Blind Faith is a Sickness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2013, 08:14 AM
 
RE: Blind Faith is a Sickness
(05-09-2013 03:19 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Those nations who have been largely christian nations have therefore benefited with far more advanced ethics and morality than we observe in nations founded on other religions, or on atheism such as China and Soviet Russia.

Russia has been a largely Christian nation, genius. Drinking Beverage
It says so even in your Catholic Encyclopedia. Aren't you reading the only true encyclopedia? Laughat
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm

Also, China was established before Christianity, so I don't see how it could have been based on it.
Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 02:57 AM
RE: Blind Faith is a Sickness
(10-09-2013 08:14 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 03:19 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Those nations who have been largely christian nations have therefore benefited with far more advanced ethics and morality than we observe in nations founded on other religions, or on atheism such as China and Soviet Russia.

Russia has been a largely Christian nation, genius. Drinking Beverage
It says so even in your Catholic Encyclopedia. Aren't you reading the only true encyclopedia? Laughat
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm

Also, China was established before Christianity, so I don't see how it could have been based on it.
Which is why I said Soviet Russia genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Cat...rsecutions
Marxist-Leninist atheism is the "shining example" of atheism as an idealogy of the state. Look how well that went. Heard about the gulag's.

The persecution, martyrdom, thefts and general atrocities against Catholics in particular but also the Orthodox is an untold story that many today do not know about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 03:56 AM
 
RE: Blind Faith is a Sickness
(11-09-2013 02:57 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Which is why I said Soviet Russia genius.

You said "nations." Do you know what is a "nation"?

"a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory:"
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition...n?q=nation

"Soviet Russia" was not a nation. It was a republic within the USSR, which wasn't a nation either, but a country, or government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Sov...t_Republic

Russians, Ukrainians, etc. are nations, irrespectively of which government rules.

That was my only objection.
Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 07:10 AM
RE: Blind Faith is a Sickness
(11-09-2013 02:57 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 08:14 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Russia has been a largely Christian nation, genius. Drinking Beverage
It says so even in your Catholic Encyclopedia. Aren't you reading the only true encyclopedia? Laughat
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm

Also, China was established before Christianity, so I don't see how it could have been based on it.
Which is why I said Soviet Russia genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Cat...rsecutions
Marxist-Leninist atheism is the "shining example" of atheism as an idealogy of the state. Look how well that went. Heard about the gulag's.

The persecution, martyrdom, thefts and general atrocities against Catholics in particular but also the Orthodox is an untold story that many today do not know about.


Yeah, how about no? Rebuttal to your ignorance starts at 6:30 into the video and lasts 3 minutes.




[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
11-09-2013, 07:22 AM
RE: Blind Faith is a Sickness
(26-08-2013 04:25 AM)excubitor Wrote:  On the other hand, those who humble themselves and trust in the authority of the Church and its interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, they cannot be deceived because they have built their house on the Rock.

Which church? If you haven't noticed, there are many.

My bad...I figured it was Catholic...I didn't read far enough into it.

Carry on with the stupidity of trying to explain why blind faith is a good thing.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 10:36 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2013 10:41 PM by Cake.)
RE: Blind Faith is a Sickness
(05-09-2013 03:19 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(28-08-2013 10:13 PM)Cake Wrote:  First off, please please please don't ever refer to Christians you disagree with as being psuedo-christians or otherwise lesser forms of Christians. Frankly, it pisses me off when Christians degrade other beliefs or character when they have no qualms over including them in statistical data showing the superiority of Christianity. Furthermore, they are just as Christian as you are, whether you like that or not. The base requirement of Christianity does not say what one has to believe the actual "teachings" of Christianity are. So stop trying to assert your ideas, founded on faith, trump their ideas, founded on faith, because you think your faith has any more proof behind it than theirs.
Any individual who is not prepared to say that the beliefs of their religion are absolutely true and superior to the beliefs of the next religion, or sect, really should change their religion to the one which is true. That's what I did. The Catholic church is the ONLY true religion in the world. I am true, right and shine like the new day because I am in agreement with my church and because I live those beliefs each day.

I detest this relativism which you expound here that teaches that all views of what is true are equal. It is an insult to the truth by teaching that error is equal with truth. It also teaches that truth is unimportant and that success in life is just as achievable when motivated by error as it is when motivated by truth.

(28-08-2013 10:13 PM)Cake Wrote:  Second, addressing the second paragraph here, you again talk as if all of Christianity either follows the same set of beliefs in their church, or that your specific sect of the Christian pie is the one real sect. Again, there is no more validation for your beliefs than any others that are founded on faith. You also assert that having placed trust in this Church will prevent you from being wrong. Now I don't know which way you define church. If you speak of the entirety of Christian people, you run into a big problem. As I've already stated, everyone that says with conviction that they are a Christian is one, whether you like that or not. And even without accounting for extremist groups, different denominations within Christianity have very different beliefs about their God. So then you have the authority of the Church being the general agreement among all of Christianity, which pretty much is non-existent. However, I will assume for now that by Church you mean the authority figures within one body of the Christian belief (please correct me if I'm wrong). If that is the case, then you again run into the issue of almost no agreement on any major moral issues between the different Churches of Christianity and to say your Church is the correct one would be to discredit other Churches that have the same credibility as yours (which in my opinion is none). So now you have various Christian Churches, all disagreeing with each other on major issues. The idea that putting faith in the authority of any one of these will give you the truth to the major moral issues in life presents a contradiction.
Surely it is clear that I am talking about the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. I deny that other christian branches have the same authority. Only the Roman Catholic Church was begun by the apostles in the first century. They passed down their authority from one bishop down to the next and the office of St. Peter was passed down from Pope to Pope to this very day. No other Christian church can make this claim. All of these other churches began a thousand or more years after the Roman Catholic Church at the initiative of men who broke away from the Catholic church.
The issue of authority is absolutely critical. Just as we go to a medical doctor who is properly credentialed, so too must we go to a religious doctor who is properly credentialed and who has been given the ticket to teach and practice the Christian religion from the governing body. Most Christians today go to quacks for their religion, choosing medicine which tastes good to them.
True Christians, are true Catholics, who follow the instructions and commands of the bishop.
(28-08-2013 10:13 PM)Cake Wrote:  Lastly, I understand from the last bit that you think we can't establish good ethical codes for ourselves without being handed down the ideas of what is right and wrong from a group of people that pull their notions of right and wrong from a book written thousands of years ago that has no more credibility than the other books that have and still influence the ideas of other religions. So let me put it very bluntly. I don't need to have been created to value my life, the lives of my family, friends, significant others, animals, plants, people, etc. I don't need to have been created to experience emotions of happiness, sadness, anger, pain, love, and so on. I don't need to have been created to realize that the world is better off if I try my best not to harm people, not to let people harm themselves, and to learn ways of better achieving such goals. And I don't need to believe in the ideas of people that say we need to follow the rules of an ancient book to be good when I can better serve myself, my fellow humans, and all other life by just learning about the world through my senses. There is just one thing left I have to say for now. The teachings of the Church, no matter what definition of church you use, change just like the ideas of those who aren't part of a Church. The only difference is those ideas change much slower than those of us who realize we have made mistakes and go to right them. You are right that the Church is a rock, a rock slowly being shaped by the tides of the earth to conform to what nature wishes.
I deny that the teachings of the Catholic church are changeable. They are not. They are solid as rock upon which a great building was constructed and when the wind and waves beat against that house it remained unmoved.
In a sense I agree that every man has a conscience which tells him right from wrong. However the knowledge of what is right and wrong is far more exact and honed in those who have received divine revelation through the church. Those nations who have been largely christian nations have therefore benefited with far more advanced ethics and morality than we observe in nations founded on other religions, or on atheism such as China and Soviet Russia.
Regarding your response to the first quote: 1st paragraph: While I can see the perspective you use to make such a statement, I have to disagree. There are people in the world that do not believe certain particular sets of beliefs are mutually exclusive, and do not feel that any single one is better than the other. From their perspective, just following one set of beliefs (and personal experience) is a worthy endeavor.

2nd paragraph: I have two main objections here. First, I do not accept the premise that all views are equal. What is provable is to be accepted, reluctantly or otherwise, until reasonable doubt can be cast upon such a conclusion. Beyond that, all unproven points cannot be taken with nearly as much conviction, and the more they contradict with what has been proven (and by proven, I don't just mean assumed) the less valid they are. My second objection is to your statement that, under what you assume my views to be, truth is unrelated to success and is therefore unimportant. First, I have to say that people can be highly motivated while still maintaining false ideas about the world and achieve success in most aspects of life (if it wasn't so, then the world would be in a much worse state. Just think about how many people there are in the world with so many different ideas.). Second, truth is still important. I propose this notion to you: knowing the truth of a situation helps a person make better judgments, but there are so many aspects of life that many errors will be made by any one person and they will still lead a fulfilling life. Furthermore, some people are going to have a higher chance of making a more effective judgement even without having as clear a view of the truth as would be ideal.

Regarding your second response: First, I'm sorry I was not aware at the time to which group you were referring to. Moving on, your entire response here is an appeal to an authority. The problem is your authority is not valid, though you try to make it so. Age does not justify granting authority. An institution thousands of years old is no more correct for being old than an aged person is correct to state females are incapable of complex mathematics (that is to say, a false or unverifiable statement is not true just because people hold it as truth a long period of time). Your comparison to medical doctors is flawed in a very fundamental way: Medical procedure and medicine of the modern day exist because of observable data and provable conclusions. We know what kinds of chemicals affect what body parts in what ways by observing them directly, under controlled conditions. The reason we trust medicine (and by extension, the doctors) is because this information is thoroughly documented and verified by a number of sources. Comparatively, the religious authority figures you speak of take their information from subjective views of the Bible within the Church, none of which can be proven to be more accurate than those given by other religious groups looking at the same text or by the measurable reality around us. The authority you credit them with does not come from their knowledge of thoroughly documented, observable, and replicable phenomena, but rather from their adherence to whatever authority figure above them (and in the case of the pope, whatever he interprets the ancient book to say, despite its numerous interpretations not only by various others, but by his own predecessors.). You cannot compare the authority of the doctor to that of a religious leader.

Regarding your third response: If you don't want to accept the documented history of your own religions beliefs, then fine. You've shut yourself off from all outside beliefs (which is to say a large majority of the world). However, you are incorrect to assume Christians are the best structured nations in the world, especially in regard to morality. I suppose if you are completely focused on the political upheaval that seems to constantly center around the Middle East, you might fancy your nation vastly superior to those nations. However, I implore you to closely examine all nations in terms of how advanced they are, how satisfied with life they are, and how effective they have been at treating the ills of society that arise from a bad basis of morality. You may find the results to be not quite what you expected, especially when you compare to the most orthodox of Catholic nations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 03:04 AM (This post was last modified: 12-09-2013 03:08 AM by excubitor.)
RE: Blind Faith is a Sickness
(11-09-2013 10:36 PM)Cake Wrote:  Regarding your response to the first quote: 1st paragraph: While I can see the perspective you use to make such a statement, I have to disagree. There are people in the world that do not believe certain particular sets of beliefs are mutually exclusive, and do not feel that any single one is better than the other. From their perspective, just following one set of beliefs (and personal experience) is a worthy endeavor.
Which brings me to the point of relativism. There is only one Truth therefore there can only be one set of true beliefs. God is TRUTH and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in Truth. Following a set of beliefs may be a worthy endeavour. I never suggested otherwise. My point was that there is only one set of beliefs that is True which brings us to unity with God and to partake in his divine nature. This one set of beliefs alone and obedience to that set of beliefs is able to bring us liberation from sin, merciful forgiveness, eternal salvation, and communion with God in heaven. The other sets of belief are unable to do this and are actually paths to death and destruction of the soul in the fires of hell, and eternal separation from God. Understanding this truth we can see how utterly incomparably superior the one true religion is from all the other religions, even the pretending protestant christian sects.

(11-09-2013 10:36 PM)Cake Wrote:  2nd paragraph: I have two main objections here. First, I do not accept the premise that all views are equal. What is provable is to be accepted, reluctantly or otherwise, until reasonable doubt can be cast upon such a conclusion. Beyond that, all unproven points cannot be taken with nearly as much conviction, and the more they contradict with what has been proven (and by proven, I don't just mean assumed) the less valid they are.
Unfortunately your notion of "proof" is inadequate. Many things are learned only by divine revelation, directly from God. Such things cannot be "proved" in the sense that you mean it. These divine revelations are believed by "faith" which is a form of evidence which stems from the authority of those who attest to those revelations through their lives of faith and the testimony of their mouths. "We believe" is our confession and our creed which is an evidence and a testimony of total power and weight as compared to the fleeting and changeable nature of what men consider to be "proofs".
(11-09-2013 10:36 PM)Cake Wrote:  My second objection is to your statement that, under what you assume my views to be, truth is unrelated to success and is therefore unimportant. First, I have to say that people can be highly motivated while still maintaining false ideas about the world and achieve success in most aspects of life (if it wasn't so, then the world would be in a much worse state. Just think about how many people there are in the world with so many different ideas.).
This is certainly true. However success in this life is not the goal. Christ said "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his eternal soul. I have proposed to you that there is only one set of beliefs, one truth, which is able to save your soul. That is the truth which is important. Everything which is not truth is death and folly, a chasing after the wind.

(11-09-2013 10:36 PM)Cake Wrote:  Second, truth is still important. I propose this notion to you: knowing the truth of a situation helps a person make better judgments, but there are so many aspects of life that many errors will be made by any one person and they will still lead a fulfilling life. Furthermore, some people are going to have a higher chance of making a more effective judgement even without having as clear a view of the truth as would be ideal.
Truth is not optional or beneficial. It is imperative and essential. Again. I am not arguing for wisdom to make wise judgements in this life. I am requiring the essential truth which is able to save our eternal soul. I admit that there are wisdoms and true judgements which impel each man to the fulness of truth which is found only in the Catholic church, however these "wisdoms" are invariably restrained by other "errors" and various attachments to the flesh and to this world and its ways.

(11-09-2013 10:36 PM)Cake Wrote:  Regarding your second response: First, I'm sorry I was not aware at the time to which group you were referring to. Moving on, your entire response here is an appeal to an authority. The problem is your authority is not valid, though you try to make it so. Age does not justify granting authority. An institution thousands of years old is no more correct for being old than an aged person is correct to state females are incapable of complex mathematics (that is to say, a false or unverifiable statement is not true just because people hold it as truth a long period of time).
I did not claim that authority comes from a long period of time. The Catholic church of this century has not one jot of authority more than it had in the first century. The authority of the Catholic church comes from the fact that Christ gave his authority to the apostles and in particular to Peter when he gave him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. That authority has been passed down from one generation to the next to this day through the bishops and in particular to the Pope.

(11-09-2013 10:36 PM)Cake Wrote:  Your comparison to medical doctors is flawed in a very fundamental way: Medical procedure and medicine of the modern day exist because of observable data and provable conclusions. We know what kinds of chemicals affect what body parts in what ways by observing them directly, under controlled conditions. The reason we trust medicine (and by extension, the doctors) is because this information is thoroughly documented and verified by a number of sources.

Comparatively, the religious authority figures you speak of take their information from subjective views of the Bible within the Church, none of which can be proven to be more accurate than those given by other religious groups looking at the same text or by the measurable reality around us. The authority you credit them with does not come from their knowledge of thoroughly documented, observable, and replicable phenomena, but rather from their adherence to whatever authority figure above them (and in the case of the pope, whatever he interprets the ancient book to say, despite its numerous interpretations not only by various others, but by his own predecessors.). You cannot compare the authority of the doctor to that of a religious leader.
The authority of the church is based on the prophets and the apostles which is thoroughly documented in the scriptures and in many other texts besides that. The events of the New Testament such as the miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and his ascension into heaven were witnessed and recorded by hundreds if not thousands of eyewitnesses. The miracle of the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was thoroughly documented in the book of Acts. All of the incredible miracles of the church and all of the testimonies of the martyrs and great theologians and doctors of the church are recorded in extraordinary detail. In fact the development of the New Testament church is the most heavily documented event in ancient history. In fact if we were to doubt the development of the Catholic church on the grounds of a lack of historical evidence then we would have grounds to reject every event in ancient history, because no other event is more readily established by a survey of the historical texts. The unchanging doctrines of the church are heavily documented in reams of historical texts. The ministers of religion are trained in these texts and in the history, doctrine and theology of the church over prescribed courses of up to 10 years in an approved seminary of the church.

Protestant sects who hang up a shingle after a short correspondence course from a bible college are the equivalent of quacks, passing themselves off as experts of church belief, practice and law. In so doing they deceive many people and lead them along paths of death to the destruction of their eternal souls.

(11-09-2013 10:36 PM)Cake Wrote:  Regarding your third response: If you don't want to accept the documented history of your own religions beliefs, then fine. You've shut yourself off from all outside beliefs (which is to say a large majority of the world). However, you are incorrect to assume Christians are the best structured nations in the world, especially in regard to morality. I suppose if you are completely focused on the political upheaval that seems to constantly center around the Middle East, you might fancy your nation vastly superior to those nations. However, I implore you to closely examine all nations in terms of how advanced they are, how satisfied with life they are, and how effective they have been at treating the ills of society that arise from a bad basis of morality. You may find the results to be not quite what you expected, especially when you compare to the most orthodox of Catholic nations.
Where have I denied any documented history of my religion. I am prepared to debate the high points and the low points of the history of my religion. What I will do is expose urban myths about my religions history which have been used to besmirch and demonise the church, again with the effect of turning people away from the true religion and away from the path of life of salvation.

I think the relative prosperity of Christian nations as compared to those of other religions is almost beyond debate. However that is only a minor point. As I stated earlier, our goal here is not national prosperity. That was attained by the Nation of Ancient Israel, but because of their hardness of heart they rejected Christ and were cut off from the way to salvation. Let us not imagine that national or personal prosperity which we place a high value may not also harden our hearts against God also so that we no longer credit him for giving us these blessings. Rather, let us humble ourselves and turn our hearts towards God and his church for the blessing of our souls and our eternal reward.

Thankyou for your interesting and well reasoned comments. I hope I have convinced you that you are however quite wrong. These are important matters which we will be forced to address when we front up to our maker on the judgement day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 12:28 PM
 
RE: Blind Faith is a Sickness
(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  There is only one Truth therefore there can only be one set of true beliefs.

I actually agree with this.

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  God is TRUTH and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in Truth.

What does it mean to worship God in spirit? Also, How do you know that God is truth? "True" means "in accordance with fact or reality." Can you provide any proof?

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  My point was that there is only one set of beliefs that is True which brings us to unity with God and to partake in his divine nature. This one set of beliefs alone and obedience to that set of beliefs is able to bring us liberation from sin, merciful forgiveness, eternal salvation, and communion with God in heaven.

My objections:
1. There are thousands of Christian denominations, that teach mutually exclusive things. How do we know which is right? Oh, I know... the RCC.
2. What is "sin"? Of course, without the concept of sin Christianity becomes irrelevant. So it had to invent a problem in order to present its solution.
But we know that the Garden of Eden story is mythical. So, why do humans "sin"?
3. Forgiveness from what? Salvation from what?

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The other sets of belief are unable to do this and are actually paths to death and destruction of the soul in the fires of hell, and eternal separation from God.

So, is it death, or is it separation? If you die, you're not really "separated" because you're non-existent. How can a fire destroy an immortal soul? Or is it a metaphorical fire?

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Understanding this truth we can see how utterly incomparably superior the one true religion is from all the other religions, even the pretending protestant christian sects.

On the other hand, there are even posters on this forum who claim the opposite - that the RCC practices idolatry, and needs to be kept away from.
How can I know which side, if any, speaks the truth if neither offers any evidence?

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Unfortunately your notion of "proof" is inadequate. Many things are learned only by divine revelation, directly from God. Such things cannot be "proved" in the sense that you mean it. These divine revelations are believed by "faith" which is a form of evidence which stems from the authority of those who attest to those revelations through their lives of faith and the testimony of their mouths. "We believe" is our confession and our creed which is an evidence and a testimony of total power and weight as compared to the fleeting and changeable nature of what men consider to be "proofs".

We'd be able to argue that this concept has merit if all those "revelations" were "revealing" the same "truth." For instance, this guy, Hong Xiuquan, apparently claimed that he received a "revelation" in which he found out that he was a brother of Jesus. The ruckus that ensued, known as the Taiping Rebellion, killed approximately 20 million people. And most people haven't even heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_rebellion

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  This is certainly true. However success in this life is not the goal. Christ said "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his eternal soul.

Christ also "said":
"Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." (Luke 6:30)

and

"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.
Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
" (Luke 6:35)

Send me a PM and I'll give you my bank account number, on which you could deposit about $10,000 - I don't need more, I'm a modest person. Big Grin


(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I admit that there are wisdoms and true judgements which impel each man to the fulness of truth which is found only in the Catholic church, however these "wisdoms" are invariably restrained by other "errors" and various attachments to the flesh and to this world and its ways.

And the ones of the Church aren't? Consider

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I did not claim that authority comes from a long period of time. The Catholic church of this century has not one jot of authority more than it had in the first century. The authority of the Catholic church comes from the fact that Christ gave his authority to the apostles and in particular to Peter when he gave him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. That authority has been passed down from one generation to the next to this day through the bishops and in particular to the Pope.

Cool story, bro.

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The authority of the church is based on the prophets and the apostles which is thoroughly documented in the scriptures and in many other texts besides that.

...like, for example...? Consider

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The events of the New Testament such as the miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and his ascension into heaven were witnessed and recorded by hundreds if not thousands of eyewitnesses.

...if not millions! Seriously, bro, there isn't a shred of extra-biblical evidence for the resurrection. Even the existence of Jesus is uncertain.
Who are those eyewitnesses who "recorded" those events? They were illiterate peasants, they couldn't read or write in their own language, let alone Greek.

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The miracle of the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was thoroughly documented in the book of Acts. All of the incredible miracles of the church and all of the testimonies of the martyrs and great theologians and doctors of the church are recorded in extraordinary detail. In fact the development of the New Testament church is the most heavily documented event in ancient history.

Apart from this being bullshit, there are documented things that don't really improve the reputation of the Church...
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The unchanging doctrines of the church are heavily documented in reams of historical texts.

Like these ones?
http://www.bible.ca/cath-new-doctrines.htm
Seven new doctrines in the 20th century alone... Ouch! Laughat

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Protestant sects who hang up a shingle after a short correspondence course from a bible college are the equivalent of quacks, passing themselves off as experts of church belief, practice and law. In so doing they deceive many people and lead them along paths of death to the destruction of their eternal souls.

"No true Christian," huh? So Catholics claim that Protestants will go to hell, and Protestants claim that Catholics will go to hell. Whom to believe? I for my part, won't believe either. That stuff can be bad for one's health.

Also, how can an eternal soul be destroyed if it's eternal?

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Where have I denied any documented history of my religion. I am prepared to debate the high points and the low points of the history of my religion. What I will do is expose urban myths about my religions history which have been used to besmirch and demonise the church, again with the effect of turning people away from the true religion and away from the path of life of salvation.

What about...
...the Crusades?
...the Inquisition?
...witch burning?
...systematic opposition to science?
...centuries of psychological terror over people?
...unnatural interest in people's sex lives, including within marriage?
...bigotry?
Etc., etc.

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I think the relative prosperity of Christian nations as compared to those of other religions is almost beyond debate.

I notice that you said "Christian," not "Catholic" nations.
I don't think that's a coincidence, because traditionally Protestant countries (like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands...) seem to be slightly more prosperous than the Catholic ones (Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Poland...).
Also, what about Japan and the "Four Asian Tigers?"

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  However that is only a minor point. As I stated earlier, our goal here is not national prosperity. That was attained by the Nation of Ancient Israel, but because of their hardness of heart they rejected Christ and were cut off from the way to salvation.

LOL @ "hardness of heart." I'll tell you why they rejected Jesus - because the idea of Christianity was foreign to them.
They were expecting a human Messiah, not a God-man.
God was never to become a man (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9, Psalm 146:3, Isaiah 43:11).
Also, one needs not be an expert in Hebrew scriptures to realize that the "prophecies" of Jesus were mere out-of-context quotations.

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Let us not imagine that national or personal prosperity which we place a high value may not also harden our hearts against God also so that we no longer credit him for giving us these blessings.

Those "blessings" were not "given" by anyone. They were earned by hard work, creativity and motivation of the individual people who make up a prosperous nation. To say otherwise would be an insult to their efforts.

(12-09-2013 03:04 AM)excubitor Wrote:  These are important matters which we will be forced to address when we front up to our maker on the judgement day.

Good luck waiting. That day is about... 1,900 years overdue, give or take a few.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Philosoraptor's post
16-09-2013, 03:00 AM
RE: Blind Faith is a Sickness
(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  What does it mean to worship God in spirit? Also, How do you know that God is truth? "True" means "in accordance with fact or reality." Can you provide any proof?
I have already pointed out the problems with the concept of "proof". As an example, it is impossible to prove how the universe came into existence. We can make certain educated assumptions based on data which we extrapolate various scenarios, but this does not constitute proof for the simple reason that nobody was there at the beginning of the universe. The only reason we can know for certain how the universe began is if someone who was there at the time tells us what happens. This is a witness as in a court of law. A witness provides evidence of events of fact and reality. In the case of the beginnings of the universe the witness is God and the angels. He revealed to Moses and the people of Israel the basic facts of how the universe began. He spoke with his very own voice of thunder from the smoking mountain saying "In six days God made heaven and earth". Of this event we have the testimony of the ancient witnesses to God's words recorded in the book of Genesis.

(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  My objections:
1. There are thousands of Christian denominations, that teach mutually exclusive things. How do we know which is right? Oh, I know... the RCC.
2. What is "sin"? Of course, without the concept of sin Christianity becomes irrelevant. So it had to invent a problem in order to present its solution.
But we know that the Garden of Eden story is mythical. So, why do humans "sin"?
3. Forgiveness from what? Salvation from what?
I know the RCC is right because it has preserved the teachings of the apostles and the authority of the apostles. How do we know that a medical doctor is "right" when there are so many competing ideas for health. He is right because he has authority and the endorsement of the established medical profession. What is right and true is decided by those with the greatest authority. In the case of divine truth, we must demonstrate that the church has divine authority granted from God the Father to his Son and then passed down to the apostles and to the bishops who have succeeded him. The notion of authority being passed down from one generation to another is a concept well understood by all of us. The story of the Garden of Eden is not known to be mythical, it is believed to be a true historical account. Of course there are many, even catholics, who deny the true historical account of Adam and Eve and their sin. These however are departing from the literal and historical belief understood as a sacred tradition by all of the generations of Catholics which preceeded them.
What is sin? This is a pretty simple concept surely. The equivalent of sin in the road system is speeding which is a transgression of the law which attracts a fine and a possible suspension of licence. So why is speeding a transgression? Because an authority (being the government) made a law which defined what constitutes the transgression of speeding. In the case of sin, this too comes from the authority of God who made a law "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat". Then he defined the penalty of that transgression. "Death". In the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die". So having sinned Adam condemned himself and all of his descendents to death. All having been born into a regime of sin and death their lives are all forfeit and condemned to death, both as a consequence of the sin of Adam transferred to them as their heritage, but also for their personal transgressions of God's law (called the natural law) . It is the guilt of sin which condemns us to death. It is this condemnation for which we require forgiveness so that we may be spared and enter into eternal life. Whereas death and condemnation entered the world through the sin of Adam, so too life, hope and eternal salvation has entered the world through the obedience of the second Adam who is our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ. By suffering and dieing on the cross he paid the penalty of death for all mankind so that those who believe might be saved. Whereas Adam and his descendents disbelieved God, Jesus and his followers believed God and to them it was accounted as righteousness. So to believe God is a great virtue. If God forced us to believe with "proof" that you constantly demand, then where would the need for faith be? But to believe by faith without "proof" requires a humbling and softening of the heart towards God, a willingness to be childlike and trusting before him. This is of course foolishness to you and many thinking atheists. So to the extent that they reject this "foolishness" is the extent to which their heart is hardened against God and they are disbelieving. To this same extent they are condemned upon the road of utter darkness, condemnation and death. Poor souls.

(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  So, is it death, or is it separation? If you die, you're not really "separated" because you're non-existent. How can a fire destroy an immortal soul? Or is it a metaphorical fire?
If you die you are most certainly separated from God. Death and separation from God are the same thing. The mental torment and anguish of this is ultimately experienced in hell, although many suffer this torment and anguish in this life also with many terrible physical and emotional ailments such as depression being suffered by many, on account of their sin and separation from God. Hell is a spiritual place but this does not make it any less real. Perhaps the "fires of hell" are metaphorical in the sense that they provide a realistic imagery of what hell will be like. If we were to imagine people burning to death and writhing in agony and torment from the heat of the flames as their flesh falls off and burns away, then hell is worse than this, and it never ends but goes on for eternity. I don't like this any more than you do, but denying that this is the case is just burying your head in the sand. Men make a law not to murder and throw murderers in jail for the term of their natural life. The anguish and torment of these murderers in jail is impossible to imagine. So if you fear the terrors of the government what do you do? You obey the law and do not murder anybody. Do you just deny that there is any such thing as jail and a jail sentence? That would be stupidity and folly. So too is foolish denial of hell. Denying the existence of hell and committing sin as if God and hell did not exist is quite literally playing with fire. Get this wrong at your utter peril.

(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  On the other hand, there are even posters on this forum who claim the opposite - that the RCC practices idolatry, and needs to be kept away from.
How can I know which side, if any, speaks the truth if neither offers any evidence?
No doubt. I already said as much. My answer to this is to point to the established historical evidence of the authority of the apostles passed down from bishop to bishop throughout all the generations. The accusers of the RCC do not have this authority. Nor do they even claim to have this authority.

(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  We'd be able to argue that this concept has merit if all those "revelations" were "revealing" the same "truth." For instance, this guy, Hong Xiuquan, apparently claimed that he received a "revelation" in which he found out that he was a brother of Jesus. The ruckus that ensued, known as the Taiping Rebellion, killed approximately 20 million people. And most people haven't even heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_rebellion
This argument is completely erroneus and completely ignores the arguments that I have previously raised. Hong Xiuguan has no authority granted from the apostles to authorise his teachings. His "revelations" are lies which are contrary to the one true revelation which is provided via the RCC. There is only one truth, one divine revelation, one church, one Spirit, one God and every other "revelation" "god" "truth" "church" "spirit/s" are deceptive lies which take men hurtling to death such as the Taiping Rebellion. At the moment there is a greater liar than Hong Xiuguan, who is the devil and satan, whose lieing "revelations" bring billions of poor souls to their eternal deaths in the fires of hell. Let us not fear Hong Xiuguan. Fear rather the Father of Lies who is Satan and his demonic hordes.


(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Christ also "said":
"Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." (Luke 6:30)

and

"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.
Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
" (Luke 6:35)

Send me a PM and I'll give you my bank account number, on which you could deposit about $10,000 - I don't need more, I'm a modest person. Big Grin
I do not believe that Christ's injunction to lend to those who are in need is equivalent to your ridiculous bank account scenario. I am sure that any clear thinking reasonable person would understand the difference. Statements such as this unfortunately reveal you to be a person of evil will who is a hater of the truth.

(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Also, how can an eternal soul be destroyed if it's eternal?
If you destroy a house, it does not cease to exist. It exists in a rubble or a ruin. The state of the destroyed house is such that it can no longer serve its purpose of housing people. It may still be recognisable that it was once a house but is now a ruin. So the eternal soul which is destroyed in hell is a ruined soul which is no longer capable of living its vocation of serving God and man, and worshipping God. The ruined soul is incapable of fulfilling the purpose for which it was brought into existence. Did the man make the house with a view so that it could be a pile of rubble? No. He made the house for men, women and families to live in. So God made a house for us which is our body for our soul to live in. When mankind sinned the body and soul died and was no longer able to fulfill the purpose for which God made it. However through baptism we are reborn, our souls are regenerated and we are able to worship God once more in spirit and in truth. However our regenerate souls are still housed in corrupt bodies with what is called the concupiscence of sin. It is the fleshly part of our bodies and the various lusts and attachments to desires and worldly things that come from the body which is still bound to death which pulls us always towards sin, even though our regenerate soul wills us to reach toward God. This is the struggle that regenerate Christians face daily which they must endure until the resurrection. At the resurrection the body also is regenerated on account of the regenerate soul within it. This is called the quickening and from the germ of new life which is the regenerate soul the body is also regenerated into an eternal body such as Adam had, which is not subject to death, or disease or illness but of which is capable of living forever. Christ has this body since he ascended to his Father and he sits at the right hand of the Father in this glorious resurrected body to this day.

Not so the wicked. They are not regenerate. They are degenerate. Their souls are dead and their bodies are subject to death. When they finally die they have no hope of the resurrection. Their dead souls separated from God are thrust into hell where they await the torment of the judgement day. At the judgement day God raises up their dead bodies and reunites their dead souls with their dead bodies and all the torment which they received in their souls will then be received in their degenerate and decayed bodies for ever more. Most painful of all will be the knowledge that they can never live out their created purpose for which God originally intended, that they should serve the Lord God with all their hearts, souls, bodies and minds. Cut off eternally from this source of joy, bliss and delight they exist eternally painfully aware of their misery and their hopelessness. Poor souls.

(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  What about...
...the Crusades?
...the Inquisition?
...witch burning?
...systematic opposition to science?
...centuries of psychological terror over people?
...unnatural interest in people's sex lives, including within marriage?
...bigotry?
Etc., etc.
Typical list of supposed sins of the Catholic church. Like I said, start a thread. I am happy to debate you on any single point to demonstrate what is true and what is urban myth.
(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  LOL @ "hardness of heart." I'll tell you why they rejected Jesus - because the idea of Christianity was foreign to them.
They were expecting a human Messiah, not a God-man.
God was never to become a man (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9, Psalm 146:3, Isaiah 43:11).
Also, one needs not be an expert in Hebrew scriptures to realize that the "prophecies" of Jesus were mere out-of-context quotations.
So you agree with me. The Jews had a hard heart. As you have a hard heart also you sympathise with the Jews. So I am not surprised. The fulfillments of prophecy by Jesus are utterly striking. If you were a student of the scriptures you would appreciate this. The men on the road to Emmaus knew the scriptures, but when Jesus appeared to them he explained to them the scriptures and they understood them in a new light. This enlightenment is a work of the Holy Spirit. The Jews did not have the Holy Spirit. You do not have the Holy Spirit. Therefore the enlightenment of the scriptures is not available to you. However our Lord promises that those who seek him will find him. Jesus alone is the way, the truth and the life, the narrow way which leads to life and salvation. Jesus opens our minds to the truth of the scriptures. Seek and you shall find. Ask and it shall be opened to you.

(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Those "blessings" were not "given" by anyone. They were earned by hard work, creativity and motivation of the individual people who make up a prosperous nation. To say otherwise would be an insult to their efforts.
There are reasons why some nations do not work. For example if you lived in an amoral nation or place and whenever you worked to sow a crop that thieves would come in and steal your hard work, then you soon learn that there is no point in working. So you see that their is an underpinning of morality which enables and encourages honest labour. Democracy is only possible if the people are moral. This was stated and is being proven over and over throughout the world that only Christian nations have the morality necessary to underpin a democracy. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "
That is a quote from the second president of the US. John Adams.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams
This is why non-Christian nations rarely achieve successful democracies. People must be law abiding on account of an underpinning morality. People who lack this moral underpinning comply only with the threat of force, and for that you need a dictatorship, police state or military rule. As we see the moral underpinnings of the US deteriorating we find that the US has become a police state with dramatic loss of liberties, huge policing forces, high rates of incarceration. In short, our democracy is failing.


Morality therefore is the huge problem for thinking atheists. What constitutes a moral life when the only law of nature atheists ascribe to is survival of the fittest.

(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Good luck waiting. That day is about... 1,900 years overdue, give or take a few.
The Lord did not say when he would return although I admit he gave the impression that it would be soon. But as the scripture explains, his apparent delay is directly for the purpose of giving as much time as possible for sinners and hard of heart to repent and turn to God before the judgement comes upon them.
This apparent delay is giving for your direct benefit, Therefore when you mock about the Lord's delay, it will result in the doubling of the anger and wrath of God which he will eventually pour out upon you. Therefore I call upon all men to repent, soften their hearts and turn to the Lord with a contrite heart.

This is all explained in the following scripture

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting [1] unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 10:17 AM
 
RE: Blind Faith is a Sickness
----------------------------------------------------------
Here goes the Raptor's longest post so far:
----------------------------------------------------------

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I have already pointed out the problems with the concept of "proof". As an example, it is impossible to prove how the universe came into existence. We can make certain educated assumptions based on data which we extrapolate various scenarios, but this does not constitute proof for the simple reason that nobody was there at the beginning of the universe. The only reason we can know for certain how the universe began is if someone who was there at the time tells us what happens. This is a witness as in a court of law. A witness provides evidence of events of fact and reality. In the case of the beginnings of the universe the witness is God and the angels. He revealed to Moses and the people of Israel the basic facts of how the universe began. He spoke with his very own voice of thunder from the smoking mountain saying "In six days God made heaven and earth". Of this event we have the testimony of the ancient witnesses to God's words recorded in the book of Genesis.

I agree that no human was present at the beginning of the universe to testify about it, but that doesn't mean a book written in a desert 2,500-3,000 years ago contains the answer to our questions. First of all, Moses didn't write the Torah (unless one can record his own death and burial). We don't know who wrote it, in fact, there is evidence that it was heavily tampered with, and the earliest known manuscripts are dated to the 2nd century BC. Also, Genesis is wrong. The Earth cannot have been created before the stars; there is no water above the "firmament," stars are not some decoration in the "firmament," the creation of animals is listed in the wrong order, etc. Genesis 1/2 is in no way better than any other ancient creation myth. Today, however, we know better.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I know the RCC is right because it has preserved the teachings of the apostles and the authority of the apostles. How do we know that a medical doctor is "right" when there are so many competing ideas for health. He is right because he has authority and the endorsement of the established medical profession.

You forgot why he has authority. It's because modern medicine is right. Antibiotics kill bacteria, and that's why a doctor will prescribe you an antibiotic when you have sore throat. "Competing ideas" can be easily dismissed quite simply because they don't work - they wouldn't cure your sore throat. Do you see the difference?

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  What is right and true is decided by those with the greatest authority.

Typical Catholic thinking. However, your golden age is gone (fortunately), so you can no longer burn people for believing in a heliocentric solar system.
The Solar System wasn't geocentric while your priests wanted it to be such. Truth is truth, regardless of how loudly you oppose it.

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1...asse_Tyson

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The story of the Garden of Eden is not known to be mythical, it is believed to be a true historical account.

Believed by whom? Do you have any evidence for it?

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Of course there are many, even catholics, who deny the true historical account of Adam and Eve and their sin. These however are departing from the literal and historical belief understood as a sacred tradition by all of the generations of Catholics which preceeded them.

Your rhetoric is obsolete. Nobody in the 21st century cares about "sacred tradition," we've had enough of that. It's about time we move forward and follow the evidence of history and science. And history and science say - we didn't descend from one couple of humans, but instead evolved from earlier primates. This was happening hundreds of thousands of years ago, not 6,000 as suggested by the Bible.

Read and enjoy:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...han-truth/

Especially the conclusion:
"Yes, we scientists (and rationalists) are severely disadvantaged in comparison to “Catholic tradition” and its theologians. We aren’t allowed to make up untestable stories to buttress our preconceptions, especially when they’re proven wrong. There is nothing—no evidence in the world—that would make these folks finally admit that the Adam and Eve story and its tale of Original Sin, is a simple human fabrication. They can always dig deeper into their goody bag of post hoc rationalizations."

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  What is sin? This is a pretty simple concept surely. The equivalent of sin in the road system is speeding which is a transgression of the law which attracts a fine and a possible suspension of licence. So why is speeding a transgression? Because an authority (being the government) made a law which defined what constitutes the transgression of speeding. In the case of sin, this too comes from the authority of God who made a law "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat". Then he defined the penalty of that transgression. "Death".

How could have Adam and Eve known that it was wrong to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if before eating from it they obviously didn't have the knowledge of good and evil?
How could they have known that it was wrong to disobey God?

Also, they couldn't have known what "death" means.
Death was an unknown concept at that time - they didn't witness anyone dying, nor did they have any awareness of mortality, because they weren't mortal in the first place.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  In the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die". So having sinned Adam condemned himself and all of his descendents to death. All having been born into a regime of sin and death their lives are all forfeit and condemned to death, both as a consequence of the sin of Adam transferred to them as their heritage, but also for their personal transgressions of God's law (called the natural law) . It is the guilt of sin which condemns us to death. It is this condemnation for which we require forgiveness so that we may be spared and enter into eternal life.

God is defined as omniscient, which means that he knew, before creating the universe or humans, what would have happened. This means that he's ultimately responsible for it. When creation is flawed, the person to blame is its creator. Do you blame paint for a bad painting, or food for a bad dish? Of course not. God planted this tree you're talking about in the garden, knowing that humans would eat from it. He let loose a serpent, knowing that it would succeed in tempting Adam and Eve. But this means that humans were already flawed when they were created! Had they not been, they would have obeyed God and ignored the serpent's temptations. Instead, God blamed humans for his own flaw in creating them!

Therefore, the Judeo/Christian God is the creator of evil - proven by Isaiah 45:7 and many other verses from the OT.
I need not seek forgiveness from him, and in fact, if I faced him upon death, I would quote Matthew 7:5 to him.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  So to believe God is a great virtue. If God forced us to believe with "proof" that you constantly demand, then where would the need for faith be? But to believe by faith without "proof" requires a humbling and softening of the heart towards God, a willingness to be childlike and trusting before him.

And why would blind faith be a virtue? Why would God give us reason and intelligence, and then demand us to be like sheep? I, on the other hand, think that using reason is a virtue, because reason is independent, immune to dogma, and consistent with inherent human curiosity. Reason brought forth science, and science enabled us so many benefits like extension of lifespan, medicine, electricity, motor vehicles, computers, the Internet... While blind faith brought us nothing but wars in the name of religion, and centuries of backwardness caused by religious oppression and superstition. Only when we got rid of that, we started to move forward.

Finally, God, if he exists, knows that I am always open to him if he reveals himself to me and tells me what he wants from me and why.
What priests say and what's written in faulty 2,000-year old books based on 100th-hand hearsay, I do not consider as revelation.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  This is of course foolishness to you and many thinking atheists. So to the extent that they reject this "foolishness" is the extent to which their heart is hardened against God and they are disbelieving. To this same extent they are condemned upon the road of utter darkness, condemnation and death. Poor souls.

My "heart" is not "hardened." I disbelieve because I don't see sufficient evidence to believe in Christianity, and on top of all, I find it illogical and immoral.
The only "road of utter darkness" I can think of was the one Europe was on during the Dark Ages. And as for death, we are all going to die.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The mental torment and anguish of this is ultimately experienced in hell, although many suffer this torment and anguish in this life also with many terrible physical and emotional ailments such as depression being suffered by many, on account of their sin and separation from God.

Depression is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. We know this, again, through science and medicine. If we had been keeping blind "faith," we'd still have priests trying to exorcise depression.
Fortunately, we know better.

Also, non-Christians are not in any way more prone to mental problems than Christians. In fact, constant guilt as a consequence of religious indoctrination can only harm one's mental health.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Hell is a spiritual place but this does not make it any less real. Perhaps the "fires of hell" are metaphorical in the sense that they provide a realistic imagery of what hell will be like. If we were to imagine people burning to death and writhing in agony and torment from the heat of the flames as their flesh falls off and burns away, then hell is worse than this, and it never ends but goes on for eternity. I don't like this any more than you do, but denying that this is the case is just burying your head in the sand. Men make a law not to murder and throw murderers in jail for the term of their natural life. The anguish and torment of these murderers in jail is impossible to imagine. So if you fear the terrors of the government what do you do? You obey the law and do not murder anybody. Do you just deny that there is any such thing as jail and a jail sentence? That would be stupidity and folly. So too is foolish denial of hell. Denying the existence of hell and committing sin as if God and hell did not exist is quite literally playing with fire. Get this wrong at your utter peril.

That's a false analogy. I know that government exists because I can see and hear its representatives, its officials and other employees. I know that there are courts and prisons because I've either seen them, or read about people being tried, condemned, etc. So I have no reason to doubt.

On the other hand, there isn't a shred of evidence for hell.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  At the moment there is a greater liar than Hong Xiuguan, who is the devil and satan, whose lieing "revelations" bring billions of poor souls to their eternal deaths in the fires of hell. Let us not fear Hong Xiuguan. Fear rather the Father of Lies who is Satan and his demonic hordes.

Why does God allow Satan to deceive people so they can be condemned? We are told that God wants everyone to be saved (John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9), and at the same time doesn't (2 Thess. 2:11-12). But would you let your children roam around a neighborhood where there are criminals on the loose? No responsible parent would, yet your God apparently does that. And blames, well whom other, but us. Drinking Beverage

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Christ also "said":
"Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." (Luke 6:30)

and

"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.
Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
" (Luke 6:35)

Send me a PM and I'll give you my bank account number, on which you could deposit about $10,000 - I don't need more, I'm a modest person. Big Grin
I do not believe that Christ's injunction to lend to those who are in need is equivalent to your ridiculous bank account scenario. I am sure that any clear thinking reasonable person would understand the difference. Statements such as this unfortunately reveal you to be a person of evil will who is a hater of the truth.

So now you are appealing to reason and clear thinking after all? Where is your faith now? Jesus (or whoever attributed those words to him) said to lend to your enemies, not "those who are in need."
Therefore, my bank account analogy is valid, and your accusations of me being evil are merely "attack as the best defense."

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  If you destroy a house, it does not cease to exist. It exists in a rubble or a ruin.

Wrong. The "house" as "a building for human habitation," ceases to exist. What remains is the material that was used to build it. But that's not a house, any more than a lump of gold is a ring "contained" within.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  So the eternal soul which is destroyed in hell is a ruined soul which is no longer capable of living its vocation of serving God and man, and worshipping God. The ruined soul is incapable of fulfilling the purpose for which it was brought into existence.

But it's still capable of feeling "mental anguish," right? Thought so.
Now, how an immaterial entity can feel something that is proven to be a chemical phenomenon, is beyond me. We can't feel "anguish" without a functioning, oxygenated brain.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Did the man make the house with a view so that it could be a pile of rubble? No. He made the house for men, women and families to live in. So God made a house for us which is our body for our soul to live in. When mankind sinned the body and soul died and was no longer able to fulfill the purpose for which God made it.

Those pesky humans screwed up the perfect God's plan, right? I bet that really surprised him, being omniscient and all. Drinking Beverage

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  However through baptism we are reborn, our souls are regenerated and we are able to worship God once more in spirit and in truth. However our regenerate souls are still housed in corrupt bodies with what is called the concupiscence of sin. It is the fleshly part of our bodies and the various lusts and attachments to desires and worldly things that come from the body which is still bound to death which pulls us always towards sin, even though our regenerate soul wills us to reach toward God. This is the struggle that regenerate Christians face daily which they must endure until the resurrection.

There is no "struggle," other than the one that frustrated control freaks like Saul of Tarsus ("Apostle" Paul) made up in order to control people.
By making us feel miserable and guilty, they can sell us their solution (salvation), which they couldn't do without a proper guilt trip. They create a problem and sell the cure.

What are those "lusts" and "attachments to worldly things"? What's wrong about wanting to live a decent, dignified life; about having a well-paid job; about having normal, healthy sex drive; or in other words, about having an own ego? You want to take away our individuality, turn us into mindless drones who obey priests from the altar, priests who don't even practice what they preach. Hypocrisy at best.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Not so the wicked. They are not regenerate. They are degenerate. Their souls are dead and their bodies are subject to death. When they finally die they have no hope of the resurrection. Their dead souls separated from God are thrust into hell where they await the torment of the judgement day.

You're making shit up. "Hell" as the "lake of fire" is seen as the final destination, after the judgement day. Until that day, the soul resides in "Sheol," where everyone is, both good and the wicked. Residents of Sheol are not conscious (Eccl. 9:5, 10, Psalm 115:17-18, 146:4). That's the Hebrew theology. The Hebrews didn't believe in eternal life before the Exile; only in Isaiah and Daniel the idea of resurrection appears. The idea of hell wasn't yet conceived at that time - the condemned were "carcases" (Isaiah 66:24). Only "Luke" (or whoever the author was) borrowed from the Greek idea of "Hades" and wrote about the torment in Sheol/Hades before the judgement day. But the idea of unconditional immortality was a Greek invention.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  At the judgement day God raises up their dead bodies and reunites their dead souls with their dead bodies and all the torment which they received in their souls will then be received in their degenerate and decayed bodies for ever more. Most painful of all will be the knowledge that they can never live out their created purpose for which God originally intended, that they should serve the Lord God with all their hearts, souls, bodies and minds. Cut off eternally from this source of joy, bliss and delight they exist eternally painfully aware of their misery and their hopelessness. Poor souls.

There is no evidence from the Bible that the bodies of the unsaved are immortal. Immortality was intended only for the saved (1 Cor. 15, Romans 2:7), and hell was cooked up later to scare the flock into submission.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 12:28 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  What about...
...the Crusades?
...the Inquisition?
...witch burning?
...systematic opposition to science?
...centuries of psychological terror over people?
...unnatural interest in people's sex lives, including within marriage?
...bigotry?
Etc., etc.
Typical list of supposed sins of the Catholic church. Like I said, start a thread. I am happy to debate you on any single point to demonstrate what is true and what is urban myth.

So, there were no Crusades, the Inquisition didn't exist, the Church didn't burn "witches," it didn't oppose science, it didn't threaten people with hell (yet you're doing it now), it doesn't prohibit consensual sexual relations...? OK. Cool. Blink

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  So you agree with me. The Jews had a hard heart. As you have a hard heart also you sympathise with the Jews. So I am not surprised.

No, I don't agree with you. I said that the Hebrew scriptures don't suggest, in fact they oppose most of the Christian ideas. Judaism and Christianity are completely different religions. Some of those differences are:

- In Judaism, God is the creator of both good and evil (Isaiah 45:7). Satan is not a "rebellious angel" (Job 1:6-12), that "duality" between good and evil was copied from pagan religions.
- In Judaism, there is no Trinity. God is one and only, and cannot become a human (verses already quoted) - therefore, the Messiah is also human, a descendant of king David from his father's line.
This is contradicted by the supposed virgin birth of Jesus, borrowed from pagan myths.
- In Judaism, the Law is permanent and binding at all times (Psalm 111:7-9, 119:108-118, Isaiah 24:5). A stroke of a pen by Apostate Paul couldn't have annulled them.
- In Judaism there is no eternal hell.
Etc.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The fulfillments of prophecy by Jesus are utterly striking. If you were a student of the scriptures you would appreciate this.

I studied the scriptures thoroughly, and haven't found one fulfilled prophecy that wasn't mistranslated, misinterpreted, ambiguous or inevitable. Or all of that combined.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The men on the road to Emmaus knew the scriptures, but when Jesus appeared to them he explained to them the scriptures and they understood them in a new light. This enlightenment is a work of the Holy Spirit. The Jews did not have the Holy Spirit. You do not have the Holy Spirit. Therefore the enlightenment of the scriptures is not available to you. However our Lord promises that those who seek him will find him. Jesus alone is the way, the truth and the life, the narrow way which leads to life and salvation. Jesus opens our minds to the truth of the scriptures. Seek and you shall find. Ask and it shall be opened to you.

I seeked, I asked, and in the end I found nothing. The problem when people want their quest for God to be successful, they turn anything they find into evidence for God. The difference between you and me is that you want your Bible to be true, so you rationalize away any contradiction you come across, and yet you call yourself "enlightened." A skeptic looks at the Bible objectively, and is therefore able to see that it's fallible and contradictory.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  There are reasons why some nations do not work. For example if you lived in an amoral nation or place and whenever you worked to sow a crop that thieves would come in and steal your hard work, then you soon learn that there is no point in working. So you see that their is an underpinning of morality which enables and encourages honest labour. Democracy is only possible if the people are moral. This was stated and is being proven over and over throughout the world that only Christian nations have the morality necessary to underpin a democracy.

Bullshit.

Democracy was conceived in Athens six centuries before Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

Some forms of democracy were practiced in India a thousand or more years ago.
http://www.hindu.com/fr/2008/07/11/stori...250300.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopala_%28Pala_king%29

The Mali Empire had a constitution in the 13th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kouroukan_Fouga

Democracy flourishes when there is peace and prosperity, as opposed to religious oppression. If democracy is so Christian, why did it take hold in Europe only in the 19th/20th century? It took hold only when people started to free themselves from the yoke of religion, and separate their governments from the Church. Only thanks to that we today have a freedom of speech, (ir)religion, expression - because the Church isn't allowed to burn us at stake for blasphemy anymore.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Morality therefore is the huge problem for thinking atheists. What constitutes a moral life when the only law of nature atheists ascribe to is survival of the fittest.

Not at all. We evaluate morality through reason, as opposed to divine command theory. Therefore, we consider killing children and ripping pregnant women open as definitely immoral; while Christian apologists try to find a way to rationalize those atrocities when they were supposedly commanded by "God." This is inconsistent, while a rational morality is steady and consistent - my freedom ends with yours. Meanwhile, religion dehumanizes people by making them completely immune to any sort of compassion towards a fellow human being who is not a part of the "elect." There is "us" (Christians) versus "them" (non-Christians), we'll be blessed, they'll burn, etc. Division. Wars. Intolerance. You name it. We don't need religion to be moral. In fact, my belief is that we're even more moral without it. We appreciate this life as unique and precious, and learn to treat our fellow humans with respect and without prejudice.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The Lord did not say when he would return although I admit he gave the impression that it would be soon. But as the scripture explains, his apparent delay is directly for the purpose of giving as much time as possible for sinners and hard of heart to repent and turn to God before the judgement comes upon them.
This apparent delay is giving for your direct benefit, Therefore when you mock about the Lord's delay, it will result in the doubling of the anger and wrath of God which he will eventually pour out upon you. Therefore I call upon all men to repent, soften their hearts and turn to the Lord with a contrite heart.

Anger is an emotion caused by a surprise over a negative outcome of events. God, being omniscient, cannot be "angered" by what I do because he saw it before he created any one of us. He saw all those who would be damned (by him), yet he did (or does, in the present) nothing to prevent that. Which speaks volumes about him, not me.

(16-09-2013 03:00 AM)excubitor Wrote:  This is all explained in the following scripture

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting [1] unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Ah, the 2nd epistle of "Peter." The one with Noah's flood (which didn't happen) and the "righteous" Lot (the one who wanted to give his daughters over to be raped). I discussed those verses with PleaseJesus a few days ago. We don't know who wrote them, or when, but this was probably after the supposed Second Coming failed to happen, so it comes up with "thousand years as one day," etc. That's cool, but doesn't affect the fact that Jesus said he'd return within the lifetimes of his followers. He didn't return.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's it from me, for now. You'll notice I didn't comment on the topic of "apostolic authority." I'll return to it later hopefully.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Philosoraptor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: