NationStates Jolt Archive

Get your facts straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Unicity_and_Salvific_Universality_of_the_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Motu_proprio_on_Tridentine_Mass
Pope Benedict XVI is not tying to make Latin the official language of the Catholic Church, nor is he trying to say anything about exclusive salvation. However many protestant churches believe in exclusive salvation. Calvinism to name one.

I've never known a mainline Calvinistic Church to believe in "exclusive salvation"... Some backwoods ones, yes... Depending on what is meant by "exclusive"... In the general context, I'd think of its normal use as is Jehovah's Witness and SDA uses toward salvation exclusive within a particular church/denomination.... Which in such case it is a definitive no that Calvinists believe salvation is limited to a particular "church" organizational structure... The entire "Visible" vs. "Invisible" Church is heavy in Calvinist Theology.... Which runs counter to the idea of "Exclusive Salvation" within a particular church/denomination, since its entire premise is that the saved (elect) are located in various churches all over the world...

My first question simply is, if you're God is infinitely compassionate then why can't he have compassion on someone who simply cannot bring themselves to honestly believe?

Free will. Actions and choices need to have consequences, otherwise they are meaningless.
I actually agree with that part of the Christian doctrine.

...anymore than we should trust our neighbors :)

you havent been "constructing" your neighbors again have you straughn?

The bible was written by numerous different people and when translated into German and later English (word for word without changing the latin word order) lots of things became changed, as religious texts go the bible's pretty rubbish at least the Koran has pretty poetry. Anyway, to my point, being written by so many people who believe so many different things about their supposed same god the bible has become a mash of contradictions, the Roman Empire tried in vain to remove these contradictions so as to make their new system of control more unifying, it wasn't always possible though so the inquisition just stopped people asking about the contradictions instead, now in the later stages of Enlightenment i.e. Modernity we have started asking again and saying things like "hey that doesn't make sense: there God is a sadistic murderer with Affectionless Psychopathy and here he's all rainbows and butterflys that doesn't make sense", and voilà the downfall of religion.

The bible was written by numerous different people and when translated into German and later English (word for word without changing the latin word order) lots of things became changed, as religious texts go the bible's pretty rubbish at least the Koran has pretty poetry. Anyway, to my point, being written by so many people who believe so many different things about their supposed same god the bible has become a mash of contradictions, the Roman Empire tried in vain to remove these contradictions so as to make their new system of control more unifying, it wasn't always possible though so the inquisition just stopped people asking about the contradictions instead, now in the later stages of Enlightenment i.e. Modernity we have started asking again and saying things like "hey that doesn't make sense: there God is a sadistic murderer with Affectionless Psychopathy and here he's all rainbows and butterflys that doesn't make sense", and voilà the downfall of religion.are you smoking something?

btw, please learn to distinguish there from their from they're.

Free will. Actions and choices need to have consequences, otherwise they are meaningless.
I actually agree with that part of the Christian doctrine.

In that case he is indeed a malevolent entity for sending to hell only those rational and logical thinking people who refuse to submit to such a load Bronze-age Judean mythical tripe.

are you smoking something?

btw, please learn to distinguish there from their from they're.

Yeah. Because that's SO important....

Yeah. Because that's SO important....

Don't worry, I've usually found that as a good indicator that you won the argument.

you havent been "constructing" your neighbors again have you straughn?I must be getting old & inferior ... i really haven't contributed enough effort to it of late.
*shrug*

Yeah. Because that's SO important....
And that from someone who constantly annoys us with alleged subtleties of the Hebrew language... :rolleyes:

And that from someone who constantly annoys us with alleged subtleties of the Hebrew language... :rolleyes:

You're grasping at straws.

You're grasping at straws.Why would I? I don't give a shit for GnI's opinions. Or yours.

Don't worry, I've usually found that as a good indicator that you won the argument.That's what you wrote. Completely unrelated.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews/beingjohnmalkovich.jpg
...
http://www.tollbooth.org/movies/malkovich.jpg

I was thinking the exact same thing during most of this debate.

And that from someone who constantly annoys us with alleged subtleties of the Hebrew language... :rolleyes:

Not so much about the subtleties, although that IS an important factor. It's more the glaring ignorance of the Hebrew language that I usually complain about - things like claiming animals don't have souls, based on the Bible - but ignoring the fact that the Hebrew text quite clearly attributes 'nephesh' to all (breathing) animals, not just humans - and yet it is completely ignored in translations into English.

On the other hand - if you really think arguing about the spelling of the word 'their' is on a level with debating whether or not translations are accurate, then I am wasting any time talking to you - you lack the capacity to debate this issue with me in any constructive measure.

Why would I? I don't give a shit for GnI's opinions. Or yours.


Hence the constant failure to provide evidence, or actually debate things in the context of the discussion. This much was obvious.

It shouldn't be about whether or not you respect anyone else's opinion - it should be about having enough self-respect to actually attempt an honest debate.

Not so much about the subtleties, although that IS an important factor. It's more the glaring ignorance of the Hebrew language that I usually complain about - things like claiming animals don't have souls, based on the Bible - but ignoring the fact that the Hebrew text quite clearly attributes 'nephesh' to all (breathing) animals, not just humans - and yet it is completely ignored in translations into English.See, that's your problem. If you want to determine whether an animal has something like a soul, then you get together with an animal and not with some weird Hebrew text. If you want to verify of falsify claims of the Bible you don't stay withing the limits of its text. And the question whether according to the bible animals have souls is irrelevant, as the bible is no blueprint for reality.

On the other hand - if you really think arguing about the spelling of the word 'their' is on a level with debating whether or not translations are accurate, then I am wasting any time talking to you - you lack the capacity to debate this issue with me in any constructive measure.Well, if someone in 3000 years finds a text where the author confused such simple words as there and their, folks like you would be the first to draw interpretations and conclusions and assume specialties in the language...
I have never understood how someone could possibly mix up such words, after all we don't use words based on how they sound but based on what they mean. Or at least some of us do. Mixing up such words is a clear sign for a deep lack of understanding of language and lets me assume that this may not be the only lack in that person's mind.

See, that's your problem.


The problem is not mine, my friend - I have no problem with this.

If you want to determine whether an animal has something like a soul, then you get together with an animal and not with some weird Hebrew text.


I don't want to determine whether an animal has a 'soul'. The term is somewhat nonsensical to me (and, apparently, to the writers of the most basic Hebrew scripture, also) - and is based on a flawed understanding of the scriptural history we have inherited.

If you want to verify of falsify claims of the Bible you don't stay withing the limits of its text.


You do if topic of discussion is whether or not the translations are accurate. You really seem to be having a problem with the concept of discussion in context.

And the question whether according to the bible animals have souls is irrelevant, as the bible is no blueprint for reality.


Again, you totally miss the point.


Well, if someone in 3000 years finds a text where the author confused such simple words as there and their, folks like you would be the first to draw interpretations and conclusions and assume specialties in the language...


'Folks like me' would, hopefully, be aware that 'correct spelling' in English has historically been insignificant, irrelevent... and optional. Our language is technical - our letters have no 'meaning' beyond sound - and our spellings are thus no more ultimately important than their phonetic representation (and, maybe some cultural and historical value).

The fact that you fail to see the difference between a technical language (like English), and an integrated language (like Hebrew), speaks volumes as to why these discussions are constantly so far beyond you.


I have never understood how someone could possibly mix up such words, after all we don't use words based on how they sound but based on what they mean. Or at least some of us do. Mixing up such words is a clear sign for a deep lack of understanding of language and lets me assume that this may not be the only lack in that person's mind.

You could be more wrong. If you tried. Maybe.

I was thinking the exact same thing during most of this debate.

I would've attributed the audio part, but it didn't seem so much necessary as "grotesque". :p