians will tell you that...


Nothing! I will listen to the Church of England's warblings. I will not listen to Christian fundamentalists. I won't be willing to stoop that far down. It's not a reasonable request to make of me, I'm afraid. The only reason that I will indulge medieval Christianity is because that it was born of disgruntled Catholics like Luther and Calvin, and I know they already had a respectable framework of theology and principals of study to work with, which they had to learn to attempt to challenge, and therefore can present barely adequate dialogue. But as for "Pentecostal Christians", I'm sorry but no. I simply do not have time for Teen Wolf.

The reason Christ chose to build the Church on Saint Peter was precisely for all the reasons that you say made it unlikely. His incredulity. His dismissal (Mass means dismissal). His skepticism. His shrewd, sober rationalisation. He saw the Son of God walk on water and said, "naaaah, I'm not having that". Peter, who doubted everything walked up to Christ leading all of his men and said, completely out of character, 'You. You are the Christ'. And Christ then said, you. You're the one. Here, this is where I shall I build. So take your exorcisms, faith healings, blabbering tongues and divine visions and give them back to Simon Magus. The Chruch of Christ is founded on Saint Peter's natural revelations forming divine revelations, and it simply does not believe you.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Yes, all those things but you missed the most important. It is loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. It is about loving Jesus, accepting that he died to atone for your sins, living a daily personal walk with him.
That is the difference between us.


I don't think you can properly lay claim to access of the Holy Spirit. I have seen your fruits. They are fruits of predestination (fatalism), lapsarianism (planned fall), Jesus' sexual relations, Spiritual egotism, Spiritual egocentricity, singular existentialist authority, apathy of sacrament, scripture and duty, depravity, abortion, gay marriage, divination, witchcraft, occultism, damnation and issuing damnation, Celestial despotism. You are not interested in the salvation of Jesus theologically. Just the punishment of Jehovah (Judaism). Your every waking divine thought hinges on damnation, or new ways in your God can damn or in most cases already have damned you. These are not the fruits of Jesus. These are the fruits of false prophecy. "Ye will know them by their fruits".

In short, I don't believe you can access the Holy Spirit because I see only negativity in your objectivity.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I am afraid that is what your church has done.


You know nothing of our evils, as I have said. You know nothing of them because you don't know of our good (natural/supernatural revelation). You shall never find our good while you view us through the eyes of resentment. You should probably take time out to honestly soul-search the reason why you mistrust Catholicism, and you'll find it probably predates Luther's and Calvin's writings, as theirs did. It is a problem within you concerning some kind of emotion you have or have had concerning Catholicism. It is a personal affliction which attempts to disguise itself in theological discourse. It fails because I see through the flimsiness of all of them. None of them concur and they share no common ground or consistency in regarding motive. The only theme that constantly keeps emerging is Apathy. Wanting it all for nothing. Entitlement, maybe. Feeling unworthy or incapable of achieving the level of "chosen" divinity that the likes of Padre Pio exhibited, from your external perspective, as a proponent of (many) lesser and paltry Christian sects. Your problem is with envy and showmanship. This is why I call you Simon Magus. You want everyone to see how elect you are. Yet lack the framework to keep you levitated.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You are clutching at straws here. Us believers just believe we are Bible believing. We don't take any notice of the Catholic church. It is just another one of those peculiar cults.


Cult. That's rich:

"But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the great power of God.” 11And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19saying, “Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.” 20But Peter said unto him, “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." source

"The apocryphal Acts of Peter gives a legendary tale of Simon Magus' death. Simon is performing magic in the Roman Forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he flies up into the air. The apostle Peter prays to God to stop his flying, and he stops mid-air and falls, breaking his legs, whereupon the crowd, previously non-hostile, stones him to death." source

lol.

"The church of Santa Francesca Romana claims to have been built on the spot where Simon fell (thus claiming that he could indeed fly). Within the Church is a dented slab of marble that purports to bear the imprints of the knees of Peter and Paul during their prayer." source

The Rock's knees were immovable. We'll pray for you Simon, with both St. Peter and St. Paul, only, you might want to not be twenty feet up in the air, professing your stolen/"nicked" divinity, while we're doing it.



Your ramblings are becoming more and more like a mad mans ravings. Is that deliberate.

Yes non Christian cult along with Mormonism, JWs etc. The identifying point with a cult is usually the removing of the divinity of Jesus. However, while the Catholic Church has not removed the divinity of Jesus it has replaced it with all sorts of stuff, intermediary priests, foundational Peters, infallible popes, Mary's, saints, rosaries etc. etc. So non Christian cult.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Yes, all those things but you missed the most important. It is loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. It is about loving Jesus, accepting that he died to atone for your sins, living a daily personal walk with him.
That is the difference between us.


I'm actually going to address this too since no other Christians have the balls or honesty to tackle it.

It's absolute bullshit.

You've never walked with Jesus, and you do not love Him with all of your heart, mind and soul.

Be honest about it: You cannot humanly do any of these things.

It's a rhetorical trap usually set by religious fundamentalists (and only religious fundamentalists, I might add). A special pleading claim made by them to demonstrate their spiritual superiority and confirmation bias, knowing other Christians can't lay claim to it (and expecting them to keep quiet about this) and can't deny it is possible due to this. If they do deny it, they simultaneously infer that they haven't experienced it because they are less spiritual/chosen/worthy. No sale.

Here's an example of a fundamentalist trying it with an atheist:



While I have a strong dislike for Mr Dawkins, and felt he dealt with this man in quite a cold and uncompassionate way, I do detect a level of awkwardness about his demeanor in doing so, suggesting a hint of guilt. But not a great deal - as even I can see, Dawkins is dealing with a nut-case here (who is also lying).

This man has never walked with Jesus.

It is impossible to love an unfathomable entity such as a God in the way we generally refer and understand the unfathomable concept of "love" itself. The people I love most, are my family, and some of them, I barely even "like" most of the time. But I definitely love them. These are people I know, through and through. The love is embedded and solid yet incredibly difficult to describe. It can't be found in a Mills & Boon novel. These are people that I know and understand the intrinsic nature of. People that I can identify and identity with. The gooey-starry-eyed teenager in love thing has never applied to real love in my experience. It it best found in obsession or temporary delusion. This homo-sensual rhetoric fundamentalists apply to Jesus is not, has never been, and may never be, available to me. I am not the "Bride of Christ" - and in terms of marriage, the love of a wife does not mirror this juvenile starry-eyed description. So they are either lousy poets, or even lousier liars.

As far loving attributes or legacy go, I have many artists who I admire the works of. Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Picasso, Dali. I love their works. I love everything they ever did. I would perhaps attempt to physically embrace them if I ever met them (I have sat in Picasso's chair). But I can't meet them. Even if I could meet them, I doubt that I could find gooey love in their character, essence or nature as personable beings. Yet I really do love, respect and admire their works.

In terms of role models, I can't see a more perfect or worthy role model than Jesus. If I could be like anyone I would like to emulate Jesus. Again, I love his work. I love his artistry. If I met him, I am sure that I would be moved by him. I am sure that I would love him. But drooling at the mouth? I am a man.

So again, I don't believe you. I think you would like to have this kind of devotion, but it doesn't even resemble the devotion that the apostles had for him (who knew him). Which was a teacher/student respect/awe love/loyalty relationship. This "all of my heart, mind and soul" thing resembles a teenager with Justin Bieber posters on her wall. It's not even as believable as that, being that it relates to somebody that you haven't ever even seen.

The great saints who meditated their entire days length, knowing and feeling and being visited by Christ by apparition and some bearing his stigmata have made similar claims. Being agape, The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa, etc. But it seems like it's on a much deeper, spiritual level than "fascination" or "crush". And it seems like so much more hard work, blood, sweat and tears was put into to achieving this level of sanctity for the proposition of it, to be believable, to me at least.

I don't believe that a man who knows Christ personally needs to attend a conference to tell an atheist about it. I don't believe my fellow Christians when they say that they love Christ in this way. A God is not something you can love in that way, when it's barely something you can even understand.



Quote:
It's absolute bullshit.



Like I said, the main difference. You have no idea.
nickfyoung
watersoul wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Your argument that different religions have differing values of sin fails as miserably as your attempt to place sin in the "religion" only category does, especially as an atheist, who is riddled with sin. See: Morality doesn't care what you accept or not. A sin is different to crime against a state. A sin is different to an ethical faux pas. A sin can be intrisic. It is therefore a moral crime. A moral crime requires a law, and poof! God.

Which is why I think the 'sin' idea is silly nonsense as I do not believe in any gods.
Dialogist wrote:
It doesn't exist with animals. You can't put it down to evolution because it definitely separates you (well me at least) from the animal world.

If thats what you and your church believe, cool, doesn't prove your ranting 'sin' claims.
Dialogist wrote:
You're blatantly sinning though, in that you're prepared to sit there and dishonestly tell me Hitler wasn't evil for the sake of winning an argument that you've already lost by typing that.

Usual childlike attempt to twist my words.
I stated that I avoid the term 'evil' due to it's religious undertones (devils and other rubbish).
Hitler committed vile acts of hatred to humankind. I condemn all such acts - clear enough for you now?

Dialogist wrote:
By the way: Monotheism is distinctly different from Polytheism (paganism) and one might do well to remember that concerning credibility.

Never said or implied it wasn't
Dialogist wrote:
Buddhism isn't monotheistic or polytheistic

Never claimed it was or wasn't, used it as an example of a faith...more pathetic twisting of my words.
Dialogist wrote:
(it's a joke).

As are you...a bad zealous one.
Dialogist wrote:
However all the religions that are to be taken seriously in terms of credible dialogue about morality: Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Islam all recognize Jesus in some form of divinity. Jesus, Yeshu, Ishu, and Isa (respectively).

And all disagree wildly about various 'sins'.
Dialogist wrote:
This is why you believe in Jesus. Because by your rationale, religions differing proves falsehood. If Independent testimony is good enough for historians, I guess that's good enough for you. Bow down to the Christ.

Nope, don't believe in your Jesus.
Dialogist wrote:
If you must insist on Buddhism, check out the Gautama Buddha.

No insistance, your words again, just used as an example of a faith which differs in view on marriage.
Dialogist wrote:
But really, I'm hardly having an argument with you about religion... you're incapable of not talking about pixies and goblins in the same sentence as the world's most popular religions.

Haven't mentioned pixies or goblins in this discussion, your own words again.
I do not believe in any magical entities though, from gods to tooth fairies.
Dialogist wrote:
Hence, not to be taken seriously as anyone making any serious attempt to have some respectable dialogue on the particulars of morality. And therefore, just a complete puerile waste of time. Am I wrong?

As long as your arguments remain so deeply clouded by Catholic dogma, well, the tragic answer is yes.
Dialogist wrote:
Also, nobody cares what you don't believe in when discussing these things. It's completely irrelevant to the debate. Your personal faith is not important, and since it is faith in nothing, it carries no absolutely no authority whatsoever concerning the topic at hand.

So, please clarify, if I do not share the same faith as you I have no authority in this topic about 'sin' you say?
That must mean that 'sin' is exclusively for the religious folk, and nothing more important than a simple word outside these circles. Exactly what I suggested Wink
Dialogist wrote:
Yeah we know you're an atheist, Watersoul. We get it! Great. You're so subversive and controversial and edgy. Nobody can tell you what to do. That's really useful to religious debate. What other tricks can you do?

Don't really know why you decided to rant that but curiously it would be an apt descrition for your good self if you replaced the 'A' word with 'Catholic'
Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:
Was it 'supernatural' when the many thousands of kids were sexually abused by the priests in your church?


It was the devil incarnate.

As I don't believe in devils I return to my earlier thoughts that the rapist priests chose to commit the acts due to their particular repugnant lustful emotions and hatred for humanity.

Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:

I think it more likely that it was just another example of human beings abusing others in a position of power.


Then you're deranged, sick, evil and a misanthropic sociopath on a similar, yet not as severe level as they are, and need help (if you truly believe that). The fact they took the guise of a priest and the sanctity and trust of priests, to perform this disgusting evil sacrilege on the most pure possible... actually it makes me hurl just talking about it. And... You think it's on a par with an overbearing boss. That makes me hurl too.

Childishly twisting my words again, that the best you got? - I refer you to my previous paragraph above.
Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:

was it his plan?


Oooh, free will, omniscience, the problem of evil etc. How original. Can I check Wikipedia? I haven't encountered this one before. Honestly, it's like a really bad joke book I've read about sixteen million times.

God(s): check
Zeus, Apollo etc: check
I'm an atheist: check
Paedophiles: check

Grow an idea!

I have, thats why I do not meekly follow the often ridiculous instructions of the Catholic church.

Quote:
So, back on topic, I've still read nothing from you or anyone else that in anyway makes me think 'sin' is anything special (apart from being a word) outside of religious circles
.



You are right in that outside religious circles it is just a word. Sin is only sin when identified as such by religion. Outside religion, you may still be 'in sin' from a religious point of view but it is not relevant to you being outside of religion.
When one does become aware of that sin it is usually the turning point that causes his conversion to religion.

This is part of what the Catholic can't understand. All are in sin, original sin, Atheist, Christian alike from the religious point of view. The Christian has become acutely aware of that sin and has sought forgiveness for it creating his conversion. One can't be a Christian without going through this process. It doesn't matter how many sacraments you have been administered, it makes no difference.
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
You are right in that outside religious circles it is just a word. Sin is only sin when identified as such by religion. Outside religion, you may still be 'in sin' from a religious point of view but it is not relevant to you being outside of religion.
When one does become aware of that sin it is usually the turning point that causes his conversion to religion.

This is part of what the Catholic can't understand. All are in sin, original sin, Atheist, Christian alike from the religious point of view. The Christian has become acutely aware of that sin and has sought forgiveness for it creating his conversion. One can't be a Christian without going through this process. It doesn't matter how many sacraments you have been administered, it makes no difference.

I like your debating style, it is less assertion and more "I believe because" or "from a religious point of view" - a refreshing contrast from fire and brimstone type anger toward those who do not share a particular faith.
We're mostly in agreement (aside from from belief in Jesus) however the turning point for conversion to religion can depend on many factors, including (amongst other things) church pastoral work with the most vulnerable or desperate people clinging to anything which is helping with problematic lives.
nickfyoung
watersoul wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
You are right in that outside religious circles it is just a word. Sin is only sin when identified as such by religion. Outside religion, you may still be 'in sin' from a religious point of view but it is not relevant to you being outside of religion.
When one does become aware of that sin it is usually the turning point that causes his conversion to religion.

This is part of what the Catholic can't understand. All are in sin, original sin, Atheist, Christian alike from the religious point of view. The Christian has become acutely aware of that sin and has sought forgiveness for it creating his conversion. One can't be a Christian without going through this process. It doesn't matter how many sacraments you have been administered, it makes no difference.

I like your debating style, it is less assertion and more "I believe because" or "from a religious point of view" - a refreshing contrast from fire and brimstone type anger toward those who do not share a particular faith.
We're mostly in agreement however the turning point for conversion to religion can depend on many factors, including (amongst other things) church pastoral work with the most vulnerable or desperate people clinging to anything which is helping with problematic lives.



That is true. Christians are often labelled as needing a crutch because of this.
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
watersoul wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
You are right in that outside religious circles it is just a word. Sin is only sin when identified as such by religion. Outside religion, you may still be 'in sin' from a religious point of view but it is not relevant to you being outside of religion.
When one does become aware of that sin it is usually the turning point that causes his conversion to religion.

This is part of what the Catholic can't understand. All are in sin, original sin, Atheist, Christian alike from the religious point of view. The Christian has become acutely aware of that sin and has sought forgiveness for it creating his conversion. One can't be a Christian without going through this process. It doesn't matter how many sacraments you have been administered, it makes no difference.

I like your debating style, it is less assertion and more "I believe because" or "from a religious point of view" - a refreshing contrast from fire and brimstone type anger toward those who do not share a particular faith.
We're mostly in agreement however the turning point for conversion to religion can depend on many factors, including (amongst other things) church pastoral work with the most vulnerable or desperate people clinging to anything which is helping with problematic lives.



That is true. Christians are often labelled as needing a crutch because of this.


I label all religious faith as an emotional crutch to be honest, having investigated my 'spiritual' options in depth over the years in many different groups of faith folk.
I am actually happy for anyone to hold any spiritual belief though, if that belief harms nobody else and helps them get through daily life.
But, we're off-topic here now, so unless I see any assertions that 'sin' is something relevant or exceptional in a world outside of religious circles, I shall leave you to the finer points of 'which scripture/text/parchment/scroll/tablet is more true than the other' debate.
Dialogist
Me paraphrasing watersoul wrote:
some more tired, repetivitve, regurgiated, tedious, dull and trivial musings of an vitriol vile-spewing atheist who can't come to terms with his daddy issues, which I find about as interesting as packet of ready salted crisps, about as entertaining as a kick in the testicles, about as intellectually demanding as child's colouring book and about as inspirational, life affirming and enduring as the futile non-event of atheism itself.


And I'd rather talk to a stark raving lunatic, in tongues, than actually lower myself to even consider reading it.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Like I said, the main difference. You have no idea.


No, I do. You're lying about your faith, as I said. I've hit the nail right on the head, as your muted responses now show.

I have done you the greatest favor of your life.

Now you need to be a Roman Catholic and accept there's only one way out of here.

You know it makes sense. You're a looney tune, but you're clearly not stupid. You can either trace your faith back through the Church to Saint Peter, to Christ, to Moses, to Abraham, to Adam and God directly, or you can trace it back to this:



Anyway, between spazzy Christians and tedious atheists, I'm going back to twitter. At least people are restricted to 140 character limit there. But hey, that's still 141 x more character than any of you can muster up.

RT: @Dialogist 141 x more character than any of you can muster up. LOL.

Nickfyoung wrote:

However, while the Catholic Church has not removed the divinity of Jesus it has replaced it with all sorts of stuff, intermediary priests, foundational Peters, infallible popes, Mary's, saints, rosaries etc. etc. So non Christian cult.


She's not the best, Nick. She's arguably the worst, and since its honesty day, she arguably is the Harlot of Revelations, now I look at it. But still we've been told this would happen. We're under no illusion about it. What I am saying to you is simply this: She is the pure unedited, unadulterated truth. And the truth may hurt, but that's reality.

Do as you will.

God bless you.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
watersoul wrote:
some more tired, repetivitve, regurgiated, tedious, dull and trivial musings of an vitriol vile-spewing atheist who can't come to terms with his daddy issues, which I find about as interesting as packet of ready salted crisps, about as entertaining as a kick in the testicles, about as intellectually demanding as child's colouring book and about as inspirational, life affirming and enduring as the futile non-event of atheism itself.


And I'd rather talk to a stark raving lunatic, in tongues, than actually lower myself to even consider reading it.

You messed up the quote tags there fella, those are your words again (as you know rather tiresomely now) not the world according to watersoul.

...is that really the best effort you could make in reply to my considered and reasoned dissection of your last rant?
Lame response, but thankfully every reader here can also see it as such now lol Wink
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:

You messed up the quote tags there fella, those are your words again


Yeah, apologies, I have edited that.

Watersoul wrote:

Lame response, but thankfully every reader here can also see it as such now lol Wink


Umm, yeah. Sincerity... and all that. Rolling Eyes



One or two posters here warned me that you're not worth debating with. They have said that you're not worth engaging because you are never really talking to the person you're replying to, but always performing for an imagined third party. I said, what? Like pixies, or goblins or something?

Watersoul wrote:

...is that really the best effort you could make in reply to my considered and reasoned dissection of your last rant?


I honestly couldn't finish it. Blind faith positions on naturally observed phenomena don't interest me.

If you really want my argument, case in point, it has already been posted in this thread. It is here.

I hope that goes down well with the audience. But I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm not expecting any Christmas cards. You see, I own the keys.



"Leg him!"

I wasn't aware that I issued "fire and brimstone" to anyone, but you are a sinner, and if you think closing your eyes makes God and therefore your sins evaporate, you're in for a rude awakening, Sonny Jim.
nickfyoung
You are able to produce some nice pics. I haven't worked out how to do it yet. There are some good pics out there but I am not sure they add to the debate. The couple you have used for me have been extreme examples and there will always be extremes. There are hyper Calvinists and hyper everything else but it is really not sensible to base ones views on extremes.

Was looking through a Catholic Bible study and came across this, "Some of our [b]Protestant brothers and sisters[/b] point to Romans 8:38 "

So you are not a 'normal' Catholic???

"What this statement does not mean is that you have to be a member of a Catholic Parish to be saved...Those churches which contain some elements of truth would be, for example, protestant churches that practice Trinitarian baptism."

"But these statements and documents recognizing certain other religions as "valid faiths" in no way mitigates the claim of the Catholic Church to be the One, true Church; nor does it mean that all Catholics are automatically saved (see CCC#846). Vatican II emphasizes that merely membership in the Catholic Church is not enough to be saved but it also warned that Catholics wishing to go to heaven must possess the "Spirit of Christ," accept the "entire system and all the means of salvation" given to the church, and "preserve in charity." In other words, "cafeteria Catholics" are on very shaky ground!"

The above quotes are from here, http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/index.html
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

"Some of our Protestant brothers and sisters point to Romans 8:38"


I am certainly understanding that the protestants love Saint Paul. This is definitely coming through loud and clear, and perhaps this Biblical spat began long before the Bible was even written. Saint Peter's confrontation of Simon Magus is actually seriously thought of to be a cipher to cover-up Anti-Paulinism. To hide the fact that Saint Peter was actually attacking Saint Paul with those words (I personally don't hold to that, due to the "adversary" part). The Clementines who wrote the apocryphal verse clearly had no time for Saint Paul and even refused to regard him as an apostle. Saint Peter and Saint Paul did famously come to blows at Antioch and the main complaints of anyone Saint Peter didn't trust was mainly due to two things. Suggestible nature and not having actually walked with Jesus. Sounds eerily familiar. Both Simon Magus and Saint Paul are definite candidates for these complaints and the scholars argue whether Simon Magus actually existed, or whether he was just a cipher to hide the fact that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were going at it hammer and tongs over the legacy of Jesus. You'll notice their conflicting styles and also see the origins of your particular brand of religion in the romantic, ultra-spiritual writings of Saint Paul as opposed to the practical, entitled, walked with Jesus physically, law, rank and file, appeal to authority of Saint Peter. Saint Peter's style places its emphasis on stating 'what is right'. And Saint Paul's style places its emphasis on asking 'whatever could be possibly wrong?' Saint Peter is the Rock and Saint Paul is the twisting tides. Saint Paul was able to engulf Saint Peter in his depth of poetry, philosophy and idealism which is something Saint Peter could never do. Saint Paul was able to rise gently and softly around the Rock and crash it with great force when needed. But where Saint Paul was free and unrestrained, Saint Peter remained as that solid authoritative immovable Rock foundation which even the gates of Hades couldn't overthrow. What you have here, is the beginning of Roman Catholic Church Vs Modern evangelicalism and protestantism. The age-old Immovable Object Vs Irresistible Force paradox. And naturally, reformists leaped onto the Good Ship Pauline with hopes of combating The Rock, but what they gain in romantic, spiritual fervency, they lose in solid, foundational structure. And vice versa.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 8:38


Regarding the verse, haha. Regarding the verse itself, you could pick any number of supporting verses to support a position or deny an attempt to. As you've seen above with Luther. For example, your irresistible force of "neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons will be able to separate it" comes up against my immovable object of "The gates of Hades will not withstand it". You can do this with any of them. You effectively have the same message, saying exactly the same thing, yet two entirely different viewpoints, each scanning for the same verse with opposing vested interests. Which is to be honest is bs.

Nickfyoung wrote:

What this statement does not mean is that you have to be a member of a Catholic Parish to be saved...


Yeah but again, whenever you throw some Saint Paul at me, I have more Saint Matthew waiting in the wings. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." - Matthew 24:35 (and your angels and demons are part of Heaven and Earth, and Jesus' word, "On this rock I build my church" and "gates of Hades" etc withstands everything Romans 8:38 can hurl at it). You see how it works? Do you see how futile it is? I mean, I've just wasted most of this thread battling against a Christian apologetic who took a Pro-Catholic verse and tried to make it mean the exact opposite. This was his problem. But it was kind of mine in defending it too. We're both idiots. It's a complete fool's errand.

Nickfyoung wrote:

So you are not a 'normal' Catholic???


Oh, my dear boy. There's no such thing. When I called you a lunatic, I was grooming you.

Nickfyoung wrote:

In other words, "cafeteria Catholics" are on very shaky ground!"


Eh, at least I've got the right cafe, and I'm not drunk in a brothel.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

"Some of our Protestant brothers and sisters point to Romans 8:38"


I am certainly understanding that the protestants love Saint Paul. This is definitely coming through loud and clear, and perhaps this Biblical spat began long before the Bible was even written. Saint Peter's confrontation of Simon Magus is actually seriously thought of to be a cipher to cover-up Anti-Paulinism. To hide the fact that Saint Peter was actually attacking Saint Paul with those words (I personally don't hold to that, due to the "adversary" part). The Clementines who wrote the apocryphal verse clearly had no time for Saint Paul and even refused to regard him as an apostle. Saint Peter and Saint Paul did famously come to blows at Antioch and the main complaints of anyone Saint Peter didn't trust was mainly due to two things. Suggestible nature and not having actually walked with Jesus. Sounds eerily familiar. Both Simon Magus and Saint Paul are definite candidates for these complaints and the scholars argue whether Simon Magus actually existed, or whether he was just a cipher to hide the fact that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were going at it hammer and tongs over the legacy of Jesus. You'll notice their conflicting styles and also see the origins of your particular brand of religion in the romantic, ultra-spiritual writings of Saint Paul as opposed to the practical, entitled, walked with Jesus physically, law, rank and file, appeal to authority of Saint Peter. Saint Peter's style places its emphasis on stating 'what is right'. And Saint Paul's style places its emphasis on asking 'whatever could be possibly wrong?' Saint Peter is the Rock and Saint Paul is the twisting tides. Saint Paul was able to engulf Saint Peter in his depth of poetry, philosophy and idealism which is something Saint Peter could never do. Saint Paul was able to rise gently and softly around the Rock and crash it with great force when needed. But where Saint Paul was free and unrestrained, Saint Peter remained as that solid authoritative immovable Rock foundation which even the gates of Hades couldn't overthrow. What you have here, is the beginning of Roman Catholic Church Vs Modern evangelicalism and protestantism. The age-old Immovable Object Vs Irresistible Force paradox. And naturally, reformists leaped onto the Good Ship Pauline with hopes of combating The Rock, but what they gain in romantic, spiritual fervency, they lose in solid, foundational structure. And vice versa.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 8:38


Regarding the verse, haha. Regarding the verse itself, you could pick any number of supporting verses to support a position or deny an attempt to. As you've seen above with Luther. For example, your irresistible force of "neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons will be able to separate it" comes up against my immovable object of "The gates of Hades will not withstand it". You can do this with any of them. You effectively have the same message, saying exactly the same thing, yet two entirely different viewpoints, each scanning for the same verse with opposing vested interests. Which is to be honest is bs.

Nickfyoung wrote:

What this statement does not mean is that you have to be a member of a Catholic Parish to be saved...


Yeah but again, whenever you throw some Saint Paul at me, I have more Saint Matthew waiting in the wings. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." - Matthew 24:35 (and your angels and demons are part of Heaven and Earth, and Jesus' word, "On this rock I build my church" and "gates of Hades" etc withstands everything Romans 8:38 can hurl at it). You see how it works? Do you see how futile it is? I mean, I've just wasted most of this thread battling against a Christian apologetic who took a Pro-Catholic verse and tried to make it mean the exact opposite. This was his problem. But it was kind of mine in defending it too. We're both idiots. It's a complete fool's errand.

Nickfyoung wrote:

So you are not a 'normal' Catholic???


Oh, my dear boy. There's no such thing. When I called you a lunatic, I was grooming you.

Nickfyoung wrote:

In other words, "cafeteria Catholics" are on very shaky ground!"


Eh, at least I've got the right cafe, and I'm not drunk in a brothel.



What I am saying here is that some of your own teachings refer to us as Protestant brothers and sisters.

It also says that there are some Protestant churches who have enough truth so that some can be saved there.

It also says that membership in the Catholic church does not make salvation automatic but it is a further step. It makes the point that some Catholics are on shaky ground. I would add that it would be the majority of Catholics.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

"Some of our Protestant brothers and sisters point to Romans 8:38"


I am certainly understanding that the protestants love Saint Paul. This is definitely coming through loud and clear, and perhaps this Biblical spat began long before the Bible was even written. Saint Peter's confrontation of Simon Magus is actually seriously thought of to be a cipher to cover-up Anti-Paulinism. To hide the fact that Saint Peter was actually attacking Saint Paul with those words (I personally don't hold to that, due to the "adversary" part). The Clementines who wrote the apocryphal verse clearly had no time for Saint Paul and even refused to regard him as an apostle. Saint Peter and Saint Paul did famously come to blows at Antioch and the main complaints of anyone Saint Peter didn't trust was mainly due to two things. Suggestible nature and not having actually walked with Jesus. Sounds eerily familiar. Both Simon Magus and Saint Paul are definite candidates for these complaints and the scholars argue whether Simon Magus actually existed, or whether he was just a cipher to hide the fact that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were going at it hammer and tongs over the legacy of Jesus. You'll notice their conflicting styles and also see the origins of your particular brand of religion in the romantic, ultra-spiritual writings of Saint Paul as opposed to the practical, entitled, walked with Jesus physically, law, rank and file, appeal to authority of Saint Peter. Saint Peter's style places its emphasis on stating 'what is right'. And Saint Paul's style places its emphasis on asking 'whatever could be possibly wrong?' Saint Peter is the Rock and Saint Paul is the twisting tides. Saint Paul was able to engulf Saint Peter in his depth of poetry, philosophy and idealism which is something Saint Peter could never do. Saint Paul was able to rise gently and softly around the Rock and crash it with great force when needed. But where Saint Paul was free and unrestrained, Saint Peter remained as that solid authoritative immovable Rock foundation which even the gates of Hades couldn't overthrow. What you have here, is the beginning of Roman Catholic Church Vs Modern evangelicalism and protestantism. The age-old Immovable Object Vs Irresistible Force paradox. And naturally, reformists leaped onto the Good Ship Pauline with hopes of combating The Rock, but what they gain in romantic, spiritual fervency, they lose in solid, foundational structure. And vice versa.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 8:38


Regarding the verse, haha. Regarding the verse itself, you could pick any number of supporting verses to support a position or deny an attempt to. As you've seen above with Luther. For example, your irresistible force of "neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons will be able to separate it" comes up against my immovable object of "The gates of Hades will not withstand it". You can do this with any of them. You effectively have the same message, saying exactly the same thing, yet two entirely different viewpoints, each scanning for the same verse with opposing vested interests. Which is to be honest is bs.

Nickfyoung wrote:

What this statement does not mean is that you have to be a member of a Catholic Parish to be saved...


Yeah but again, whenever you throw some Saint Paul at me, I have more Saint Matthew waiting in the wings. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." - Matthew 24:35 (and your angels and demons are part of Heaven and Earth, and Jesus' word, "On this rock I build my church" and "gates of Hades" etc withstands everything Romans 8:38 can hurl at it). You see how it works? Do you see how futile it is? I mean, I've just wasted most of this thread battling against a Christian apologetic who took a Pro-Catholic verse and tried to make it mean the exact opposite. This was his problem. But it was kind of mine in defending it too. We're both idiots. It's a complete fool's errand.

Nickfyoung wrote:

So you are not a 'normal' Catholic???


Oh, my dear boy. There's no such thing. When I called you a lunatic, I was grooming you.

Nickfyoung wrote:

In other words, "cafeteria Catholics" are on very shaky ground!"


Eh, at least I've got the right cafe, and I'm not drunk in a brothel.



What I am saying here is that some of your own teachings refer to us as Protestant brothers and sisters.

It also says that there are some Protestant churches who have enough truth so that some can be saved there.

It also says that membership in the Catholic church does not make salvation automatic but it is a further step. It makes the point that some Catholics are on shaky ground. I would add that it would be the majority of Catholics.


Because you have Saint Paul getting uppity and dishing out rebukes (which he was right to from his perspective) and Saint Peter there speechless with a mouth full of food and a dick full of foreskin basically not sitting at that table, not because he's a racist or bigot, but because he doesn't approve of the motive of the gesture. And in Aramaic times, you didn't eat with what you didn't approve of. This is not an insult, just a demonstrative appreciation of what is your family. The Italians still have this custom to this day. The arabs do too. Of course, he sits alone and all his men follow him because they are, after all, loyal and Peter commands his own authoritative leadership without ever needing to say anything. Saint Paul was right to diss Saint Peter, but he didn't get that the gesture wasn't a gesture, but actually a disprovable of a gesture. And being that Saint Paul was writing of this rebuke, it is always going to come across with sensationalism, as indeed it would, if Saint Peter had wrote it, or James or Barnabas (all with entirely different perspectives). Or as H. L. Mencken once put it, "Freedom of press is limited to those who own one".

Fortunately James stood up to be counted:

Acts 15:13-14, 19-21 "After they had fallen silent, James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath."

In other words, you're a failure, gentiles, but it was Symeon/Peter who first pointed out that we should not focus on that. James is prescribing that, instead, we'll help you with that. Come follow us. And we've always called every man, Brother, regardless of self-mutilation, false doctrine or what have you.
nickfyoung
Sorry, I am not looking at Romans 8 or whatever it was. I am referring to the brothers and sisters bit.
One can be saved in a Protestant church.
And that all Catholics are not Christians.

Quote:
What I am saying here is that some of your own teachings refer to us as Protestant brothers and sisters.

It also says that there are some Protestant churches who have enough truth so that some can be saved there.

It also says that membership in the Catholic church does not make salvation automatic but it is a further step. It makes the point that some Catholics are on shaky ground. I would add that it would be the majority of Catholics.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Sorry, I am not looking at Romans 8 or whatever it was. I am referring to the brothers and sisters bit.
One can be saved in a Protestant church.
And that all Catholics are not Christians.


All Catholics are Christians, obviously. That's like saying all bachelors aren't men. Nobody said that singing up for Catholicism was merely enough to grant instant access into the Kingdom. There's atheists who used to be Catholics, who officially always will be Catholics, technically. But I grant them access (in my own personal belief derived from the Good Samaritan parable and all of those verses that I used to refute Luther above) based upon their deeds and motive. This is theological consistency. That's why you need framework and foundation. When you do not have framework and foundation, you make inconsistent comments like this:

Nickfyoung wrote:
I wouldn't say I was a Catholic opposer any more than I am a Mormon opposer or a Muslim opposer simply because they are distorting what the Bible teaches.


Showing your beliefs to be based on... little of nothing.

What's wrong with the Catholics exactly? Or the Mormons exactly? They worship Jesus, right? Isn't that enough? How about those Muslims? They recognize Isa right? Isn't that enough?
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Sorry, I am not looking at Romans 8 or whatever it was. I am referring to the brothers and sisters bit.
One can be saved in a Protestant church.
And that all Catholics are not Christians.


All Catholics are Christians, obviously. That's like saying all bachelors aren't men. Nobody said that singing up for Catholicism was merely enough to grant instant access into the Kingdom. There's atheists who used to be Catholics, who officially always will be Catholics, technically. But I grant them access (in my own personal belief derived from the Good Samaritan parable and all of those verses that I used to refute Luther above) based upon their deeds and motive. This is theological consistency. That's why you need framework and foundation. When you do not have framework and foundation, you make inconsistent comments like this:

Nickfyoung wrote:
I wouldn't say I was a Catholic opposer any more than I am a Mormon opposer or a Muslim opposer simply because they are distorting what the Bible teaches.


Showing your beliefs to be based on... little of nothing.

What's wrong with the Mormons exactly? They worship Jesus, right? Isn't that enough? How about those Muslims? They recognize Isa right? Isn't that enough?



We are poles apart I am afraid. My beliefs are based on the teachings of the Bible and nothing else.

Quote:
All Catholics are Christians, obviously


When you make comments like that ...well, what can I say. We are poles apart.


Quote:
Nobody said that singing up for Catholicism was merely enough to grant instant access into the Kingdom.



How does one gain access into the kingdom then. All Christians have already accessed the kingdom. The kingdom of God is within you.


Quote:
in my own personal belief



Not good enough. Your personal belief does not cut it. It is not about you.


Quote:
based upon their deeds and motive. This is theological consistency.



It is not at all. This the opposite of theological teaching. Complete opposite.


Quote:
What's wrong with the Mormons exactly? They worship Jesus, right? Isn't that enough? How about those Muslims? They recognize Isa right? Isn't that enough?
[


Nothing is wrong with them. They are exactly the same as the Catholic church and are all going to the same place. You will be able to catch up with them there because you have just revealed exactly where you are at.
nickfyoung
The believer dies to sin and therefore blameworthiness dies-we die to sin by renouncing sin and its power over us and being freed of its hold on our lives. We image Christ in this death to sin just as He died to free us from sin on the Cross.

The believer is born "again" or "from above";

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/the%20regenerative%20power%20of%20christian%20baptism.htm


According to Catholic teaching, the above is part of what baptism is all about.

A couple of times there it mentions the believer. What does it mean by believer.

Is it that the believer believes in Jesus but the born again bit doesn't happen till baptism.

It is just that we believe the born again bit happens at the point of believing and then we get baptized. Not a great deal of difference I suppose.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

We are poles apart I am afraid. My beliefs are based on the teachings of the Bible and nothing else.


No they are not. They are false teachings. You are distorting what the Bible says. Time and time again.

Matthew 16:18 and James 2:24 are just two examples of you completely ignoring, and in fact preaching the exact opposite of what the Bible says. You accuse me of following a man (Luther?) instead of Christ. You can't even follow a decent man. Everything you preach is complete bollocks and completely incompatible with Christianity, in anyone's reading. Of course you'll avoid answering this, like you normally do: How you can possibly preach "scripture alone" and ignore large chunks of it and preach non-scripture like Luther against Matthew 16:18 and James 2:24 is absolutely beyond me. Defend your ability to do this to me. Please. I beg it of you. I want to know exactly how you consider yourself to be logically able to do this.

*Nick thinks to himself for a minute*... "Yeah, I'll completely ignore that part like I do with scripture and get straight back to the Catholic hating, because that's all Protest-antism has ever been truly all about anyway".

Nickfyoung wrote:

When you make comments like that ...well, what can I say. We are poles apart.


Agreed.

<--Truth|-------<-[striving]-------[Grey Area]--------[struggling]->------|Lie-->
--------------------Me-------------------------------------------------------------You.

Nickfyoung wrote:

How does one gain access into the kingdom then. All Christians have already accessed the kingdom. The kingdom of God is within you.


You're not a Christian, though, are you? You deny Matthew, hence Peter, hence Christ. And you deny Christ daily by directly opposing his deeds with this Lutherian garbage. And you deny Christ daily by constantly denying his sacrifice of salvation with this Calvinistic crap. You are nothing close to Christian. I think you should call yourself something else.

Nickfyoung wrote:
Not good enough. Your personal belief does not cut it. It is not about you.


Pentecostalism gets flushed then, huh? Open a window and spray a little bit of deodorant before you come out.


wrote:
It is not at all. This the opposite of theological teaching. Complete opposite.


You have no idea what either theology or consistency means. Placing them adjacent is clearly not for you either. You seem to think that a language can derive gender forms from nouns which didn't exist in the language it was translated from, and this logical inconsistency grants you permission to form theological consistencies about the falsehood of Catholic authenticity or the truth of protestantism. I've got news for you, the effort I took to tear your friend Matt Slick to pieces, was not in vain. I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Protestantism is a living (almost dead) lie. Like the verse which didn't follow directly after that one didn't as far back ago as the 1st Century. And still, you're making the same dumbfounded claims that you were making before I took that to task, under the promise that you would stop doing that if I succeeded. You're basically a liar, because you're still doing it:

"However, while the Catholic Church has not removed the divinity of Jesus it has replaced it with all sorts of stuff, intermediary priests, foundational Peters, infallible popes, Mary's, saints, rosaries etc. etc. So non Christian cult." - Nickfyoung, yesterday.

I honestly can't believe a single word you say. After I have showed, in no uncertain terms, that the reading of Matthew 16:18 can only logically, evidentially and literally read to mean: "Jesus built the Catholic Church" how you can still be typing any of the above. How you can still hold to these views in light of them being shown to you, in no uncertain terms, that these views are completely impossible. Dishonesty? Blind faith? Lie? Brainwashed? The facts are there, plain as day. So which is it to be? Acceptance? Or more blind denial?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Nothing is wrong with them. They are exactly the same as the Catholic church and are all going to the same place. You will be able to catch up with them there because you have just revealed exactly where you are at.


But you're going to Heaven, aren't you? For damning us all to Hell? God likes that. Those are the deeds he rewards. Have you heard yourself? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

Nickfyoung wrote:

It is just that we believe the born again bit happens at the point of believing and then we get baptized. Not a great deal of difference I suppose.


We actually follow Christ. Christ gave our Church and the longevity of our Church the specific authority to set up His church and said whatever we bind here gets binded up there, and thus, gave us the authority to make all of the theological distinctions. He didn't build his church on a medieval German farm boy who failed his law bar. He didn't give the layman the authority to make up which ever ludicrous incompatible, illogical trend that happened to occur to him, born of Catholic-angst. Christ left His divine law in capable hands. And the gates of Hades, Hell, Sheol, Gehenna or Protestantism SHALL NEVER withstand it.

Christ's words, not Luther's.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

We are poles apart I am afraid. My beliefs are based on the teachings of the Bible and nothing else.


No they are not. They are false teachings. You are distorting what the Bible says. Time and time again.

Matthew 16:18 and James 2:24 are just two examples of you completely ignoring, and in fact preaching the exact opposite of what the Bible says. You accuse me of following a man (Luther?) instead of Christ. You can't even follow a decent man. Everything you preach is complete bollocks and completely incompatible with Christianity, in anyone's reading. Of course you'll avoid answering this, like you normally do: How you can possibly preach "scripture alone" and ignore large chunks of it and preach non-scripture like Luther against Matthew 16:18 and James 2:24 is absolutely beyond me. Defend your ability to do this to me. Please. I beg it of you. I want to know exactly how you consider yourself to be logically able to do this.

*Nick thinks to himself for a minute*... "Yeah, I'll completely ignore that part like I do with scripture and get straight back to the Catholic hating, because that's all Protest-antism has ever been truly all about anyway".

Nickfyoung wrote:

When you make comments like that ...well, what can I say. We are poles apart.


Agreed.

<--Truth|-------<-[striving]-------[Grey Area]--------[struggling]->------|Lie-->
--------------------Me-------------------------------------------------------------You.

Nickfyoung wrote:

How does one gain access into the kingdom then. All Christians have already accessed the kingdom. The kingdom of God is within you.


You're not a Christian, though, are you? You deny Matthew, hence Peter, hence Christ. And you deny Christ daily by directly opposing his deeds with this Lutherian garbage. And you deny Christ daily by constantly denying his sacrifice of salvation with this Calvinistic crap. You are nothing close to Christian. I think you should call yourself something else.

Nickfyoung wrote:
Not good enough. Your personal belief does not cut it. It is not about you.


Pentecostalism gets flushed then, huh? Open a window and spray a little bit of deodorant before you come out.


wrote:
It is not at all. This the opposite of theological teaching. Complete opposite.


You have no idea what either theology or consistency means. Placing them adjacent is clearly not for you either. You seem to think that a language can derive gender forms from nouns which didn't exist in the language it was translated from, and this logical inconsistency grants you permission to form theological consistencies about the falsehood of Catholic authenticity or the truth of protestantism. I've got news for you, the effort I took to tear your friend Matt Slick to pieces, was not in vain. I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Protestantism is a living (almost dead) lie. Like the verse which didn't follow directly after that one didn't as far back ago as the 1st Century. And still, you're making the same dumbfounded claims that you were making before I took that to task, under the promise that you would stop doing that if I succeeded. You're basically a liar, because you're still doing it:

"However, while the Catholic Church has not removed the divinity of Jesus it has replaced it with all sorts of stuff, intermediary priests, foundational Peters, infallible popes, Mary's, saints, rosaries etc. etc. So non Christian cult." - Nickfyoung, yesterday.

I honestly can't believe a single word you say. After I have showed, in no uncertain terms, that the reading of Matthew 16:18 can only logically, evidentially and literally read to mean: "Jesus built the Catholic Church" how you can still be typing any of the above. How you can still hold to these views in light of them being shown to you, in no uncertain terms, that these views are completely impossible. Dishonesty? Blind faith? Lie? Brainwashed? The facts are there, plain as day. So which is it to be? Acceptance? Or more blind denial?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Nothing is wrong with them. They are exactly the same as the Catholic church and are all going to the same place. You will be able to catch up with them there because you have just revealed exactly where you are at.


But you're going to Heaven, aren't you? For damning us all to Hell? God likes that. Those are the deeds he rewards. Have you heard yourself? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

Nickfyoung wrote:

It is just that we believe the born again bit happens at the point of believing and then we get baptized. Not a great deal of difference I suppose.


We actually follow Christ. Christ gave our Church and the longevity of our Church the specific authority to set up His church and said whatever we bind here gets binded up there, and thus, gave us the authority to make all of the theological distinctions. He didn't build his church on a medieval German farm boy who failed his law bar. He didn't give the layman the authority to make up which ever ludicrous incompatible, illogical trend that happened to occur to him, born of Catholic-angst. Christ left His divine law in capable hands. And the gates of Hades, Hell, Sheol, Gehenna or Protestantism SHALL NEVER withstand it.

Christ's words, not Luther's.



Sorry, still can't accept your interpretation of Mathew 16:18. So I suppose we are stuck there.
You obviously passionately believe your churches interpretation so be it. Nothing I say is going to change your mind.

Just so you know I have built my 'church' on something different.

James 2:24 is not difficult. James also says the faith without works is dead. No dispute there.

Quote:
How you can possibly preach "scripture alone" and ignore large chunks of it and preach non-scripture like Luther against Matthew 16:18 and James 2:24 is absolutely beyond me.



Never mentioned Luther at all sorry. Already explained those two verses. I have a different interpretation of Mathew 16:18 and James simply says that faith without works is dead. I have no argument there. When you say works alone we get into difficulties.


Quote:
After I have showed, in no uncertain terms, that the reading of Matthew 16:18 can only logically, evidentially and literally read to mean: "Jesus built the Catholic Church" how you can still be typing any of the above.



Because I keep trying to tell you I do not accept your translation. I believe it means something different. You haven't showed anything in no uncertain terms. You have just put the Catholic position based on one verse.
I believe it means something different.


Quote:
The facts are there, plain as day.



I understand the facts are as you wish to see them. I understand how you interpret that verse. For me they are not the facts. I could say the facts are there plain as day for something completely different. They would be for me but not for you.


Quote:
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?



You are joking surly. Do realize what you said. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound. What is wrong with Mormanism and Islam.


Quote:
We actually follow Christ. Christ gave our Church and the longevity of our Church the specific authority to set up His church and said whatever we bind here gets binded up there, and thus, gave us the authority to make all of the theological distinctions. He didn't build his church on a medieval German farm boy who failed his law bar. He didn't give the layman the authority to make up which ever ludicrous incompatible, illogical trend that happened to occur to him, born of Catholic-angst. Christ left His divine law in capable hands. And the gates of Hades, Hell, Sheol, Gehenna or Protestantism SHALL NEVER withstand it.



Instead of this blather how about just answering a few questions.
LxGoodies
Wow..
Dialogist wrote:
After I have showed, in no uncertain terms, that the reading of Matthew 16:18 can only logically, evidentially and literally read to mean: "Jesus built the Catholic Church" how you can still be typing any of the above. How you can still hold to these views
Dialogist wrote:
You're not a Christian, though, are you? You deny Matthew, hence Peter, hence Christ. And you deny Christ daily by directly opposing his deeds with this Lutherian garbage. And you deny Christ daily by constantly denying his sacrifice of salvation with this Calvinistic crap. You are nothing close to Christian. I think you should call yourself something else.

There is not a grain of respect in this. There is no dialog, it's flaming. Who do you think you are Dialogist, the Spanish Inquisition in person ? Confused

Lx
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Sorry, still can't accept your interpretation of Mathew 16:18. So I suppose we are stuck there.


We're "stuck" here because there is only one possible and logical coherent reading of these verses (18 - 19). Only one possible.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You obviously passionately believe your churches interpretation so be it.


I am not passionate about linguistics. It has laws. Rules. I get no say in what they tell me. Unfortunately right now, they are telling me that they are "obviously" my "passionate" 'belief'. They are not. This is a another lie. Look at it. Read it. 18 is what it says. 19 clarifies it and even adds to it. If you deny that, you just have a problem with communication, or you have a deep-seated problem with Christianity, because I'm afraid the Christian has to believe Christ. Christ says Peter is the one he'll build his church upon. Christ gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind. There is no other possible logical reading.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Nothing I say is going to change your mind.


My mind isn't consulted. My ability to logically understand basic communicative text is. I have that faculty. This is not "belief". It says it as clear as day on the page. "Belief" (blind faith, actually) tells you that something about "female nouns" (which were never female) creates an opportunity to create a female Christ rock?!? That somehow means it can't be Peter: Because, wait for it, Aramaic has no neuter gender in nouns. Your proposition of the "truth" of protestantism is thus: Aramaic didn't have the noun gender form that the latter Greek female noun was derived from, therefore: Catholicism is false. WTF? As I say, this isn't even your attempt. This was the attempt of some idiot on the internet, to which you can't even claim the idiocy of, because at least he's dishonestly tried to put the work in. You have googled it, thinking I to be a similar ignoramus. Your own personal attempt simply was and still is: I don't believe what the Bible says. I prefer to cherry pick my faith. And you've got the barefaced dishonesty to try to pin that on me?

Saint Peter wrote:
If you were not an adversary, you would not be slandering me and reviling the preaching that is given through me, in order that, as I heard myself in person from the Lord, when I speak I may not be believed, as though forsooth it were I who was condemned and I who was reprobate.


It was all written...etc. 1st Century.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Just so you know I have built my 'church' on something different.


...Something different from Christ and Christ's wishes and what the Bible says. I know this. And since you are admitting this too (finally), this is why you can't claim Christianity.

Nickfyoung wrote:

James 2:24 is not difficult. James also says the faith without works is dead. No dispute there.


More blind denial. There's a fairly obvious logical and theological dispute here:

Wikipedia wrote:

Sola fide (Latin: "by faith alone"), also historically known as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations from Catholicism, Eastern Christianity, and some in the Restoration Movement.

The doctrine of sola fide or "by faith alone" asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith, conceived as excluding all "works".


^Protestantism.

James 2:24 wrote:

James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."


^Christianity.

See any glaring errors? Inconstancies, hm? I know you struggle with basic communication so I'll spell it out for you: James (an apostle who knew and was taught by Jesus personally, and is Christianly believed to be a genuine, divinely inspired author of the Bible, says, "A person is justified by works and not faith alone" and Luther, some random ass hat from the middle ages, who wasn't divinely inspired, whom had never met or understood Christ (and arguably failed in reading anything of notable understanding of Christ's work, deeds and championing of the downtrodden and unlikely hero through works, deeds and motive alone) STATES: "Sola Fide (by faith alone)" and not works at all!

You live a lie if helps you sleep at night because you have to live it hating Catholics: The true faith doesn't make these schoolboy errors, and when it has come up with nonsensical illogical crap like this (which has been rare) it has had a historical framework of Church fathers, doctors to calm it's engines. It has a Pope with the jurisdiction of quality control (put it in the garbage/ put it to print). It has an error-checking mechanism like DNA. It is the living, true (and professionally structured) foundation of Christian thought. And it doesn't let any random jackass foul up like this. Who was Luther's peer review? Tell me, I'd like to know? Who proof-read Luther? Who said, "Actually... you know, this kinda, sorta, doesn't..." Who was there to do that? Nobody.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Never mentioned Luther at all sorry. Already explained those two verses. I have a different interpretation of Mathew 16:18 and James simply says that faith without works is dead. I have no argument there. When you say works alone we get into difficulties.


Lutherian teaching distinguishes Protestantism. Protestantism is a lie. Hence: You subscribe to it. You have referenced "by faith alone" on many separate occasions. You're using the same reasoning above to say why it is possible that your hatred of Catholicism can grant you anything but failure. This is your blind faith position - which you get nothing from. An angel with a vinegar tongue has been sent to save your soul, by God. And you are now reviling he as condemned, as if he is the reprobate and as if he was the liar.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Because I keep trying to tell you I do not accept your translation.


??? Here is my "translation" of your sentence above. Ready? Wait for it: "Because I keep trying to tell you I do not accept your translation." See how it is exactly the same as what you wrote? Exactly? That's my translation of Mathew 16:18-19 too ironically. I read exactly what was written on the page, and I "translated" nothing. "Translating" is then searching through dusty archaic Greek scripts, to make up some LIE about Aramaic having the same "translation" extant in its language. That is all I "translate" from your lies.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I believe it means something different.


I have showed you this is absolutely impossible, unless you're either deceitful, or have cognitive disabilities.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You haven't showed anything in no uncertain terms.


Oh, yes, I have. I have showed that Aramaic has no neuter gender form in its nouns, so any latter Greek translation of the Aramaic which does, has in fact invented/introduced those gender forms with its nouns itself. This was the only string you dangled from the precipice of protestantism from, and I have snipped that thread. You're now left with either blind faith (dishonest confirmation bias) or just stupidity and arrogance/ignorance which answers to no logic. I have showed for absolutely certain that you are wrong.

What else have you offered for an alternative meaning of the verse? "I believe otherwise"? Why? Nothing? You just feel like it? I am seriously debating the truth of Biblical scripture with a self-proclaimed Christian who simply just feels he can invent whatever appeals to him to deny that scripture? Seriously?

Nickfyoung wrote:

I understand the facts are as you wish to see them


That's not what a fact is. A fact is how it is.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I understand how you interpret that verse.


Congratulations. So does 99.9% of the history of western and eastern civilization.

Nickfyoung wrote:

For me they are not the facts.


Pee off, Nick. Seriously.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You are joking surly. Do realize what you said. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound. What is wrong with Mormanism and Islam.


What is wrong with Mormonism and Islam is precisely the same things that are wrong with Protestantism and Pentecostalism. You have answered your own question. But of course.. "Well I don't believe facts..." blah blah.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Instead of this blather how about just answering a few questions.


I have the answers to questions you're not advanced enough to ask.... And I honestly can't endure this "fact, if I say so" nonsense any longer.

LxGoodies wrote:

There is not a grain of respect in this. There is no dialog, it's flaming. Who do you think you are Dialogist, the Spanish Inquisition in person ?


We're talking about theology, dear. About a person's right to value a fake salvation, if they so desire, rather than a person's right to value a fake coin, if they so desire.

And don't act like you're understand the first thing about what we're discussing, as your choice of quotations communicate to me that you obviously haven't read why this dispute is taking place or indeed, what it is even about.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Sorry, still can't accept your interpretation of Mathew 16:18. So I suppose we are stuck there.


We're "stuck" here because there is only one possible and logical coherent reading of these verses (18 - 19). Only one possible.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You obviously passionately believe your churches interpretation so be it.


I am not passionate about linguistics. It has laws. Rules. I get no say in what they tell me. Unfortunately right now, they are telling me that they are "obviously" my "passionate" 'belief'. They are not. This is a another lie. Look at it. Read it. 18 is what it says. 19 clarifies it and even adds to it. If you deny that, you just have a problem with communication, or you have a deep-seated problem with Christianity, because I'm afraid the Christian has to believe Christ. Christ says Peter is the one he'll build his church upon. Christ gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind. There is no other possible logical reading.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Nothing I say is going to change your mind.


My mind isn't consulted. My ability to logically understand basic communicative text is. I have that faculty. This is not "belief". It says it as clear as day on the page. "Belief" (blind faith, actually) tells you that something about "female nouns" (which were never female) creates an opportunity to create a female Christ rock?!? That somehow means it can't be Peter: Because, wait for it, Aramaic has no neuter gender in nouns. Your proposition of the "truth" of protestantism is thus: Aramaic didn't have the noun gender form that the latter Greek female noun was derived from, therefore: Catholicism is false. WTF? As I say, this isn't even your attempt. This was the attempt of some idiot on the internet, to which you can't even claim the idiocy of, because at least he's dishonestly tried to put the work in. You have googled it, thinking I to be a similar ignoramus. Your own personal attempt simply was and still is: I don't believe what the Bible says. I prefer to cherry pick my faith. And you've got the barefaced dishonesty to try to pin that on me?

Saint Peter wrote:
If you were not an adversary, you would not be slandering me and reviling the preaching that is given through me, in order that, as I heard myself in person from the Lord, when I speak I may not be believed, as though forsooth it were I who was condemned and I who was reprobate.


It was all written...etc. 1st Century.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Just so you know I have built my 'church' on something different.


...Something different from Christ and Christ's wishes and what the Bible says. I know this. And since you are admitting this too (finally), this is why you can't claim Christianity.

Nickfyoung wrote:

James 2:24 is not difficult. James also says the faith without works is dead. No dispute there.


More blind denial. There's a fairly obvious logical and theological dispute here:

Wikipedia wrote:

Sola fide (Latin: "by faith alone"), also historically known as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations from Catholicism, Eastern Christianity, and some in the Restoration Movement.

The doctrine of sola fide or "by faith alone" asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith, conceived as excluding all "works".


^Protestantism.

James 2:24 wrote:

James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."


^Christianity.

See any glaring errors? Inconstancies, hm? I know you struggle with basic communication so I'll spell it out for you: James (an apostle who knew and was taught by Jesus personally, and is Christianly believed to be a genuine, divinely inspired author of the Bible, says, "A person is justified by works and not faith alone" and Luther, some random ass hat from the middle ages, who wasn't divinely inspired, whom had never met or understood Christ (and arguably failed in reading anything of notable understanding of Christ's work, deeds and championing of the downtrodden and unlikely hero through works, deeds and motive alone) STATES: "Sola Fide (by faith alone)" and not works at all!

You live a lie if helps you sleep at night because you have to live it hating Catholics: The true faith doesn't make these schoolboy errors, and when it has come up with nonsensical illogical crap like this (which has been rare) it has had a historical framework of Church fathers, doctors to calm it's engines. It has a Pope with the jurisdiction of quality control (put it in the garbage/ put it to print). It has an error-checking mechanism like DNA. It is the living, true (and professionally structured) foundation of Christian thought. And it doesn't let any random jackass foul up like this. Who was Luther's peer review? Tell me, I'd like to know? Who proof-read Luther? Who said, "Actually... you know, this kinda, sorta, doesn't..." Who was there to do that? Nobody.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Never mentioned Luther at all sorry. Already explained those two verses. I have a different interpretation of Mathew 16:18 and James simply says that faith without works is dead. I have no argument there. When you say works alone we get into difficulties.


Lutherian teaching distinguishes Protestantism. Protestantism is a lie. Hence: You subscribe to it. You have referenced "by faith alone" on many separate occasions. You're using the same reasoning above to say why it is possible that your hatred of Catholicism can grant you anything but failure. This is your blind faith position - which you get nothing from. An angel with a vinegar tongue has been sent to save your soul, by God. And you are now reviling he as condemned, as if he is the reprobate and as if he was the liar.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Because I keep trying to tell you I do not accept your translation.


??? Here is my "translation" of your sentence above. Ready? Wait for it: "Because I keep trying to tell you I do not accept your translation." See how it is exactly the same as what you wrote? Exactly? That's my translation of Mathew 16:18-19 too ironically. I read exactly what was written on the page, and I "translated" nothing. "Translating" is then searching through dusty archaic Greek scripts, to make up some LIE about Aramaic having the same "translation" extant in its language. That is all I "translate" from your lies.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I believe it means something different.


I have showed you this is absolutely impossible, unless you're either deceitful, or have cognitive disabilities.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You haven't showed anything in no uncertain terms.


Oh, yes, I have. I have showed that Aramaic has no neuter gender form in its nouns, so any latter Greek translation of the Aramaic which does, has in fact invented/introduced those gender forms with its nouns itself. This was the only string you dangled from the precipice of protestantism from, and I have snipped that thread. You're now left with either blind faith (dishonest confirmation bias) or just stupidity and arrogance/ignorance which answers to no logic. I have showed for absolutely certain that you are wrong.

What else have you offered for an alternative meaning of the verse? "I believe otherwise"? Why? Nothing? You just feel like it? I am seriously debating the truth of Biblical scripture with a self-proclaimed Christian who simply just feels he can invent whatever appeals to him to deny that scripture? Seriously?

Nickfyoung wrote:

I understand the facts are as you wish to see them


That's not what a fact is. A fact is how it is.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I understand how you interpret that verse.


Congratulations. So does 99.9% of the history of western and eastern civilization.

Nickfyoung wrote:

For me they are not the facts.


Pee off, Nick. Seriously.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You are joking surly. Do realize what you said. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound. What is wrong with Mormanism and Islam.


What is wrong with Mormonism and Islam is precisely the same things that are wrong with Protestantism and Pentecostalism. You have answered your own question. But of course.. "Well I don't believe facts..." blah blah.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Instead of this blather how about just answering a few questions.


I have the answers to questions you're not advanced enough to ask.... And I honestly can't endure this "fact, if I say so" nonsense any longer.

LxGoodies wrote:

There is not a grain of respect in this. There is no dialog, it's flaming. Who do you think you are Dialogist, the Spanish Inquisition in person ?


We're talking about theology, dear. About a person's right to value a fake salvation, if they so desire, rather than a person's right to value a fake coin, if they so desire.

And don't act like you're understand the first thing about what we're discussing, as your choice of quotations communicate to me that you obviously haven't read why this dispute is taking place or indeed, what it is even about.



Paul writes that the church is "built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20).


And as Paul writes, "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11


"Although Jesus employs the second person singular pronoun in verse 19 when he speaks of the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and to loose, when he repeats the authorization in 18:18, there he speaks to a number of disciples (18:1) and employs the plural pronoun.
There the authority to bind and to loose is not even limited to the apostles, but is granted to "the church" (18:17)." http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/invinfaith.pdf


The Catholic church has taken one verse and built a whole theology on it. There is nothing in that verse that gives Peter supreme or unique authority.

There is nothing in Scripture to support a doctrine of apostolic succession.


Cheung makes this statement, "Catholic doctrine contradicts Peter in his teachings on the nature and makeup of the priesthood (1 Peter 2), the nature, extent, and effect of the atonement (1 Peter 2), the tasks and powers of elders (1 Peter 3), and the possibility and means to the attainment of assurance (2 Peter 1). Moreover, Peter's doctrine includes
an endorsement of Paul's letters as well as the rest of Scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16), and this permits us to point out that Catholic theology contradicts Paul's doctrines on the atonement, justification, sanctification, glorification, the sacraments, marriage, and an almost endless list of other biblical doctrines." http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/invinfaith.pdf


"It is easy to see in what sense Christ builds his church on Peter. As the early chapters of Acts indicate, after the ascension of Christ, Peter assumes a leadership role in gaining a foothold for the Christian faith in the world and in breaking through to both the Jews and Gentiles with the gospel (Acts 2, 10, etc.). In this manner, what Jesus says to him in our passage – "on this rock I will build my church" and "I will give you the keys of the kingdom" – have
been fulfilled." http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/invinfaith.pdf
LxGoodies
Dialogist wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:

There is not a grain of respect in this. There is no dialog, it's flaming. Who do you think you are Dialogist, the Spanish Inquisition in person ?


We're talking about theology, dear. About a person's right to value a fake salvation, if they so desire, rather than a person's right to value a fake coin, if they so desire.

And don't act like you're understand the first thing about what we're discussing, as your choice of quotations communicate to me that you obviously haven't read why this dispute is taking place or indeed, what it is even about.

Well dear, most of your "theologic conversation" is indeed beyond my grab. However, I just picked up two of your sentences I regard as offensive. You claim these sentences are about theology, but as far as I've learned in my philosophy study, modern theology is not about denying the other person christian faith. You act as if your church defines that solo. Click here for a piece of Dutch history.

Lx
Dialogist
LxGoodies wrote:

Well dear, most of your "theologic conversation" is indeed beyond my grab. However, I just picked up two of your sentences I regard as offensive. You claim these sentences are about theology, but as far as I've learned in my philosophy study, modern theology is not about denying the other person christian faith. You act as if your church defines that solo. Click here for a piece of Dutch history.

Lx


The reason I pointed out that it is theology that we were discussing, is not because it has any particular unattainable level of intellectual esotericism, it just has one fairly general, standard requirement: The "theo" part. So it's not beyond your grasp intellectually, and I never claimed it was. It is beyond your grasp spiritually, as you don't believe in God. The confusion arises, I presume, when you think that I am dictating his beliefs to him? I'm not. I am insisting that a Christian needs to believe Christ. Is that a terribly offensive proposition to request of a Christian?

This is perhaps why you think I'm being overbearing when I accost a fellow theist on his understanding of the nature of my (our) reason for being. It's not quite as trivial as Numismatics, for example, which admittedly, I have no inside-knowledge about. However, I know that a love for a coin distinguishes somewhat from the love of deity, and I don't recall adjudicating over your passion to accost fellow brethren on the particulars of coin evaluation (which was rife with ad hominem, personal snipes and forceful bias, if I do remember correctly). I don't remember pushing my brethren to a point where he was requesting moderator intervention, regardless.

Anyway, the problems you found in those quotations (which you decided to get offended on a theist's behalf about) were not necessarily one of theological concern. They were concerns with definition and identity. It would be akin, I imagine, to a notaphilist insisting that 1907 Rolled Edge Eagle is worth more than a 1794 Flowing Hair Dollar (Only times a trillion). It's actually a lot worse than that. It's the equivalent of a notaphilist telling you that you are not a proper coin collector, because his belief in paper currency is where it is at, and when (you) the numismatist, replies with "You aren't even a numismatist", this is somehow offensive? I think not.

I know it was just another boorish attempt to lever the Spanish Inquisition in there, but with regards to clicking your link about Dutch history (which has nothing to do with authentic claims to the definition of a Christian - Which for a start, in the very least, is adhering to Christ's word), then one might do well to remind Dutch history that for all its concerns in getting The Catholics out of Christianity, the Dutch wouldn't even help us get the Nazis out of Holland. And 80 years is relatively nothing when one considers that they would be speaking German right now, if it wasn't for Thou Shalt Not Do That. In terms of enforcing a personal bias towards Christianity I mean, We're such self-righteous bastards, aren't we? We should have just kept out of it.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Paul writes that the church is "built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20).


So?

Nickfyoung wrote:

And as Paul writes, "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11)


So?

Man never laid the foundation on Saint Peter. Christ did. Jesus Christ laid the foundation of Jesus Christ on Peter. Nobody can ever lay a foundation other than the one Christ already laid. So I guess that's an anti-protestant verse too? Hmm. A bit problematic this scripture thing, isn't it proddies?

Then of course, There's still 18-19 which explains in detail how Christ laid this foundation, who he gave the keys to, etc. It's really worrying isn't it? For a protestant, I mean? Who protests against Christ?

Nickfyoung wrote:

"Although Jesus employs the second person singular pronoun in verse 19 when he speaks of the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and to loose, when he repeats the authorization in 18:18, there he speaks to a number of disciples (18:1) and employs the plural pronoun.


Where does Christ employ a plural pronoun? What like "Yous"? "Yous build me a church, init?" Let's have a look for this elusive plural pronoun (not that it matters, as I'll get to).

Matthew 18:18 (King James Version) wrote:

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Ooh, you're right. The proddy version does employ "Ye", however I'm not sure why Christ is saying this directly to verily to "You" (Peter). Is He meaning Saint Andrew is in with a shout too? Could be... However, "Verily I say unto Ye" isn't there. So he's specifically addressing Saint Peter, and either saying something to the effect of, "I shall built my church on you (Peter), and your church will consist of more people than just a Pope?" Is that feasible? Because Saint Andrew, his brother is stood right next to him and Christ never says, "Verily I say unto Ye", does he?

Matthew 18:18 (Douay-Rheims) wrote:
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.


Douay Rheims (Catholic Bible) came out before the KJV (Protestant Bible) in English. So maybe this inclusion of "Ye" was a latter day embellishment. Let me check the Latin Sacra Vulgata.

Matthew 18:18 (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) wrote:

8 amen dico vobis quaecumque alligaveritis super terram erunt ligata et in caelo et quaecumque solveritis super terram erunt soluta et in caelo

Matthew 18:18 (Biblia Sacra Vulgata - translated into English) wrote:
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.


Yeah, that agrees with the KJV. Honors even. Let me check the Greek.

Yeah, there's no plural pronouns in Greek. Shame about that. Saint Andrew almost had himself a Church.

This was valiant effort, Nick, but once again, a language is failing to derive nouns/pronouns from those of an non-extant equivalent in the language they were translated from.

Regardless though, in terms of the apostolic church, and the working criteria of who Christ could have possibly been addressing at that gathering:



I'm not sure how this aids your argument, other than who Christ definitely didn't build his church upon.

In fact, it doesn't attempt to do a great deal, other than try to remove some of the Christ-bestowed privilege away from Saint Peter personally, at no gain of your own. I guess this just shows that your faith is based upon deep seated hatred and resentment for the Catholic Church, rather than any particular personal inclination that you feel towards Jesus himself.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The Catholic church has taken one verse and built a whole theology on it. There is nothing in that verse that gives Peter supreme or unique authority.


This verse:

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 18:18-19

That verse? Or the attempt above to change "you" to "ye" when it didn't exist in the Greek, like that does anything, anyway?

Nickfyoung wrote:

There is nothing in Scripture to support a doctrine of apostolic succession.


So you're no longer holding to this, "it was all of the apostles Christ gave these keys and binding authority to" in favor of "It was none of these apostles Christ gave these keys and binding authority too"? I see. Yeah, I see. Yeah. That's right there on the page, Nick. Why didn't see this before?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Cheung makes this statement,


Cheung is a bungling buffoon. In his last rant you posted, upon following the link, he says Ad hominem is OK for theists but not for atheists. He says it's OK for theists because they should be judging the atheist on who and what an atheist is, as theists, and its not a logical fallacy if you are talking about "who they are in front of God". That's why theists can do it, and atheists can't. I say he should shut up and quit being such a whiny, reptilian, moronic window-licker, but hey, it's OK for me to call him this, because I'm a good Christian too.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Paul writes that the church is "built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20).


So?

Nickfyoung wrote:

And as Paul writes, "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11)


So?

Man never laid the foundation on Saint Peter. Christ did. Jesus Christ laid the foundation of Jesus Christ on Peter. Nobody can ever lay a foundation other than the one Christ already laid. So I guess that's an anti-protestant verse too? Hmm. A bit problematic this scripture thing, isn't it proddies?

Then of course, There's still 18-19 which explains in detail how Christ laid this foundation, who he gave the keys to, etc. It's really worrying isn't it? For a protestant, I mean? Who protests against Christ?

Nickfyoung wrote:

"Although Jesus employs the second person singular pronoun in verse 19 when he speaks of the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and to loose, when he repeats the authorization in 18:18, there he speaks to a number of disciples (18:1) and employs the plural pronoun.


Where does Christ employ a plural pronoun? What like "Yous"? "Yous build me a church, init?" Let's have a look for this elusive plural pronoun (not that it matters, as I'll get to).

Matthew 18:18 (King James Version) wrote:

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Ooh, you're right. The proddy version does employ "Ye", however I'm not sure why Christ is saying this directly to verily to "You" (Peter). Is He meaning Saint Andrew is in with a shout too? Could be... However, "Verily I say unto Ye" isn't there. So he's specifically addressing Saint Peter, and either saying something to the effect of, "I shall built my church on you (Peter), and your church will consist of more people than just a Pope?" Is that feasible? Because Saint Andrew, his brother is stood right next to him and Christ never says, "Verily I say unto Ye", does he?

Matthew 18:18 (Douay-Rheims) wrote:
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.


Douay Rheims (Catholic Bible) came out before the KJV (Protestant Bible) in English. So maybe this inclusion of "Ye" was a latter day embellishment. Let me check the Latin Sacra Vulgata.

Matthew 18:18 (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) wrote:

8 amen dico vobis quaecumque alligaveritis super terram erunt ligata et in caelo et quaecumque solveritis super terram erunt soluta et in caelo

Matthew 18:18 (Biblia Sacra Vulgata - translated into English) wrote:
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.


Yeah, that agrees with the KJV. Honors even. Let me check the Greek.

Yeah, there's no plural pronouns in Greek. Shame about that. Saint Andrew almost had himself a Church.

This was valiant effort, Nick, but once again, a language is failing to derive nouns/pronouns from those of an non-extant equivalent in the language they were translated from.

Regardless though, in terms of the apostolic church, and the working criteria of who Christ could have possibly been addressing at that gathering:



I'm not sure how this aids your argument, other than who Christ definitely didn't build his church upon.

In fact, it doesn't attempt to do a great deal, other than try to remove some of the Christ-bestowed privilege away from Saint Peter personally, at no gain of your own. I guess this just shows that your faith is based upon deep seated hatred and resentment for the Catholic Church, rather than any particular personal inclination that you feel towards Jesus himself.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The Catholic church has taken one verse and built a whole theology on it. There is nothing in that verse that gives Peter supreme or unique authority.


This verse:

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 18:18-19

That verse? Or the attempt above to change "you" to "ye" when it didn't exist in the Greek, like that does anything, anyway?

Nickfyoung wrote:

There is nothing in Scripture to support a doctrine of apostolic succession.


So you're no longer holding to this, "it was all of the apostles Christ gave these keys and binding authority to" in favor of "It was none of these apostles Christ gave these keys and binding authority too"? I see. Yeah, I see. Yeah. That's right there on the page, Nick. Why didn't see this before?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Cheung makes this statement,


Cheung is a bungling buffoon. In his last rant you posted, upon following the link, he says Ad hominem is OK for theists but not for atheists. He says it's OK for theists because they should be judging the atheist on who and what an atheist is, as theists, and its not a logical fallacy if you are talking about "who they are in front of God". That's why theists can do it, and atheists can't. I say he should shut up and quit being such a whiny, reptilian, moronic window-licker, but hey, it's OK for me to call him this, because I'm a good Christian too.



Quote:
Man never laid the foundation on Saint Peter. Christ did. Jesus Christ laid the foundation of Jesus Christ on Peter. Nobody can ever lay a foundation other than the one Christ already laid. So I guess that's an anti-protestant verse too? Hmm. A bit problematic this scripture thing, isn't it proddies?



No problem there. Christ laid the foundation on Peter. From my previous post, ""It is easy to see in what sense Christ builds his church on Peter. As the early chapters of Acts indicate, after the ascension of Christ, Peter assumes a leadership role in gaining a foothold for the Christian faith in the world and in breaking through to both the Jews and Gentiles with the gospel (Acts 2, 10, etc.). In this manner, what Jesus says to him in our passage – "on this rock I will build my church" and "I will give you the keys of the kingdom" – have
been fulfilled."


Quote:
Where does Christ employ a plural pronoun? What like "Yous"? "Yous build me a church, init?" Let's have a look for this elusive plural pronoun (not that it matters, as I'll get to).



You need to check Mathew 18:1 to see who Jesus was talking to. And then Mathew 18:17-19 to see that it applies to the church as a whole.


Quote:
n fact, it doesn't attempt to do a great deal, other than try to remove some of the Christ-bestowed privilege away from Saint Peter personally, at no gain of your own.



Not trying to take anything away from Peter. Christ used him to lay a foundation for the church.


Quote:
I guess this just shows that your faith is based upon deep seated hatred and resentment for the Catholic Church,



I have no hatred for the Catholic church. If there was any emotion there it would probably be pity.


Quote:
That verse? Or the attempt above to change "you" to "ye" when it didn't exist in the Greek, like that does anything, anyway?



There was no attempt to do that, you just read it wrong.


Quote:
So you're no longer holding to this, "it was all of the apostles Christ gave these keys and binding authority to" in favor of "It was none of these apostles Christ gave these keys and binding authority too"? I see. Yeah, I see. Yeah. That's right there on the page, Nick. Why didn't see this before?



I believe that this authority was given to Peter and all apostles and all the church.


Quote:
Cheung is a bungling buffoon


Is that because he doesn't regard the Catholic church as having any credibility.
He doesn't mince his words.
I am afraid I give much more credence to Cheung than many of the theologians you have rolled out.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
You need to check Mathew 18:1 to see who Jesus was talking to. And then Mathew 18:17-19 to see that it applies to the church as a whole.


Matthew 18:1 wrote:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”


What does that salvage? That Christ is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? Not according to Christ (it continues):

Matthew 18:1-4 wrote:

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.


Besides, the distinction is not concerned with who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. The question is about who was chosen to represent Christ on earth. Matthew 18:17-19 doesn't change in light of anything mentioned above, and is a chronological there-after anyway, so I'm not sure how a verse mentioned before could explain a verse mentioned later, even if it said something like "I shall built my church on protestants", it still would get upended on Christ building it on Peter. But no worries, I'm not going to beat this horse anymore, because I'm starting to see "Matthew 18:18" embroiled inside my eyelids.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I have no hatred for the Catholic church. If there was any emotion there it would probably be pity.


Well I pity the childish, Nick, but that doesn't stop them being the greatest in Heaven, does it?

Nickfyoung wrote:

I believe that this authority was given to Peter and all apostles and all the church.


Just Peter, as it turns out from the penultimate and ultimate attempts, however, I am glad that Saint Andrew believed your version, as he did some seriously major works and deeds and knocked together one or two fairly awesome churches on his travels.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Dialogist wrote:

Cheung is a bungling buffoon

Is that because he doesn't regard the Catholic church as having any credibility.


Mostly, yeah, if I'm being needlessly self-analytical. However, he's mainly a bungling buffoon for what he wrote about ad hominem not being a logical fallacy if a Christian uses it. For that, he's just a ludicrous turd.

Nickfyoung wrote:

He doesn't mince his words.


He's a calamitous enema and his works are unconscionable period juice. See, I don't mince mine either? Where's my stairway to heaven? The point I was making was, the concern is not that a Christian can or should subscribe to personal attacks in the name of God (as he prescribes, even insists that it required of the Christian by scripture), it's that it's not a very nice thing for the Christian to do.

So when you say:

Nickfyoung wrote:

I am afraid I give much more credence to Cheung than many of the theologians you have rolled out.


Let's not get too carried away. He says a few quasi-witty, off-the-cuff remarks about atheists, while most Christian apologetics are too pussy or dignified or professional to resort to that. But he's hardly a church doctor is he?

I still don't believe for a minute that you've accepted acceptance, but I'm going to stop milking it because I feel that it is my claim to catholic superiority itself, rather than any actual catholic superiority that is grinding your gears. You just want the same thing as I do, after all. The keys.



But "A person is justified by works and not faith alone". And you have the motive to want to get into Heaven, brother. That'll see you in.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
You need to check Mathew 18:1 to see who Jesus was talking to. And then Mathew 18:17-19 to see that it applies to the church as a whole.


Matthew 18:1 wrote:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”


What does that salvage? That Christ is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? Not according to Christ (it continues):

Matthew 18:1-4 wrote:

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.


Besides, the distinction is not concerned with who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. The question is about who was chosen to represent Christ on earth. Matthew 18:17-19 doesn't change in light of anything mentioned above, and is a chronological there-after anyway, so I'm not sure how a verse mentioned before could explain a verse mentioned later, even if it said something like "I shall built my church on protestants", it still would get upended on Christ building it on Peter. But no worries, I'm not going to beat this horse anymore, because I'm starting to see "Matthew 18:18" embroiled inside my eyelids.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I have no hatred for the Catholic church. If there was any emotion there it would probably be pity.


Well I pity the childish, Nick, but that doesn't stop them being the greatest in Heaven, does it?

Nickfyoung wrote:

I believe that this authority was given to Peter and all apostles and all the church.


Just Peter, as it turns out from the penultimate and ultimate attempts, however, I am glad that Saint Andrew believed your version, as he did some seriously major works and deeds and knocked together one or two fairly awesome churches on his travels.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Dialogist wrote:

Cheung is a bungling buffoon

Is that because he doesn't regard the Catholic church as having any credibility.


Mostly, yeah, if I'm being needlessly self-analytical. However, he's mainly a bungling buffoon for what he wrote about ad hominem not being a logical fallacy if a Christian uses it. For that, he's just a ludicrous turd.

Nickfyoung wrote:

He doesn't mince his words.


He's a calamitous enema and his works are unconscionable period juice. See, I don't mince mine either? Where's my stairway to heaven? The point I was making was, the concern is not that a Christian can or should subscribe to personal attacks in the name of God (as he prescribes, even insists that it required of the Christian by scripture), it's that it's not a very nice thing for the Christian to do.

So when you say:

Nickfyoung wrote:

I am afraid I give much more credence to Cheung than many of the theologians you have rolled out.


Let's not get too carried away. He says a few quasi-witty, off-the-cuff remarks about atheists, while most Christian apologetics are too pussy or dignified or professional to resort to that. But he's hardly a church doctor is he?

I still don't believe for a minute that you've accepted acceptance, but I'm going to stop milking it because I feel that it is my claim to catholic superiority itself, rather than any actual catholic superiority that is grinding your gears. You just want the same thing as I do, after all. The keys.



But "A person is justified by works and not faith alone". And you have the motive to want to get into Heaven, brother. That'll see you in.



You are right in at least this getting tiresome. We are only going round in circles. I will concede that Peter is the foundation of the church.

Seeing as Cheung gets up your nose can I leave you with a classic of his.

"No wonder many biblical commentators conclude that the pope is the anti-Christ, as he is also anti-Peter and anti-Paul. For this reason, although we deny the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, even if there is such a thing, we deny that the pope is the proper and rightful successor to the seat of Peter, since he contradicts Peter's teachings, and contradicts the teachings of those whom Peter endorses. On the other hand, since my
doctrine agrees with Peter and those whom he endorses, if anyone now fills Peter's seat and office, I do, and not the pope. Let all Catholics, then, bow their knees to me – or any believer who affirms Peter's faith – and not the pope. But unlike the pope, I would say with Peter, as would any Christian, "Stand up, I am only a man myself" (Acts 10:26). As it is, by their own standard, all Catholics are subject to us so-called Protestants, for we are
the true heirs of Peter's confession and authority."

http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/invinfaith.pdf


Classic Cheung.
Dialogist
Cheung wrote:

No wonder many biblical commentators conclude that the pope is the anti-Christ, as he is also anti-Peter and anti-Paul.


Bibical commentators generally conclude that the anti-Christ was the Roman Emporer Nero. They deduced this name from the Hebrew Gematria adding up the numbers to form the name Francisco Ribera. MUWAHAHAHA YOU HAVE BEEN DECIEVED PROTESTANTS. IT IS TOO LATE ALREADY. MUWAHAHAHA "Come/Go" back to our church in your droves. For you have been decieved. MUWAHAHAHA.

Cheung wrote:

For this reason, although we deny the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, even if there is such a thing, we deny that the pope is the proper and rightful successor to the seat of Peter, since he contradicts Peter's teachings, and contradicts the teachings of those whom Peter endorses.


January 17 – Chair of St. Peter (Cathedra Petri) set above the Altar in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican (1666) MUWAHAHAHA.

Cheung wrote:

On the other hand, since my
doctrine agrees with Peter and those whom he endorses, if anyone now fills Peter's seat and office, I do, and not the pope. Let all Catholics, then, bow their knees to me – or any believer who affirms Peter's faith – and not the pope.




Cheung wrote:

But unlike the pope, I would say with Peter, as would any Christian, "Stand up, I am only a man myself" (Acts 10:26).




MUWAHAHAHA.

Cheung wrote:

As it is, by their own standard, all Catholics are subject to us so-called Protestants, for we are
the true heirs of Peter's confession and authority.


We have planned to put you on that throne! We have planned for you to take it.

Revelation 12:9 wrote:
That ancient serpent, called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.


MUWAHAHAHA.

nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Cheung wrote:

No wonder many biblical commentators conclude that the pope is the anti-Christ, as he is also anti-Peter and anti-Paul.


Bibical commentators generally conclude that the anti-Christ was the Roman Emporer Nero. They deduced this name from the Hebrew Gematria adding up the numbers to form the name Francisco Ribera. MUWAHAHAHA YOU HAVE BEEN DECIEVED PROTESTANTS. IT IS TOO LATE ALREADY. MUWAHAHAHA "Come/Go" back to our church in your droves. For you have been decieved. MUWAHAHAHA.

Cheung wrote:

For this reason, although we deny the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, even if there is such a thing, we deny that the pope is the proper and rightful successor to the seat of Peter, since he contradicts Peter's teachings, and contradicts the teachings of those whom Peter endorses.


January 17 – Chair of St. Peter (Cathedra Petri) set above the Altar in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican (1666) MUWAHAHAHA.

Cheung wrote:

On the other hand, since my
doctrine agrees with Peter and those whom he endorses, if anyone now fills Peter's seat and office, I do, and not the pope. Let all Catholics, then, bow their knees to me – or any believer who affirms Peter's faith – and not the pope.




Cheung wrote:

But unlike the pope, I would say with Peter, as would any Christian, "Stand up, I am only a man myself" (Acts 10:26).




MUWAHAHAHA.

Cheung wrote:

As it is, by their own standard, all Catholics are subject to us so-called Protestants, for we are
the true heirs of Peter's confession and authority.


We have planned to put you on that throne! We have planned for you to take it.

Revelation 12:9 wrote:
That ancient serpent, called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.


MUWAHAHAHA.




I like your visual displays. You do them well. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel though using Ellen White and Seventh Day Adventist stuff. Not into them.

But you do make a valid point. There are many many protestant churches who have been deceived and are heading the wrong way.
I suppose the Catholic church had is dark ages and the protestants are having one now too.
Not many of us left now. Maybe heaven is only a small place after all.!!!!!

I will give you a link to an interesting theory that explains a bit of Jesuit history among others and an interesting conclusion.

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/dave-hunt-jesuits.htm
watersoul
Apologies for the delay in replying but I've been enjoying a nice long weekend away. Now back to your silliness...

Dialogist wrote:


Best you can do in a P & R discussion?

Dialogist wrote:
One or two posters here warned me that you're not worth debating with. They have said that you're not worth engaging because you are never really talking to the person you're replying to, but always performing for an imagined third party. I said, what? Like pixies, or goblins or something?

You have of course been discussed quite a few times as well but I tend not to include the off topic details in a discussion about 'sin' - not really relevant.

Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:

...is that really the best effort you could make in reply to my considered and reasoned dissection of your last rant?


I honestly couldn't finish it. Blind faith positions on naturally observed phenomena don't interest me.

I don't have any blind faith. That would be a more appropriate description of your stance.
Again though, after my reasoned dissection of your rant, I'm surprised you were unable to tackle the fairly straightforward points of my argument.

Dialogist wrote:
If you really want my argument, case in point, it has already been posted in this thread. It is here.

I had already considered it and dismissed it as no proof at all that 'sin' is anything more special than a simple word outside of religious circles.

Dialogist wrote:
I hope that goes down well with the audience.

I hope so as well, you are certainly entertaining with your emotional outbursts.
Dialogist wrote:
But I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm not expecting any Christmas cards. You see, I own the keys.


I don't believe the lock exists for your 'keys', and I know you cannot prove it does.

Dialogist wrote:
"Leg him!"

Really? Rolling Eyes

Dialogist wrote:
I wasn't aware that I issued "fire and brimstone" to anyone,

I stated that I liked the debating style of Nick with no specific reference to your good self. But if the cap fits...
Dialogist wrote:
but you are a sinner, and if you think closing your eyes makes God and therefore your sins evaporate, you're in for a rude awakening, Sonny Jim.

Again more of your beliefs which I discount as silly ravings...Sonny Jim? Oh my gosh, you really make me chuckle sometimes!
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:


I like your visual displays. You do them well. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel though using Ellen White and Seventh Day Adventist stuff. Not into them.

But you do make a valid point. There are many many protestant churches who have been deceived and are heading the wrong way.
I suppose the Catholic church had is dark ages and the protestants are having one now too.
Not many of us left now. Maybe heaven is only a small place after all.!!!!!

I will give you a link to an interesting theory that explains a bit of Jesuit history among others and an interesting conclusion.

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/dave-hunt-jesuits.htm



One wonders why God chooses only to speak to Catholics, and having Catholics themselves keep passing on this bad news to Catholics themselves. While all your news is either non-existent, or just a relief for hemorrhoids. It's all happening in here! And it is constantly going off in here. Doesn't that strike you as odd? That all of this is happening in one place, and its biggest enemy is, and always has been itself? With the protestants pointing in and saying, look, it's all happening in there! Eeeeevil. And we're like, wow, how observant. Why do you think that's it all happening in here, protestants? While you're still bought and sold on some Jesuit disinformation counter-reform propaganda from the dark ages? And it's all happening in here? Why doesn't God tell you people anything? Does He see you as ineffectual? Surplus to requirements? Do you feel like God's chosen elect (Revelation 12:14-16)? Do you really? In your cosy pues and new carpets? You'll be hard pushed to find a Catholic calling your church the anti-Christ, Nick, because we don't believe that you've ever had any super-natural relationship whatsoever. And while I would much prefer to be a spectator during some of these scandals (I understand that paedophilia is a beautiful, sweet, humorous welcomed blessing to all atheists, while even the devil who did it doesn't look too happy with himself), I guess I am being constantly reassured that Sister Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa of Akita and Sister Lúcia Santos of Fatima were actually hearing authentic and demonstrable divine prophecy, rather some counter-reformist nonsense concerning Nero, futurism or secret raptures, which we completely made up to feed you in the first place (which you are ludicrously still posting about on the internets). We only get bad news from our God, but we do get that news, from God, even if we're too afraid to publish it. Like I said, we are the worst. We have never, not for one minute, deceived anybody about that. We know our tongues converted nations. We know our Saints get stigmata, fly and heal and do all sorts of awesome superhero stuff. We know even our demons out rank yours. I guess what I'm saying is: even our sin is more original than yours! But we're the only one that is actual. I think that's fairly obvious, by now. Our Saints and our demons, compared with yours? The contrast is immeasurable. The prophecy and dialogue/interaction with God. Undeniable. Visible. Terrifying. You're just watching God talk through others on your TV screens, as per usual. And that's counterfeit, Nick. While you are safe there, in your judgement, with Knox and Luther pointing fingers. God hasn't chastised these men. God was barely aware they even existed.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
I understand that paedophilia is a beautiful, sweet, humorous welcomed blessing to all atheists, while even the devil who did it doesn't look too happy with himself

Paedophilia is a repugnant and vile act to most people, including me, someone who doesn't believe in any gods.
Thousands of children would have been spared horrible abuse if many Roman Catholic priests who are supposed to represent Jesus thought the same way.
There is no evidence of any devils being involved, just human beings with depraved lustful tendancies.

Dialogist wrote:
God was barely aware they even existed.
Just like any god failing to see the huge numbers of paedophiles 'representing' it in its organisation. Not a very impressive god in my mind.


Dialogist wrote:
Like I said, we are the worst. We have never, not for one minute, deceived anybody about that.

Mostly agreed, but the movement of accused abuser priests to different parishes smells of deception to me.
nickfyoung
Quote:
One wonders why God chooses only to speak to Catholics,



That is a strange thing to say. God chooses to speak to me and I am not a Catholic.


Quote:
Do you feel like God's chosen elect



Most certainly.


Quote:
In your cosy pues and new carpets?



We don't have carpet in our church, just bare boards, and our pews are secondhand and donated to us because we had no seats. It is just an old converted hall we use and the boards are a bit hard for people doing time on the floor.


Quote:
we don't believe that you've ever had any super-natural relationship whatsoever.




Each week we have a lady who gets up and prophesies amongst others. I certainly have experienced supernatural relationships.


Quote:
We only get bad news from our God




We only get good news.


Quote:
Our Saints and our demons, compared with yours? The contrast is immeasurable



We don't have saints as we consider ourselves all to be saints. As for demons, demons are demons and can't be compared one to another. If you mean there are more where you are I would probably agree.


Quote:
The prophecy and dialogue/interaction with God. Undeniable. Visible. Terrifying.



That is good. We have that too although not the terrifying bit. We generally find that God is pretty good to get along with.


Quote:
You're just watching God talk through others on your TV screens
,


Never watch those tele evangelists on TV. Most of them aren't worth watching anyway and apart from that they put them on at 5 am here.


Quote:
While you are safe there, in your judgement



Actually, we are not allowed to judge as that is reserved for God. However, we are instructed to discern and test the spirits.
Dialogist
Well Nick has this external benefit? of being able to view church(es) whereas I have never had this privilege. I've only ever seen Church (which is he now sort of waking up to under the blanket claim of all Christian humanity). I don't accept this however. He thinks it is because I only recognize Catholicism. It's not. It's because I drag the atheist kicking and screaming into this too. However, this final showdown between Good and Evil, as prophesied in the book of Revelations doesn't have a tremendously expensive budget. It is to take place all in one area, in one place, and arguably (if I'm really existentialist) all within one psyche - It's not difficult to induce non-linear self-applicability from the especially allegorical style of Genesis (the alpha) to the especially allegorical style of Revelations (the omega) and form ones own opinions of it specifically being about the birth to death life-struggle of whoever is holding the book personally. The Jesuit priest who wrote that pollutant disinformation for the protestants was careful to play around with the dates. There's no dates. Your own personal 7 hours before death are judgement day, no matter how old you are, just Genesis was your perfect birth/fall. In this model, I do digress. The Catholic Church was sanctioned by Christ himself to be the arena of this showdown for the believer and the non-believer to proportionately measure the

Watersoul wrote:

repugnant and vile act to most people, including me, someone who doesn't believe in any gods.


as, quite rightly: pure unadulterated evil, and maybe arrive at some kind of Newtonian third law about every action always having an equal and opposite reaction. And in the mind of the conscious, sentient beholder of these events, whether Christian, atheist or pagan, one is confronted with certain options and allegiances to either champion or deny in his final day of reckoning. It is my argument then, that the one source that has shown the propensity to do both the most heinous evil and most ethereal good is a prime candidate for the authenticity of both Christ and Anti-Christ (in the same place) just as lucifer and Saint Michael got it on, in the same place. And really, any comments about the evilness of our priests from the secular, or any accusation of Anti-Christ from the grassy knoll of Protestantism, only come as welcomed reassurance that I have bought tickets to the correct fixture.



Will take place in one person (you). Strength is either bought or sold at different institutions/beliefs/worldviews/flea markets. You'll have your deeds, faith(s), motives and last minute amendments as an inventory to dip into to, but you're going to struggle. We all are. The dude on the left fights dirty.

And I stress (much to the music to Nick's ears) that the Church and the Church's relationship with its people (all people) is not confined to a brick building. It is the subconsciousness within the self of all of humanity who pays it credence or attention (this particular church), whether in discourse or tribute. It is a battle within oneself. A battle between good and evil. Saint and Sinner. And look in the Bible, protestants, tell me if Jesus teaches you anything different. If you're sat in your dusty little sleepy oak presbytery hovel while all this is going down, or nose-deep in books about chimp-worship, what can I tell you?

No ticket.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
Well Nick has this external benefit? of being able to view church(es) whereas I have never had this privilege. I've only ever seen Church (which is he now sort of waking up to under the blanket claim of all Christian humanity). I don't accept this however. He thinks it is because I only recognize Catholicism. It's not. It's because I drag the atheist kicking and screaming into this too. However, this final showdown between Good and Evil, as prophesied in the book of Revelations doesn't have a tremendously expensive budget. It is to take place all in one area, in one place, and arguably (if I'm really existentialist) all within one psyche - It's not difficult to induce non-linear self-applicability from the especially allegorical style of Genesis (the alpha) to the especially allegorical style of Revelations (the omega) and form ones own opinions of it specifically being about the birth to death life-struggle of whoever is holding the book personally. The Jesuit priest who wrote that pollutant disinformation for the protestants was careful to play around with the dates. There's no dates. Your own personal 7 hours before death are judgement day, no matter how old you are, just Genesis was your perfect birth/fall. In this model, I do digress. The Catholic Church was sanctioned by Christ himself to be the arena of this showdown for the believer and the non-believer to proportionately measure the

Watersoul wrote:

repugnant and vile act to most people, including me, someone who doesn't believe in any gods.


as, quite rightly: pure unadulterated evil, and maybe arrive at some kind of Newtonian third law about every action always having an equal and opposite reaction. And in the mind of the conscious, sentient beholder of these events, whether Christian, atheist or pagan, one is confronted with certain options and allegiances to either champion or deny in his final day of reckoning. It is my argument then, that the one source that has shown the propensity to do both the most heinous evil and most ethereal good is a prime candidate for the authenticity of both Christ and Anti-Christ (in the same place) just as lucifer and Saint Michael got it on, in the same place. And really, any comments about the evilness of our priests from the secular, or any accusation of Anti-Christ from the grassy knoll of Protestantism, only come as welcomed reassurance that I have bought tickets to the correct fixture.



Will take place in one person (you). Strength is either bought or sold at different institutions/beliefs/worldviews/flea markets. You'll have your deeds, faith(s), motives and last minute amendments as an inventory to dip into to, but you're going to struggle. We all are. The dude on the left fights dirty.

And I stress (much to the music to Nick's ears) that the Church and the Church's relationship with its people (all people) is not confined to a brick building. It is the subconsciousness within the self of all of humanity who pays it credence or attention (this particular church), whether in discourse or tribute. It is a battle within oneself. A battle between good and evil. Saint and Sinner. And look in the Bible, protestants, tell me if Jesus teaches you anything different. If you're sat in your dusty little sleepy oak presbytery hovel while all this is going down, or nose-deep in books about chimp-worship, what can I tell you?

No ticket.

Lol I'll edit my response after work tomorrow, just wanted to save the pure rant for the night Wink

Just had another read through and as it is just more religious assertion without substance I think I'll leave you to your blind faith.
Oh, and I still won't be drawn into accepting your 'evil' inspired by the devil rubbish - take responsibility eh, vile acts are committed by human beings not any unproven entity acting behind the scenes...but then, a mind clouded by Catholic dogma is unlikely to ever see the world in a realistic way.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

We only get good news.


Rolling Eyes
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

We only get good news.


Rolling Eyes

Agreed Rolling Eyes
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

We only get good news.


Rolling Eyes

Agreed.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Well Nick has this external benefit? of being able to view church(es) whereas I have never had this privilege. I've only ever seen Church (which is he now sort of waking up to under the blanket claim of all Christian humanity). I don't accept this however. He thinks it is because I only recognize Catholicism. It's not. It's because I drag the atheist kicking and screaming into this too. However, this final showdown between Good and Evil, as prophesied in the book of Revelations doesn't have a tremendously expensive budget. It is to take place all in one area, in one place, and arguably (if I'm really existentialist) all within one psyche - It's not difficult to induce non-linear self-applicability from the especially allegorical style of Genesis (the alpha) to the especially allegorical style of Revelations (the omega) and form ones own opinions of it specifically being about the birth to death life-struggle of whoever is holding the book personally. The Jesuit priest who wrote that pollutant disinformation for the protestants was careful to play around with the dates. There's no dates. Your own personal 7 hours before death are judgement day, no matter how old you are, just Genesis was your perfect birth/fall. In this model, I do digress. The Catholic Church was sanctioned by Christ himself to be the arena of this showdown for the believer and the non-believer to proportionately measure the

Watersoul wrote:

repugnant and vile act to most people, including me, someone who doesn't believe in any gods.


as, quite rightly: pure unadulterated evil, and maybe arrive at some kind of Newtonian third law about every action always having an equal and opposite reaction. And in the mind of the conscious, sentient beholder of these events, whether Christian, atheist or pagan, one is confronted with certain options and allegiances to either champion or deny in his final day of reckoning. It is my argument then, that the one source that has shown the propensity to do both the most heinous evil and most ethereal good is a prime candidate for the authenticity of both Christ and Anti-Christ (in the same place) just as lucifer and Saint Michael got it on, in the same place. And really, any comments about the evilness of our priests from the secular, or any accusation of Anti-Christ from the grassy knoll of Protestantism, only come as welcomed reassurance that I have bought tickets to the correct fixture.



Will take place in one person (you). Strength is either bought or sold at different institutions/beliefs/worldviews/flea markets. You'll have your deeds, faith(s), motives and last minute amendments as an inventory to dip into to, but you're going to struggle. We all are. The dude on the left fights dirty.

And I stress (much to the music to Nick's ears) that the Church and the Church's relationship with its people (all people) is not confined to a brick building. It is the subconsciousness within the self of all of humanity who pays it credence or attention (this particular church), whether in discourse or tribute. It is a battle within oneself. A battle between good and evil. Saint and Sinner. And look in the Bible, protestants, tell me if Jesus teaches you anything different. If you're sat in your dusty little sleepy oak presbytery hovel while all this is going down, or nose-deep in books about chimp-worship, what can I tell you?
No ticket.



We tend to believe Scripture when it says that Jesus has already defeated the devil. When he died on the cross he went into hell and kicked S*** out of him and took the keys off him.

The devil now has no power, no power over us at all except what we give him. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. That sort of kicks a hole in the excuse you gave for kiddie fiddling priests.

The battle has been won. When we are born again we enter into the kingdom of God. We are living it now.

Before the wrath of God finally destroys the earth and everyone on, again, we are lifted off by Jesus when he returns for his people.
Dialogist


Nickfyoung wrote:

We tend to believe Scripture when it says that Jesus has already defeated the devil. When he died on the cross he went into hell and kicked S*** out of him and took the keys off him.


Relevations 12:17 wrote:
Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.


?

It doesn't say anything about the devil being rendered powerless, or not making a final bid for souls. Even your Seven Day Adventist and Ellen White wingnuts seem to have understood this part properly. 'It is told he is coming back' - is the part that they seem to struggle with. Christ is coming back. Nobody says that the devil even left. In fact, quite to the contrary, his influence has spread throughout religions, mainly in the mouths of those false prophets who claim to be preaching God's word. But then you check their fruits, and yup, evil. I'm not sure why you think that lucifer/the morning star/the great dragon ever had any keys. There was only one set of keys administered, by Christ himself, so either you are saying that Christ is the anti-Christ, or that Christ gave them to Saint Peter knowing Saint Peter was the anti-Christ or these are just some of those rotten apples of yours.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The devil now has no power, no power over us at all except what we give him. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.


So this "authority" you claim your pentecostal minister had, in exorcising that girl who caused the other priest to suffer a nervous breakdown? This was a made-up story, right? Because surely both the innocent girl and the priest doing his best to exorcise this spirit got their asses handed to them on a silver plate, no? I mean, why then, do you attend these seance faith healings? If Jesus had it all wrapped up on the cross? Only to ascend into heaven and have atheists saying he didn't even exist? How did we get here? In a world without sin?

Nickfyoung wrote:
That sort of kicks a hole in the excuse you gave for kiddie fiddling priests.


I didn't give "an excuse" for Pentecostal Minister Lee Ray, nor the long list of moneychangers and false prophets you have bethroned. I simply pointed out that absolute evil (which even that, you can't claim with any degree of credibility) always has an equal and opposite reaction. Our exact opposite of absolute goodness, has too, been widely documented, as our public spectacles of miracles and apparitions have. I don't see anything from your lot but just embarrassment, pathetic paltry attempts at evil, with no definable good being the antithesis. I just see a charlatan church, full of imposter saints and imposter demons. Your imposter 'saints' (all of you, apparently) are so weak that I can't tell them from the demons. And your imposter demons are so shitty at being demons, they could pass for one of your saints. I mean calling Saint Peter the anti-Christ isn't exactly saintly, or pure evil, but it's there/there abouts gray area of what the hell kind of Christianity clowns subscribe to these days.

Nickfyoung wrote:
The battle has been won. When we are born again we enter into the kingdom of God. We are living it now. Before the wrath of God finally destroys the earth and everyone on, again, we are lifted off by Jesus when he returns for his people.


So why is Jesus coming back?
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:


Nickfyoung wrote:

We tend to believe Scripture when it says that Jesus has already defeated the devil. When he died on the cross he went into hell and kicked S*** out of him and took the keys off him.


Relevations 12:17 wrote:
Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.


?

It doesn't say anything about the devil being rendered powerless, or not making a final bid for souls. Even your Seven Day Adventist and Ellen White wingnuts seem to have understood this part properly. 'It is told he is coming back' - is the part that they seem to struggle with. Christ is coming back. Nobody says that the devil even left. In fact, quite to the contrary, his influence has spread throughout religions, mainly in the mouths of those false prophets who claim to be preaching God's word. But then you check their fruits, and yup, evil. I'm not sure why you think that lucifer/the morning star/the great dragon ever had any keys. There was only one set of keys administered, by Christ himself, so either you are saying that Christ is the anti-Christ, or that Christ gave them to Saint Peter knowing Saint Peter was the anti-Christ or these are just some of those rotten apples of yours.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The devil now has no power, no power over us at all except what we give him. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.


So this "authority" you claim your pentecostal minister had, in exorcising that girl who caused the other priest to suffer a nervous breakdown? This was a made-up story, right? Because surely both the innocent girl and the priest doing his best to exorcise this spirit got their asses handed to them on a silver plate, no? I mean, why then, do you attend these seance faith healings? If Jesus had it all wrapped up on the cross? Only to ascend into heaven and have atheists saying he didn't even exist? How did we get here? In a world without sin?

Nickfyoung wrote:
That sort of kicks a hole in the excuse you gave for kiddie fiddling priests.


I didn't give "an excuse" for Pentecostal Minister Lee Ray, nor the long list of moneychangers and false prophets you have bethroned. I simply pointed out that absolute evil (which even that, you can't claim with any degree of credibility) always has an equal and opposite reaction. Our exact opposite of absolute goodness, has too, been widely documented, as our public spectacles of miracles and apparitions have. I don't see anything from your lot but just embarrassment, pathetic paltry attempts at evil, with no definable good being the antithesis. I just see a charlatan church, full of imposter saints and imposter demons. Your imposter 'saints' (all of you, apparently) are so weak that I can't tell them from the demons. And your imposter demons are so shitty at being demons, they could pass for one of your saints. I mean calling Saint Peter the anti-Christ isn't exactly saintly, or pure evil, but it's there/there abouts gray area of what the hell kind of Christianity clowns subscribe to these days.

Nickfyoung wrote:
The battle has been won. When we are born again we enter into the kingdom of God. We are living it now. Before the wrath of God finally destroys the earth and everyone on, again, we are lifted off by Jesus when he returns for his people.


So why is Jesus coming back?



Quote:
There was only one set of keys administered,




Probably a reference to Revelation 1:18: “I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.”


Quote:
It doesn't say anything about the devil being rendered powerless,



“But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:” (Ephesians 2:4-6)

“Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions [symbolic of Satan and demon powers], and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. (Unless you allow it.) Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that THE SPIRITS ARE SUBJECT UNTO YOU; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.” (Luke 10:19,20)

“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils …” (Mark 16:17)

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” (James 4:7)

The devil has plenty of power but the believer in the authority of Jesus can nullify that power.


Quote:
So this "authority" you claim your pentecostal minister



See verses above.


Quote:
So why is Jesus coming back?



For his people, the believers, the bride, call it what you will. The dead in Christ will rise first and then the believers living will be caught up to meet him in the air.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Probably a reference to Revelation 1:18: "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death."


I don't think Christ ever went to Hell. I know its an unpopular statement, but there is simply no scripture supporting this. It says Christ went to the "heart of earth" for 3 days and 3 nights. How do we read "Heart of the Earth"? Fiery Core? Underworld/Hades? Or just the beating heart of the Earth? Reason being: It never says "Hell/Hades/Sheol/Gehenna" It says "Heart of The Earth". Second reason being: While Christ is dying on the cross, the thief turns to him and says, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42) and Jesus responds, " "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43). So... not headed for Hades then? Of course God has the keys. I know I'm not supposed to say this, but God must have built that too.

Another unpopular, yet factual statement would be, the devil, has never been to Hell either. "Hurled down to Earth", 3 times in Revelations, and 3 is the Biblical number of absolution, that's why Christ spent 3 days and 3 nights in your heart (ascending to Heaven).


Nickfyoung wrote:

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions [symbolic of Satan and demon powers]"


Not entirely true. The use of the serpent symbolism in the Garden of Eden is widely (and quite arguably incorrectly) thought of to represent satan. There's plenty of Bible scholars and historians that disagree with this reading. They say Moses was using that symbolism to derail ancient pre-dating Judea religions (and this is in-line with what has come up in this discussion twice). The Ancient Mesopotamians and Semites worshipped snakes. The Greeks did too. There's an awful lot of religions that did. There's even evidence some Jews did. "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark 16:18 ) Snake handling still happens in some wingnut Christian churches from the "snake immortality" that Mark is referencing. The reason Moses used the serpent as a symbol is because the ancient religions did pick that fruit of forbidden knowledge (see the references to mushrooms in that thread) and a lot of them created their own Mecca on Earth (cue King Nebuchadnezzar II and the Biblical slating he got for doing the same).

Nickfyoung wrote:

"and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. (Unless you allow it.)"


You've just slid that in there, Nick.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that THE SPIRITS ARE SUBJECT UNTO YOU; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.” (Luke 10:19,20)


Now you're capitalizing the part which the verse itself says is the irrelevant part. I also don't know what "subject unto you" means. I guess the most obvious meaning is that the 'spirits are your bitch' but one could read it as spirits being subjected onto you, or spirits being a subject, unto you, like you're a spirit now because you're dead, or that what kind of spirits are stated. Angels (thrones, dominions etc) have certain slave-type roles in Heaven. Your reading is the most obvious though, so we'll stick with that.

wrote:
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils …" (Mark 16:17)


"In my name", by/of my authority?

Nickfyoung wrote:

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)


This one is a winner. However, what if the devil has an ass that won't quit? You have a way of making this "resist" thing sound a lot easier than it is. Temptation is where the devil's power has always been. And temptation is resisting yourself. Which is a much steeper mountain to scale. And what if you don't know you're being tempted? The devil places a lot of stock in "deceiving" too.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The devil has plenty of power but the believer in the authority of Jesus can nullify that power.


I do agree with that. But Revelations has a bunch of people believing lovingly in a christ (lowercase). Then what? The first second coming is said to be the anti-Christ. But how will you know? If the whole world is actually deceived? The whole world? I have trouble sleeping with this predestined gambit. How do you feel about it?

Nickfyoung wrote:

See verses above.


Yeah but its fairly well known that the Pentecostals are frauds.



I'm not trying to flame the Pentecostals (not on my radar) however, this guy's observations of "not in the driving seat" are disconcerting. He also pretty much closes the book on fake-tongues and the requirement of being born again. He's actually a really good speaker and understands the Bible perfectly. Can't think why he seems to be affiliated with the Baptist Church. He thinks like a proper Christian. Perhaps even a Catholic, nearly.

It has never really sat right with me (in my opinion), how can you hold to sober reformism, with all its strict, overly-serious, no sense of humour whatsoever concerning "people churches", constantly vindicating the Catholic Church's supposed lack of divine worship in favor of man-worship. Constantly stating "scripture only" as perhaps the most pedantic, anally retentive accusers of false-prohecy... and you can digest all of that, and then attend a fervent seizure-inducing rapture ran by a crank in shell-suit. I have never got that.

Nickfyoung wrote:

For his people, the believers, the bride, call it what you will. The dead in Christ will rise first and then the believers living will be caught up to meet him in the air.


So the dead in Christ are headed upwards too, then? For resisting the devil? By grace ye are saved? That's nice for them. All a bit pointless this Christianity thing then, wasn't it?

Again, these theological inconsistencies would be a lot less noticeable if you'd just simply choose a religion. One day you're telling me that Calvin has depraved and doomed everyone, except who God had secretly chose as elect before the fall, the next day you're telling me that not having free-will means that you should use this no-free-will to "resist" the devil and go a Heaven (which you don't need to because "It is already in you") that God predestined for you before Calvin was created, but only after Jesus died for you on the cross, which he didn't need to do because God's grace lets you in anyway, regardless of your deeds, even though you are depraved and the spirits are subject to you.

I like that you actually think about religion, Nick. Honestly, so many just use it as a crutch and couldn't care two figs about it. You care about it more than certain priests I've met. But what is going on in my paragraph above? Surely you believe in a loving God and you believe that your good faith and good deeds will be rewarded and that's all that you need to be getting along with? Did I oversimplify that? Or does it just seem to work quite well without the need for all of this over-complication?
nickfyoung
deleted
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

It would be nice if it were that easy.


It's easy. All you need is love. All you need is love. All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Getting divorced in a church is not easy and so I moved towns and tried to find another church.


So right away I'm getting how the love for this church is born of what others couldn't provide you with: Subjective morality. I mean you've used the term, "church shopping" yourself. Don't like what you hear over here, fine, let's have a look on the next isle. But you're not shopping for biscuits, Nick. You're shopping for low-fat God. Maybe the concern was with why you couldn't satisfy the church, rather than why it couldn't satisfy you. I mean I'm not even talking about morality (I am in most other areas, such as "Divorced? No Holy Communion for you"), but not in terms of marriage which they provided, which you vowed to in the first place. "Think not, what your country can do for you..." etc is merely platitude, but the sentiment is correct. "Why won't God let me do what I want?" Because God is not a flake. But it's man. "Why won't man let me do what I want?" Adults ask this question frequently, believe it or not. People who've been on this planet for over 25 years. Honestly, I'm not making this up. Actual adults ask that. "But shouldn't [circular reasoning begging objective morality] religion [my Ikea spiritual catalogue] all [gospel according to self] be about what I [Me, me, me] want [hedonistically covet] to believe [demand] that a God [bar tender] means [doesn't mean] to me [,me and me]?" No. It's about remission of sin so that you may be saved. Not a new lesser-baptism for the remission of sins. "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." "Remission of sins" is no more the coordinator of the conjunction, than "baptism in the name of Christ", as Christ's name established upon Saint Peter is the subject of the object of the clause of Repentance (rather than you rebuking the church which asked you to, and then finding an alternative with a more liberal requirement of the integrity of itself).

Nickfyoung wrote:

They said my stomach was rolling and heaving the whole time.


This part sounds like Ripley giving birth to a brood of an Alien rapist's spawn.

I was thinking that it sounds like he tasered you, with all this blue electricity, convulsions, drowsiness, loss of consciousness, dry vomiting, paralytic muscles etc, and then

Nickfyoung wrote:

I stuck my hands in the air and he zapped me again.


You have the right to remain assylumed. Does this sound like the Holy Spirit at work? I'm not seeing exorcisms on the day of Pentecost. All of these exorcisms seem like possessions, too. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding tongues, even though the whole purpose and purported miracle of genuine tongues, in my understanding, is that I wouldn't know that it was tongues, because I'd be hearing my own language. So if I'm hearing gibberish then maybe its actually not because I don't believe in God, or the Apostles, or Pentecost or the miracle of tongues (because I firmly do - and we have the natural, living observable phenomena concerning the historically recorded instantaneous globalization of Christianity and the Galileans speaking only two languages at the most). So if I do believe this, how is it that I'm only just hearing a load of bollocks from the Pentecostal tongues? I know bollocks when I hear it and my mother has heard the same bollocks from a Roman Catholic priest. Is it because they're putting it on? Because they cannot speak in tongues and do not have the gift of tongues? Or are they always speaking in tongues, except when they are yammering? Because, I've heard their apologetics, and they always speak incoherent glossolalia too.

Acts 2: 12-13 wrote:

And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.


If some couldn't hear the apostles, then maybe so. But I still hear them. 2000 years later. Others who think they are as divinely inspired as them? Not so much. They think Saint Peter sanctioned Baptism in Pentecostal churches, and that his authority is to be trusted after he willfully misunderstood Christ on the whole "foundation" thing. And that Moses, Issiah, Abraham, Job etc, didn't go to Heaven, because they weren't born again (or even baptised at all).

Nickfyoung wrote:

So there you go.


My church has peed me off many times, and I've stopped going. I didn't choose a new church. I sulked. I then asked myself why it bothered me so much that they wouldn't do as they were told, and then I chose a new maturity. Because the options were these: Same church → same sanctimony. Fake church ↔ none. "Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered" (Hebrews 5:8 ).
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

It would be nice if it were that easy.


It's easy. All you need is love. All you need is love. All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Getting divorced in a church is not easy and so I moved towns and tried to find another church.


So right away I'm getting how the love for this church is born of what others couldn't provide you with: Subjective morality. I mean you've used the term, "church shopping" yourself. Don't like what you hear over here, fine, let's have a look on the next isle. But you're not shopping for biscuits, Nick. You're shopping for low-fat God. Maybe the concern was with why you couldn't satisfy the church, rather than why it couldn't satisfy you. I mean I'm not even talking about morality (I am in most other areas, such as "Divorced? No Holy Communion for you"), but not in terms of marriage which they provided, which you vowed to in the first place. "Think not, what your country can do for you..." etc is merely platitude, but the sentiment is correct. "Why won't God let me do what I want?" Because God is not a flake. But it's man. "Why won't man let me do what I want?" Adults ask this question frequently, believe it or not. People who've been on this planet for over 25 years. Honestly, I'm not making this up. Actual adults ask that. "But shouldn't [circular reasoning begging objective morality] religion [my Ikea spiritual catalogue] all [gospel according to self] be about what I [Me, me, me] want [hedonistically covet] to believe [demand] that a God [bar tender] means [doesn't mean] to me [,me and me]?" No. It's about remission of sin so that you may be saved. Not a new lesser-baptism for the remission of sins. "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." "Remission of sins" is no more the coordinator of the conjunction, than "baptism in the name of Christ", as Christ's name established upon Saint Peter is the subject of the object of the clause of Repentance (rather than you rebuking the church which asked you to, and then finding an alternative with a more liberal requirement of the integrity of itself).

Nickfyoung wrote:

They said my stomach was rolling and heaving the whole time.


This part sounds like Ripley giving birth to a brood of an Alien rapist's spawn.

I was thinking that it sounds like he tasered you, with all this blue electricity, convulsions, drowsiness, loss of consciousness, dry vomiting, paralytic muscles etc, and then

Nickfyoung wrote:

I stuck my hands in the air and he zapped me again.


You have the right to remain assylumed. Does this sound like the Holy Spirit at work? I'm not seeing exorcisms on the day of Pentecost. All of these exorcisms seem like possessions, too. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding tongues, even though the whole purpose and purported miracle of genuine tongues, in my understanding, is that I wouldn't know that it was tongues, because I'd be hearing my own language. So if I'm hearing gibberish then maybe its actually not because I don't believe in God, or the Apostles, or Pentecost or the miracle of tongues (because I firmly do - and we have the natural, living observable phenomena concerning the historically recorded instantaneous globalization of Christianity and the Galileans speaking only two languages at the most). So if I do believe this, how is it that I'm only just hearing a load of bollocks from the Pentecostal tongues? I know bollocks when I hear it and my mother has heard the same bollocks from a Roman Catholic priest. Is it because they're putting it on? Because they cannot speak in tongues and do not have the gift of tongues? Or are they always speaking in tongues, except when they are yammering? Because, I've heard their apologetics, and they always speak incoherent glossolalia too.

Acts 2: 12-13 wrote:

And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.


If some couldn't hear the apostles, then maybe so. But I still hear them. 2000 years later. Others who think they are as divinely inspired as them? Not so much. They think Saint Peter sanctioned Baptism in Pentecostal churches, and that his authority is to be trusted after he willfully misunderstood Christ on the whole "foundation" thing. And that Moses, Issiah, Abraham, Job etc, didn't go to Heaven, because they weren't born again (or even baptised at all).

Nickfyoung wrote:

So there you go.


My church has peed me off many times, and I've stopped going. I didn't choose a new church. I sulked. I then asked myself why it bothered me so much that they wouldn't do as they were told, and then I chose a new maturity. Because the options were these: Same church → same sanctimony. Fake church ↔ none. "Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered" (Hebrews 5:8 ).



Quote:
It's easy. All you need is love. All you need is love. All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.



Beatles


He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him," (John 3:36

Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"

Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."

Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."

Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."


"
Quote:
church shopping



Yes, you are lucky because you have no other choice. If one doesn't want a Catholic church then there are hundreds to choose from all with various types of theology and differing interpretations of Scripture

Like I said before, the one where I go to now has a completely different theology to me. There was recently a need for some one to take over the church radio program on local FM. I put my hand up but was rejected because of my differing theology.

We go to a mid week Bible study run on the guidelines of a Andrew Wommack. He has a ministry in the States and is a complete nutter as far as I am concerned but I can't say too much because he is the official study provider for our church and they love him. An Arminian for a start which doesn't help.

Life wasn't meant to easy.
Dialogist
Watersoul wrote:
Just had another read through and as it is just more religious assertion without substance I think I'll leave you to your blind faith.


Newton's First Law of Motion:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Watersoul's First Law of Motion:

Watersoul wrote:
vile acts are committed by human beings not any unproven entity acting behind the scenes.


Newton's Second Law of Motion:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors; in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

Watersoul's Second Law of Motion:

Watersoul wrote:

a mind clouded by Catholic dogma is unlikely to ever see the world in a realistic way.


Hence F = ma.

ergo:



Newton's Third Law of Motion:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Watersoul's Third Law of Motion:

Watersoul wrote:

repugnant and vile act to most people, including me, someone who doesn't believe in any gods.


Begs a question, what the opposite of repugnant and vile acts is, doesn't it?

And what force I, what acceleration II and what action III caused both the good and evil? Which in evolutionary terms, is "a state in of uniform motion tending to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it" without an "external force applied to it". Isn't it?

Newton. Real actual methodical naturalism (sans the "force" part). Then again, what ought you expect from a creationist. Blind faith?
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
Like I said before, the one where I go to now has a completely different theology to me. There was recently a need for some one to take over the church radio program on local FM. I put my hand up but was rejected because of my differing theology.


And yet now you show obsequious obedience? They are telling you that your beliefs worthless, Nick. We don't want any reformists in here. We don't want people to actually read the Bible. We just want to tell them what it says. They are telling you that your beliefs are not even good enough for a pay-less volunteered DJ spot, extending its vast influence across the global reaches of some small backwater armpit in Aussie land, that the only people who are already members of that church will know the Frequency of, or endure, and in 2012, will only have any convenient access to, or need for, whilst driving in their cars? Set up your own free youtube account, reach the world.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Like I said before, the one where I go to now has a completely different theology to me. There was recently a need for some one to take over the church radio program on local FM. I put my hand up but was rejected because of my differing theology.


And yet now you show obsequious obedience? They are telling you that your beliefs worthless, Nick. We don't want any reformists in here. We don't want people to actually read the Bible. We just want to tell them what it says. They are telling you that your beliefs are not even good enough for a pay-less volunteered DJ spot, extending its vast influence across the global reaches of some small backwater armpit in Aussie land, that the only people who are already members of that church will know the Frequency of, or endure, and in 2012, will only have any convenient access to, or need for, whilst driving in their cars? Set up your own free youtube account, reach the world.



Quote:
And yet now you show obsequious obedience?


Not quite. I do the James Bond, undercover bit. Have one guy converted already and he greedily laps up all I print off for him. Even the pastor's wife is reading some of my stuff.

They are surprised there is even another viewpoint as they have never heard of it. I was shocked to discover that our pastor, Bible College and all, has never heard of John Calvin let alone Calvinism.

What do they teach them these days. You are pretty right with you radio take. It is about as effective as some one standing on a soap box preaching these days. I had in mind to do a show, question and answer style with my wife to try and shake up some of the locals.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:
Just had another read through and as it is just more religious assertion without substance I think I'll leave you to your blind faith.


Newton's First Law of Motion:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Watersoul's First Law of Motion:

Watersoul wrote:
vile acts are committed by human beings not any unproven entity acting behind the scenes.


Newton's Second Law of Motion:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors; in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

Watersoul's Second Law of Motion:

Watersoul wrote:

a mind clouded by Catholic dogma is unlikely to ever see the world in a realistic way.


Hence F = ma.

ergo:

[img]silly image removed for faster page load/scroll reasons[/img]

Newton's Third Law of Motion:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Watersoul's Third Law of Motion:

Watersoul wrote:

repugnant and vile act to most people, including me, someone who doesn't believe in any gods.


Begs a question, what the opposite of repugnant and vile acts is, doesn't it?

And what force I, what acceleration II and what action III caused both the good and evil? Which in evolutionary terms, is "a state in of uniform motion tending to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it" without an "external force applied to it". Isn't it?

Newton. Real actual methodical naturalism (sans the "force" part). Then again, what ought you expect from a creationist. Blind faith?


Pseudo-science argument regarding your assumed (and religiously inspired) 'forces' of good/evil.
Yet another example of a poor argument that 'sin' is anything other than a simple word outside of religious circles. You cannot prove 'evil' as a force or anything other than a further example of a word which only has 'special' meaning inside religious circles.
Which is why I choose not to use it in discussion anywhere - the religious/spiritual undertone which I do not accept.
I leave you to the inter-faith (acceptance of 'sin' being special) arguments as I do not accept the validity of any of the religious scriptures as fact. This is no special position for religion though, I also have a healthy skeptical view of organised modern media, as well as the obvious bias and spin of all historical 'official' publications.

Dialogist wrote:
Begs a question, what the opposite of repugnant and vile acts is, doesn't it?

Urm, not too difficult really, attractive and beautiful acts, kind and loving acts (need any more?), no evidence of magical forces being involved though, but plenty to show the influence on life choices people make depending on their concern about things moral/immoral/amoral.
Dialogist
Watersoul wrote:

Pseudo-science argument regarding your assumed (and religiously inspired) 'forces' of good/evil.


Newton's use of the force is exactly as scientific as Luke Skywalker's.

Watersoul wrote:

Yet another example of a poor argument that 'sin' is anything other than a simple word outside of religious circles.


Yet another confirmation biased denial of the ability to feel guilt concerning intrinsic wrongdoings which a state law or ethical practice wouldn't punish nor necessarily even be made aware of.

Watersoul wrote:

You cannot prove 'evil' as a force or anything other than a further example of a word which only has 'special' meaning inside religious circles.


You cannot prove 'force' as a force or anything other than a further example of a word which only has 'special' meaning inside scientific circles.

Watersoul wrote:

Which is why I choose not to use it in discussion anywhere - the religious/spiritual undertone which I do not accept.


Which is why I choose to use it in discussion anywhere - it is the religious/spiritual undertone of force which I do accept.

Watersoul wrote:

Urm, not too difficult really, attractive and beautiful acts, kind and loving acts (need any more?)


That will be quite adequate thank you. Any paltry, wishy-washy, mediocre, half-assed good done (for a good, non-survival trait/behavioral rule aiding motive, rather than incentive) is more than sufficient, thanks.

Watersoul wrote:

no evidence of magical forces being involved though


No, you see, I don't have to present evidence of forces, I just have to infer them axiomatically without even needing to even explain their nature, to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion of what "the law" is.

This "I've seen no evidence, keep trying" preamble you always get into, which you'll still be doing four to ten pages from now. That's an undertone which I do not accept. Nobody required you to confirm or deny anything, nor granted you the authority to do so with absolutely nothing whatsoever to offer yourself. We have two observable problems here and here. And we'd like to make some progress towards explaining them.

I've never pitched my worldview in the integrity of evidence camp. I don't boast scientific reasoning nor rationalism nor would I ever attempt to place my own sentient credibility to know truths about my or our nature by methodological meat carcass reductionism rendering me or us incapable of being capable of even making a few inferences. A demand for evidence, then (in any scenario, concerning any unsupported position) would be the burden of the claimant who does not have the inference to the best explanation (which in this case is you. You don't seem have anything whatsoever but a blind faith position and negative confirmation bias to shoot down propositions with). So let's see something better. A hypothesis? A theory? A model? Conjecture at least? Float me a musing. Throw something into the mix. Make a contribution, however anecdotal. We have an ought. There's the phenomenon.

1. How did we get an ought from an is?
2. What is "natural evil"?
3. If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, does that include "natural" actions?
4. Is atheism true if you can't answer any of the above using the scientific method?
5. Is science sufficient if you can't answer any of the above using the scientific method?
6. Is a blind faith position claiming that God did something, or claiming that there's no something that God couldn't have done, when we're pointing right at two of them?
7. There's no seven, it's just a really holy number.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
This "I've seen no evidence, keep trying" preamble you always get into, which you'll still be doing four to ten pages from now. That's an undertone which I do not accept. Nobody required you to confirm or deny anything, nor granted you the authority to do so with absolutely nothing whatsoever to offer yourself. We have two observable problems here

Hmm.

Dialogist wrote:
and here.
Better, but staying on-topic, it still does not make 'sin' or 'evil' anything more special than simple words outside of religious circles.

Dialogist wrote:
And we'd like to make some progress towards explaining them.
Good luck with whoever may share your wish, without your religions there just is nothing special about the word 'sin' though.
LxGoodies
I think you two are running around in circles regarding the word "sin"..

watersoul wrote:
without your religions there just is nothing special about the word 'sin' though.

Is that so ? This is just a matter of language and definition. There are a lot of "sins" that non-believers would also recognize AND the believer recognizes as wrong-doing. What's the problem with calling it "a sin" then ? Suppose the other person would call murder "a sin", you would recognize the act and use a different word, that is "a crime", but in essence you're talking about the same phenomenon, something that people feel guilty about. Whether believer or non-believer.. murder is clearly wrong.

In my view, the real nasty bit is when the religious person would call something a sin, which is in my view a joy, like e.g. homosexual behaviour. There, (that is in THAT particular case) the word "sin" has no relevant meaning. Nothing special. In most other cases it would. For example, I feel gulty when I lie. That is a sin. I don't object to calling it "a sin", no problem for me. As long as the believer does not impose upon me THE definition of "sin", I can live with using the same word, np..

Lx
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
I think you two are running around in circles now..

watersoul wrote:
without your religions there just is nothing special about the word 'sin' though.

Is that so ? This is just a matter of language and definition. There are a lot of "sins" that non-believers would also recognize AND the believer recognizes as wrong-doing. What's the problem with calling it "a sin" then ? Suppose the other person would call murder "a sin", you would recognize the act and use a different word, that is "a crime", but in essence you're talking about the same phenomenon, something that people feel guilty about. Whether believer or non-believer.. murder is clearly wrong.

In my view, the real nasty bit is when the religious person would call something a sin, which is in my view a joy, like e.g. homosexual behaviour. There, (that is only in THAT case) the word "sin" has no relevant meaning. Nothing special. In most other cases it would. For example, I feel gulty when I lie. That is a sin. I don't object to calling it "a sin", no problem for me. As long as the believer does not impose upon me a definition of "sin", I can live with using the same word, np..

Lx




But don't some people take joy in murder or doing something that you call wrong or sin. Surly if we declare open slather then there would be anarchy because we don't all share the same moral beliefs.

It would be survival of the fittest, Mad Max.

Religions have fairly strict definitions for people to follow but there is still debate amongst them.

Society has imposed laws on us based on some ones morality but we don't all stick to those either.
Dialogist
LxGoodies wrote:

In my view, the real nasty bit is when the religious person would call something a sin, which is in my view a joy, like e.g. homosexual behaviour. There, (that is in THAT particular case) the word "sin" has no relevant meaning.


Well then that nasty religious homophobia isn't a sin to you because you say it has no relevant meaning. Of course nasty anything is a sin. But since you have this subjectivity concerning what you see as a joy, and it doesn't relate to what everyone sees as a joy, does it merely exist in a subjective context? Is a religious person suffering a similarly sinful "theist-phobia" when his views are being conflated with Leviticus' views (Archaic instructional handbook for paganistic ancient Judea priests concerning sacrificial oxen blood type ritualism) in some sort of cartoon parody of Biblical (and therefore "Christian") teaching? The difference is more than just two testaments. It's two entirely different religions. The latter existing to refute the former. Especially when the theist is a Christian and not a Levitican and when Christ said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7) that's where the Christian gets his beliefs, morals and indeed title itself from? See, the term "homophobia" refers to some kind of psychological fear of homosexual people. Obviously in modern usage, it doesn't mean that anymore. It includes people who just don't like them, specifically because they are gay. That's not true of every criticism of homosexuality though. Some critics may just have a belief in the moral absolute and have a religious view which has informed an a priori they already had since they had intelligibility, concerning men having penises and sperm and women having vaginas and wombs which even a child can deduce a logical inference from (and honestly, if I only took moralistic pointers from Leviticus, my ability to throw stones would be somewhat hindered by the stone mountain I had buried myself under). "Religiously", I actually prefer Matthew's take on it. You know why? Because he basically says, 'Oh that? Yeah that's bullshit' and gets back on with the important stuff. But the moral absolute doesn't stop there (in religious belief), oh no, because that would be morally subjective. I consult science and ask the evolutionists if homosexuality has played a key role in the survival of mankind. I then consult the futurists and ask them if it is going to play a key role in our evolutionary progress. I then ask myself if it is natural. I'm careful to avoid Darwin's cousin Galton's eugenics and Weismann's Mendelian inheritance at this point, mindful of the malignant and dangerous road that this kind of thinking has led down in the past. No action or even dialogue upon genetic sexual attributes differing and combining to produce a fairly definite and beneficial dichotomical purpose (the whole natural purpose of mankind itself) is even necessary, and no discrimination is heard because no threat to the herd is even perceived. All in all, I just think it's an irrelevant 21st century anecdote that has been rammed down the throat via TV, media and modern lack of belief in anything in general and it has no meaningful moral or genetic basis in our natural history or natural future. Cue: Liquid water drying up, Andromeda collision etc, light speed/G-Force restrictions on flesh materia, nearest inhabitable star being longer than a life time away, quadrupled Van Allen Belts, Pope John Paul II's admission about what he read about a global tsunami in the third Secret. In other words, we're all screwed. By which point, we'll be asking the Buddhists about spiritual ethereal mental transcendation, not the gays, because natural selection will have made them all straight again anyway. Actually, that's a natural force informing a moral right. Rats! I've just ruined my whole entire argument.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
I consult science and ask the evolutionists if homosexuality has played a key role in the survival of mankind. I then consult the futurists and ask them if it is going to play a key role in our evolutionary progress. I then ask myself if it is natural.

Ramble much?
The answers to your questions have no relevance to determining if homosexuality is moral or not in any sense as considered outside of religious leanings - this specific 'sin' you speak of.
Don't ever hear any non-religious people claiming homosexuality is a sin. 'Sin' is a faith position.
You could ask the same irrelevant questions if I fell in love with a woman who I knew could not bear children.
The answers would equally provide no particular support to the 'sin' argument.
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
I consult science and ask the evolutionists if homosexuality has played a key role in the survival of mankind. I then consult the futurists and ask them if it is going to play a key role in our evolutionary progress. I then ask myself if it is natural.

Ramble much?
The answers to your questions have no relevance to determining if homosexuality is moral or not in any sense as considered outside of religious leanings - this specific 'sin' you speak of.
Don't ever hear any non-religious people claiming homosexuality is a sin. 'Sin' is a faith position.
You could ask the same irrelevant questions if I fell in love with a woman who I knew could not bear children.
The answers would equally provide no particular support to the 'sin' argument.


I never attempted to show homosexually was immoral. Just that it was unnatural. I succeeded (I could similarly succeed in claiming the extinction of mankind is immoral but that's a lay-up and far too easy to bother with). However, I either succeeded in showing that homosexuality is unnatural, or I succeeded in showing that Evolution by Natural Selection is false. I guess there's something for the theist in there somewhere.

The sin argument is that, the presented facts that homosexuality could have not have been beneficial to survival in our history and also cannot be beneficial to our survival in future, to an atheist who believes in Darwinian mechanism as a reason and motive for all sin/evil/good/purity claims, is a fact that has also somehow still offended you.

How peculiar?

Another ought from an is.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
I consult science and ask the evolutionists if homosexuality has played a key role in the survival of mankind. I then consult the futurists and ask them if it is going to play a key role in our evolutionary progress. I then ask myself if it is natural.

Ramble much?
The answers to your questions have no relevance to determining if homosexuality is moral or not in any sense as considered outside of religious leanings - this specific 'sin' you speak of.
Don't ever hear any non-religious people claiming homosexuality is a sin. 'Sin' is a faith position.
You could ask the same irrelevant questions if I fell in love with a woman who I knew could not bear children.
The answers would equally provide no particular support to the 'sin' argument.


I never attempted to show homosexually was immoral. Just that it was unnatural. I succeeded (I could similarly succeed in claiming the extinction of mankind is immoral but that's a lay-up and far too easy to bother with). However, I either succeeded in showing that homosexuality is unnatural, or I succeeded in showing that Evolution by Natural Selection is false. I guess there's something for the theist in there somewhere.

The sin argument is that, the presented facts that homosexuality could have not have been beneficial to survival in our history and also cannot be beneficial to our survival in future, to an atheist who believes in Darwinian mechanism as a reason and motive for all sin/evil/good/purity claims, is a fact that has also somehow still offended you.

How peculiar?

Another ought from an is.


Nope, just used a heterosexual example to show the irrelevance of your questions in this 'sin' debate.
Dialogist
No, you used a heterosexual example to show that people of both sexual persuasions can abstain from sexual reproduction. Leviticus would agree with you because he took a vow of celibacy. What this argument doesn't do, from a religious perspective, is suggest the believer is wrong to call homosexuality immoral. I'm actually not sure what this argument actually does do, ad populum. And what it doesn't do, from a naturalistic perspective, is suggest that this has ever been the norm concerning populations or generations or anything to do with an extant species.

The six questions were not irrelevant, clearly, which is why you've chosen to duck them. You cited one of the examples that I gave of the observable phenomenon of "Natural evil" has having no citations. That's fine. It has that notice because it is planned to be merged with the Problem of Evil topic. Both of these topics sharing the same attributes warranting the merge: That they are both atheistic claims about the impossibility of omnipotence. These problems are not coming from "religious circles", these problems are coming from atheistic circles.

The claim by atheists, has always been that God cannot be impotent, because we know evil exists. It's rather silly argument, when you think about it. Because here you are, insisting evil does not exist, because then you have to explain transgression of a divine law, twinned with the initial afore mentioned misunderstanding of the atheist who presumes that omnipotence is a slave to a logic that holds that the ability to be omnipotent means omnipotence can't be omnipotent and impotent at the same time (if it wants). And make a stone that it cannot lift, etc.

But clearly, that's not the argument we're concerned with here. The argument is that atheists are noticing evil and saying, "Look evil! No God" but evil is supernatural. Evil is also sin. Atheists see sin, they just don't want to discuss what possible natural or supernatural law it transgresses. Which to be honest, is dishonest.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
The six questions were not irrelevant, clearly, which is why you've chosen to duck them. You cited one of the examples that I gave of the observable phenomenon of "Natural evil" has having no citations. That's fine. It has that notice because it is planned to be merged with the Problem of Evil topic. Both of these topics sharing the same attributes warranting the merge: That they are both atheistic claims about the impossibility of omnipotence. These problems are not coming from "religious circles", these problems are coming from atheistic circles.

Still your 'sin' idea remains a position of faith, which is why no-one is able to confirm 'evil' as any kind of magical force.
I won't be drawn into use of your religiously loaded word 'evil' but quite like this alternative term:

Oppy, Graham. Arguing about Gods, pp. 261. Cambridge University Press, 2006 wrote:
state of affairs that orthodox theists would agree are properly called 'evil'
link

So lets rephrase your question "What is natural evil?" to "What is a natural state of affairs that orthodox theists would agree are properly called evil?" then an example answer could be a Bambi type scenario with a forest fire. No magical force (or devils as you mentioned earlier) proven anywhere.

Face it, 'sin' exists solely in religious faith, nowhere else.
You can type as many long-winded bullshit blocks of religiously inspired text as you like about 'sin' but it proves nothing to anyone who doesn't believe in the prior assumption of invisible gods Wink
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
The six questions were not irrelevant, clearly, which is why you've chosen to duck them. You cited one of the examples that I gave of the observable phenomenon of "Natural evil" has having no citations. That's fine. It has that notice because it is planned to be merged with the Problem of Evil topic. Both of these topics sharing the same attributes warranting the merge: That they are both atheistic claims about the impossibility of omnipotence. These problems are not coming from "religious circles", these problems are coming from atheistic circles.

Still your 'sin' idea remains a position of faith, which is why no-one is able to confirm 'evil' as any kind of magical force.
I won't be drawn into use of your religiously loaded word 'evil' but quite like this alternative term:

Oppy, Graham. Arguing about Gods, pp. 261. Cambridge University Press, 2006 wrote:
state of affairs that orthodox theists would agree are properly called 'evil'
link

So lets rephrase your question "What is natural evil?" to "What is a natural state of affairs that orthodox theists would agree are properly called evil?" then an example answer could be a Bambi type scenario with a forest fire. No magical force (or devils as you mentioned earlier) proven anywhere.

Face it, 'sin' exists solely in religious faith, nowhere else.
You can type as many long-winded bullshit blocks of religiously inspired text as you like about 'sin' but it proves nothing to anyone who doesn't believe in the prior assumption of invisible gods Wink


Coward.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
The six questions were not irrelevant, clearly, which is why you've chosen to duck them. You cited one of the examples that I gave of the observable phenomenon of "Natural evil" has having no citations. That's fine. It has that notice because it is planned to be merged with the Problem of Evil topic. Both of these topics sharing the same attributes warranting the merge: That they are both atheistic claims about the impossibility of omnipotence. These problems are not coming from "religious circles", these problems are coming from atheistic circles.

Still your 'sin' idea remains a position of faith, which is why no-one is able to confirm 'evil' as any kind of magical force.
I won't be drawn into use of your religiously loaded word 'evil' but quite like this alternative term:

Oppy, Graham. Arguing about Gods, pp. 261. Cambridge University Press, 2006 wrote:
state of affairs that orthodox theists would agree are properly called 'evil'
link

So lets rephrase your question "What is natural evil?" to "What is a natural state of affairs that orthodox theists would agree are properly called evil?" then an example answer could be a Bambi type scenario with a forest fire. No magical force (or devils as you mentioned earlier) proven anywhere.

Face it, 'sin' exists solely in religious faith, nowhere else.
You can type as many long-winded bullshit blocks of religiously inspired text as you like about 'sin' but it proves nothing to anyone who doesn't believe in the prior assumption of invisible gods Wink


Coward.

To be honest, I prefer the insult to a block of religiously inspired ranting text...much quicker to dismiss it Wink
Dialogist
It wasn't an insult. An insult is accusing me of using religious argumentation and having the barefaced gall to accuse me of holding to a faith position when the faith position has only ever been yours right the way through the entire discussion. And you've still provided nothing of worthy contribution. Only accused, decried, slandered and hid.

Insulting is accusing me of "religiously inspired ranting text" when I've given you nothing but a) Newtonian Mechanics, b) Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection c) Arguments from Atheism on the Problems of Evil d) Religious skeptic and world renown philosopher David Hume's Is-Ought Problem and in all cases, naturally observed phenomena which all of these secular problems both 1) fail to explain and 2) actually succeed in bolstering the worldview of the theist on, concerning the subject of morality.

So if I call you a coward for blatantly avoiding the topic at hand (which you quite clearly are), in favor of trying to pathetically lure me into a bicker-fest, or controversial comment, because you're so afraid you might dare actually admit that God is the only law that morality can possibly answer to because any law without a law maker is utterly meaningless, then me calling you a coward is clearly not an insult. That's just more naturally observed instances of sin.

If you think I'm going exchange pejoratives with you to get you off the hook concerning your blatant intellectual cowardice, you're quite obviously and sorely mistaken.

Post something interesting.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
It wasn't an insult. An insult is accusing me of using religious argumentation and having the barefaced gall to accuse me of holding to a faith position when the faith position has only ever been yours right the way through the entire discussion. And you've still provided nothing of worthy contribution. Only accused, decried, slandered and hid.

Yours is a faith position based on assumed Catholic dogma.

Dialogist wrote:
Insulting is accusing me of "religiously inspired ranting text" when I've given you nothing but a) Newtonian Mechanics, b) Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection c) Arguments from Atheism on the Problems of Evil d) Religious skeptic and world renown philosopher David Hume's Is-Ought Problem and in all cases, naturally observed phenomena which all of these secular problems both 1) fail to explain and 2) actually succeed in bolstering the worldview of the theist on, concerning the subject of morality.

Just more pseudo-science and religiously inspired assertions which prove nothing.

Dialogist wrote:
So if I call you a coward for blatantly avoiding the topic at hand (which you quite clearly are), in favor of trying to pathetically lure me into a bicker-fest, or controversial comment, because you're so afraid you might dare actually admit that God is the only law that morality can possibly answer to because any law without a law maker is utterly meaningless, then me calling you a coward is clearly not an insult. That's just more naturally observed instances of sin.
More belief stated as fact.

Dialogist wrote:
If you think I'm going exchange pejoratives with you to get you off the hook concerning your blatant intellectual cowardice, you're quite obviously and sorely mistaken.

Post something interesting.

'Interesting' is a subjective opinion, I guess we do not meet soundly in this regard.
LxGoodies
nickfyoung wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
I think you two are running around in circles now..

watersoul wrote:
without your religions there just is nothing special about the word 'sin' though.

Is that so ? This is just a matter of language and definition. There are a lot of "sins" that non-believers would also recognize AND the believer recognizes as wrong-doing. What's the problem with calling it "a sin" then ? Suppose the other person would call murder "a sin", you would recognize the act and use a different word, that is "a crime", but in essence you're talking about the same phenomenon, something that people feel guilty about. Whether believer or non-believer.. murder is clearly wrong.

In my view, the real nasty bit is when the religious person would call something a sin, which is in my view a joy, like e.g. homosexual behaviour. There, (that is only in THAT case) the word "sin" has no relevant meaning. Nothing special. In most other cases it would. For example, I feel gulty when I lie. That is a sin. I don't object to calling it "a sin", no problem for me. As long as the believer does not impose upon me a definition of "sin", I can live with using the same word, np..

Lx




But don't some people take joy in murder or doing something that you call wrong or sin. Surly if we declare open slather then there would be anarchy because we don't all share the same moral beliefs.

What do you mean with "open slather" ? We agree about people who enjoy killing. They are clearly wrong and doing sins when they murder. People don't approve, God does not approve, everyone agrees about it. Except murderers of course..


Quote:
It would be survival of the fittest, Mad Max.

Ah now I understand.. you think that if wrong-doing is NO SIN there is nactually no law about it. Now we get to the crux of the matter.. This is not so. A secular state that defines proper laws can take care of sins, no problem. But such a state would happily allow e.g. homosexual marriage.. something you would regard as a sin. Outside religion, there are valid values as well.

Quote:
Religions have fairly strict definitions for people to follow but there is still debate amongst them.

Society has imposed laws on us based on some ones morality but we don't all stick to those either.

Indeed. And in my opinion these may be called sin, OR wrong-doing. Religion does not define that, in the modern world democratic laws do. That is not anarchy or law of the jungle.

Lx
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
I think you two are running around in circles now..

watersoul wrote:
without your religions there just is nothing special about the word 'sin' though.

Is that so ? This is just a matter of language and definition. There are a lot of "sins" that non-believers would also recognize AND the believer recognizes as wrong-doing. What's the problem with calling it "a sin" then ? Suppose the other person would call murder "a sin", you would recognize the act and use a different word, that is "a crime", but in essence you're talking about the same phenomenon, something that people feel guilty about. Whether believer or non-believer.. murder is clearly wrong.

In my view, the real nasty bit is when the religious person would call something a sin, which is in my view a joy, like e.g. homosexual behaviour. There, (that is only in THAT case) the word "sin" has no relevant meaning. Nothing special. In most other cases it would. For example, I feel gulty when I lie. That is a sin. I don't object to calling it "a sin", no problem for me. As long as the believer does not impose upon me a definition of "sin", I can live with using the same word, np..

Lx




But don't some people take joy in murder or doing something that you call wrong or sin. Surly if we declare open slather then there would be anarchy because we don't all share the same moral beliefs.

What do you mean with "open slather" ? We agree about people who enjoy killing. They are clearly wrong and doing sins when they murder. People don't approve, God does not approve, everyone agrees about it. Except murderers of course..


Quote:
It would be survival of the fittest, Mad Max.

Ah now I understand.. you think that if wrong-doing is NO SIN there is nactually no law about it. Now we get to the crux of the matter.. This is not so. A secular state that defines proper laws can take care of sins, no problem. But such a state would happily allow e.g. homosexual marriage.. something you would regard as a sin. Outside religion, there are valid values as well.

Quote:
Religions have fairly strict definitions for people to follow but there is still debate amongst them.

Society has imposed laws on us based on some ones morality but we don't all stick to those either.

Indeed. And in my opinion these may be called sin, OR wrong-doing. Religion does not define that, in the modern world democratic laws do. That is not anarchy or law of the jungle.

Lx



Quote:
A secular state that defines proper laws can take care of sins, no problem.



And these laws are based on the norms of society, whatever is acceptable at the time and change as society changes.

If your society has a majority of religious people then the norms of that society would reflect that and so the laws.

Of course, the same goes for a society of a majority of non-religious people and the norms and laws would reflect that too.

I think part of the problem is that society has moved from a predominantly religious one to a non-religious one and the norms are changing accordingly. Your example of gay marriage is relevant here.

So those who are left holding the religious bag are a bit perplexed with all the changes which is understandable to.

The options for them is to become non-religious and join the crowd or stay religious and protest all the changes. They are in a bit of a no win situation as society becomes more and more the opposite of them.

What makes it even more frustrating for them is they claim to see the change in society reflected in their holy books fore telling of the future.

Put yourself in their shoes. It would be a bit frightening for some of them.
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
It wasn't an insult. An insult is accusing me of using religious argumentation and having the barefaced gall to accuse me of holding to a faith position when the faith position has only ever been yours right the way through the entire discussion. And you've still provided nothing of worthy contribution. Only accused, decried, slandered and hid.

Yours is a faith position based on assumed Catholic dogma.

Dialogist wrote:
Insulting is accusing me of "religiously inspired ranting text" when I've given you nothing but a) Newtonian Mechanics, b) Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection c) Arguments from Atheism on the Problems of Evil d) Religious skeptic and world renown philosopher David Hume's Is-Ought Problem and in all cases, naturally observed phenomena which all of these secular problems both 1) fail to explain and 2) actually succeed in bolstering the worldview of the theist on, concerning the subject of morality.

Just more pseudo-science and religiously inspired assertions which prove nothing.

Dialogist wrote:
So if I call you a coward for blatantly avoiding the topic at hand (which you quite clearly are), in favor of trying to pathetically lure me into a bicker-fest, or controversial comment, because you're so afraid you might dare actually admit that God is the only law that morality can possibly answer to because any law without a law maker is utterly meaningless, then me calling you a coward is clearly not an insult. That's just more naturally observed instances of sin.
More belief stated as fact.

Dialogist wrote:
If you think I'm going exchange pejoratives with you to get you off the hook concerning your blatant intellectual cowardice, you're quite obviously and sorely mistaken.

Post something interesting.

'Interesting' is a subjective opinion, I guess we do not meet soundly in this regard.


Do you actually read your posts? I'm just wondering if somebody does.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
Do you actually read your posts? I'm just wondering if somebody does.

Irrelevant.
LxGoodies
@Nickfyoung,

One time in the past, EVERYTHING was based on religion. Law, culture.. Now suppose cultural things and laws change over time and they change over decades, or centuries. Very gradually. Are you really sure, that believers all remain unhappy with the situation ? We are going more and more "secular", which has been a continuous process for at least 350 years. Descartes redefined reason.. in medicine, a rational approach replaced trust in prayer and ritual.

I think religious values (or definitions of "sin" unique for religion) are adjusted along with that. Subject to change.. because the world changes. I feel that in the end, no one can accept anymore that the world is flat. Believers will start to search for clues in the bible that support the fact the world is actually a sphere.

Example: the notion of people alledgedly being witches. All Dutch and French law regarding witches and witch persecution were abolished in 1795, when French "citoyen" law came in and changes were formalized. In fact, the execution of witches had already ceased, it vanished in the 18th century. The laws against witches were nearly all grounded in bible texts and certain religious notions, such as the devil. Catholic as well as protestant clergy was involved in finding the proof and convicting witches. Now how do you explain that very few christians nowadays do worry about witches ? It's no topic anymore, the sin has vanished.

Nick wrote:
I think part of the problem is that society has moved from a predominantly religious one to a non-religious one and the norms are changing accordingly. Your example of gay marriage is relevant here.

Quote:
The options for them is to become non-religious and join the crowd or stay religious and protest

Obama abolished a law regarding openness about being homosexual among miltary personnel. You really think that christian officers remain permanently unhappy, or frightened about that, or stop being religious ? Of course, people have their opinion.. they would never have taken the initiative to abolish that law, but they stay in the army and enjoy their work, as before.


Quote:
Put yourself in their shoes. It would be a bit frightening for some of them.

Naa. Not in the long run. Regarding gm, click translate, this is very Dutch.. http://www.trouwen-bruiloft.nl/homohuwelijk.htm

It is not according to bible law at all, but in the Netherlands, the vast majority of christians feel fine with gay marriage. Not having any problems with it, even if they are invited to join in.

There is even a paradox here, becaus especially gays with a religious background tend to marry, are inclined to find a church where it is accepted and marry there as well. No problem. They regard that ritual as an eternal promise to each other, just like in man-and-woman marriage, it's basically the same ritual. Only difference is same gender. They have a very happy day with their family and friends.


Quote:
So those who are left holding the religious bag are a bit perplexed with all the changes which is understandable to.

Hmm.. "perplexed" could also be transformed into "surprised". Don't worry. To be honest I worry about some sins, that all people regard sins.. en tend to be more frequent every day, such as stealing and lying. Being violent in the street, or racist prejudice..

Lx
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
@Nickfyoung,

One time in the past, EVERYTHING was based on religion. Law, culture.. Now suppose cultural things and laws change over time and they change over decades, or centuries. Very gradually. Are you really sure, that believers all remain unhappy with the situation ? We are going more and more "secular", which has been a continuous process for at least 350 years. Descartes redefined reason.. in medicine, a rational approach replaced trust in prayer and ritual.

I think religious values (or definitions of "sin" unique for religion) are adjusted along with that. Subject to change.. because the world changes. I feel that in the end, no one can accept anymore that the world is flat. Believers will start to search for clues in the bible that support the fact the world is actually a sphere.

Example: the notion of people alledgedly being witches. All Dutch and French law regarding witches and witch persecution were abolished in 1795, when French "citoyen" law came in and changes were formalized. In fact, the execution of witches had already ceased, it vanished in the 18th century. The laws against witches were nearly all grounded in bible texts and certain religious notions, such as the devil. Catholic as well as protestant clergy was involved in finding the proof and convicting witches. Now how do you explain that very few christians nowadays do worry about witches ? It's no topic anymore, the sin has vanished.

Nick wrote:
I think part of the problem is that society has moved from a predominantly religious one to a non-religious one and the norms are changing accordingly. Your example of gay marriage is relevant here.

Quote:
The options for them is to become non-religious and join the crowd or stay religious and protest

Obama abolished a law regarding openness about being homosexual among miltary personnel. You really think that christian officers remain permanently unhappy, or frightened about that, or stop being religious ? Of course, people have their opinion.. they would never have taken the initiative to abolish that law, but they stay in the army and enjoy their work, as before.


Quote:
Put yourself in their shoes. It would be a bit frightening for some of them.

Naa. Not in the long run. Regarding gm, click translate, this is very Dutch.. http://www.trouwen-bruiloft.nl/homohuwelijk.htm

It is not according to bible law at all, but in the Netherlands, the vast majority of christians feel fine with gay marriage. Not having any problems with it, even if they are invited to join in.

There is even a paradox here, becaus especially gays with a religious background tend to marry, are inclined to find a church where it is accepted and marry there as well. No problem. They regard that ritual as an eternal promise to each other, just like in man-and-woman marriage, it's basically the same ritual. Only difference is same gender. They have a very happy day with their family and friends.


Quote:
So those who are left holding the religious bag are a bit perplexed with all the changes which is understandable to.

Hmm.. "perplexed" could also be transformed into "surprised". Don't worry. To be honest I worry about some sins, that all people regard sins.. en tend to be more frequent every day, such as stealing and lying. Being violent in the street, or racist prejudice..

Lx



Quote:
Now how do you explain that very few christians nowadays do worry about witches ? It's no topic anymore, the sin has vanished.



Hasn't vanished from here. Plenty of witches around. I had a niece who was part of a coven and ended totally possessed by something. She ended up having deliverance ministry to get rid of it.


Quote:
but in the Netherlands, the vast majority of christians feel fine with gay marriage. Not having any problems with it, even if they are invited to join in.



Yes, there are some churches here the same and even endorse gay pastors.

Bit hard to blanket all with the same brush.
Dialogist
LxGoodies wrote:

Descartes redefined reason..


You can't redefine reason. You can only redefine human understanding of reason. Thus:

Descartes wrote:

1. Ideas are either innate (inborn or known from one's own nature), adventitious (come from outside me) or made by me.
2. Formal reality is characteristic of things.
3. Some things have more formal reality than others.
4. To exist is to be good.
5. Greater goodness or perfection therefore implies that some things have more existence than others.
6. Substances have a greater amount of formal reality than modes or accidents.
7. Infinite substances have more formal reality than finite substances.
8. Objective reality is the reality characterisic of ideas in virtue of the fact that the idea represents some reality.
9. Some ideas have more objective reality than others, depending on the formal reality of the things which they represent.
10. There is at least as much reality in an efficient cause as in its effect. (This is revealed by the natural light.)
11. The ideas in me are like images that may well fall short of the things from which they derive but cannot contain anything greater or more perfect. (This is revealed by the natural light.)
12. If I can be sure that the objective reality of one of my ideas is so great that it isn't in me either formally or eminently and hence that I cannot be the cause of that idea, I can infer that I am not alone in the world--that there exists something else that is the cause of the idea.
13. I have the ideas of myself, of God, of angels, of animals, of physical objects and of other men like me.
14. I could have composed my ideas of animals, other men and angels. (There is a brief argument on behalf of this premise.)
15. I could have composed my ideas of physical objects without these existing. (There is an argument to show that this premise is true.)
16. There is more reality in an infinite than in a finite substance.
17. The more perfect serves as a standard to judge the less perfect.
18. I use God as the standard to judge that I am imperfect.
19. My grasp of the infinite must be prior to my grasp of the finite.
20. The idea of God is completely clear and distinct and contains more objective reality than any other idea.
21. But perhaps I am greater than I have assumed and so could be the cause of the idea of a being with all perfections.
22. The gradual increase in my knowledge shows that I am imperfect. (All of these things are revealed by the light of nature)
23. Therefore, God necessarily exists.


LxGoodies wrote:

I think religious values (or definitions of "sin" unique for religion) are adjusted along with that. Subject to change.. because the world changes.


Laws and rules change. Sin has never changed because sin has never been subject to subjectivity. For example, Hitler was the law in Germany. He didn't answer to the law, the law answered to him, therefore the Holocaust wasn't against the law. The sin however, didn't change according to his whim. If he had succeeded and Goebbels' master propaganda succeeded in brainwashing the world into believing in the fuhrer, he'd still be wrong. Just as he would if he managed to annihilate every single human being besides himself and was the last man on earth screaming "I am right!" He'd still be wrong. Sin is not subjective and nobody owns the distinction between right and wrong. Whether religious, atheist, philosopher or otherwise. The law judges all externally and there's no ad populum argumentation sufficient to make Hitler right in the scenario above. Likewise, any attempt to say that his inability to be refuted as last man standing, makes him right, or not wrong, is as exactly as futile as arguing that the world disappeared after he commit suicide.

LxGoodies wrote:

I feel that in the end, no one can accept anymore that the world is flat. Believers will start to search for clues in the bible that support the fact the world is actually a sphere.


The world was always spherical though, as Isaiah pointed out:

Isaiah 40:22 wrote:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.


It's quite a remarkable vision in itself, especially for its time (8th Century BC). Grasshoppers being obviously a metaphor concerning a prolifically gravitational creature, and gravity being used presumably for no other possible purpose than these grasshoppers going around the diameter, rather a metaphorical use of oxen or sheep. Sheep would have been a good Biblical reference. But no, "grasshoppers"?

The most striking thing about this verse is the shape. Circular. Was this vision coming from a man walking a flat earth? Was this vision, pre-Pythagoras (500 BC), pre-Aristotle (300 BC), pre-Ptolemy (150 AD), which was still only conjecture until pre-Magellan's expedition (1519–1522 AD) a result of knowing the Earth was spherical? Was this vision coming from a tiny man, stood at ground level, looking at a 12 756.2 kilometers "flat disk"? Tell me, at what altitude does it become circular? The first manned kite glide left the earth in China in the 15th Century. We didn't get ballooning down properly until 1783 and that'll only buy you a bird's eye view of a town at the most. We didn't actually get a photograph of the Earth until 1946, and even that is still not round looking at all.

So back to 800 B.C for a minute:

Isaiah 40:22 wrote:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth


Is that Isaiah describing this?



Or is Isaiah describing this?



How high could these 8th Century B.C. grasshoppers bounce?

LxGoodies wrote:

Example: the notion of people allegedly being witches. All Dutch and French law regarding witches and witch persecution were abolished in 1795, when French "citoyen" law came in and changes were formalized. In fact, the execution of witches had already ceased, it vanished in the 18th century. The laws against witches were nearly all grounded in bible texts and certain religious notions, such as the devil. Catholic as well as protestant clergy was involved in finding the proof and convicting witches. Now how do you explain that very few Christians nowadays do worry about witches ? It's no topic anymore, the sin has vanished.


I can show you three different topics concerning religious attitudes towards witches posted within the last month. Protestants and Catholics are no longer being involved in witch-hunting out the devil? Have you been reading this read? Nick has called my church the anti-Christ about 18 different times. You've even accused me of resembling the Spanish Inquisition presuming I was witch-hunting him. In this very thread. The sin of deeply felt blasphemous paganism is clearly alive and well.

LxGoodies wrote:

Obama abolished a law regarding openness about being homosexual among military personnel. You really think that Christian officers remain permanently unhappy, or frightened about that, or stop being religious ? Of course, people have their opinion.. they would never have taken the initiative to abolish that law, but they stay in the army and enjoy their work, as before.


"Enjoy their work"? You do know what they do for a living, right? Moralistically, I mean. I feel like I have to check. The concern is not that their homosexuality is conflicting with their Christianity. The concern is that they are carpet bombing desert peasants for oil they had already stolen 10 years ago. Obama's laws, do not mean shit. He sent a black ops death squad to assassinate a man in cold blood and constantly refers to this as to why he's "better" than the other Mormron. Is it wrong that I see a basic humanity in the purportedly evil person that was Osama Bin Laden? That the taking of his life was also wrong? That the boasting about it is absolutely unforgivable? Is this my sin in today's climate? Do sins really evolve?

LxGoodies wrote:

It is not according to bible law at all, but in the Netherlands, the vast majority of Christians feel fine with gay marriage. Not having any problems with it, even if they are invited to join in.


They should church shop here: http://www.ecwr.org/ for a real bargain. The people are practicing homosexuals. All their ministers are homosexual and as you can see from their website, homosexuality is the focal point of this 'church'. Asides from their letter of the law, evangelical Christian preaching, their reasoning for overlooking this one particularly noticeable protruding sore-thumb, mirrors yours: "Sin has changed. What was a sin in Biblical times, isn't a sin now". Funny how the good has never changed isn't it? That's just expanded, to include more sin. I expect consistency here. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Surely the good has to make room for all this sin? Even a hard drive has a capacity to only hold a certain amount of Gigabytes of awesomeness. You then have to start deleting awesomeness to get more on. But not with the set in stone law of right and wrong it seems. That's extremely flexible. That allows one to say to these people, "forget about it. Jesus was over-rated back in the day and those who crucified him? Just War on Terror freedom fighters, enjoying their work."

LxGoodies wrote:

There is even a paradox here, becaus especially gays with a religious background tend to marry, are inclined to find a church where it is accepted and marry there as well. No problem. They regard that ritual as an eternal promise to each other, just like in man-and-woman marriage, it's basically the same ritual. Only difference is same gender. They have a very happy day with their family and friends.


Why do you think that happiness is a sign of sanctity? I have never seen this, in any great saint. Happiness I mean. It doesn't seem terribly synonymous with the extreme morality. Quite the opposite, in fact. Also, I read a lot of Oscar Wilde too, and I'm not seeing a great deal of moral championing in his chosen religion of hedonism. Asides from lust and self-gratification, one could find true happiness in family values. I wonder where that notion came from.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Bit hard to blanket all with the same brush.


An interesting avenue of inquiry might be those who obey morality but don't understand what it is. Who think it changes, when the whole point of it is that it cannot change otherwise it can't be moral. Then there's those who like to conflate modern demands on secular laws as evidence of morality changing, and those who think there's no sin whatsoever, apparently. Can I blanket all of these with the same brush? As people who don't understand what they are talking about? Or is that mean? 500 years ago it would have been heresy. The law has changed. The crime and punishment has changed, but the exasperated disbelief, however, hasn't aged a day.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:

Example: the notion of people allegedly being witches. All Dutch and French law regarding witches and witch persecution were abolished in 1795, when French "citoyen" law came in and changes were formalized. In fact, the execution of witches had already ceased, it vanished in the 18th century. The laws against witches were nearly all grounded in bible texts and certain religious notions, such as the devil. Catholic as well as protestant clergy was involved in finding the proof and convicting witches. Now how do you explain that very few Christians nowadays do worry about witches ? It's no topic anymore, the sin has vanished.


I can show you three different topics concerning religious attitudes towards witches posted within the last month. Protestants and Catholics are no longer being involved in witch-hunting out the devil? Have you been reading this read? Nick has called my church the anti-Christ about 18 different times. You've even accused me of resembling the Spanish Inquisition presuming I was witch-hunting him. In this very thread. The sin of deeply felt blasphemous paganism is clearly alive and well.


Doesn't really explain why the persecution of witches is a practise considered no longer acceptable by your church though?
I ask the specific because I suspect it is modern societies idea of right and wrong which developed while your church has played catch up?
Or are there some secret commandments from invisible gods in the last few hundred years that changed their minds and stated "killing suspected wiches isn't cool anymore" ?

Again, without the presumption of any gods your 'sin' is just a descriptive word of a position held by orthodox theists.
nickfyoung
All heresy back in those days was usually punishable by death usually by being burnt at the stake.
It didn't matter whether you were a witch or some other heretic. or considered a heretic. If your view differed from the church that was enough. The Catholics did it and the Protestants did it.
The biggest ministry of Jesus in his day was not healing but deliverance. He did far more deliverance than anything else.
Where you have witchcraft and other satanic type groups you will find the type of people that Jesus delivered from such stuff.
It is still prevalent today and deliverance is still common in many churches. You don't know how many of those things are living in you. They have to live somewhere and are influencing your thinking.
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
All heresy back in those days was usually punishable by death usually by being burnt at the stake.
It didn't matter whether you were a witch or some other heretic. or considered a heretic. If your view differed from the church that was enough. The Catholics did it and the Protestants did it.
The biggest ministry of Jesus in his day was not healing but deliverance. He did far more deliverance than anything else.
Where you have witchcraft and other satanic type groups you will find the type of people that Jesus delivered from such stuff.
It is still prevalent today and deliverance is still common in many churches. You don't know how many of those things are living in you. They have to live somewhere and are influencing your thinking.

Again though, I'm still curious why either Christian organisation suddenly decided that killing suspected witches/heretics was no longer cool?

State legislation making it a crime discouraging them, but they still consider it a sin worth killing over?

or...

Alleged celestial instructions came out in the recent history of humankind that killing suspected witches/heretics has suddenly become a sin?
nickfyoung
watersoul wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
All heresy back in those days was usually punishable by death usually by being burnt at the stake.
It didn't matter whether you were a witch or some other heretic. or considered a heretic. If your view differed from the church that was enough. The Catholics did it and the Protestants did it.
The biggest ministry of Jesus in his day was not healing but deliverance. He did far more deliverance than anything else.
Where you have witchcraft and other satanic type groups you will find the type of people that Jesus delivered from such stuff.
It is still prevalent today and deliverance is still common in many churches. You don't know how many of those things are living in you. They have to live somewhere and are influencing your thinking.

Again though, I'm still curious why either Christian organisation suddenly decided that killing suspected witches/heretics was no longer cool?

State legislation making it a crime discouraging them, but they still consider it a sin worth killing over?

or...

Alleged celestial instructions came out in the recent history of humankind that killing suspected witches/heretics has suddenly become a sin?



Maybe it was just part of the evolution of society which means that it wasn't cool in God's eyes at the time. Which means that the early church was not necessarily in tune with God in everything.
Religion has always been big on killing with lots of Christians killed by the Jews and the many holy war killings through history. Fanatical Christians have been known to ambush and shoot doctors coming out of abortion clinics.


Quote:
Alleged celestial instructions came out in the recent history of humankind that killing suspected witches/heretics has suddenly become a sin?[



Maybe it always was a sin but they didn't realize it at the time.
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:

Doesn't really explain why the persecution of witches is a practise considered no longer acceptable by your church though?


This is more Nick's beef than mine, because it was mainly the Puritans, and he's answered fairly adequately however we both kneel in the same direction so I'll just add that he missed a bit:

Watersoul wrote:

State legislation making it a crime discouraging them, but they still consider it a sin worth killing over?


Christianity was State legislation but moreover, State legislation was "Christian". There was nobody in the west, in medieval times who didn't wear some kind of Christian "beard". Theoracies and Monarchies were indistinguishable. That's not to say that the Protestant Churches are free of burden, and it's definitely no attempt to pacify the evils that my Church has committed in the name of God but claiming that the Church caught up to state law isn't feasible when the two have never been mutually exclusive (even to this day, in terms of Christian "beards"). A government will always appeal to God to do heinous acts. Whether or not it was commissioned by God in scripture, however, is another matter. And clearly in terms of morality in judging what is wrong, or what is a sin. If it looks that way now, it's always been that way, because morality doesn't change subject to time, climate, politics or subjective opinion, as my Godwin's Law paragraph about Hitler attempted to illustrate. It was wrong then too.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
watersoul wrote:

Doesn't really explain why the persecution of witches is a practise considered no longer acceptable by your church though?


This is more Nick's beef than mine, because it was mainly the Puritans, and he's answered fairly adequately however we both kneel in the same direction so I'll just add that he missed a bit:

Watersoul wrote:

State legislation making it a crime discouraging them, but they still consider it a sin worth killing over?


Christianity was State legislation but moreover, State legislation was "Christian". There was nobody in the west, in medieval times who didn't wear some kind of Christian "beard". Theoracies and Monarchies were indistinguishable. That's not to say that the Protestant Churches are free of burden, and it's definitely no attempt to pacify the evils that my Church has committed in the name of God but claiming that the Church caught up to state law isn't feasible when the two have never been mutually exclusive (even to this day, in terms of Christian "beards"). A government will always appeal to God to do heinous acts. Whether or not it was commissioned by God in scripture, however, is another matter. And clearly in terms of morality in judging what is wrong, or what is a sin. If it looks that way now, it's always been that way, because morality doesn't change subject to time, climate, politics or subjective opinion, as my Godwin's Law paragraph about Hitler attempted to illustrate. It was wrong then too.


I'm still interested in your explanation of the Catholic church one particular day deciding officially that the killing of suspected wiches became a 'sin' or something they were no longer allowed to get away with in whichever state?
Is killing of wiches now a sin or did human beings simply become a little less brainwashed by dogma and realised it was something they wouldn't like happening to them just because they think differently?

nickfyoung wrote:
Maybe it was just part of the evolution of society

Sort of bypasses your gods contribution then though.
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:

I'm still interested in your explanation of the Catholic church one particular day deciding officially that the killing of suspected wiches became a 'sin' or something they were no longer allowed to get away with in whichever state?
Is killing of wiches now a sin or did human beings simply become a little less brainwashed by dogma and realised it was something they wouldn't like happening to them just because they think differently?


Yeah, they became less brainwashed by dogma. That sounds fairly accurate. However there's much more to take into account than dogma. There's political climate, the normality of capital punishment according to the very very rich and desperately poor. The theocracy aspect, that these weren't necessarily churches always doing the witch-hunting. We too have been mercilessly hunted by governmental "Christians". There's the fact that you can pin any medieval atrocity on Christianity that you could think of, because nobody wasn't laying some kind of claim to it. The very few that didn't, seemed like aliens from another planet. There's the fact that people genuinely believed in witchcraft, magic and occultist ouija board type hocus pocus. And I don't mean just the suggestive theist, because there were hardly any skeptics at all. I mean everyone, including the outstandingly brilliant ingenious Issac Newton - who was an Alchemist. Pissing around with pots and pans and trying to magic up silver. There was a genuine and real and pressing concern within this society of the clear and present danger of evil spirits and anything that wasn't Christian (namely pagans who often did worship evil spirits) was so foreign to the mass majority that it had to be even more evil that the religions who murdered people themselves. And what do you do with evil like that? It's not just the relativity of the dark ages compared with now. There's been a paradigmatic shift in people power, whereby totalitarian despots can't make all the rules themselves anymore. Politics and ethics have evolved. Governing bodies within this paradigm must obey or be forcefully made to by firepower.

Here you have two things: Morality never changing because it's no righter now than it could have been then. And secondly, this illusion of peaceable secular progress that you imagine dangles from the thinnest thread of absolute chaos, and it is only really maintained in the exact same way. Superior firepower and forceful persuasion. It sounds almost like a moral adjudication from Biblical times.

And hey, if you don't believe me, wrap a towel around your head and fly a plane into a building. See if good ship Christian Beard doesn't come witch-hunting after your entire religion.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
watersoul wrote:

I'm still interested in your explanation of the Catholic church one particular day deciding officially that the killing of suspected wiches became a 'sin' or something they were no longer allowed to get away with in whichever state?
Is killing of wiches now a sin or did human beings simply become a little less brainwashed by dogma and realised it was something they wouldn't like happening to them just because they think differently?


Yeah, they became less brainwashed by dogma. That sounds fairly accurate. However there's much more to take into account than dogma. There's political climate, the normality of capital punishment according to the very very rich and desperately poor. The theocracy aspect, that these weren't necessarily churches always doing the witch-hunting. We too have been mercilessly hunted by governmental "Christians". There's the fact that you can pin any medieval atrocity on Christianity that you could think of, because nobody wasn't laying some kind of claim to it. The very few that didn't, seemed like aliens from another planet. There's the fact that people genuinely believed in witchcraft, magic and occultist ouija board type hocus pocus. And I don't mean just the suggestive theist, because there were hardly any skeptics at all. I mean everyone, including the outstandingly brilliant ingenious Issac Newton - who was an Alchemist. Pissing around with pots and pans and trying to magic up silver. There was a genuine and real and pressing concern within this society of the clear and present danger of evil spirits and anything that wasn't Christian (namely pagans who often did worship evil spirits) was so foreign to the mass majority that it had to be even more evil that the religions who murdered people themselves. And what do you do with evil like that? It's not just the relativity of the dark ages compared with now. There's been a paradigmatic shift in people power, whereby totalitarian despots can't make all the rules themselves anymore. Politics and ethics have evolved. Governing bodies within this paradigm must obey or be forcefully made to by firepower.

Here you have two things: Morality never changing because it's no righter now than it could have been then. And secondly, this illusion of peaceable secular progress that you imagine dangles from the thinnest thread of absolute chaos, and it is only really maintained in the exact same way. Superior firepower and forceful persuasion. It sounds almost like a moral adjudication from Biblical times.

And hey, if you don't believe me, wrap a towel around your head and fly a plane into a building. See if good ship Christian Beard doesn't come witch-hunting after your entire religion.


Your slippery sidetracking answer still doesn't explain the particular events when the Catholic church decided officially that killing wiches had either become a sin ordered by a god, or evolved socially as more people realised it was a fate they would not like for themselves.
Who decided this, celestial authority or simple humans?
Dialogist
I told you morality and sin doesn't change.

http://www.churchinneed.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7227&news_iv_ctrl=1001

(Wednesday, October 31, 2012)

You're still being persecuted because you are still full of the devil (apparently). As I say, I don't make the rules, nor evolve them, I just document them.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
I told you morality and sin doesn't change.

http://www.churchinneed.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7227&news_iv_ctrl=1001

(Wednesday, October 31, 2012)

You're still being persecuted because you are still full of the devil (apparently). As I say, I don't make the rules, nor evolve them, I just document them.

You still haven't explained anything about when your own church decided killing wiches wasn't cool anymore, and more importantly, why?
Celestial orders? realisation they couldn't get away with it any longer? ...or human decision realising it was something they wouldn't like happening to them?

Sidetrack as much as you like with faith based assertions but I await a straight answer to the above questions.
Without theistic faith your 'sin' remains a simple descriptive word for your beliefs.
Dialogist
The parts about this being Nick's beef, and not mine, you must have failed to have read. The parts about my church not being implicit in witch-hunting, but rather, only being guilty of witch-hunting witch-hunters themselves, is a part of History that I cannot change for you, as much as you would like for sin or morality - specifically, the errancy of the Roman Catholic Church to be subject to change. You couldn't care two figs about witches, or that the Catholic Church has only ever been the only one to actually help them, and is still helping them, as the link above shows, rather than making ridiculous unsupported claims, influenced by popularist false history to derail the Catholic Church. What you presume is "slippery sidetracking" is probably more than likely just your misinformed argument failing, again. The witch hunts were protestant (Puritan mostly) and in larger numbers secular, and as I say, I can't change history for you.

Wikipedia wrote:

The Councils of Elvira (306), Ancyra (314) and in Trullo (692) imposed certain ecclesiastical penances for devil-worship and this mild approach represented the view of the Church for many centuries.

The general desire of the Catholic Church's clergy to check fanaticism about witchcraft and necromancy is shown in the decrees of the Council of Paderborn which in 785 explicitly outlawed condemning people as witches, and condemned to death anyone who burnt a witch. Emperor Charlemagne later confirmed the law. The Council of Frankfurt in 794, called by Charlemagne, was also very explicit in condemning "the persecution of alleged witches and wizards", calling the belief in witchcraft "superstitious", and ordering the death penalty for those who presumed to burn witches.[10]

Similarly, the Lombard code of 643 states:

"Let nobody presume to kill a foreign serving maid or female servant as a witch, for it is not possible, nor ought to be believed by Christian minds."[11]

This conforms to the teachings of the Canon Episcopi of circa 900 AD (alleged to date from 314 AD), following the thoughts of St Augustine of Hippo which stated that witchcraft did not exist and that to teach that it was a reality was, itself, false and heterodox teaching.

The Church of the time, rather than punishing witchcraft, opposed what it saw as the foolish and backward belief in witchcraft itself, which it saw as superstitious folly.

Laws against poisoning and similar are sometimes confused with laws aimed at witchcraft but are obviously of a different character.

The "Decretum" of Burchard, Bishop of Worms (about 1020), and especially its 19th book, often known separately as the "Corrector", is another work of great importance. Burchard was writing against the superstitious belief in magical potions, for instance, which may produce impotence or abortion. But he altogether rejected the possibility of many of the alleged powers with which witches were popularly credited. Such, for example, were nocturnal riding through the air, the changing of a person's disposition from love to hate, the control of thunder, rain, and sunshine, the transformation of a man into an animal, the intercourse of incubi and succubi with human beings and other such superstitions. Not only the attempt to practise such things but the very belief in their possibility is treated by Burchard as false and superstitious.

Pope Gregory VII in 1080 wrote to King Harold of Denmark forbidding witches to be put to death upon presumption of their having caused storms or failure of crops or pestilence. Neither were these the only examples of an effort to prevent unjust suspicion to which such poor creatures might be exposed. See for example the Weihenstephan case discussed by Weiland in the Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte, IX, 592.

In fact, witchcraft laws were much more a phenomenon of secular courts and governments than religious, until the time of the Protestant Reformation when the "Reformers" began witch-hunts in earnest with fanatical and bloodthirsty zeal.

Early secular laws against witchcraft, include those promulgated by King Athelstan (924–939)

And we have ordained respecting witch-crafts, and lybacs [read lyblac "sorcery"], and morthdaeds ["murder, mortal sin"]: if any one should be thereby killed, and he could not deny it, that he be liable in his life. But if he will deny it, and at threefold ordeal shall be guilty; that he be 120 days in prison: and after that let kindred take him out, and give to the king 120 shillings, and pay the wer to his kindred, and enter into borh for him, that he evermore desist from the like.[12]

Altogether it may be said that in the first thirteen hundred years of the Christian era we find no trace of that fierce denunciation and persecution of supposed sorceresses which characterized the cruel witch-hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries, particularly in the Protestant areas of Europe and America.

In these earlier centuries a few individual prosecutions for witchcraft took place, and in some of these torture (permitted by the Roman civil law) apparently took place. However, Pope Nicholas I (866), prohibited the use of torture altogether, and a similar decree may be found in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.[13]

On many different occasions ecclesiastics who spoke with authority did their best to disabuse the people of their superstitious belief in witchcraft. This, for instance, is the general purport of the book, "Contra insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis" (Against the foolish belief of the common sort concerning hail and thunder), written by Saint Agobard (d. 841), Archbishop of Lyons.[14]

However, there was the beginnings of a witch-hunt as early as the 14th century but this tended to be in areas that later became Protestant, like Switzerland, Northern Germany and the South of France.

The manuals of the Roman Catholic Inquisition remained highly sceptical of the witch craze and of witch accusations, although there was sometimes an overlap between accusations of heresy and of witchcraft, particularly when, in the 13th century, the newly-formed Inquisition was commissioned to deal with the Manichaean Cathars of Southern France, whose teachings had an admixture of witchcraft and magic, and who had embarked upon campaigns of murder against their fellow citizens in France, not excluding prelates and ambassadors and whose ally, the Cathar King Pedro II of Aragon, later invaded Southern France with an army of 50,000.

Although it has been proposed that the witch-hunt developed in Europe from the early 14th century, after the Cathars and the Templar Knights were suppressed, this hypothesis has been rejected independently by two historians (Cohn 1975; Kieckhefer 1976).

They showed that the early witch-hunts originated among common people in the Switzerland and in the Croatia, who pressed the civil courts to support them.

Although, for largely political reasons, Pope John XXII had authorized the Inquisition to prosecute sorcerers in 1320,[15] inquisitorial courts rarely dealt with witchcraft save incidentally when investigating heterodoxy. Pope John XXII himself held heterodox views about the Last Judgement and was a very political pope asserting excessive authority over the Emperor whilst continuing to maintain the Avignon exile, itself a scandal to the Papacy since the Pope must be Bishop of Rome and must, by canon law, live in his Diocese. Whilst clearly not a bad man, he is not perhaps the best example of the Medieval popes.

Most inquisitors simply disbelieved in witchcraft and sorcery as superstitious folly. In the case of the Madonna Oriente, the Inquisition of Milan was not sure what to do with two women who in 1384 and in 1390 confessed to have participated in a type of white magic. The women were released with advice to avoid superstitions.

However, one Catholic figure who preached against witchcraft was popular Franciscan preacher, Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444) but his influence on the later witch-craze has been grossly exaggerated for reasons of inter-religious rivalry.

Once again, there seems to have been a phenomenon of superstitious practices and an over-reaction against them by the common people pressing Church and State to act. Bernardino's sermons reveal this phenomenon.[16]

However, it is clear that Bernardino had in mind not merely the use of spells and enchantments and such like fooleries but much more serious crimes, chiefly murder and infanticide. This is clear from his much-quoted sermon of 1427, in which he says:

"One of them told and confessed, without any pressure, that she had killed thirty children by bleeding them...[and] she confessed more, saying she had killed her own son...Answer me: does it really seem to you that someone who has killed twenty or thirty little children in such a way has done so well that when finally they are accused before the Signoria you should go to their aid and beg mercy for them?"

In 1484, in the Late Middle Ages, at a time when the papacy was starting to become highly politicised and corrupted, Pope Innocent VIII, who had a number of illegitimate children, issued, more for political reasons than anything, Summis desiderantes affectibus, a Papal bull authorizing the "correcting, imprisoning, punishing and chastising" of devil-worshippers who have "slain infants", among other crimes. He did so at the request of two inquisitors, Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, maverick members of the Dominican Order, who had been refused permission, by the local bishops in Germany, to investigate.[17]

In 1487, Kramer and Sprenger, published the notorious Malleus Maleficarum (the 'Hammer against the Witches') which, because of the newly invented printing presses, enjoyed a wide readership. The book was soon banned by the Church in 1490, and Kramer and Sprenger censured, but it was nevertheless reprinted in 14 editions by 1520 and became unduly influential in the secular courts. In 1538 the Spanish Inquisition cautioned its members not to believe what the Malleus said, even when it presented apparently firm evidence.[18]

Nevertheless, the real witch-hunting craze was yet to come and arrived with the Protestant Reformation when Salem-style witch trials began to proliferate in the "Reformed" areas of Europe, the Reformers sometimes borrowing from books like "Malleus" precisely because it had been condemned by the Catholic Church. It was the Reformation witch-hunts which are the stuff of drama and legend today because they were so manifestly devoid of justice, due process, reason and sanity.


Source

In short, Nick's church(es) probably stopped witch-hunting when they realized the error of their ways, and/or the infeasibility of the belief/fear in pixies, goblins and fairies.
watersoul
I shall of course concede that the protestant side enjoyed most of the witch killing, but when witch/heretic accusations kind of went hand in hand I consider this...

List of Important Events for the Witch Hunts, by Brian A. Pavlac Ph.D., Professor of History wrote:

The Medieval Inquisition (12-14th centuries): The investigative judicial system set up by the medieval Western Latin "Catholic" Church to eliminate the threat of heretics to orthodox Christianity. Similar to the later Spanish Inquisition and Roman Inquisition, judges were authorized in secret proceedings to investigate, prosecute, judge, and sentence accused people who had no legal counsel. Thousands of condemned victims were executed over the centuries, often by public burning.

Link

And while people of later years, like Christian Thomasius (1655-1728), were arguing that witchcraft was an invention of the late-medieval Catholic Church, I ask with more precision, did the Catholic church have anything to do with killing people who thought differently to their dogma?
If so, did they consider the people with different beliefs as 'sinners' and did they consider violent punishment of people who thought differently as sin or Gods instruction?
nickfyoung
We still believe in witches. Doesn't the Catholic church. They are probably more commonly called Wicca today but are very much alive and well.

"Wicca (English pronunciation: /ˈwɪkə/) is a modern pagan religion that draws upon a diverse set of ancient pagan religious motifs for its theological structure and ritual practice. The religion usually incorporates the practice of witchcraft."

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

I suppose they are safe under the freedom of religion law as are many other groups who worship all sorts of evil. That is why they are not persecuted today but they are very active and doing all sorts of damage to people who are members.
They don't usually have a church on the street corner so we don't realize that they even exist in many cases and like many of these groups meet in secret.

It is interesting that there has been official witchcraft acts back as far as 1542 and had not been repealed until 1951 and it is still in effect in Israel.

"The Act is still in force in Israel, having been introduced into the legal system of the British Mandate over Palestine; Israel gained its independence before the law was repealed in Britain in 1951. Article 417 of the Israeli Penal code of 1977, incorporating much legislation inherited from British and Ottoman times, sets two years' imprisonment as the punishment for "witchcraft, fortune telling, or magic for pay".[11] The law in Israel applies only to practitioners of witchcraft who charge a fee" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_Act#Witchcraft_Act_1735
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:
I shall of course concede that the protestant side enjoyed most of the witch killing, but when witch/heretic accusations kind of went hand in hand I consider this...

List of Important Events for the Witch Hunts, by Brian A. Pavlac Ph.D., Professor of History wrote:

The Medieval Inquisition (12-14th centuries): The investigative judicial system set up by the medieval Western Latin "Catholic" Church to eliminate the threat of heretics to orthodox Christianity. Similar to the later Spanish Inquisition and Roman Inquisition, judges were authorized in secret proceedings to investigate, prosecute, judge, and sentence accused people who had no legal counsel. Thousands of condemned victims were executed over the centuries, often by public burning.

Link


The author conveniently conflates and baits and switches the Inquisition(s), but the word "heretic" seems to be conflated external to his writing. The Cathers were the heretics of all of these Inquistions, The Spanish Inquisition itself, has hard evidence of anti-witch hunting decrees. The protestants then, being the heretics which witch-hunted (obviously this is not exhaustively why they seen as heretics by the Catholic Church) are probably also heretics by your book, merely for the fact that they didn't see any wrong in witch hunting.

Watersoul wrote:

And while people of later years, like Christian Thomasius (1655-1728), were arguing that witchcraft was an invention of the late-medieval Catholic Church,


It's hard to reconcile the claims of a protestant, reformist, Lutherian and Calvinist German jurist with history, as Saint Augustine (Arguably the church father) dismissed witchcraft as 'kooky' and wholly self-defeatist and incompatible with Christian belief as early as the 1st Century:

wrote:

This conforms to the teachings of the Canon Episcopi of circa 900 AD (alleged to date from 314 AD), following the thoughts of St Augustine of Hippo which stated that witchcraft did not exist and that to teach that it was a reality was, itself, false and heterodox teaching.


Many other Popes and Bishops go on to solidify this teaching, saying quite logically, that the belief in witchcraft, is in itself, a belief in witchcraft.

Watersoul wrote:

I ask with more precision, did the Catholic church have anything to do with killing people who thought differently to their dogma?


Regrettably, yes.

Watersoul wrote:

If so, did they consider the people with different beliefs as 'sinners'


Correctly, yes.

Watersoul wrote:

and did they consider violent punishment of people who thought differently as sin or Gods instruction?


They unfortunately thought that these people clearly being sinners, by not holding to the only possible and logical definition of sin itself, granted the Church (on rare occasion) the authority to commit bigger sins under God's authority. There is Judea scripture "instructing" this (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27). Which is maybe why the Reformists took so heavily to it (that and because the Catholics said don't do that, in a time when all the Catholics had to say to the only-existing-to-oppose Reformists was, "keep hating us" and they'd have all have come flooding back), however, Christian scripture says the exact opposite (John 8:7) and Augustine echoed this to his Church and his Church has always understood the sin of murder and the heterodoxical belief in 'things which go bump in the night'. It hasn't always obeyed and has slayed massive amounts of heretics (witch hunters and anti-christ accusers) but people doing evil acts in the past doesn't mean "It was okay once" and schism failures, superstitious trends, and feeble Popes residing over dark eras don't necessarily change the constantly running theme that has been apparent since the 1st Century.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I suppose they are safe under the freedom of religion law as are many other groups who worship all sorts of evil


Wiccans aren't evil. I stayed with my Aunt's friend and she was lovely. She made me tomatoes and mayonnaise on toast and gave me friendship bracelets. When I asked about her paintings I got nothing but pantheistic answers, and although her iconography, trinkets and relics were peculiar, her manner and hospitality was warm and I came away feeling decidedly envious of her relationship with her own spirituality. She claimed to have clairsentience, and gave me no reason to doubt.
nickfyoung
Quote:
Wiccans aren't evil


Depends on your definition of evil I suppose.
Jesus said, if you are not for me you are against me.


"Evil according to a Christian worldview is any action, thought or attitude that is contrary to the character of God. This is shown through the law given in both the Old and New Testament. There is no moral action given in the Bible that is contrary to God's character. Therefore evil in a Christian world view is contrasted by God's character. This evil shows itself through the natural desire to make oneself "god" of one's own life. (Ex. I can do what I want, how I want, when I want."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil


Some one can be perfectly lovely but be evil in the eyes of God.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Quote:
Wiccans aren't evil


Depends on your definition of evil I suppose.
Jesus said, if you are not for me you are against me.


"Evil according to a Christian worldview is any action, thought or attitude that is contrary to the character of God. This is shown through the law given in both the Old and New Testament. There is no moral action given in the Bible that is contrary to God's character. Therefore evil in a Christian world view is contrasted by God's character. This evil shows itself through the natural desire to make oneself "god" of one's own life. (Ex. I can do what I want, how I want, when I want."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil


Some one can be perfectly lovely but be evil in the eyes of God.


She had the ocean as a god, so I don't think she disagrees with you.

However, I do.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Quote:
Wiccans aren't evil


Depends on your definition of evil I suppose.
Jesus said, if you are not for me you are against me.


"Evil according to a Christian worldview is any action, thought or attitude that is contrary to the character of God. This is shown through the law given in both the Old and New Testament. There is no moral action given in the Bible that is contrary to God's character. Therefore evil in a Christian world view is contrasted by God's character. This evil shows itself through the natural desire to make oneself "god" of one's own life. (Ex. I can do what I want, how I want, when I want."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil


Some one can be perfectly lovely but be evil in the eyes of God.


She had the ocean as a god, so I don't think she disagrees with you.

However, I do.



That is the difference between us of course. You like a softer God who is not as strict as he has been portrayed in Scripture. A God who is all love and loves all with an equal agape love. A god who stands by patiently waiting just in case some of his creation may change their mind and turn to him.

We would all like a God like that.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

Jesus said, if you are not for me you are against me.


This Wiccan lady was for Jesus, not against Jesus.

Being for Jesus is championing his cause. Being against Jesus is saying those who demonstrably do so are "seen as evil by God".

Because she didn't have a crucifix on her wall?

It's an empty, shallow and meaningless gesture, not to mention an aesthetically contradictory one.

If I pinned Frame #313 of the Zapruder footage up on my wall would that mean I was for American democracy?

How about the American flag in court rooms? Would that champion the freedoms of my Native American forefathers?

How about the Confederate flag. Would that champion the civil rights that the latter-day forefathers championed?

Needless to say,

Matthew 36-40 wrote:

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. 35 For 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, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’


"What's in a name? that which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet;"

She put food in my face and love in my heart. You've done nothing but call our church(es) and our God(s) evil.

It's demeaning and blasphemous, to presume that God cannot look into the heart of human being. That he requires a written declaration of assimilation. That deeds and human compassion count for nothing (its also weightily refuted in scripture). Claims are being made which go far beyond the available evidence, and in many cases are contradictory evidence, and that bothers me. Whose house would Jesus rather stay in? Hers, or yours? Whose house will she stay in? Jesus' house or yours? Read Matthew 36-40 again and figure it out. "Nooo, but Luther said..." Bollocks to what Luther said. Read what Christ promised.

Frigging Lutherians. Heretics!
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
Many other Popes and Bishops go on to solidify this teaching, saying quite logically, that the belief in witchcraft, is in itself, a belief in witchcraft.

So, is it a different logic the church uses while considering the point of praying to a god? It's success or failure is just as unprovable as any incantation, ritual, or other 'spell' type activity.

Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:

I ask with more precision, did the Catholic church have anything to do with killing people who thought differently to their dogma?


Regrettably, yes.

Watersoul wrote:

If so, did they consider the people with different beliefs as 'sinners'


Correctly, yes.

Watersoul wrote:

and did they consider violent punishment of people who thought differently as sin or Gods instruction?


They unfortunately thought that these people clearly being sinners, by not holding to the only possible and logical definition of sin itself, granted the Church (on rare occasion) the authority to commit bigger sins under God's authority. There is Judea scripture "instructing" this (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27). Which is maybe why the Reformists took so heavily to it (that and because the Catholics said don't do that, in a time when all the Catholics had to say to the only-existing-to-oppose Reformists was, "keep hating us" and they'd have all have come flooding back), however, Christian scripture says the exact opposite (John 8:7) and Augustine echoed this to his Church and his Church has always understood the sin of murder and the heterodoxical belief in 'things which go bump in the night'. It hasn't always obeyed and has slayed massive amounts of heretics (witch hunters and anti-christ accusers) but people doing evil acts in the past doesn't mean "It was okay once" and schism failures, superstitious trends, and feeble Popes residing over dark eras don't necessarily change the constantly running theme that has been apparent since the 1st Century.

Pretty much everything in your reply draws me closer to the opinion that the Catholic church is in no way controlled by any god representing itself in the form of a pope or even on the front lines as priests.
Blaming 'feeble popes' eh? Under-performing god then, can't even pick its human representatives right, let alone the thousands of rapist priests who slipped through the net.

You mention the influence of Leviticus playing a part up to relatively recent times in the church history, somebody changed their mind again yeh. Just reinforces my opinion that human beings alone call the shots in the organisation and every time a Pope changes any big rules it's a human decision, not a message from any god.



Believe whatever you like, but remember that without a presumption of gods existing 'sin' is nothing more than a descriptive word for the ideas of right and wrong by your alleged God.
Dialogist
Watersoul wrote:

So, is it a different logic the church uses while considering the point of praying to a god? It's success or failure is just as unprovable as any incantation, ritual, or other 'spell' type activity.


Faith and belief should never be conflated. I know you love doing this, and I guess it is to be expected because you have no concept of faith, other than the faith you religiously apply to not seating yourself in Sonlight's wheelbarrow, under any possible imaginable circumstances (this is why Christian apologetics have accused your lot of cowadice). Belief-that and belief-in are entirely two different "beliefs". Belief-in, itself has two entirely different definitions. These "funny" pixies and goblins quips, yeah, sure, they're worth a side-crack or two, but come along now. When faced with martyrs, holy wars and dedicating ones life's work to, umm, Unicorns? I think you're drastically underestimating the distinction. When faced with such a phenomenon, as a non-believer (which I would have to recognize in equal fairness in respects to you) as something I admittedly have no inside knowledge about - I would still presume that the phenomenon of sacrificing one's life for hobgoblins might mean, holy shit, maybe those people, over there, are seeing hobgoblins as realer than reality itself? I do this with large chunks of the theory of evolution, so your mileage may vary.

In short, the logic the church uses while considering the point of praying to a god is down to believing in the nature, benevolence, motive and morality associated with praying to GOD. Not gods, or Grotbags, or The Three Ugly Sisters, Sabrina The Teenage Witch, etc. The belief in the former would still wholly negate the attribution of power to the latter (even if believed to be legitimate).

Watersoul wrote:

Pretty much everything in your reply draws me closer to the opinion that the Catholic church is in no way controlled by any god representing itself in the form of a pope or even on the front lines as priests.


Again, human divinity (or any such powers beyond the realm of divine inspiration/intervention) is also incompatible with Christianity. In one argument, you accuse the church of evils, in the next, you accuse the church of not being Godly. This is incompatible with coherency.

Watersoul wrote:

Blaming 'feeble popes' eh? Under-performing god then, can't even pick its human representatives right, let alone the thousands of rapist priests who slipped through the net.


I thought it was fair because Innocent VIII stuck out like a sore thumb in that long list of historically recorded activity of attitudes towards witch hunting (even though it was politically motivated, never sanctioned murder, and in fact - credit to him, was the first slain infant/anti-abortion paper). I'll retract that statement then. Our Popes have always been awesome on the witch-hunting thing. Therefore, the only other notable exceptions to the rule was this sudden interest that the Protestants developed in witch-hunting, which as I've said, was possibly to defy the Roman Catholics who outlawed it. The main continuous theme, which can't have escaped your attention, is that the governing body residing over the persecution of witches, has mainly been secular. From beginning to end. But we'll forget about that part eh? Doesn't bode well for 'the argument' - of - making religion look baaaaad.

Shall we forget about the thousands of rapists and paedophiles within secular schools, boy scouts and American football coaching schools too? Of course we can, those aren't religiously orientated. Evil must be contained within the church. These evils, also, can't be evil, because we don't believe evil exists. It's just more people abusing power. Like hypothetically say, putting you to death for being a heretical atheist, for example. Forget about it! Just good old people abusing their silly power again. Whatever will these practical jokers pull next?

Watersoul wrote:

You mention the influence of Leviticus playing a part up to relatively recent times in the church history, somebody changed their mind again yeh. Just reinforces my opinion that human beings alone call the shots in the organisation and every time a Pope changes any big rules it's a human decision, not a message from any god.


Nope and nope. Not my church. Leviticus is still relevant for the Jews (and truth be told, always carries authority under "scripture" and "Bible" but only formally). I can't speak for Nick's lot (Reformists). Probably so. Although shouldn't be, really, if he calls himself a Christian. Then again, he's also born-again (Pentecostal) and thus thinks Moses isn't in Heaven because he wasn't born again. So there's some Judaism he's clearly not accepting. You're best off arguing with him Watersoul. These theological and dogmatic bullets of yours are just going to keep bouncing off me like Batfink.

Watersoul wrote:

Believe whatever you like, but remember that without a presumption of gods existing 'sin' is nothing more than a descriptive word for the ideas of right and wrong by your alleged God.


I know right, and I totally agree with you. "Without God everything is permitted" - which is why I wonder why you're wasting your time with this nonsense when time is ticking so much faster for you. If you're right, we've both wasted time. They'll be no bragging rights. No harm, no foul, no consciousness, no error. If the theist is right, you're in for quite a nasty shock, so at least earn it, brother. I can't, as you can, see. Do it for me! Hint: Wine, women and song *Recommended*. Earn those flames. Like, if I ended up in there for shitty paedophile jokes, I'd be pretty pissed off. I'd want at least a jihad or something to reflect back on. Maybe a nuclear bomb dropped on Russia. Something memorable, at least. Ah well. Do What Thou Wilt.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
If the theist is right, you're in for quite a nasty shock, so at least earn it, brother. I can't, as you can, see. Do it for me! Hint: Wine, women and song *Recommended*. Earn those flames. Like, if I ended in there for shitty paedophile jokes, I'd be pretty pissed off. I'd want at least a jihad or something to reflect back on. Maybe a nuclear bomb dropped on Russia. Something memorable, at least. Ah well.

"Earn those flames" Brilliant! Thank you for the funniest thing today, I imagined you saying it in a US deep south accent even though I know you're in the UK due to the equally funny batfink line! ...I'll dedicate a 'sin' just for you Wink

I've made my points here and we're in circles so I'll leave you to your scripture bitch slaps with Nick.
I of course remain entertained by your contributions so will continue reading, and respond accordingly as and when I see faith presented as fact.

*edit* just checked, batfink was from the US, fail, but I was only little when it was on tv to be fair lol
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

Jesus said, if you are not for me you are against me.


This Wiccan lady was for Jesus, not against Jesus.

Being for Jesus is championing his cause. Being against Jesus is saying those who demonstrably do so are "seen as evil by God".

Because she didn't have a crucifix on her wall?

It's an empty, shallow and meaningless gesture, not to mention an aesthetically contradictory one.

If I pinned Frame #313 of the Zapruder footage up on my wall would that mean I was for American democracy?

How about the American flag in court rooms? Would that champion the freedoms of my Native American forefathers?

How about the Confederate flag. Would that champion the civil rights that the latter-day forefathers championed?

Needless to say,

Matthew 36-40 wrote:

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. 35 For 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, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’


"What's in a name? that which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet;"

She put food in my face and love in my heart. You've done nothing but call our church(es) and our God(s) evil.

It's demeaning and blasphemous, to presume that God cannot look into the heart of human being. That he requires a written declaration of assimilation. That deeds and human compassion count for nothing (its also weightily refuted in scripture). Claims are being made which go far beyond the available evidence, and in many cases are contradictory evidence, and that bothers me. Whose house would Jesus rather stay in? Hers, or yours? Whose house will she stay in? Jesus' house or yours? Read Matthew 36-40 again and figure it out. "Nooo, but Luther said..." Bollocks to what Luther said. Read what Christ promised.

Frigging Lutherians. Heretics!



Quote:
It's demeaning and blasphemous, to presume that God cannot look into the heart of human being. That he requires a written declaration of assimilation. That deeds and human compassion count for nothing (its also weightily refuted in scripture).



You quote Scripture and then try and make it say something that it doesn't mean. If you look closer at the scripture you quoted above you will see that the king is talking to those on the right, the sheep, the saved, redeemed, elect or whatever you want to call them.

It's demeaning and blasphemous to presume that, contrary to Scripture, a non Christian can be saved by his good works.
It's demeaning and blasphemous for the Catholic church to teach that.

What do you thing all those millions of Catholics are going to think when they find themselves with the goats. But the church told us we would be OK as long as we were good.

Scripture is quite plain and simple on the subject. Regardless what the Catholic Church teaches, you can not be saved by works.


Quote:
Bollocks to what Luther said. Read what Christ promised.



Christ promised that the sheep will be saved, not the goats. What you need to look at closely and decide is, are you one of the sheep or one of the goats.


Quote:
take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.



That's the sheep.
Dialogist
Watersoul wrote:

just checked, batfink was from the US, fail, but I was only little when it was on tv to be fair lol


Me too but it was a firm favourite. "Your bullets cannot harm me, my wings are like a sheild of steel". Sourthern American, nah... I'm Northern English, I'd bore you with the details, but it's a real toilet...

Oscar Wilde wrote:
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


RIP Sir Patrick Moore.

Nickfyoung wrote:

It's demeaning and blasphemous to presume that, contrary to Scripture, a non Christian can be saved by his good works.


I didn't ask you to read it twice because I wanted you to misunderstand it twice.

Effectively...

Jesus: Thank you for being kind to me.
The Saved: When we kind to you?
Jesus: That Witch, that Homosexual, that Catholic, that Muslim, that Mormon and that Atheist was me.
The Saved: It was you? But we didn't do it for you.
Jesus: Remind them James...
James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
The Saved: Ahhhh!
Jesus: Notice there's no proddies here?
The Saved: lol! Yes. You weren't kidding about this "Heaven" thing!
Jesus: Yup. Fine work.
The Saved: But...We were mean to protestants, oh Lord?
Jesus: Ibid.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Scripture is quite plain and simple on the subject. Regardless what the Catholic Church teaches, you can not be saved by works.


"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21

Ouch.

I mean just doing the works, displays faith in the nature of God/God's will/plan/providence/nature anyway, and...It even goes one step in further in turning the envisioned hypothetical good into practical natural good.

Actually, I think my old granny put it better, "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves".

It's the difference between having the faith in Jesus to feed a hungry man, and getting off your pious arse and climbing over there and actually putting some of your own food down his neck.

Where's James again?

James 2:14-26: "Faith Without Works Is Dead"

Ah, there he is.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Christ promised that the sheep will be saved, not the goats. What you need to look at closely and decide is, are you one of the sheep or one of the goats.




I'd check but I've been warned not to take my eyes off your fruits.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Watersoul wrote:

just checked, batfink was from the US, fail, but I was only little when it was on tv to be fair lol


Me too but it was a firm favourite. "Your bullets cannot harm me, my wings are like a sheild of steel". Sourthern American, nah... I'm Northern English, I'd bore you with the details, but it's a real toilet...

Oscar Wilde wrote:
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


RIP Sir Patrick Moore.

Nickfyoung wrote:

It's demeaning and blasphemous to presume that, contrary to Scripture, a non Christian can be saved by his good works.


I didn't ask you to read it twice because I wanted you to misunderstand it twice.

Effectively...

Jesus: Thank you for being kind to me.
The Saved: When we kind to you?
Jesus: That Witch, that Homosexual, that Catholic, that Muslim, that Mormon and that Atheist was me.
The Saved: It was you? But we didn't do it for you.
Jesus: Remind them James...
James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
The Saved: Ahhhh!
Jesus: Notice there's no proddies here?
The Saved: lol! Yes. You weren't kidding about this "Heaven" thing!
Jesus: Yup. Fine work.
The Saved: But...We were mean to protestants, oh Lord?
Jesus: Ibid.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Scripture is quite plain and simple on the subject. Regardless what the Catholic Church teaches, you can not be saved by works.


"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21

Ouch.

I mean just doing the works, displays faith in the nature of God/God's will/plan/providence/nature anyway, and...It even goes one step in further in turning the envisioned hypothetical good into practical natural good.

Actually, I think my old granny put it better, "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves".

It's the difference between having the faith in Jesus to feed a hungry man, and getting off your pious arse and climbing over there and actually putting some of your own food down his neck.

Where's James again?

James 2:14-26: "Faith Without Works Is Dead"

Ah, there he is.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Christ promised that the sheep will be saved, not the goats. What you need to look at closely and decide is, are you one of the sheep or one of the goats.




I'd check but I've been warned not to take my eyes off your fruits.




So you truly believe that works are important for salvation. Your church teaches that too no doubt. I guess that is one of the reasons Luther did the deed.

That is going to be the major difference between us then and why we are in different camps.

I am not going to bother trying to explain all the Scriptures you use wrongly. It wont do any good. I should say as I see wrongly. You interpret them your way and I mine and we both claim to be correct.

I suppose it is too much to ask for you to put yourself in Luther's shoes. It was a pretty big step he took and it would not of been easy for him. He must have thought that he had justification for doing it as have the many since.

So do you really believe that, works thing I mean. I am still trying to get my head round it because it does seem a pretty far out thing to believe, to me that is.

Can you just explain for me exactly what it means to be saved, or part of God's people or the ones going to heaven. From your understanding of course just so I can understand you too.


Quote:
Jesus: Thank you for being kind to me.
The Saved: When we kind to you?
Jesus: That Witch, that Homosexual, that Catholic, that Muslim, that Mormon and that Atheist was me.
The Saved: It was you? But we didn't do it for you.
Jesus: Remind them James...
James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
The Saved: Ahhhh!
Jesus: Notice there's no proddies here?
The Saved: lol! Yes. You weren't kidding about this "Heaven" thing!
Jesus: Yup. Fine work.
The Saved: But...We were mean to protestants, oh Lord?
Jesus: Ibid.



I am still a little confused. You are talking a bout the saved and justification by works.

Can you just explain the saved bit first for me so I can see where you are at.
nickfyoung
Romans 3:23

New International Version (NIV)

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 6:23
New International Version (©1984)
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord


Ezekiel 18:4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.


Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned


Ecclesiastes 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.

Ephesians 2:8
New International Version (©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-


Romans 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.


Ephesians 2:5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
I suppose it is too much to ask for you to put yourself in Luther's shoes. It was a pretty big step he took and it would not of been easy for him. He must have thought that he had justification for doing it as have the many since.


Luther had balls, but so did Mohammad Atta and Thich Quang Duc. They're actually all examples of courage becoming non existent due to blind faith and brainwashing themselves against the doubt aspect of faith which makes a man proof-read himself. And while faith without works is dead, faith without fear is dead too. In terms of helping his brother man, he didn't do any good deeds, just had millions of proddies murdered, same as those I compared him with. He took no responsibility for his actions. He had a bee in his bonnet, and that was Luther.

In the example above, Jesus is addressing those who have been saved though don't know why they've been saved. It turns out, from the verse, that they were saved according to their deeds only and not their faith at all. Let's look at the crux of it:

"Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?"

The saved are asking why the act of not doing it specifically for Jesus has saved them.

"The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

It's fairly basic stuff, Jesus is saying that the act of doing it for Jesus (faith) wasn't important. The act of doing it for the least (thankless deed, for no incentive "lest ye should boast" etc) was why they were saved.

The exchange is deed-dependent. Faith doesn't get a mention, and seems be only vaguely 'inferred' to show the dangers of selfish faith, like if they only did things for Jesus, who isn't do-able for practically, as a receiver/benefactor of deeds, it would just be faith. Because the acts would need to be purely ethereal (ie: I gave up chocolate for lent). Faith. Jesus recognizes the utter criticality of man becoming Christ-like, acting as Christ, as Christ would. Doing God's will. Not 'kind of liking the idea', not merely praying, hoping, believing that 'Jesus will take care of it' (passing the buck). None of these "faiths", but rather, the manifestation of Christ (thus holy spirit) into human behaviour, will, endeavour, actions and nature (with having a natural, observable and tangible product to show the atheist, when he says "show me evidence of your supernatural god"). God is only manifest in practicality, deeds. That's the living God. But I don't expect you to understand this, as you don't even believe in transubstantiation - "it's just symbolic" they whimper, yes! It is. Symbolic of this. Christ incarnate.

Now how does this relate to a do-gooder non-believer? The faith is implied. It has to be. "whatever you did for one of the least" etc... for me... Jesus is saying thank you. You did that for me. In this particular example especially, we are seeing the saved a) not knowing they were doing it for Jesus b) doing it anyway c) being saved and d) Jesus seemingly making an example of them to teach something to the deedless faithful. James concurs: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven"... etc.

So Goat, then, is it?

Or are you going to look around for some Greek translations to change the pronouns?

It wouldn't be a noble deed, honestly. A noble deed would be accepting that people who don't constantly kiss God's arse, sycophantically trying to slither their way into Heaven, can (and do above) get into heaven by doing his will on Earth. As I say, the faith in Goodness (which is GOD) is already implied (more so, perhaps, if one expects nor envisions no reward).

And that is what Christ is telling you.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
I suppose it is too much to ask for you to put yourself in Luther's shoes. It was a pretty big step he took and it would not of been easy for him. He must have thought that he had justification for doing it as have the many since.


Luther had balls, but so did Mohammad Atta and Thich Quang Duc. They're actually all examples of courage becoming non existent due to blind faith and brainwashing themselves against the doubt aspect of faith which makes a man proof-read himself. And while faith without works is dead, faith without fear is dead too. In terms of helping his brother man, he didn't do any good deeds, just had millions of proddies murdered, same as those I compared him with. He took no responsibility for his actions. He had a bee in his bonnet, and that was Luther.

In the example above, Jesus is addressing those who have been saved though don't know why they've been saved. It turns out, from the verse, that they were saved according to their deeds only and not their faith at all. Let's look at the crux of it:

"Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?"

The saved are asking why the act of not doing it specifically for Jesus has saved them.

"The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

It's fairly basic stuff, Jesus is saying that the act of doing it for Jesus (faith) wasn't important. The act of doing it for the least (thankless deed, for no incentive "lest ye should boast" etc) was why they were saved.

The exchange is deed-dependent. Faith doesn't get a mention, and seems be only vaguely 'inferred' to show the dangers of selfish faith, like if they only did things for Jesus, who isn't do-able for practically, as a receiver/benefactor of deeds, it would just be faith. Because the acts would need to be purely ethereal (ie: I gave up chocolate for lent). Faith. Jesus recognizes the utter criticality of man becoming Christ-like, acting as Christ, as Christ would. Doing God's will. Not 'kind of liking the idea', not merely praying, hoping, believing that 'Jesus will take care of it' (passing the buck). None of these "faiths", but rather, the manifestation of Christ (thus holy spirit) into human behaviour, will, endeavour, actions and nature (with having a natural, observable and tangible product to show the atheist, when he says "show me evidence of your supernatural god"). God is only manifest in practicality, deeds. That's the living God. But I don't expect you to understand this, as you don't even believe in transubstantiation - "it's just symbolic" they whimper, yes! It is. Symbolic of this. Christ incarnate.

Now how does this relate to a do-gooder non-believer? The faith is implied. It has to be. "whatever you did for one of the least" etc... for me... Jesus is saying thank you. You did that for me. In this particular example especially, we are seeing the saved a) not knowing they were doing it for Jesus b) doing it anyway c) being saved and d) Jesus seemingly making an example of them to teach something to the deedless faithful. James concurs: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven"... etc.

So Goat, then, is it?

Or are you going to look around for some Greek translations to change the pronouns?

It wouldn't be a noble deed, honestly. A noble deed would be accepting that people who don't constantly kiss God's arse, sycophantically trying to slither their way into Heaven, can (and do above) get into heaven by doing his will on Earth. As I say, the faith in Goodness (which is GOD) is already implied (more so, perhaps, if one expects nor envisions no reward).

And that is what Christ is telling you.




Yes. We see it a little differently. We believe those good works are a result of salvation and are the fruit. James, faith without works is dead.

I guess we will always see it all differently.

You didn't answer one question for me. Do you believe that one is saved through baptism and then a life of good works as compared to us believing one is saved through a born again experience.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Do you believe that one is saved through baptism and then a life of good works as compared to us believing one is saved through a born again experience.


I believe the Catholic Church is attempting to save a new born baby from John 3:5, which would raise an interesting question, do all non-Catholic infants all go to hell? Not according to us. You accuse Catholicism of man-made doctrine, yet I'm sure you'll appreciate that a child cannot call out the Lord's name and be saved. "Tough break", you're thinking? You'll probably, after deliberating over this dilemma for a minute or two, appreciate that you can't either. As your original sin has not been forgiven. Baptism is necessary, post gospel, however, God is just, and God decides. Not me, not you, not Luther and not The Roman Catholic Church. The Church however, given the authority to bind, by Jesus, attempts to. It merely obediently obeys with the understanding that the authority and expectation was ordered.

The New Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..."

The born-nevers constantly like to cherry pick this verse:

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." Acts 16:31

...While omitting the "...you and your household" part off the end (because that means people who merely know you are saved too and that will never do).

However, this verse itself, in rebuttal is chronologically absurd (not incorrect, just not scripturally exhaustive, and also even scripturally contradictory when cherry-picked) as I will get to...

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 3:23
New International Version (NIV)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God


"What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." - Romans 7:7

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 6:23
New International Version (©1984)
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord


"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." - Romans 2:7


Nickfyoung wrote:

Ezekiel 18:4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.


"Or sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law." - Romans 5:13

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned


"The times of ignorance God overlooked" - Acts 17:30

Nickfyoung wrote:

Ecclesiastes 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.


"For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people." - Titus 2:11

Nickfyoung wrote:

Ephesians 2:8
New International Version (©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-


"Then Peter replied, "I see very clearly that God shows no favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." - Acts 10:34-35

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.


"But He answered and said to them, 'My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it." - Luke 8:21

Nickfyoung wrote:

Ephesians 2:5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved


"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says" - James 1:22

I mean we could play Biblical Top Trumps all day long or you could actually hold to your own idealism of "Scripture alone" itself. Whereby, I could still win this farcical game of Biblical verse-exchange, all day long. There's little point, as sooner or later you're going to need man-made theology to make it all congenial, and you could possibly maybe read all of "Scripture alone", instead of just the cherry-picks that you chunt out, you'll discover some things become problematic. Then you might go searching for answers, and will probably still be arguing with me down for providing you with them. And I have them, but you don't want to hear them.

Protestantism theology works like this: Luther - "Just sit around. Let God worry about it, your objective Christianity is redundant anyway. That's why God made you into an Ear, just laid on the floor". Calvin - "Just sit around. You're all screwed anyway, no matter what you do. Also? You have no free will - So Believe in Him!".

And then of course, if that wasn't malignant enough, you have to go ahead pour a jug full of Born-again Pentecostalism absurd-juice all over an already soggy philosophy which holds that - half of the scripture you quote was written by men who are in hell, who had never heard the gospel, therefore couldn't have done anything for Christ, who either wasn't born yet, or wasn't risen yet.

Which is pretty much all of the old testament, all accounts of Jesus' life in the New Testament before Jesus died, and all of the OT prophecies about his coming, all of his NT promises, lessons, deeds, and teachings while He was walking. You'd like us to believe that the gospel which became gospel upon conception holds that salvation is gospel dependant. I'm afraid I can't afford you that logic. You see, most of The Book of Acts wasn't written by Saint Paul and shows evidence that it didn't have even have access to Pauline letters. It was arguably in large parts written by Jewish historian Josephus, who of course can't to be trusted because he's in hell - not just for having not heard the gospel, pre-Jesus, that he was in fact writing... but also just for merely being Jewish and saying Abba, Abba/Eli, Eli, (like Jesus did) instead of "Lord, Lord" like Jesus didn't. You know just like all the lovely Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos, Amnesty Internationals, UNICEFs, Greenpeace, NSPCAs, CAFODs et al. Hell!

Now, If only it was that bad... It gets much worse. Apparently, nobody heard the gospel until 1516, after the Second? coming of Christ, Martin Luther, had 'fixed' it all for us to hear. So basically all the apostles are in hell too, and probably even Jesus for too for failing to be the true messiah.

Note: Martin Luther himself, therefore, could not have heard it to fix it and if he could, it wouldn't have even needed fixing.

I think you need to stop blurting random cherry picked verses out to qualify these ridiculous self-devouring beliefs of yours and stop willfully ignoring scripture which proves them false, especially when the weight of evidence against Luther's man-made theology is vast and unforgiving.

You then need to ask yourself how you personally feel about the nature of your God, who sent Jesus to do all the things that He did, and the nature of a God who could have sent such a being, and by what nature Jesus carried Himself, what overall sentiment Jesus preached and what the overall lesson Jesus' teachings instilled.

"All you need is love." is only 5 simple words.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Do you believe that one is saved through baptism and then a life of good works as compared to us believing one is saved through a born again experience.


I believe the Catholic Church is attempting to save a new born baby from John 3:5, which would raise an interesting question, do all non-Catholic infants all go to hell? Not according to us. You accuse Catholicism of man-made doctrine, yet I'm sure you'll appreciate that a child cannot call out the Lord's name and be saved. "Tough break", you're thinking? You'll probably, after deliberating over this dilemma for a minute or two, appreciate that you can't either. As your original sin has not been forgiven. Baptism is necessary, post gospel, however, God is just, and God decides. Not me, not you, not Luther and not The Roman Catholic Church. The Church however, given the authority to bind, by Jesus, attempts to. It merely obediently obeys with the understanding that the authority and expectation was ordered.

The New Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..."

The born-nevers constantly like to cherry pick this verse:

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." Acts 16:31

...While omitting the "...you and your household" part off the end (because that means people who merely know you are saved too and that will never do).

However, this verse itself, in rebuttal is chronologically absurd (not incorrect, just not scripturally exhaustive, and also even scripturally contradictory when cherry-picked) as I will get to...

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 3:23
New International Version (NIV)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God


"What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." - Romans 7:7

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 6:23
New International Version (©1984)
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord


"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." - Romans 2:7


Nickfyoung wrote:

Ezekiel 18:4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.


"Or sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law." - Romans 5:13

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned


"The times of ignorance God overlooked" - Acts 17:30

Nickfyoung wrote:

Ecclesiastes 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.


"For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people." - Titus 2:11

Nickfyoung wrote:

Ephesians 2:8
New International Version (©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-


"Then Peter replied, "I see very clearly that God shows no favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." - Acts 10:34-35

Nickfyoung wrote:

Romans 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.


"But He answered and said to them, 'My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it." - Luke 8:21

Nickfyoung wrote:

Ephesians 2:5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved


"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says" - James 1:22

I mean we could play Biblical Top Trumps all day long or you could actually hold to your own idealism of "Scripture alone" itself. Whereby, I could still win this farcical game of Biblical verse-exchange, all day long. There's little point, as sooner or later you're going to need man-made theology to make it all congenial, and you could possibly maybe read all of "Scripture alone", instead of just the cherry-picks that you chunt out, you'll discover some things become problematic. Then you might go searching for answers, and will probably still be arguing with me down for providing you with them. And I have them, but you don't want to hear them.

Protestantism theology works like this: Luther - "Just sit around. Let God worry about it, your objective Christianity is redundant anyway. That's why God made you into an Ear, just laid on the floor". Calvin - "Just sit around. You're all screwed anyway, no matter what you do. Also? You have no free will - So Believe in Him!".

And then of course, if that wasn't malignant enough, you have to go ahead pour a jug full of Born-again Pentecostalism absurd-juice all over an already soggy philosophy which holds that - half of the scripture you quote was written by men who are in hell, who had never heard the gospel, therefore couldn't have done anything for Christ, who either wasn't born yet, or wasn't risen yet.

Which is pretty much all of the old testament, all accounts of Jesus' life in the New Testament before Jesus died, and all of the OT prophecies about his coming, all of his NT promises, lessons, deeds, and teachings while He was walking. You'd like us to believe that the gospel which became gospel upon conception holds that salvation is gospel dependant. I'm afraid I can't afford you that logic. You see, most of The Book of Acts wasn't written by Saint Paul and shows evidence that it didn't have even have access to Pauline letters. It was arguably in large parts written by Jewish historian Josephus, who of course can't to be trusted because he's in hell - not just for having not heard the gospel, pre-Jesus, that he was in fact writing... but also just for merely being Jewish and saying Abba, Abba/Eli, Eli, (like Jesus did) instead of "Lord, Lord" like Jesus didn't. You know just like all the lovely Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos, Amnesty Internationals, UNICEFs, Greenpeace, NSPCAs, CAFODs et al. Hell!

Now, If only it was that bad... It gets much worse. Apparently, nobody heard the gospel until 1516, after the Second? coming of Christ, Martin Luther, had 'fixed' it all for us to hear. So basically all the apostles are in hell too, and probably even Jesus for too for failing to be the true messiah.

Note: Martin Luther himself, therefore, could not have heard it to fix it and if he could, it wouldn't have even needed fixing.

I think you need to stop blurting random cherry picked verses out to qualify these ridiculous self-devouring beliefs of yours and stop willfully ignoring scripture which proves them false, especially when the weight of evidence against Luther's man-made theology is vast and unforgiving.

You then need to ask yourself how you personally feel about the nature of your God, who sent Jesus to do all the things that He did, and the nature of a God who could have sent such a being, and by what nature Jesus carried Himself, what overall sentiment Jesus preached and what the overall lesson Jesus' teachings instilled.

"All you need is love." is only 5 simple words.



Quote:
do all non-Catholic infants all go to hell



While many denominations baptize babies most Pentecostals don't but instead dedicate them as they believe in believers baptism.

The general believe is that infants who die are still 'saved' up until the age of understanding.


Quote:
Apparently, nobody heard the gospel until 1516
,



"The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." (Galatians 3:Cool


I know you don't like cherry picking but this is one example where we believe the 'gospel' has been around since genesis.


Quote:
All you need is love." is only 5 simple words.



Yes, love is a big teaching in Pentecostal circles.



I think I understand your basics now, thank you for making it clearer for me. Not much point in arguing with you but just explaining where we have differing beliefs and viewpoints.

Those differing viewpoints must have some justification as many capable theologians have endorsed them, however , I can see where you can't accept this. You have a strong institution and are more than comfortable in it so I guess there will always be the two systems.

I hope I have enlightened you a little with my insights to some of our church workings even though you have probably found them a little bizarre.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

While many denominations baptize babies most Pentecostals don't but instead dedicate them as they believe in believers baptism.


Believer's Baptism?

Surely, you must appreciate that this is ad hoc.

The same exact verse which you use to promulgate the "Born-Again" stance, denies infant death of salvation.

"Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again." John 3:3-8

Even if we read on from 3:3, we come to Nicodemus presenting a new born baby into the equation, at which point, Christ doesn't revise His answer, merely solidifies the aforementioned, "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (3:6). So then any attempt to reconcile the death of a new born with salvation, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, The Pentecostal Church or any church, requires an ad hoc, man-made solution?

Interesting. Let's have a look at Romans 8:29-30 to see where Calvin's at.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." - Romans 8:29-30.

Infants who have never sinned still need sanctification before they can go to Heaven. What the Catholic Church does is forgive the Original Sin of the baby and Baptize it, so that base is covered. The Pentecostal Church, however borrows pedobaptism from the Anabaptist (Amish), Baptist churches (I should note that both The Catholics and Reformists ridiculed these backwards people back in the 16/17th Century, and it's seemingly the other thing we've ever agreed on). And this protestant appropriated Baptism seeks to administer ad hoc baptism to infants, provided at least one or more of their parents are believers? This innocence, then, depends upon nepotism? Flesh still gives birth to flesh.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The general believe is that infants who die are still 'saved' up until the age of understanding.


What happened to Original Sin?

Nickfyoung wrote:

The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." (Galatians 3:8 )


This forum often likes to put "cool" smileys after verses about perishing in hell, maybe it's asking us to lighten up. Anyway...

Galatians 3:8 is clear on the "by faith" part. Your Lutheran catchphrase seem to have deserted you for a moment, "By faith alone"? However, you can't have faith in something you haven't heard of. Also, this ruins the Pentecostal belief that only the Born-Again are saved because it does indeed save "All Nations".

Nickfyoung wrote:

I know you don't like cherry picking but this is one example where we believe the 'gospel' has been around since genesis.


No, it's a great example, but the Cherry Pick is not in the verse itself. The verse does provide a solution (to this problem). The Cherry Pick is the Reformist, Calvinistic, Pentecostal, Amish view of it, not seeing any conflict in it's own myriad of usually always contrasting belief(s).

Nickfyoung wrote:

I think I understand your basics now, thank you for making it clearer for me. Not much point in arguing with you but just explaining where we have differing beliefs and viewpoints.


As I say, I accept every Biblical verse you offer me, and did the first time I had read them. We don't necessarily have differing beliefs. You do, with you.

For example, Lutherans reject Calvinism (it's well known), Calvin rejects everyone, Both Lutherans and Calvinists reject Pentecostalism and Pentecostalism hasn't heard of either of them.

So it's not I don't agree with you (I admit, the ad hoc nature of my varying schools of theology has made pleasant reading of a lot of these problematic issues in seemingly contradictory readings of the Bible). It's that you don't agree with you.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Those differing viewpoints must have some justification as many capable theologians have endorsed them


They all stand loud and proud alone (apart from Pentecostalism maybe). But alone, both Calvinism and Lutheranism maintain integrity to their respective selves (not necessarily to scripture, but still). Luther is fearsome stood alone. Calvin is fearsome stood alone. They unite and become incredibly easy to dismantle, when they both start 'hanging out' with Evangelism and the fat lady sings.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You have a strong institution and are more than comfortable in it so I guess there will always be the two systems.


4 systems. 1 of mine and 3 of yours. Mine is stronger because it only answers to its own error.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I hope I have enlightened you a little with my insights to some of our church workings even though you have probably found them a little bizarre.


I've actually read a lot more about Calvin that I had hoped. Luther I already had done, and couldn't really make leeway for his false prophecy. Calvin much like Luther, is often unfairly conflated down to 5 soundbites, Calvin's "five points of Calvinism" seems to be like Luther's "Five solae". As a cherry pick by proponents themselves - which don't do either the two men justice. Calvin, however, I have underestimated. There's more to him than Luther, and although I reject large portions of what he is saying. I still see the Catholic in him, screaming to get back out. He's far more readable than Luther though, and also hasn't changed any scripture to fit with his worldview, which is agreeable.

You need to either drop some of these ideologies, or create a hybrid one from only tiny parts from all of them though, Nick. They all conflict majorly.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

While many denominations baptize babies most Pentecostals don't but instead dedicate them as they believe in believers baptism.


Believer's Baptism?

Surely, you must appreciate that this is ad hoc.

The same exact verse which you use to promulgate the "Born-Again" stance, denies infant death of salvation.

"Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again." John 3:3-8

Even if we read on from 3:3, we come to Nicodemus presenting a new born baby into the equation, at which point, Christ doesn't revise His answer, merely solidifies the aforementioned, "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (3:6). So then any attempt to reconcile the death of a new born with salvation, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, The Pentecostal Church or any church, requires an ad hoc, man-made solution?

Interesting. Let's have a look at Romans 8:29-30 to see where Calvin's at.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." - Romans 8:29-30.

Infants who have never sinned still need sanctification before they can go to Heaven. What the Catholic Church does is forgive the Original Sin of the baby and Baptize it, so that base is covered. The Pentecostal Church, however borrows pedobaptism from the Anabaptist (Amish), Baptist churches (I should note that both The Catholics and Reformists ridiculed these backwards people back in the 16/17th Century, and it's seemingly the other thing we've ever agreed on). And this protestant appropriated Baptism seeks to administer ad hoc baptism to infants, provided at least one or more of their parents are believers? This innocence, then, depends upon nepotism? Flesh still gives birth to flesh.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The general believe is that infants who die are still 'saved' up until the age of understanding.


What happened to Original Sin?

Nickfyoung wrote:

The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." (Galatians 3:8 )


This forum often likes to put "cool" smileys after verses about perishing in hell, maybe it's asking us to lighten up. Anyway...

Galatians 3:8 is clear on the "by faith" part. Your Lutheran catchphrase seem to have deserted you for a moment, "By faith alone"? However, you can't have faith in something you haven't heard of. Also, this ruins the Pentecostal belief that only the Born-Again are saved because it does indeed save "All Nations".

Nickfyoung wrote:

I know you don't like cherry picking but this is one example where we believe the 'gospel' has been around since genesis.


No, it's a great example, but the Cherry Pick is not in the verse itself. The verse does provide a solution (to this problem). The Cherry Pick is the Reformist, Calvinistic, Pentecostal, Amish view of it, not seeing any conflict in it's own myriad of usually always contrasting belief(s).

Nickfyoung wrote:

I think I understand your basics now, thank you for making it clearer for me. Not much point in arguing with you but just explaining where we have differing beliefs and viewpoints.


As I say, I accept every Biblical verse you offer me, and did the first time I had read them. We don't necessarily have differing beliefs. You do, with you.

For example, Lutherans reject Calvinism (it's well known), Calvin rejects everyone, Both Lutherans and Calvinists reject Pentecostalism and Pentecostalism hasn't heard of either of them.

So it's not I don't agree with you (I admit, the ad hoc nature of my varying schools of theology has made pleasant reading of a lot of these problematic issues in seemingly contradictory readings of the Bible). It's that you don't agree with you.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Those differing viewpoints must have some justification as many capable theologians have endorsed them


They all stand loud and proud alone (apart from Pentecostalism maybe). But alone, both Calvinism and Lutheranism maintain integrity to their respective selves (not necessarily to scripture, but still). Luther is fearsome stood alone. Calvin is fearsome stood alone. They unite and become incredibly easy to dismantle, when they both start 'hanging out' with Evangelism and the fat lady sings.

Nickfyoung wrote:

You have a strong institution and are more than comfortable in it so I guess there will always be the two systems.


4 systems. 1 of mine and 3 of yours. Mine is stronger because it only answers to its own error.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I hope I have enlightened you a little with my insights to some of our church workings even though you have probably found them a little bizarre.


I've actually read a lot more about Calvin that I had hoped. Luther I already had done, and couldn't really make leeway for his false prophecy. Calvin much like Luther, is often unfairly conflated down to 5 soundbites, Calvin's "five points of Calvinism" seems to be like Luther's "Five solae". As a cherry pick by proponents themselves - which don't do either the two men justice. Calvin, however, I have underestimated. There's more to him than Luther, and although I reject large portions of what he is saying. I still see the Catholic in him, screaming to get back out. He's far more readable than Luther though, and also hasn't changed any scripture to fit with his worldview, which is agreeable.

You need to either drop some of these ideologies, or create a hybrid one from only tiny parts from all of them though, Nick. They all conflict majorly.



Quote:
Calvin much like Luther, is often unfairly conflated down to 5 soundbites, Calvin's "five points of Calvinism" seems to be like Luther's "Five solae



Calvin's 5 points, Tulip, actually had nothing do with Calvin. He was dead and gone in 1630 odd when the remonstrants put their proposal to the church at the council of Dorte for Arminianism. They did that in 5 points and the church coined the 5 points to refute them which has become to be known as the 5 points of Calvinism.
The Institutes of the Christian Religion by Calvin are a mighty work.

You haven't mentioned Arminianism which is now the predominant teaching in the modern protestant church and all of the Pentecostal churches.

I mentioned before that I tend towards the Reformed viewpoint from a Pentecostal angle. A bit like your mate Cheung.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:


Dialogist wrote:
Calvin much like Luther, is often unfairly conflated down to 5 soundbites, Calvin's "five points of Calvinism" seems to be like Luther's "Five solae


Calvin's 5 points, Tulip, actually had nothing do with Calvin. He was dead and gone in 1630 odd when the remonstrants put their proposal to the church at the council of Dorte for Arminianism. They did that in 5 points and the church coined the 5 points to refute them which has become to be known as the 5 points of Calvinism.


Looks like somebody had the last laugh with his predestiny then doesn't it?

Dead and gone, you say?

Nickfyoung wrote:

I mentioned before that I tend towards the Reformed viewpoint from a Pentecostal angle.


A Pent-angle?

Nickfyoung wrote:

You haven't mentioned Arminianism


Ah yes, The Five Articles of Remonstrance.

Can protestants count without their fingers?
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:


Dialogist wrote:
Calvin much like Luther, is often unfairly conflated down to 5 soundbites, Calvin's "five points of Calvinism" seems to be like Luther's "Five solae


Calvin's 5 points, Tulip, actually had nothing do with Calvin. He was dead and gone in 1630 odd when the remonstrants put their proposal to the church at the council of Dorte for Arminianism. They did that in 5 points and the church coined the 5 points to refute them which has become to be known as the 5 points of Calvinism.


Looks like somebody had the last laugh with his predestiny then doesn't it?

Dead and gone, you say?

Nickfyoung wrote:

I mentioned before that I tend towards the Reformed viewpoint from a Pentecostal angle.


A Pent-angle?

Nickfyoung wrote:

You haven't mentioned Arminianism


Ah yes, The Five Articles of Remonstrance.

Can protestants count without their fingers?



Quote:
Dead and gone, you say?



Calvin died in 1564 and the remonstrance was not put until 1610.


Quote:
A Pent-angle?



pentangles are no more than believing in the gifts of the Spirit as in Acts.



Quote:
Ah yes, The Five Articles of Remonstrance.



I read somewhere that that was the Catholic stance now, Arminianism. Is that right.


Quote:
Can protestants count without their fingers?
[



"The word of God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Einstein

Einstein was supposed to be pretty smart. Not sure if he was a proddie or not.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

"nevertheless pretty childish." - Einstein




Tu quoque?

Would you like to play Biblical Top Trumps with Einstein quotes too?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Einstein was supposed to be pretty smart. Not sure if he was a proddie or not.


Maybe closer to an informed wiccan. He made a hearty attempt to be a pandeist (honestly this is thee worst, most illogical 'religious' belief ever), of course his adoring faithful will posit Spinoza's god, and the figurative/metaphorical use of certain words/beliefs that they accuse of us limbo dancing the scientific benchmark with. He makes religious statements, however, more than one would ideally prefer a scientist to, much like Prof. Hawking does/has since, even when he's not talking about God. He was a genius of course, like Newton before him, and also like him, within respects to the other half of the required dichotomy of genius itself, completely stark raving bonkers when the curtains were drawn. This allowed for intellectual courage and creativity concerning ad hoc methodology, and of course the same irreligious disregard for convention that you've portrayed in his words above. This took him from lab rat to artist, and this is why we're still talking about him, and fishing his cosmological flights of fancy out of the garbage some seventy years later.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I read somewhere that that was the Catholic stance now, Arminianism. Is that right.


Nah. We have a great deal of affection for Arminius because, I don't know if you know this, but we're actually responsible for Arminius. He came up through Calvinism and was a Calvinist but could never fully reconcile himself with this "tyrant and executioner" god of Calvin's (I don't know if you know this either, but Arminius was also a sentient human being with feelings). He saw enough merit in Calvinism to want to fix it and remove all the paradoxes. He knew he was smarter and more just than Calvin and there's his justification. However, for all his qualifications, he couldn't go to devout Calvinist monks to tackle the Abbot, so where does/can he go?

Jesuit scholars Suarez and Bellarmin took him under their wing and gave him everything he needed. Not just argumentation, but a whole professionalism of presentation, oration, prose and refinement of theological discourse. He went back and literally destroyed Calvin, from head to toe, and even managed to maintain the core integrity of Calvinism, thus keeping all its followers (which was historically unheard of). This is why protestants are Arminians to this day. And why Calvin is dead (and gone). As for Arminianism, Catholics don't bother with it. We already had that loving, benevolent, forgiving, paradox-lite God thing figured out already. It's called Catholicism.

But hey, I won't tell them if you don't. Wink
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

"nevertheless pretty childish." - Einstein




Tu quoque?

Would you like to play Biblical Top Trumps with Einstein quotes too?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Einstein was supposed to be pretty smart. Not sure if he was a proddie or not.


Maybe closer to an informed wiccan. He made a hearty attempt to be a pandeist (honestly this is thee worst, most illogical 'religious' belief ever), of course his adoring faithful will posit Spinoza's god, and the figurative/metaphorical use of certain words/beliefs that they accuse of us limbo dancing the scientific benchmark with. He makes religious statements, however, more than one would ideally prefer a scientist to, much like Prof. Hawking does/has since, even when he's not talking about God. He was a genius of course, like Newton before him, and also like him, within respects to the other half of the required dichotomy of genius itself, completely stark raving bonkers when the curtains were drawn. This allowed for intellectual courage and creativity concerning ad hoc methodology, and of course the same irreligious disregard for convention that you've portrayed in his words above. This took him from lab rat to artist, and this is why we're still talking about him, and fishing his cosmological flights of fancy out of the garbage some seventy years later.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I read somewhere that that was the Catholic stance now, Arminianism. Is that right.


Nah. We have a great deal of affection for Arminius because, I don't know if you know this, but we're actually responsible for Arminius. He came up through Calvinism and was a Calvinist but could never fully reconcile himself with this "tyrant and executioner" god of Calvin's (I don't know if you know this either, but Arminius was also a sentient human being with feelings). He saw enough merit in Calvinism to want to fix it and remove all the paradoxes. He knew he was smarter and more just than Calvin and there's his justification. However, for all his qualifications, he couldn't go to devout Calvinist monks to tackle the Abbot, so where does/can he go?

Jesuit scholars Suarez and Bellarmin took him under their wing and gave him everything he needed. Not just argumentation, but a whole professionalism of presentation, oration, prose and refinement of theological discourse. He went back and literally destroyed Calvin, from head to toe, and even managed to maintain the core integrity of Calvinism, thus keeping all its followers (which was historically unheard of). This is why protestants are Arminians to this day. And why Calvin is dead (and gone). As for Arminianism, Catholics don't bother with it. We already had that loving, benevolent, forgiving, paradox-lite God thing figured out already. It's called Catholicism.

But hey, I won't tell them if you don't. Wink



Quote:
It's called Catholicism.



Add in a few like Coornhert and Erasmus and Molina and media scientia, Molinism, Palaganism, Semi-Palaganism and you get quite a mixture that makes up your Catholicism. I do honestly believe that the reformation only tried to take the church back to New Testament Christianity.


Quote:
This is why protestants are Arminians to this day. And why Calvin is dead (and gone



You got that right. Not much Calvinism left now. We had the Uniting church form here a few year ago which mixed Methodists and Congregationals and Presbyterians together with a watered down Arminian doctrine. Some Presbyterians opted to stay out so we still have a few Calvinists and they are quite pleased because it got rid of all their modernists and liberals.


I guess the bottom line is ones relationship with ones God. How is the Catholics relationship with his God. How would you describe it. Does he have a loving fatherly relationship and communion on a constant basis or is it more a distant thing with other stuff like Mary added into the relationship.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Add in a few like Coornhert and Erasmus and Molina and media scientia, Molinism, Palaganism, Semi-Palaganism and you get quite a mixture that makes up your Catholicism.


You can't just "add in" without qualifying those names. Coornhert and Erasmus were reform sympathizers who could even't meet reform half-way. Coornhert was rejected by the Church and Erasmus was too. Erasmus chose to remain Catholic, however, in his lesser of two evils view. Molina was a Jesuit but Molina's views weren't accepted by the Church either. He caused plenty of controversy and even nearly brought about a new 'thou shalt not touch Aquinas' commandment (even if some of us Catholics personally believed he revisited him diligently). All 16th century thinkers and in no way indicative of a 1st to 13th Century Catholic theology and doctrines that they still failed to inform. Pelagius is going back (354 AD) however, he was given his marching early doors for asking two simple questions. "If Adam had have not sinned, would he lived forever?" What?! and "If the resurrection was the antidote, will I rise again?" Get out!! As you can see, not Catholic or even Christian theology at all (although highly amusing in retrospect, none the less). He also asked a bonus question about 'a human being without sin, after Adam and before Jesus', as the door was closing in his face. So you see, not a "mixture that makes up Catholicism" at all but in fact, all people, in massively varying degrees of disposition, who the Church didn't accept yet also people who did or would have thought that the reform was stupid.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I do honestly believe that the reformation only tried to take the church back to New Testament Christianity.


The more you will read about harmful theologies, the date they came about, from which side they came from, church politics, church evils, atrocities and the infiltration of the devil into religion, and what time all of this came about; you'll see that the reform achieved this.

The reform was the exorcism of the Catholic Church herself. We (they rather) put all of our evils into Reformists, just as Jesus did, diverting the evil spirits into the pigs and drove them off the cliff's edge. This is when all the witch hunting, heretic murdering, accusations, suspicions, fears and evils really took hold. Not just in religion but also in secular state too, yokel and King alike. They were all not good enough for the Church. Naturally, we'd already seen instances of these things when these people were "Catholics". We basically "just hurled them and their angels down to earth" (again). And that's why the reform consisted entirely of the Catholic Church's demons, exorcised and reformed. After the initial retaliations, you can check history, we've been notably peaceful ever since, while still taking all of their blame under the title "The church did it". We're due for another exorcism soon of religious excrement disperse, which you'll probably also cheerlead the possessed pigs of.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I guess the bottom line is ones relationship with ones God. How is the Catholics relationship with his God. How would you describe it. Does he have a loving fatherly relationship and communion on a constant basis or is it more a distant thing with other stuff like Mary added into the relationship.


It's the latter, obviously, and it is intimate and loving like you'd expect from motherly love. We ask Mary for things we're afraid to ask the Father about. We also have a massive amount of saints assigned to specific tasks, like Saint Anthony with lost items, Saint Gregory with sitting a test, or Saint Michael when we have to kick somebody's arse. There's also a long list of special intention patrons who look after certain groups of people in certain occupations. The hierarchy is respectful. On earth, you don't ask the Pope for a religious confirmation of dogma, you ask a priest to ask a monseigneur to ask a bishop to ask a cardinal to ask a camerlengo to ask the Pope. You don't ask the president anything. You ask a councilor to ask a politician to ask a major to ask a secretary to ask the vice president if he'll ask the President something. These peons on earth are of limited power, importance and respect. Yet you evangelist folk speak of ELOHIM as some sort of billy-no-mates, beg-a-friend. And you talk about demeaning. We've read about what his angels voices sound like, so why do you think that His voice wouldn't shatter your skull into a trillion particles? You of course apply this lack of hierarchy to everything. Your religion, your 'priests', your self. The Pope episcopacy and governmental structure are fine examples of people earning rank through deed and learning. Becoming worthy of adjudicating and residing over people who haven't. You see no importance in this. This is why you insult God with your "beach walks" and "romantic moments" like some kind of cheap Coffee commercial. Also: He doesn't appear in toast shrouds. That's called Pareidolia. It is another demeaning, disrespectful and God-subjugating figment of your imagination.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Add in a few like Coornhert and Erasmus and Molina and media scientia, Molinism, Palaganism, Semi-Palaganism and you get quite a mixture that makes up your Catholicism.


You can't just "add in" without qualifying those names. Coornhert and Erasmus were reform sympathizers who could even't meet reform half-way. Coornhert was rejected by the Church and Erasmus was too. Erasmus chose to remain Catholic, however, in his lesser of two evils view. Molina was a Jesuit but Molina's views weren't accepted by the Church either. He caused plenty of controversy and even nearly brought about a new 'thou shalt not touch Aquinas' commandment (even if some of us Catholics personally believed he revisited him diligently). All 16th century thinkers and in no way indicative of a 1st to 13th Century Catholic theology and doctrines that they still failed to inform. Pelagius is going back (354 AD) however, he was given his marching early doors for asking two simple questions. "If Adam had have not sinned, would he lived forever?" What?! and "If the resurrection was the antidote, will I rise again?" Get out!! As you can see, not Catholic or even Christian theology at all (although highly amusing in retrospect, none the less). He also asked a bonus question about 'a human being without sin, after Adam and before Jesus', as the door was closing in his face. So you see, not a "mixture that makes up Catholicism" at all but in fact, all people, in massively varying degrees of disposition, who the Church didn't accept yet also people who did or would have thought that the reform was stupid.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I do honestly believe that the reformation only tried to take the church back to New Testament Christianity.


The more you will read about harmful theologies, the date they came about, from which side they came from, church politics, church evils, atrocities and the infiltration of the devil into religion, and what time all of this came about; you'll see that the reform achieved this.

The reform was the exorcism of the Catholic Church herself. We (they rather) put all of our evils into Reformists, just as Jesus did, diverting the evil spirits into the pigs and drove them off the cliff's edge. This is when all the witch hunting, heretic murdering, accusations, suspicions, fears and evils really took hold. Not just in religion but also in secular state too, yokel and King alike. They were all not good enough for the Church. Naturally, we'd already seen instances of these things when these people were "Catholics". We basically "just hurled them and their angels down to earth" (again). And that's why the reform consisted entirely of the Catholic Church's demons, exorcised and reformed. After the initial retaliations, you can check history, we've been notably peaceful ever since, while still taking all of their blame under the title "The church did it". We're due for another exorcism soon of religious excrement disperse, which you'll probably also cheerlead the possessed pigs of.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I guess the bottom line is ones relationship with ones God. How is the Catholics relationship with his God. How would you describe it. Does he have a loving fatherly relationship and communion on a constant basis or is it more a distant thing with other stuff like Mary added into the relationship.


It's the latter, obviously, and it is intimate and loving like you'd expect from motherly love. We ask Mary for things we're afraid to ask the Father about. We also have a massive amount of saints assigned to specific tasks, like Saint Anthony with lost items, Saint Gregory with sitting a test, or Saint Michael when we have to kick somebody's arse. There's also a long list of special intention patrons who look after certain groups of people in certain occupations. The hierarchy is respectful. On earth, you don't ask the Pope for a religious confirmation of dogma, you ask a priest to ask a monseigneur to ask a bishop to ask a cardinal to ask a camerlengo to ask the Pope. You don't ask the president anything. You ask a councilor to ask a politician to ask a major to ask a secretary to ask the vice president if he'll ask the President something. These peons on earth are of limited power, importance and respect. Yet you evangelist folk speak of ELOHIM as some sort of billy-no-mates, beg-a-friend. And you talk about demeaning. We've read about what his angels voices sound like, so why do you think that His voice wouldn't shatter your skull into a trillion particles? You of course apply this lack of hierarchy to everything. Your religion, your 'priests', your self. The Pope episcopacy and governmental structure are fine examples of people earning rank through deed and learning. Becoming worthy of adjudicating and residing over people who haven't. You see no importance in this. This is why you insult God with your "beach walks" and "romantic moments" like some kind of cheap Coffee commercial. Also: He doesn't appear in toast shrouds. That's called Pareidolia. It is another demeaning, disrespectful and God-subjugating figment of your imagination.



I think the Presbyterians have the closest to Biblical hierarchy in their eldership structure where the minister is just a teaching elder and decision making is made by the board.

This is probably the difference, the reformers tried to go back to Biblical principals and examples and away from all that you have described. There is not really any Biblical precedent for most of it.

That is the two systems, one trying to be faithful to Scripture and the other seeped in tradition, mostly man made tradition.

It is that time of year when all the nativity scenes come out complete with the three wise men. Is that one of your traditions?
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

I think the Presbyterians have the closest to Biblical hierarchy in their eldership structure where the minister is just a teaching elder and decision making is made by the board.


So who does all the accounting, paperwork, charity commissions, communications, public and political relations, clerical work, teaching, etc, in 2012, In the Presbyterian Church? I imagine somebody does. We are not walking the deserts in sandals anymore. Somebody has to answer to somebody higher to put food on his table so he can get up the next day, get in his car, go to work and do God's work. This idealism you have of Biblical authentic integrity is no longer relevant, nor convenient. It would actually be suicide. And a bunch of dudes out in a tent or shack in the desert reciting scripture is called a cult (See David Koresh). It would be relative in Biblical times to Christ giving his sermon on the mount naked. Saying, "we are all naked in the eyes of the Lord!" While possibly correct, not practical or culturally convenient. When Christ said go out and spread my good news, he meant for all times, including the now. Which includes the internet, media, politics, society and business. If any church nowadays has no hand in these things, they won't last long as they'll have no word to be heard.

Nickfyoung wrote:

This is probably the difference, the reformers tried to go back to Biblical principals and examples and away from all that you have described. There is not really any Biblical precedent for most of it.


As I say, you move with the times, and in the case of two Biblical verses contradicting each other, we need a middle man to explain why they don't. Obviously humans come in differing forms of intelligence, experience and qualification to do so. This reflects the Biblical "Elder" sentiment and you won't find anything different in universities, sciences, humanities or government. It's not even age specific. If I from now until twenty years from now digested nothing but hard theology and philosophy and gained all attainable qualifications reflecting this (like Arminus did) I'd be "elder" than all of the tutors and lecturers who schooled me, especially if they took on teaching jobs because they weren't eligible enough to privately or professionally practice. Theology does create dogma but dogma reconciles understanding with intent. I see no malignant dogmas, just ad hoc solutions.

Nickfyoung wrote:

That is the two systems, one trying to be faithful to Scripture and the other seeped in tradition, mostly man made tradition.


They're both guilty of man-made appropriation and if they weren't, we wouldn't have any Christianity left. The reform came about in the 1500's and has a massive amount of Catholic divergence to point fingers at. It's 500 years old. We're already pointing fingers at Reformist theology. Calvin is gone and only gained prominence through his Catholic training. Luther who only gained prominence through his Catholic training is almost a forgotten, talismanic remnant of Lutheran teaching. Arminius has survived due his blatantly demonstrable Catholic training, but he'll be gone eventually too, because he's not Catholicism, which has outlived them all. You figure it out. 1 AD to 2012. Reform died out about 30 years after it started, theologically. Arminius killed it off. All that's left is retro-ology and nostalgia. Do you really think they'll be any protestants in 2500? Looking at history, and also current talks within church politics, I highly doubt there will. Catholic has always meant "Universal". That's how it'll continue. The trends and fads have been cute, but still, let's not act like they've been historically meaningful or will be futuristically relevant. Arminianism is just another example of natural selection discarding a useless and redundant third limb.

Nickfyoung wrote:

It is that time of year when all the nativity scenes come out complete with the three wise men. Is that one of your traditions?


Yeah we read about it in the Bible. It's actually a horrible example, Nick. And you can do better. Try Halloween or Christmas Trees for paganism appropriation. The Nativity is one of our enduring triumphs, actually. Secular schools have tried desperately to get this religious celebration out of their secular schools, and the Children said, "Nope! Not on your life".

I was the fourth "shepherd". How's that for non biblical man made theology? I had Nike runners on and a gift of terrible theatrics to offer the baby Jesus doll, which used to piss itself when you tipped it upside down. When I left the shiny box gift with nothing inside it, and turned to leave the doll, I pummeled it in the side of its face with my plastic sword, much to the amusement of the Catholic mums and dads. I'm not sure why I had a plastic sword, or a king's paper crown on, but I wasn't complaining, because I was a king for a day.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

I think the Presbyterians have the closest to Biblical hierarchy in their eldership structure where the minister is just a teaching elder and decision making is made by the board.


So who does all the accounting, paperwork, charity commissions, communications, public and political relations, clerical work, teaching, etc, in 2012, In the Presbyterian Church? I imagine somebody does. We are not walking the deserts in sandals anymore. Somebody has to answer to somebody higher to put food on his table so he can get up the next day, get in his car, go to work and do God's work. This idealism you have of Biblical authentic integrity is no longer relevant, nor convenient. It would actually be suicide. And a bunch of dudes out in a tent or shack in the desert reciting scripture is called a cult (See David Koresh). It would be relative in Biblical times to Christ giving his sermon on the mount naked. Saying, "we are all naked in the eyes of the Lord!" While possibly correct, not practical or culturally convenient. When Christ said go out and spread my good news, he meant for all times, including the now. Which includes the internet, media, politics, society and business. If any church nowadays has no hand in these things, they won't last long as they'll have no word to be heard.

Nickfyoung wrote:

This is probably the difference, the reformers tried to go back to Biblical principals and examples and away from all that you have described. There is not really any Biblical precedent for most of it.



we need a middle man to explain why they don't. Obviously humans come in differing forms of intelligence, experience and qualification to do so. This reflects the Biblical "Elder" sentiment and you won't find anything different in universities, sciences, humanities or government. It's not even age specific. If I from now until twenty years from now digested nothing but hard theology and philosophy and gained all attainable qualifications reflecting this (like Arminus did) I'd be "elder" than all of the tutors and lecturers who schooled me, especially if they took on teaching jobs because they weren't eligible enough to privately or professionally practice. Theology does create dogma but dogma reconciles understanding with intent. I see no malignant dogmas, just ad hoc solutions.

Nickfyoung wrote:

That is the two systems, one trying to be faithful to Scripture and the other seeped in tradition, mostly man made tradition.


They're both guilty of man-made appropriation and if they weren't, we wouldn't have any Christianity left. The reform came about in the 1500's and has a massive amount of Catholic divergence to point fingers at. It's 500 years old. We're already pointing fingers at Reformist theology. Calvin is gone and only gained prominence through his Catholic training. Luther who only gained prominence through his Catholic training is almost a forgotten, talismanic remnant of Lutheran teaching. Arminius has survived due his blatantly demonstrable Catholic training, but he'll be gone eventually too, because he's not Catholicism, which has outlived them all. You figure it out. 1 AD to 2012. Reform died out about 30 years after it started, theologically. Arminius killed it off. All that's left is retro-ology and nostalgia. Do you really think they'll be any protestants in 2500? Looking at history, and also current talks within church politics, I highly doubt there will. Catholic has always meant "Universal". That's how it'll continue. The trends and fads have been cute, but still, let's not act like they've been historically meaningful or will be futuristically relevant. Arminianism is just another example of natural selection discarding a useless and redundant third limb.

Nickfyoung wrote:

It is that time of year when all the nativity scenes come out complete with the three wise men. Is that one of your traditions?


Yeah we read about it in the Bible. It's actually a horrible example, Nick. And you can do better. Try Halloween or Christmas Trees for paganism appropriation. The Nativity is one of our enduring triumphs, actually. Secular schools have tried desperately to get this religious celebration out of their secular schools, and the Children said, "Nope! Not on your life".

I was the fourth "shepherd". How's that for non biblical man made theology? I had Nike runners on and a gift of terrible theatrics to offer the baby Jesus doll, which used to piss itself when you tipped it upside down. When I left the shiny box gift with nothing inside it, and turned to leave the doll, I pummeled it in the side of its face with my plastic sword, much to the amusement of the Catholic mums and dads. I'm not sure why I had a plastic sword, or a king's paper crown on, but I wasn't complaining, because I was a king for a day.



Quote:
So who does all the accounting, paperwork, charity commissions, communications, public and political relations, clerical work, teaching, etc, in 2012, In the Presbyterian Church



It sounds like your church is more of a unity with branches. Many of ours are fairly independent while they come under the umbrella of senior body and have a set of structures and rules laid down by the senior body they operate independently of it.

The Presbyterian church is an independent unit in each town. Each one has a board and controls it's own finances. Any short fall in expenses from tithes and offerings is made up by donations from the ladies committee derived from cake stalls etc. It has a treasurer who manages finances, secretary and chairman like any corporation. The ordained minister is the teaching elder and is in charge of all teaching, church services etc. and is paid a wage which includes a house etc.


Quote:
When Christ said go out and spread my good news, he meant for all times, including the now. Which includes the internet, media, politics, society and business. If any church nowadays has no hand in these things, they won't last long as they'll have no word to be heard.



Many churches have a hand in all these activities while many are still small and traditional. We still use traditional methods such as mid week home studies etc. Our little church has three of these groups meeting mid week where people can bring non Christians to a non church environment. We also have a mid week coffee morning at the church where food is served and people just sit and chat. Many have come through there and filtered into the church being more comfortable starting in a non threatening environment.
Choe in Korea has one of the largest church gatherings and used the mid week home group method. He wanted a home group meeting in every street in the city and reaching out to the neighbors.



Quote:
As I say, you move with the times, and in the case of two Biblical verses contradicting each other,



I know you see apparent contradictions in some Bible verses however we see no contradictions. If the Bible is studied as a whole and the theology so gleaned from the over all view there are no contradictions. Everything fits together as God intended. There are no paradoxes, no mysteries, just plain simple understanding. One doesn't need all those certificates issued by man to discern it.

Quote:

Reform died out about 30 years after it started, theologically. Arminius killed it off.



Arminianism was killed off at the Council of Dorte in 1630 odd. It did not really re-surface until Wesley took it to America because basically it softened the gospel and made it easier to preach and garnished more converts quicker.

The majority of church that sprang up in America were therefore Arminian in their theology and all their Bible collages teach it too.

However, God used Arminianism to birth Pentecostalism, which could never have been birthed from the reformers as they are ceasationists.

Pentecostalism is the new reformation. I know it is something that you look upon with ridicule and amusement but it is a movement that is reaching millions of people around the world and seeing them saved. It is a natural for abuse and excess, a system like that, and that has happened and that gives you something to ridicule.

This is why some pastors are reluctant to let it go too much in a service because they fear loosing control and abuses sneaking in.

A true Pentecostal service is completely controlled by the Holy Spirit and everything from the music to the preaching is under that control or submitted to that control. On the day of Pentecost the Spirit was in control with visible signs and bold preaching under the control of the Spirit.
Same thing happens today in church services all over the world.


Quote:
Do you really think they'll be any protestants in 2500?



"Protestantism is one of the major divisions within Christianity. It has been defined as "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope " over 33,000 Protestant denominations "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism


I think the opposite. Catholicism will die off eventually or at least be a hollow shell of what it has been. There are no more lands to conquer and Catholics are leaving in droves as they get saved.

People like Bonke form Germany ministering in Africa are getting several million saved at a service. That is million and a lot of church growth.


Quote:
I was the fourth "shepherd". How's that for non biblical man made theology?



I was in a nativity play on stage last week. I was George Clooney auditioning for King Herod, who wasn't even in it and ended up as a shepherd. My part was a comedy part. How's that for sacrilege.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:

Pentecostalism is the new reformation. I know it is something that you look upon with ridicule and amusement but it is a movement that is reaching millions of people around the world and seeing them saved. It is a natural for abuse and excess, a system like that, and that has happened and that gives you something to ridicule.


Well I don't want to. Not just because it makes Christianity look bad (not bad, just overly-suggestive) and has making appeals of quite an arguably faithless, unspiritual human nature to God, which is fallacious. In shooting down your church I have to go to the other extreme and show proof of workings for everything, which is heterodoxical in itself and there's no reason that faith in the Holy Spirit possessing you every week to make nonsensical noises is in any way more empirical than transubstantiation, or indeed as Watersoul missed an open goal with: not believing in witchcraft, yet still believing in the devil's abilities. I'm not looking to ridicule the Pentecostal church. There's some nice people in there and good Christians. I only suspect the contrived nature of it. It all seems like a communal agreement to create a God rapture and everyone is competing to be the most flipped-out. It reminds me of teenagers pretending they are drunk. As I say, I see no correlation with the events of The Day of Pentecost. That's something I regard as a miracle and the true communicative power of God at work. I have, although I probably shouldn't have, presumed that maybe they are speaking in proper tongues - and I'm merely just one of the "These men have had a new wine!" wisecracking doubting Thomases from the original Pentecost (ye hath little faith etc). And it's like the movie the sixth sense and you can all see dead people or something. But then I thought of the incorruptible Saint Bernadette and Padre Pio biolocating and flying with WWII bombers and Saint Joseph of Cupertino 40 feet up in the air agape surrounded by Bishops and thought, nahhh, you're all full of shit. Even David Blaine has shown me more than that.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I think the opposite. Catholicism will die off eventually or at least be a hollow shell of what it has been. There are no more lands to conquer and Catholics are leaving in droves as they get saved.


This is nonsense. We're the Beatles of Christianity. Levi's of Jeans. Adidas of footwear etc. People don't stay with these identities because they make the most cutting edge trendy stuff. They stay with them because they have always stayed with them. They are authentic. They have been making the same thing they've always made. And it's always been the best. The Holy Father The Pope is your link to God on this earth. Even his holiness The Dalai Lama extracts more reverence and carries more authority than Pentecostal ministers and The good Archbishop combined with quasi-Christian secular politics - in their own countries, and we can't even understand what he's saying either. So maybe you're doing it wrong? I can't fault you for being young, new, wet behind the ears, etc. But there's no dignity, self-respect or authenticity that people can ascertain to admire to automatically respect (which in itself, always speaks in real tongues). As I say, I am conscious of not wanting to appeal to nature, as I believe our spirituality is more personal, private, sacred, graceful and dignified than yours has always been. Therefore more credible. But aside from spirituality, even if we are false prophets, I can honestly tell you, that in this world, The Vatican Bank will indefinitely outlast Betty Crocker's cake stall.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:

Pentecostalism is the new reformation. I know it is something that you look upon with ridicule and amusement but it is a movement that is reaching millions of people around the world and seeing them saved. It is a natural for abuse and excess, a system like that, and that has happened and that gives you something to ridicule.


Well I don't want to. Not just because it makes Christianity look bad (not bad, just overly-suggestive) and has making appeals of quite an arguably faithless, unspiritual human nature to God, which is fallacious. In shooting down your church I have to go to the other extreme and show proof of workings for everything, which is heterodoxical in itself and there's no reason that faith in the Holy Spirit possessing you every week to make nonsensical noises is in any way more empirical than transubstantiation, or indeed as Watersoul missed an open goal with: not believing in witchcraft, yet still believing in the devil's abilities. I'm not looking to ridicule the Pentecostal church. There's some nice people in there and good Christians. I only suspect the contrived nature of it. It all seems like a communal agreement to create a God rapture and everyone is competing to be the most flipped-out. It reminds me of teenagers pretending they are drunk. As I say, I see no correlation with the events of The Day of Pentecost. That's something I regard as a miracle and the true communicative power of God at work. I have, although I probably shouldn't have, presumed that maybe they are speaking in proper tongues - and I'm merely just one of the "These men have had a new wine!" wisecracking doubting Thomases from the original Pentecost (ye hath little faith etc). And it's like the movie the sixth sense and you can all see dead people or something. But then I thought of the incorruptible Saint Bernadette and Padre Pio biolocating and flying with WWII bombers and Saint Joseph of Cupertino 40 feet up in the air agape surrounded by Bishops and thought, nahhh, you're all full of shit. Even David Blaine has shown me more than that.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I think the opposite. Catholicism will die off eventually or at least be a hollow shell of what it has been. There are no more lands to conquer and Catholics are leaving in droves as they get saved.


This is nonsense. We're the Beatles of Christianity. Levi's of Jeans. Adidas of footwear etc. People don't stay with these identities because they make the most cutting edge trendy stuff. They stay with them because they have always stayed with them. They are authentic. They have been making the same thing they've always made. And it's always been the best. The Holy Father The Pope is your link to God on this earth. Even his holiness The Dalai Lama extracts more reverence and carries more authority than Pentecostal ministers and The good Archbishop combined with quasi-Christian secular politics - in their own countries, and we can't even understand what he's saying either. So maybe you're doing it wrong? I can't fault you for being young, new, wet behind the ears, etc. But there's no dignity, self-respect or authenticity that people can ascertain to admire to automatically respect (which in itself, always speaks in real tongues). As I say, I am conscious of not wanting to appeal to nature, as I believe our spirituality is more personal, private, sacred, graceful and dignified than yours has always been. Therefore more credible. But aside from spirituality, even if we are false prophets, I can honestly tell you, that in this world, The Vatican Bank will indefinitely outlast Betty Crocker's cake stall.




Quote:
as I believe our spirituality is more personal, private, sacred, graceful and dignified than yours has always been


The description given below of the Charismatic Catholics could be describing a Pentecostal church. There is essentially no difference. How then is Protestant Pentecostalism wrong when it is exactly the same as Catholic Charismatics.

"The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a movement within the Catholic Church. Worship outside of Mass includes prayer meetings featuring prophecy, faith healing and glossolalia. This movement is based on the belief that certain charismata (a Greek word for gifts), bestowed by the Holy Spirit, such as the abilities to pray in tongues and to heal (which Christians generally believe existed in the early Church as described in the Bible) should still be practiced today.
A dove, symbolizing the Holy Spirit, who is believed by Christians to confer various gifts.

A Catholic church in Ann Arbor, Michigan describes charismatic prayer:

"A charismatic style of prayer is common at Christ the King. People are free to raise their hands in prayer and during songs, many pray their own prayers audibly, some pray in tongues, etc.... They pray with expressive or charismatic prayer at monthly parish prayer meetings, at the beginning of parish meetings, and most especially during certain moments in the Holy Mass. These are some of the external markers of a charismatic parish. Internal markers include a radical surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all parts of life, a strong adherence to the Gospel and the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the pursuit of strong friendships centered on Christ."[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal


Quote:
Holy Spirit possessing you every week




Nonsensical statement.



Quote:
create a God rapture and everyone is competing to be the most flipped-out.



You have only been looking at the assesses.



Quote:
speaking in proper tongues



They were, other languages. That happens too when necessary.


Quote:
We're the Beatles of Christianity.



You are probably right there.


Quote:
The Holy Father The Pope is your link to God on this earth.



Have to strongly disagree with you there. Not only is he so far removed from that he is probably the most ridiculed figure on earth.


Quote:
But there's no dignity, self-respect or authenticity that people can ascertain to admire to automatically respect



We don't look to a man for all that stuff.


Quote:
as I believe our spirituality is more personal, private, sacred, graceful and dignified than yours has always been.



Remember when David danced naked in the street and his wife ridiculed him


Quote:
The Vatican Bank will indefinitely outlast Betty Crocker's cake stall.[



You definitely got that right.
ateawonton
I believe it, it's what makes us different from the monkeys
Bikerman
Dialogist wrote:
This is nonsense. We're the Beatles of Christianity. Levi's of Jeans. Adidas of footwear etc. People don't stay with these identities because they make the most cutting edge trendy stuff. They stay with them because they have always stayed with them.

Not really. They stay because Catholicism has learned the tricks...viz:
a) Get them young - catholic schools exist in disproportionate numbers to other faith schools
b) Once in, always in - Catholics are members for life. Even excommunication doesn't make one a non-catholic. You cannot leave the faith, as far as the Church is concerned - I know, I've tried.

Even so the church is in decline in the UK and the US - partly because people are sickened by the child rape scandal, but also because it is perceived by most - including many catholics - as being unbelievably out of step with societal norms on the issue of birth control. Attendance at Mass has fallen sharply in the UK, but the biggest danger indicator is the number of ordinations - it has collapsed over the last decade or two.
Quote:
They are authentic. They have been making the same thing they've always made. And it's always been the best.
Hardly.
The Catholic church has changed position on many things - largely because it had no real choice. These include:
Usury - lending money and charging interest was once forbidden (hence the Jews became the money-lenders, since Judaism only forbade usury to other Jews).
Slavery - the biblical position on slavery is clear and supportive.

In addition, much of current dogma was added over the centuries:
Worship of cross, images & relics …….............786 A.D.
Canonization of dead saints ……………..............995 A.D.
Celibacy of priesthood ………………….............….1079 A.D.
The Rosary ……………………………….............……….1090 A.D.
Indulgences ………………………………….............……1190 A.D.
Transubstantiation-Innocent III …….............…1215 A.D.
Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………1215 A.D.
Adoration of the wafer (Host)………………………… 1220 A.D.
Cup forbidden to the people at communion ….1414 A.D.
Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma………………….1439 A.D.
The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …1439 A.D.
Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…1545 A.D.
Apocryphal books added to Bible ………………....1546 A.D.
Immaculate Conception of Mary………………………1854 A.D.
Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council …1870 A.D.
Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) 1950 A.D.
Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………1965 A.D.
Quote:
The Holy Father The Pope is your link to God on this earth.
Hmm, the 'link to God' has included the current incumbent who covered up the child-rape scandal until it could no longer be denied. It also includes Alexander 6th - Orgiastic lover of incest; Damasus - specialised in selling nuns and others as sex-slaves, torturing dissenters and a good dose of adultery; Sergius III - mass murderer; Benedict IX - murder, adultery, rape; Pius IX - almost certainly funded the assassination of Lincoln; and on and on and on.....
Related topics
Oq ta no seu Ctrl+V agora ?
Next generation consoles...
What Is The Best Rpg You Have Ever Played, RPG=role playing
PS3 vs Xbox 360
Older Computer-Older Games.
PlayStation 3
Evil
Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children: who is Kadaj???
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance
Is it all in the translation?
[help]que hago, spywares me atacan
Is 'world peace' impossible?
Bible, do you believe it?
What if God does exist. Can sin exist exist then? No?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.