NationStates Jolt Archive

Limbo is NOT taught as Catholic doctrine. While the belief has been traditionally held, it's never been officially backed, and the Vatican is currently in the process of reviewing the theology that may or may not support the idea in order to make an official statement at a later date. See link below:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

Also, "condemned" is the wrong word to use. Traditionally, Limbo has been viewed as a state of happiness, but a limited happiness due to the lack of Beaitific Vision. Read on:

http://httpyavww.knight.org/cathen/09256a.htm

from your first link.
Limbo has never been defined as church dogma and is not mentioned in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states simply that unbaptized infants are entrusted to God's mercy.

But limbo has long been regarded as the common teaching of the church

I did say Limbo WAS NOT taught to me. and others did say the teaching of Limb was halted by the Catholic Church.

and yes, 'Condemned' is the wrong word.

What you're doing is cherrypicking verses and ignoring the Church Fathers, the early Apostolic community, and 2000 years of tradition as expressed by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and mainstream Protestants (500 yrs for them).

How about you believe what you believe, and stop trying to convince everyone else? I'd be happy with that.

Why can I not express what I believe, when most modern Christians try to convince everyone else of what they believe even though they do not even follow what they believe? Most Christians do not want to look at Matthew 25:34-46 or teach their children against fornication yet they can point at everyone else. All of the good people be they Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and others who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ more than they do and embody the spirit of the teachings more and they are going to hell or are not worthy of recognition.

I am listening to what Jesus Christ said, the ONLY true speaker from God. No one else was from God and is just man.

See the trap is some feel that works alone will get them by. Supposedly it won't, why, I don't know. I didn't make the rules.

Even a mustard seed worth of faith is enough so I am told.

So:
1. Admit that you are sinner
2. Accept Jesus as your savior
3. Follow the commandments
4. Do good works as often as you can
5. When you make a mistake ask for forgiveness
repeat as often as necessary

It really is like a flowchart.

Why can I not express what I believe, when most modern Christians try to convince everyone else of what they believe even though they do not even follow what they believe?

I am listening to what Jesus Christ said, the ONLY true speaker from God. No one else was from God and is just man.

http://powertochange.com/whois/claims/

What you're doing is cherrypicking verses and ignoring the Church Fathers, the early Apostolic community, and 2000 years of tradition as expressed by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and mainstream Protestants (500 yrs for them).

How about you believe what you believe, and stop trying to convince everyone else? I'd be happy with that.

"...verses..." = scripture.

"...Church Fathers, the early Apostolic community, and 2000 years of tradition as expressed by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and mainstream Protestants..." = not scripture.

One of these things is not like the other.

My question is why the focus on a few verses by Christians and not on verses like Matthew 25:34-46 or anything else? Is it because it presents the "Easy Way" to Salvation.

My problem with salvationist Christians and Paulians is that it is like Christianity is "a get out of jail free card".

Even if they d not say it their practice is "I am saved, and everyone else is lost. I have nothing to do, I am perfectly fine, because I am saved. Screw everyone else, screw the world."

Why can I not express what I believe, when most modern Christians try to convince everyone else of what they believe even though they do not even follow what they believe? Most Christians do not want to look at Matthew 25:34-46 or teach their children against fornication yet they can point at everyone else. All of the good people be they Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and others who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ more than they do and embody the spirit of the teachings more and they are going to hell or are not worthy of recognition.

I am listening to what Jesus Christ said, the ONLY true speaker from God. No one else was from God and is just man.

Paul, I think was a good man and taught very well. He sold the idea to the Gentiles. He had to make a few modifications but in the end it was worth it. I hope. Paul kind of brought the message home. See the thing about Christianity is it is very liberating to a former Jew. There are very few rules, almost no restrictions on what you can wear, what you can eat, what day to worship on and so. The whole point is this is to save people however we might do that. We need to make as easy as possible to conform to the Law in this case I mean the Bible.

If Jesus does this for you then rock on is all I got to say continue in your faith and allow it to grow and tell people what you believe and why you have peace. Whatever get you through. There hopefully is no wrong way to worship God, I hope, this me not the Bible speaking on this last part.

from your first link.

"Limbo has never been defined as church dogma and is not mentioned in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states simply that unbaptized infants are entrusted to God's mercy.

But limbo has long been regarded as the common teaching of the church"



NEVER been defined as dogma.. Exactly....Which was my point. Dogma is what counts, not simple "common teaching". There are people "commonly" revered as saints in some countries but have never been canonized. You have to go by what has been officially taught as dogma, not what was held as what amounts to folk teaching.

As to what other people posted, if they cleared it up earlier, great. I don;t have the time to read 200 odd posts, though :wink:

http://powertochange.com/whois/claims/

I have to get around to reading that I have heard a lot of good things about Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I have read the Screwtape Letters, go figure.

"...verses..." = scripture.

"...Church Fathers, the early Apostolic community, and 2000 years of tradition as expressed by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and mainstream Protestants..." = not scripture.

One of these things is not like the other.

Scripture needs context. Remember, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." 2 Pet 1:20

And us Catholics, along with the Orthodox, we have Sacred Tradition. We don't preach the merits of sola scriptura. Scripture needs the context of tradition (so we believe)

2 Thess. 2:15- "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
Now, who holds to this verse, Protestants or Catholics?

I have to get around to reading that I have heard a lot of good things about Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I have read the Screwtape Letters, go figure.

I love CS Lewis, but the problem with Mere Christianity is that he tales the common denominator approach, trying to boil all denominations down to a few basics. But as this thread proves, most denominations can't even agree on the basics. :(

Scripture needs context. Remember, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." 2 Pet 1:20

And us Catholics, along with the Orthodox, we have Sacred Tradition. We don't preach the merits of sola scriptura. Scripture needs the context of tradition (so we believe)

Well Martin Luther, John Calvin, and many other protestant theologians called the Papacy Antichrist. Many protestant Christians feel this way or feel that Catholics are lost and do not have the right way.

How do you feel about this? My simple point is that it is people embodying the love and message of Jesus Christ that are true Christians, it is people listening to Matthew 25:34-46 and Jesus himself.

When a verse is inconvenient or inapplicable for most Christians to follow it needs to be "placed in the context of its time" or some other vague context. When it is applied to nonbelievers, other believers, sinners of other religions or homosexuals and others that verse applies to the others and at best the others are lost, or at worst are burning in an eternal hell that a man named Dante wrote about.

Are you forgetting the verses in which Jesus condemns judgement? Or is it merely inconvenient enough for you to want to apply?

I see modern Christians attempting to discern the meaning of a lot of Jesus' moral lessons. Some things may certainly well not apply to modern society, such as Paul's admonition that women shouldn't speak in Church, or that only pagans wear polyblend clothes. Loving one's neighbor certainly is still relevant, as is faith in Jesus. Material wealth is not a necessary condemner. Jesus was being illustrative.

I've also heard (from someone on NS) that the "eye of the needle" to which Jesus referred was actually a small gate in the wall of Jerusalem, through which it would very difficulty to fit a camel (which are pretty large animals).

Well Martin Luther, John Calvin, and many other protestant theologians called the Papacy Antichrist. Many protestant Christians feel this way or feel that Catholics are lost and do not have the right way.

How do you feel about this? My simple point is that it is people embodying the love and message of Jesus Christ that are true Christians, it is people listening to Matthew 25:34-46 and Jesus himself.

Martin Luther was also a Catholic priest with a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary who intended to reform the RCC, not start a new church, and he feared what individual interpretation would lead to.

Jesus did not teach salvation. He made a mystical statement in two places.

Again, if his entire Ministry, message, and purpose was to teach people that he was God in human form, believe in him or go to hell, then why was his entire life not expressing that alone?

What does it appear the spirit of his message is? Unconditional Love. Love thy God, and love thy neighbor. This is the sum of the whole Law. Care for the poor, and the downtrodden. He went to the outcasts and cared for them.

I consider, and believe in the total Ministry and message of Jesus Christ in totality. I do not get out of that totality a message of simple salvation.

I think it is sad his entire message is degraded to the point of a simple "Believe in his name, believe he is the Way, and go to Heaven." Christians feel like they can ignore the world, the plight of the poor and outcast, and that everyone else is lost and has no valid connection to God no matter how good they are.

Jesus did not teach salvation. He made a mystical statement in two places.

Again, if his entire Ministry, message, and purpose was to teach people that he was God in human form, believe in him or go to hell, then why was his entire life not expressing that alone?

What does it appear the spirit of his message is? Unconditional Love. Love thy God, and love thy neighbor. This is the sum of the whole Law. Care for the poor, and the downtrodden. He went to the outcasts and cared for them.

I consider, and believe in the total Ministry and message of Jesus Christ in totality. I do not get out of that totality a message of simple salvation.

I think it is sad his entire message is degraded to the point of a simple "Believe in his name, believe he is the Way, and go to Heaven." Christians feel like they can ignore the world, the plight of the poor and outcast, and that everyone else is lost and has no valid connection to God no matter how good they are.

I think you're summary of His teaching is right. Which is why it makes sense when other Christians say "Believe in his name, believe he is the Way, and go to Heaven." If you believe in what He said, you CANNOT ignore the plight of world, etc. If a person really believes, then their life changes accordingly, their hearts are renewed and they seek closeness to the Lord. Wrap it in eternity, and you get heaven.

I'm not sure you have any real beef with the people you're picking a fight with ;)

I think the real issue here, and maybe this s what you're trying to say, is that a lot of people claim to believe, but their lives prove otherwise.

Christians feel like they can ignore the world, the plight of the poor and outcast, and that everyone else is lost and has no valid connection to God no matter how good they are.

Source?

Not only do I not believe this... but I openly refute it. People who gneuinely have faith, and believe in Jesus as the savior, in my experience, rarely ignor the plight of everyone else, and the other poppycock you mention.

I like how you judge others based on your own sense of self-righteousness, and think that it is in the nature of Christianity.

Do I think that the term "christian" has become very diluted in today's society? Yep. Do I think that many people misinterpret parts of the Bible? Sure. Do I think that real, faith-bearing Christians do what they can in accordance with their faith? Yep. Do I judge people based on what they call themselves (Christian or not)? Nope.

I think you're summary of His teaching is right. Which is why it makes sense when other Christians say "Believe in his name, believe he is the Way, and go to Heaven." If you believe in what He said, you CANNOT ignore the plight of world, etc. If a person really believes, then their life changes accordingly, their hearts are renewed and they seek closeness to the Lord. Wrap it in eternity, and you get heaven.

I have heard somewhere, perhaps the study notes in my Bible, that "believing on His name" meant not only the simple belief in Christ as saviour, but the adherence to His message as well.

Source?

Not only do I not believe this... but I openly refute it. People who gneuinely have faith, and believe in Jesus as the savior, in my experience, rarely ignor the plight of everyone else, and the other poppycock you mention.

I like how you judge others based on your own sense of self-righteousness, and think that it is in the nature of Christianity.

Do I think that the term "christian" has become very diluted in today's society? Yep. Do I think that many people misinterpret parts of the Bible? Sure. Do I think that real, faith-bearing Christians do what they can in accordance with their faith? Yep. Do I judge people based on what they call themselves (Christian or not)? Nope.

I said they believe they "Can", and they do believe they can. It was openly expressed earlier in this thread from one person that said very clearly all Christians have to do is believe, and they go to heaven. Even if they sin or whatever they do, as long as they are saved, that is all they have to do and everything else does not help either way. From what I see that is the meaning of Christianity to MOST Christians today just from looking around.

Aerion, in the end, it's grace that moves people to believe, that is, TRULY believe. Whether you're confronting an atheist or a hypocritical Christian, either way, there's nothing you can do to change them. That's God's work. You just have to live your own life as He asked you to.

I have heard somewhere, perhaps the study notes in my Bible, that "believing on His name" meant not only the simple belief in Christ as saviour, but the adherence to His message as well.

Of course. If you TRULY believe in Christ, you'll adhere to His message. If someone doesn't adhere, then I don;t think they really believe yet. They might THINK they do, but they don't.

Source?

Not only do I not believe this... but I openly refute it. People who gneuinely have faith, and believe in Jesus as the savior, in my experience, rarely ignor the plight of everyone else, and the other poppycock you mention.


Do I think that the term "christian" has become very diluted in today's society? Yep. Do I think that many people misinterpret parts of the Bible? Sure. Do I think that real, faith-bearing Christians do what they can in accordance with their faith? Yep. Do I judge people based on what they call themselves (Christian or not)? Nope.

Exactly!! :)

Let me say it again.. Exactly!! :)

From what I see that is the meaning of Christianity to MOST Christians today just from looking around.

Whats your source on this? You say most, which implies research done.

Just from looking around? How in depth at believers and churches have you looked? Faith in Christ is the core of Christian belief, and is often most firmly displayed, while it might take more than a surface glance to see more than that.

Of course. If you TRULY believe in Christ, you'll adhere to His message. If someone doesn't adhere, then I don;t think they really believe yet. They might THINK they do, but they don't.

I agree, mostly. Of course one can believe without action... but they aren't really demonstrating the real faith that Christ taught.

Exactly!! :)

Let me say it again.. Exactly!! :)

Wait... I missed it, come again?

:tongue:

Whats your source on this? You say most, which implies research done.

Just from looking around? How in depth at believers and churches have you looked? Faith in Christ is the core of Christian belief, and is often most firmly displayed, while it might take more than a surface glance to see more than that.

You're on a roll, Der (Can I call you Der?). Teutoniker sounds German. Germans like beer. That's it! We need to take Aerion out for a beer. It'll make the Irish in me happy. I think Aerion is a decent guy, just a little too zealous.

I agree, mostly. Of course one can believe without action... but they aren't really demonstrating the real faith that Christ taught.

In that case (what you just described), whatchya got is a spiritually immature believer. We've all been there (I know I have. And I still have a looong way to go).

Spiritual direction is so essential, and yet so lacking in today's society. But Oprah's makin' sure your 10 year old knows what sex is. I cringe sometimes at pop culture's priorities.

I personally believe in more spirituality. I believe that Buddha, Muhammad, and others were prophets of God as well.

I see the spirit of Love and kindness in people who have a good vibe, and treat others well is the true mark of what Jesus taught.

Mystics of all religions have experiences with Our God, and I believe that God is not confined to Christianity or Christians.

Hmm... you have a place that is invitation only. and the only way to get that invitation is to claim it.

so for not allowing those into such a place who didn't claim that invitiation, is evil?

Requiring that somebody believe something just because it's in a book, a book that is demonstrably wrong on a number of other issues, in order to claim that invitation, and then telling them that it's too late to accept once they actually have access to the information (that is, once they're dead), yes. Especially when the only alternative is eternal torment.
Further, there is no need to make it invite-only. He could easily let every person into Heaven. (If he must punish people for evil in life, the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime, or else he is not just.)


instead of doing all the rituals that was once needed to get that invite, God now made it simple, and because you refuse to even attempt that simple thing, you call Him evil?

But for most people not raised a Christian, there is no reason to believe that you need to accept that invite. There's no reason to believe that the Christian God exists. Even for a number of people raised as Christians, there is no reason to believe.

But that aside, tormenting somebody for eternity? Yes, that is evil, no matter how easy an out you gave them beforehand and no matter what they did. The punishment does not fit the "crime."


this talks about salvation for the house/family.
however, the passage you quoted talks about personal salvation.

Then Mark 16:16 should read "he who believeth not shall be damned, unless he hath a family member who believeth on his behalf" or some such thing. As it reads now, it is, strictly speaking, a contradiction.


and that is your choice. you choose to refuse to hear the word, or to accept the God of Abraham as your savoir, then that is your choice. but you did have the opportunity to hear and choose.


But it's a "choice" (and I use the word loosely, because I cannot consciously decide to believe something) that is made without access to important information. God withholds information vital to that choice by not giving us evidence of his existence. That's simply not fair. If God exists and he does indeed torture people, he ought at least give them undeniable evidence for how to avoid that torture. Though, really, he shouldn't torture at all, because torture is inherently evil.

You're on a roll, Der (Can I call you Der?). Teutoniker sounds German. Germans like beer. That's it! We need to take Aerion out for a beer. It'll make the Irish in me happy. I think Aerion is a decent guy, just a little too zealous.

German it is indeed, named chiefly for the Teutobergerwald, and the battle it hosted. Call me as you will... most people abbreviate it as DT, but Der is fine with me.

The beer also sounds good. ;)

I personally believe in more spirituality. I believe that Buddha, Muhammad, and others were prophets of God as well.


Buddhism teaches re-incarnation until one can break the cycle by reaching enlightenment. Then nirvana is attained and personal annihilation is achieved. That's a bit different from Christianity which says God is a personal God, loves us, suffered for us while walking the earth, and someday you will experience one and only one death to go with the one life you got.

As for Muhammad, he belived Jesus was a prophet, an ordinary man. Christians believe Jesus is God, second person of the Holy Trinity.

The religions aren't compatible theologically. It's impossible to subscribe to one and also the other.

Further, there is no need to make it invite-only. He could easily let every person into Heaven.


But we have free will. God respects our free will. That's why no one is "forced" to accept the invite.

German it is indeed, named chiefly for the Teutobergerwald, and the battle it hosted. Call me as you will... most people abbreviate it as DT, but Der is fine with me.

The beer also sounds good. ;)

Could beer ever sound bad? Now that's a question for the philosophers.

I have a little German ancestry and a little Irish. That amounts to a great natural tolerance level with alcohol.

I feel blessed. :)

But my grandmother was English, so I also feel uncomfortable around friendly people and children.

Requiring that somebody believe something just because it's in a book, a book that is demonstrably wrong on a number of other issues, in order to claim that invitation, and then telling them that it's too late to accept once they actually have access to the information (that is, once they're dead), yes. Especially when the only alternative is eternal torment. like say... believing in a book of laws that gets constantly changed and updated?
Further, there is no need to make it invite-only. He could easily let every person into Heaven. (If he must punish people for evil in life, the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime, or else he is not just.)yes, he could and did. had we not created the gulf called sin. again, you call him evil for setting the rules down and abiding by them. Nah, you want Him to change the rules to fit YOUR vision. You want to play God.

But for most people not raised a Christian, there is no reason to believe that you need to accept that invite. There's no reason to believe that the Christian God exists. Even for a number of people raised as Christians, there is no reason to believe. and fine. if they chose not to have a reason to believe, then that is their choice. again they will refuse to take the invitation.

But that aside, tormenting somebody for eternity? Yes, that is evil, no matter how easy an out you gave them beforehand and no matter what they did. The punishment does not fit the "crime." according to YOUR views. we have how many years to get it right, yet instead of trying to get it right, you would rather change the critieria to fit YOUR life so that YOU don't have to do anything.

Then Mark 16:16 should read "he who believeth not shall be damned, unless he hath a family member who believeth on his behalf" or some such thing. As it reads now, it is, strictly speaking, a contradiction. again, only in your viewpoint. one is talking about personal salvation, the other is not.

But it's a "choice" (and I use the word loosely, because I cannot consciously decide to believe something) that is made without access to important information. God withholds information vital to that choice by not giving us evidence of his existence. That's simply not fair. If God exists and he does indeed torture people, he ought at least give them undeniable evidence for how to avoid that torture. Though, really, he shouldn't torture at all, because torture is inherently evil.
So again, you wish to dictate to GOD how He should do things to make it easier for YOU.

But we have free will. God respects our free will. That's why no one is "forced" to accept the invite.

Right, and giving us full access to all relevant information before forcing us to make our choice would be a violation of our free will.

That's why if you have sex with somebody who has given you informed consent, it's rape: because the fact that they are informed makes it rape.

But really, nobody chooses to go to Hell. They find themselves being judged, and by then, it's too late. I bet if God asked them "okay, do you want to join me in heaven?" they'd accept. But no, he won't allow them, because they didn't know that they were invited, so instead, he sends them to be subjected to unimaginable tortures for all eternity.

according to YOUR views. we have how many years to get it right, yet instead of trying to get it right, you would rather change the critieria to fit YOUR life so that YOU don't have to do anything.



You hit the nail on the head with that one :salute:

But really, nobody chooses to go to Hell.
If you're in Hell, it IS because you chose it. At least that's what my Church (Catholic) teaches in the Cathechism. St. Catherine of Genoa said some interesting things about that, as did John Paull II.

"We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

CCC, 1033

I don't think any human should judge another. Your post is a good example of what I am talking about. I suppose I should say read the Bible and see what you think.

You are right. Another human shouldn't judge a peer. We're not entitled to do such a thing. But the Bible is not the best of examples because we can see, time and time again, humans judging ''by divine decree'' other humans.

All the you in the next paragraph are plural.
I assume you have thought about marriage and for some reason it is either not right for you or not right for you at this moment in life. Maybe you are waiting for one or the the both of you to finish school, Maybe you are not sure if he is the right one. Maybe you do not trust the institution of marriage. Maybe you have not go around to yet. Maybe one or both of you feel you are too young. Those are just off the top of my head.

Marriage scares me silly. It just, the thought of it, paralyzes me. It's not that I haven't thought about it, I just know it's not for me. I didn't come to this planet to be a wife, I didn't come to this planet to be a mother. If God has a plan for me, if He indeed does, to be wife and mother isn't on the score.

We haven't discussed this because, well, we're ok with what we share. The only things demanded are respect, mutual respect and obedience. I am happy with that.

We all endeavor to lead a good life somewhere along the line life gets in the way. I understand that because I am right here with you. I think and I hope God understands that as well.

If there's a God, I would hope He understand this.

If there's a God, I would hope He understand this.

If there is a God, it's unlikely it is constricted by the tiny restrictions mortal men have constructed around it.

like say... believing in a book of laws that gets constantly changed and updated?

If you're talking about the Bible, it's not continually changed and updated.
If you're talking about laws of human governments, well, for one, laws don't (or shouldn't) make claims about what is true, but rather, how you act. And you have very good evidence that those laws will be enforced; you can see the legal system operating in our society. You can see courthouses, and prisons, and the prisoners in them. With God, you have no way of knowing what the law is until it is too late.


yes, he could and did. had we not created the gulf called sin. again, you call him evil for setting the rules down and abiding by them. Nah, you want Him to change the rules to fit YOUR vision. You want to play God.

Don't be ridiculous. I don't want to be God. However, the rules he sets are arbitrary and not based on anything but a whim. Rules should be set down for good reasons: For example, you don't kill somebody because that does harm to them, which you have no right to do. But things like homosexuality, consensual premarital sex, or whatever... those don't harm anybody (unless they're into that sort of thing :wink:).


and fine. if they chose not to have a reason to believe, then that is their choice. again they will refuse to take the invitation.

But it's not fair to expect people to make a "choice" (and again, I must object to your implication that beliefs are a conscious choice. I k now I'm not capable of "choosing" my beliefs.) without access to the relevant information.


according to YOUR views. we have how many years to get it right, yet instead of trying to get it right, you would rather change the critieria to fit YOUR life so that YOU don't have to do anything.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not trying to get the rules changed for my benefit; I don't have any self interest in the matter because I don't think that God actually exists. However, a perfect God would create perfect laws and would be 100% just. And a part of justice is that punishments should be proportionate to the crime.


again, only in your viewpoint. one is talking about personal salvation, the other is not.

You can't just dismiss something as "only in your viewpoint" without providing evidence that said viewpoint is wrong.


So again, you wish to dictate to GOD how He should do things to make it easier for YOU.

Again, don't be ridiculous. It has nothing to do with making it easier for me, and I am starting to get seriously offended by your implication that I am being intellectually dishonest here. I'm saying that God, if he exists, should be just, and then explaining what my views are on justice, which happen to be derived from a lot of thinking about it, not just "what's best for me."

If there is a God, it's unlikely it is constricted by the tiny restrictions mortal men have constructed around it.

And yet that's the only way we can understand Him. Our understanding is flawed and limited.

In my view contemporary Christian views just do not make sense, or fit in Jesus Christ's general message which was Love alone.

To be a Christian not only are you condemning more than half of humanity (God's creation) to hell which does not believe Jesus Christ is the only way, your discounting their prayers, the mystic experiences, and other things.

Contemporary Christians are basically saying:
1. Everyone who does not believe Jesus is the only way is going to an eternal damnation. This includes victims of genocide, and others. (Some Christians I know believe the Jews in the Holocaust went to Hell because they did not accept Jesus)
2. None of these people can know the Creator, or have a true relationship with the Creator outside of Christianity. Any 14 year old or any greedy person or anyone who accepts Jesus as their savior is closer to God.
3. The many spiritual people in other religions and all of their experiences are false, furthermore, they are not any closer to God or doing God's will than any unspiritual uncaring person who has accepted Jesus.
4. Mostly everyone's prayers are in vain.


Some greedy materialistic CEO or businessperson who only cares about making money for his family and himself but has "salvation" knows better and is closer to God or spirituality than an very spiritual compassionate good Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Sikh, etc. etc.

I fundamentally disagree. I believe God is Love, and Love is God. Thus is the beauty of the teachings of Jesus the Christ, and many others. Those loving spiritual compassionate people of any religion are in fact closer to God.

If you're in Hell, it IS because you chose it. At least that's what my Church (Catholic) teaches in the Cathechism. St. Catherine of Genoa said some interesting things about that, as did John Paull II.

"We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

CCC, 1033

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Yes, your church SAYS that people choose to go to Hell, but the "argument" argues from the assumption that everybody actually believes in God and some just choose to reject him. And, quite frankly, that is a grave insult to my (and every other non-Christian's) intellectual honesty.

But things like homosexuality, consensual premarital sex, or whatever... those don't harm anybody (unless they're into that sort of thing :wink:).



But most churches would argue that. Pre-marital sex can lead to the spreading of disease, illegitimate children with absentee fathers, emotional trauma. These things harm the individual, and they harm society.

Keep sex within the bounds of a loving, faithful marriage, you avoid all that.

And yet that's the only way we can understand Him. Our understanding is flawed and limited.

But he is not. No?

If there is an infinite and majestic god, benevolent and omnipotent, 'he' isn't judging people on who they kiss, or where they pray, or what they believe.

Mortal men make god a petty toy. A way to threaten one another to 'do as I do'. I don't accept a majestic and infinite universe, and attribute it to such a paltry muñeca marionette.

But most churches would argue that. Pre-marital sex can lead to the spreading of disease, illegitimate children with absentee fathers, emotional trauma. These things harm the individual, and they harm society.

But it can also lead to fulfilling and loving relations. And surely this doesn't go against Christ's teachings. Surely this won't harm the individual or society.

But he is not. No?

If there is an infinite and majestic god, benevolent and omnipotent, 'he' isn't judging people on who they kiss, or where they pray, or what they believe.

Mortal men make god a petty toy. A way to threaten one another to 'do as I do'. I don't accept a majestic and infinite universe, and attribute it to such a paltry muñeca marionette.

AMEN to that!

But most churches would argue that. Pre-marital sex can lead to the spreading of disease, illegitimate children with absentee fathers, emotional trauma. These things harm the individual, and they harm society.

Keep sex within the bounds of a loving, faithful marriage, you avoid all that.

Because wars only happen when people are unmarried?

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Yes, your church SAYS that people choose to go to Hell, but the "argument" argues from the assumption that everybody actually believes in God and some just choose to reject him. And, quite frankly, that is a grave insult to my (and every other non-Christian's) intellectual honesty.

The argument isn't based on authority. Just read the text. The argument is based on the fact that you can't be with someone you harshly reject. A person's freely chosen rejection of God is a self-imposed separation from God.

But most churches would argue that. Pre-marital sex can lead to the spreading of disease, illegitimate children with absentee fathers, emotional trauma. These things harm the individual, and they harm society.

Keep sex within the bounds of a loving, faithful marriage, you avoid all that.

First, maybe if those churches would allow people to use protection those factors would be greatly reduced.
Second, your argument does not apply to homosexuality.
Third, what happened to 'free will?' Educate people about STDs and the possibility of pregnancy, and let them make their own free choice about when to have sex... but then, I guess, the fact that they have access to information would actually be a restriction of their free will, right? Or does that only apply to God?

Because wars only happen when people are unmarried?

wars?? who was talking about war? Kids, deadbeat dads, disease.. where did war come in??

but he is not. No?

If there is an infinite and majestic god, benevolent and omnipotent, 'he' isn't judging people on who they kiss, or where they pray, or what they believe.

Mortal men make god a petty toy. A way to threaten one another to 'do as i do'. I don't accept a majestic and infinite universe, and attribute it to such a paltry muñeca marionette.

amen

First, maybe if those churches would allow people to use protection those factors would be greatly reduced.
Second, your argument does not apply to homosexuality.
Third, what happened to 'free will?' Educate people about STDs and the possibility of pregnancy, and let them make their own free choice about when to have sex... but then, I guess, the fact that they have access to information would actually be a restriction of their free will, right? Or does that only apply to God?

Looks like you forgot what your original argument was. You said the the rules were randomly made up. I said no, there's a logic behind them and it's ABC. You don;t agree with the premises, that's you're thing, fine.

But he is not. No?

If there is an infinite and majestic god, benevolent and omnipotent, 'he' isn't judging people on who they kiss, or where they pray, or what they believe.

Mortal men make god a petty toy. A way to threaten one another to 'do as I do'. I don't accept a majestic and infinite universe, and attribute it to such a paltry muñeca marionette.

Ah, but No true scotsman, that's what we are. Marionettes playing a farce of life. We let ourselves be manipulated by society, not even God, because if there is a God He cares not one wit about who we go to bed with at night, who we fuck to an inch of their lives, who we adore. I am that, a ''muñeca'', ready to break free. And if this entails hell, well, may this God forgive me. And I will continue to sin, it's what makes me happy.

wars?? who was talking about war? Kids, deadbeat dads, disease.. where did war come in??

Let me refresh your memory, it being several minutes since you posted.

"Pre-marital sex can lead to the spreading of disease, illegitimate children with absentee fathers, emotional trauma. These things harm the individual, and they harm society"

So - disease, illegitimate children, absentee fathers, emotional trauma, harm to individuals and to society.

"Keep sex within the bounds of a loving, faithful marriage, you avoid all that."

So - you believe that those things can be attributed to sex outside of marriage... and that you can remove all those things by only having MARITAL sex.

Which is clearly nonsense - since almost all of those things (if not all) can be products of war. Or crime. Or poverty. etc.

Second, your argument does not apply to homosexuality.


2357 "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. "

The argument isn't based on authority. Just read the text. The argument is based on the fact that you can't be with someone you harshly reject. A person's freely chosen rejection of God is a self-imposed separation from God.

But the argument implies that not believing is a "harsh rejection" which implies that everybody secretly believes in God, but just chooses to reject him, which is not the case at all. I don't "harshly reject God" if he exists, I am just ignorant. The facts do not, to me, seem to indicate that God exists, so I do not believe. And this isn't a "free choice." Even if I wanted to, I simply could not choose to believe in God. Believe me, when my faith first started slipping, I wanted to believe in a God, but I could not. And again, I am insulted by the implication of intellectual dishonesty that is inherent in the argument.

And again, to make ignorance, especially perfectly understandable ignorance, given the lack of evidence, punishable by eternal torment is grossly unjust.

Ah, but No true scotsman, that's what we are. Marionettes playing a farce of life. We let ourselves be manipulated by society, not even God, because if there is a God He cares not one wit about who we go to bed with at night, who we fuck to an inch of their lives, who we adore. I am that, a ''muñeca'', ready to break free. And if this entails hell, well, may this God forgive me. And I will continue to sin, it's what makes me happy.

As you should. And if there is that god, he'll judge you for your loves and joys, not for the hates and fears of others.

We are the marionettes, perhaps - which makes me wonder why people appeal to a higher power, and then make it over in their own flawed little image.

So - you believe that those things can be attributed to sex outside of marriage... and that you can remove all those things by only having MARITAL sex.



Yes. Only have sex in marriage, you'll never father an illegitimate kid. Only have sex in marriage (both parties) you'll never contract an STD. Keep it an act of love, you'll never suiffer emotional abuse by it.

Ta-da!

But the argument implies that not believing is a "harsh rejection"

Right. I can't have a relationship with you if I refuse to acknowledge your existence, can I?

As you should. And if there is that god, he'll judge you for your loves and joys, not for the hates and fears of others.

True, that.

We are the marionettes, perhaps - which makes me wonder why people appeal to a higher power, and then make it over in their own flawed little image.

Because it's easier to ascribe, to blame what we turn out to be on a higher power. Because we know we're truly alone, perhaps. Because we are born incomplete and must always search. Because we're in an eternal rapture of sorts, always more outside of nature than inside of it. Who knows...

Looks like you forgot what your original argument was. You said the the rules were randomly made up. I said no, there's a logic behind them and it's ABC. You don;t agree with the premises, that's you're thing, fine.
Yeah, they're arbitrary, because the supposed logic behind them does not follow. That's the entire fucking reason I presented a counterargument.


2357 "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

I take no issue with this. (Well, the last sentence seems to be there so as to imply it might be a choice, which it isn't.)


Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. "

Now that's ridiculous. You don't think that homosexual couples genuinely love one another? Do you know any gay couples? And how are they "contrary to natural law?" Homosexuality is perfectly natural. It appears in a number of species in nature.

Look, someone else nailed it earlier: You choose to live your life a certain a way. Christianity claims that way is wrong, so you say Christianity is wrong.

Now that's fine. This is a free country. But let's not pretend you have a great philosophical objection to the faith.

Yes. Only have sex in marriage, you'll never father an illegitimate kid. Only have sex in marriage (both parties) you'll never contract an STD. Keep it an act of love, you'll never suiffer emotional abuse by it.

Ta-da!

Sex can be a meaningful and loving contact. It's one of the few things we can do that can heal 'emotional abuse'. You can argue that sex can cause emotional abuse - but so can a million other things - and most of them can't heal a broken soul.

You say that only having sex in marriage stops you getting STD's - which simply shows you don't know nearly what you think you do. There are hundreds of vectors of disease, and even 'sexual' diseases don't have to be transmitted through intercourse. A kiss. A contaminated needle. Dirty blood. Born that way.

The only one you might have a point on - is the 'illegitimate' child. I suggest you return to your scripture, because Catholicism is based on the idea that you can transcend that beginning.

If you're talking about the Bible, it's not continually changed and updated.
If you're talking about laws of human governments, well, for one, laws don't (or shouldn't) make claims about what is true, but rather, how you act. And you have very good evidence that those laws will be enforced; you can see the legal system operating in our society. You can see courthouses, and prisons, and the prisoners in them. With God, you have no way of knowing what the law is until it is too late.

... hmm... as if there should be some way to know what God would want us to do, how to live. perhaps a book, or series of books written by those who were given divine insight... and a place where items in that collection of books could be discussed with others. perhaps with those who STUDIED that collection... if only such a place exsisted where one can go to... hmmm.... :rolleyes:

Don't be ridiculous. I don't want to be God. However, the rules he sets are arbitrary and not based on anything but a whim. a whim by whose point of view?

Rules should be set down for good reasons: For example, you don't kill somebody because that does harm to them, which you have no right to do. But things like homosexuality, consensual premarital sex, or whatever... those don't harm anybody (unless they're into that sort of thing :wink:). rules like...
Thou Shalt not kill?
Thou Shall have No other God Before me?
Thou Shall NOT steal?

those kinds of rules?

But it's not fair to expect people to make a "choice" (and again, I must object to your implication that beliefs are a conscious choice. I k now I'm not capable of "choosing" my beliefs.) without access to the relevant information. wrong. you are choosing to wait till you get what you determine to be Relevant Information.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not trying to get the rules changed for my benefit; I don't have any self interest in the matter because I don't think that God actually exists. However, a perfect God would create perfect laws and would be 100% just. And a part of justice is that punishments should be proportionate to the crime.they why argue since you believe (with what relevant information btw) that God and by relationship, Heaven and Hell obviously doesn't exist? what care do you have if some being that you CHOOSE to believe doesn't exist (again, by what relevant information are you basing this non-existance on) decides that you are not worthy of entering His exclusive clubhouse?

You can't just dismiss something as "only in your viewpoint" without providing evidence that said viewpoint is wrong. now whose being ridiculous. you have your viewpoint, I have mine. YOU are claiming your viewpoint is Right and all others on the matter is wrong. I never said your viewpoint was right nor wrong. only that it was YOURS.

Again, don't be ridiculous. It has nothing to do with making it easier for me, and I am starting to get seriously offended by your implication that I am being intellectually dishonest here. I'm saying that God, if he exists, should be just, and then explaining what my views are on justice, which happen to be derived from a lot of thinking about it, not just "what's best for me."
it is about making it easier for you. you stated that you are waiting for relevant information before choosing to believe. thus you want that information in a form that you can accept and to be delivered to you on a silver platter.

you want this concept of heaven but instead of finding out and attempting to fit the criterion, you want to be allowed in with minimal effort on your part. again, it's you trying to make everything fit your viewpoint and desires and not you trying to change yourself to fit what you want.

you hold one key in a ring full of keys, but instead of looking for the right key for the lock, you stand there demanding that the lock change itself to fit the key you are holding.

Now that's ridiculous. You don't think that homosexual couples genuinely love one another? Do you know any gay couples? And how are they "contrary to natural law?" Homosexuality is perfectly natural. It appears in a number of species in nature.


Where did it mention love???

you hold one key in a ring full of keys, but instead of looking for the right key for the lock, you stand there demanding that the lock change itself to fit the key you are holding.

I like the way you put that :)

Yes. Only have sex in marriage, you'll never father an illegitimate kid. Only have sex in marriage (both parties) you'll never contract an STD. Keep it an act of love, you'll never suiffer emotional abuse by it.

Ta-da!
You do know that some STDs can spread through methods other than sex, right?
As for "illegitimate" children, that implies that children "should" be born through marriage, but really, that's not necessarily true either. I've known several couples happily raising their kids without being married.


Right. I can't have a relationship with you if I refuse to acknowledge your existence, can I?

Can't choose to reject you if I don't realize you exist, either. :wink:

Now that's ridiculous. You don't think that homosexual couples genuinely love one another? Do you know any gay couples? And how are they "contrary to natural law?" Homosexuality is perfectly natural. It appears in a number of species in nature.

Are you seriously implying that gay people are incapable of loving? What, does their sexual orientation makes them less human all of a sudden? Bullshit.

As you should. And if there is that god, he'll judge you for your loves and joys, not for the hates and fears of others.

We are the marionettes, perhaps - which makes me wonder why people appeal to a higher power, and then make it over in their own flawed little image.

Amen again.

Because it's easier to ascribe, to blame what we turn out to be on a higher power. Because we know we're truly alone, perhaps. Because we are born incomplete and must always search. Because we're in an eternal rapture of sorts, always more outside of nature than inside of it. Who knows...

I always liked the idea that god and heaven are true - but they already happened - and this is what flawed humans made of perfection...

But, that's an aside - I think you're touching on truth. Not necessarily that we're alone - but that we FEAR it to be true. Because we don't know where we 'fit'. Because we can do horrible things to one another if we make it someone else's fault - someone beyond reproach.

But mostly? I think people make petty versions of god, because they are petty people. No one else can talk to the god you commune with, and that's true for all of us - so no one can ever check the truth or the lie.

Look at how a person portrays god, and see how a person really feels about themselves.

Ah, but No true scotsman, that's what we are. Marionettes playing a farce of life. We let ourselves be manipulated by society, not even God, because if there is a God He cares not one wit about who we go to bed with at night, who we fuck to an inch of their lives, who we adore. I am that, a ''muñeca'', ready to break free. And if this entails hell, well, may this God forgive me. And I will continue to sin, it's what makes me happy.

that may be true. yet how do you know the life this 'puppetmaster' wants you to have will make the happiness you feel now be like a puddle to a vast ocean?

you may think you know what you want from life. but how do you know that the life 'this puppet master' wants you to have would be better or worse than the life you have now?

You do know that some STDs can spread through methods other than sex, right?

STD means SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE, they are, necessarily, spread by SEX.

We are the marionettes, perhaps - which makes me wonder why people appeal to a higher power, and then make it over in their own flawed little image.

because we have a need to define what we cannot define. to shape what is shapeless and to catagorize that which cannot be catagorized.

Look, someone else nailed it earlier: You choose to live your life a certain a way. Christianity claims that way is wrong, so you say Christianity is wrong.

Now that's fine. This is a free country. But let's not pretend you have a great philosophical objection to the faith.

A splinter in your eye? You choose to live your life in a certain way, and this particular brand of religion fits you, so you claim it is right.

See how universal that argument is?

A splinter in your eye? You choose to live your life in a certain way, and this particular brand of religion fits you, so you claim it is right.

See how universal that argument is?

Right. I choose one way, you choose another. What's the problem? Why can't I live my life as I see fit? Why do you have an issue with that?

I think you're being very intolerant, quite frankly. It hurts.

STD means SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE, they are, necessarily, spread by SEX.

Oh dear.

Start here: http://std.about.com/od/syphilis/f/congsyph.htm

Also do you know what you are saying. You are saying OUR loving compassionate God condemns compassionate spiritual people of other religions to an ETERNAL BURNING HELL for not believing in Jesus but any person who sins all their life and does whatever they want to can believe in Jesus and go straight to Heaven.

I don't believe in your limited hateful god, I believe in the Creator GOD which I pray to daily and that is LOVE as Jesus said.

Look, I gotta go. I have to pee and then Dancing with the Stars is on, and dammit, I have my priorities!

Good talkin' to ya.

I always liked the idea that god and heaven are true - but they already happened - and this is what flawed humans made of perfection...

Yes, shinjitsu... Illusion, as the Japanese call it. It pales in comparison to what the real thing must be...

But, that's an aside - I think you're touching on truth. Not necessarily that we're alone - but that we FEAR it to be true. Because we don't know where we 'fit'. Because we can do horrible things to one another if we make it someone else's fault - someone beyond reproach.

That too is my fear. That we are, perhaps, truly alone and that there's no more meaning to life than the one we ascribe to it. And if there's no meaning to life, if there's no meaning to better ourselves, then the wrongness of the world is all we have left.

It would feel like a cruel joke was played on me. I think I... I care too much.

But mostly? I think people make petty versions of god, because they are petty people. No one else can talk to the god you commune with, and that's true for all of us - so no one can ever check the truth or the lie.

Look at how a person portrays god, and see how a person really feels about themselves.

Agreed.

I believe that religion was invented to keep the poor in place while the rich ruled the world.

Religion is the best form of control ever invented, it stops the poor killing the rich.

Don't forget how much money Religion makes too. It's good business. Your going to hell SINNER!. Give me £2.99 and you can repent, also purchase my new book, Sin-be-gone for just £6.99 now!

Hehehe...

A quote to finish off.

"It has served us well this myth of christ" - Pope Leo X

because we have a need to define what we cannot define. to shape what is shapeless and to catagorize that which cannot be catagorized.

I understand why people 'create' their images of god. I just don't know why they create such piddling images.

It's like reading a book, where the cover-art doesn't match the story. You hear them talking about 'god' as they see it, and you have to wonder if they ever read about it before they 'did the art'.

Oh dear.

Start here: http://std.about.com/od/syphilis/f/congsyph.htm

Yes, some diseases, like syphilis go BEYOND the category. But we were talking about reasons for keeping sex in a marriage, not reasons for keeping your needles clean. Don't be like that. You're better than that.

Look, I gotta go. I have to pee and then Dancing with the Stars is on, and dammit, I have my priorities!

Good talkin' to ya.

Yea and you can watch Dancing with the Stars in comfort knowing you will go to Heaven while the poor starving person or oppressed people in other nations, the Buddhist monks, the Sufi mystics, those who dedicated their life to spirituality are going to burn in an eternal hell or at the very least do not even have any spiritual wisdom or right connection to God.

What a belief...

that may be true. yet how do you know the life this 'puppetmaster' wants you to have will make the happiness you feel now be like a puddle to a vast ocean?

you may think you know what you want from life. but how do you know that the life 'this puppet master' wants you to have would be better or worse than the life you have now?

JuNii, the truth is... I don't want to think about wether this Puppet master has a plan for me or not.

I understand why people 'create' their images of god. I just don't know why they create such piddling images.

It's like reading a book, where the cover-art doesn't match the story. You hear them talking about 'god' as they see it, and you have to wonder if they ever read about it before they 'did the art'.

I think it goes back to a point I made a long time ago. one gets out of the Bible what one wants to get out of the Bible.

they want a reason to hate Homosexuals? they'll find it.
They want a reason to accept Homosexuality? they'll find it.

They want a reason to ban abortion? they'll find it
they want a reason to accept homosexuality? they'll find it.

meanwhile, in all that information. God is what God alway stated He was. He is, what he is.

is he cruel? yes.
is he loving? yes.
is he strict? yes.
is he generous? yes.

for all that God is, the one thing that he doesn't what us to be is Judgemental of each other. that's his job. we can either help each other, or stand aside. yet each choice we make, each action or inaction we take will be judged upon. if a particular action makes us feel bad or guilty? maybe that's his way of saying we made the wrong choice. do we need to 'rationalize' our choice? if so, why?

all this is for us to experience and puzzle through. but God is what he's always said he was.

Look, someone else nailed it earlier: You choose to live your life a certain a way. Christianity claims that way is wrong, so you say Christianity is wrong.

Now that's fine. This is a free country. But let's not pretend you have a great philosophical objection to the faith.

You know what? If you're not going to believe that I'm discussing this in good faith, if you're going to say that I don't actually think Christianity is true but am just pretending so I can do what I want, then I see no reason to continue discussing with you. This will be my last post in the thread. I've assumed good faith on your part, but you refuse to grant me the same courtesy.


... hmm... as if there should be some way to know what God would want us to do, how to live. perhaps a book, or series of books written by those who were given divine insight... and a place where items in that collection of books could be discussed with others. perhaps with those who STUDIED that collection... if only such a place exsisted where one can go to... hmmm.... :rolleyes:

Yeah, but you're starting from the assumption that there is good reason to believe the Bible is God's word. But that requires already believing in the Christian God. So you're saying that he has a good place to learn about his existence and demands... for people who already believe!


a whim by whose point of view?

By no "point of view;" by the fact that many of the rules have no rational basis.


rules like...
Thou Shalt not kill?
Thou Shall have No other God Before me?
Thou Shall NOT steal?

those kinds of rules?

No, rules like the examples I specifically gave that you ignored just so you could assume I'm being an idiot.


wrong. you are choosing to wait till you get what you determine to be Relevant Information.

No, I am not. Every moment, I am take information into account and come with the best conclusions I can from it. I don't "choose" to believe or not believe any specific thing, I just do or do not based on the evidence.


they why argue since you believe (with what relevant information btw) that God and by relationship, Heaven and Hell obviously doesn't exist? what care do you have if some being that you CHOOSE to believe doesn't exist (again, by what relevant information are you basing this non-existance on) decides that you are not worthy of entering His exclusive clubhouse?

Because I find it interesting to discuss hypothetical situations. It can be intellectually stimulating.


now whose being ridiculous. you have your viewpoint, I have mine. YOU are claiming your viewpoint is Right and all others on the matter is wrong. I never said your viewpoint was right nor wrong. only that it was YOURS.

You ARE saying it's wrong, and I didn't deny that I have my viewpoint; I merely claimed that you can't just dismiss my opinion by virtue of it being an opinion. If you want to refute it, you have to attack the arguments.


it is about making it easier for you. you stated that you are waiting for relevant information before choosing to believe. thus you want that information in a form that you can accept and to be delivered to you on a silver platter.

you want this concept of heaven but instead of finding out and attempting to fit the criterion, you want to be allowed in with minimal effort on your part. again, it's you trying to make everything fit your viewpoint and desires and not you trying to change yourself to fit what you want.

See what I said to Acrostica above. If you're going to insult me and accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, then I see no reason to discuss this with you further. I have tried to assume good faith on your part; if you refuse to extend me the same courtesy, why should I even bother?


you hold one key in a ring full of keys, but instead of looking for the right key for the lock, you stand there demanding that the lock change itself to fit the key you are holding.
Again with the insults about my intellectual honesty. I am trying my best to find the truth, I just have come to a different conclusion than you have. The fact that you think I ought to be tortured for it says a lot about you.

Where did it mention love???
It said that they can't actually have "a genuine affective and sexual complementarity." I know several gay couples that have genuine affection for each other and (from what I hear) perfectly complement each other sexually.


Are you seriously implying that gay people are incapable of loving? What, does their sexual orientation makes them less human all of a sudden? Bullshit.
Um, did you even read my post? I'm objecting to that implication! Now I feel insulted at your implication that I am a bigot.

But, as I said, with all the implied accusations of intellectual dishonesty when I have tried to assume good faith, I feel no reason to continue the discussion. Reply to my post if you will, but don't think I'm ignoring you specifically if I do not reply.

Yes, shinjitsu... Illusion, as the Japanese call it. It pales in comparison to what the real thing must be...


Gensou, no? This would be gensou, a pale comparison to shinjitsu.

No?


That too is my fear. That we are, perhaps, truly alone and that there's no more meaning to life than the one we ascribe to it. And if there's no meaning to life, if there's no meaning to better ourselves, then the wrongness of the world is all we have left.

It would feel like a cruel joke was played on me. I think I... I care too much.


Which is why there are hundreds of paths to enlightenment. There are as many quests for that 'meaning', as there are seekers.

But, a meaning for life doesn't have to come from a book, or be corroborated by societies of self-appointed 'experts'.

Um, did you even read my post? I'm objecting to that implication! Now I feel insulted at your implication that I am a bigot.

I read the post and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Yes, some diseases, like syphilis go BEYOND the category. But we were talking about reasons for keeping sex in a marriage, not reasons for keeping your needles clean. Don't be like that. You're better than that.

You do know that's not the only congenital 'sexually transmitted disease', yes?

That diseases are described as 'sexually transmitted' becasue it is A COMMON vector, rather than the only one?

I read the post and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I'm going to break my "I'm not posting further in the thread" rule for one post, to accept the apology, and, much more importantly, to apologize in turn for what I now feel to be an overreaction. I was already feeling a bit annoyed about the implications about my intellectual honesty, and took it out on one who did not deserve it.

I think it goes back to a point I made a long time ago. one gets out of the Bible what one wants to get out of the Bible.

they want a reason to hate Homosexuals? they'll find it.
They want a reason to accept Homosexuality? they'll find it.

They want a reason to ban abortion? they'll find it
they want a reason to accept homosexuality? they'll find it.

meanwhile, in all that information. God is what God alway stated He was. He is, what he is.

is he cruel? yes.
is he loving? yes.
is he strict? yes.
is he generous? yes.

for all that God is, the one thing that he doesn't what us to be is Judgemental of each other. that's his job. we can either help each other, or stand aside. yet each choice we make, each action or inaction we take will be judged upon. if a particular action makes us feel bad or guilty? maybe that's his way of saying we made the wrong choice. do we need to 'rationalize' our choice? if so, why?

all this is for us to experience and puzzle through. but God is what he's always said he was.

Well, you assume that - if there is a 'god' it must be somehow connected to one holy book. That seems like a hell of an assumption to me (pun intended). So - you believe you know how your god describes himself - despite the generations of mortal men between that message and the reader.

I lack faith in such an explicit manifestation. If there's a god, it's unlikely he's WELL represented in ANY text. Much less, speaking to us verbatim.

Gensou, no? This would be gensou, a pale comparison to shinjitsu.

No?

Gensou and shinjitsu both mean the same, basically. Gensou can be understood as ''fantasy'' more than illusion. I used shinjitsu because that's what we have created of Heaven, an illusion. But perhaps to you is more gensou than anything. The Gate's of Saint Peter are, after all, a fantasy.

Which is why there are hundreds of paths to enlightenment. There are as many quests for that 'meaning', as there are seekers.

But, a meaning for life doesn't have to come from a book, or be corroborated by societies of self-appointed 'experts'.

Meaning is given by the very soul of the individual.

I'm going to break my "I'm not posting further in the thread" rule for one post, to accept the apology, and, much more importantly, to apologize in turn for what I now feel to be an overreaction. I was already feeling a bit annoyed about the implications about my intellectual honesty, and took it out on one who did not deserve it.

We all err, PC. We all do. I'm glad you accepted the apology.

Yeah, but you're starting from the assumption that there is good reason to believe the Bible is God's word. But that requires already believing in the Christian God. So you're saying that he has a good place to learn about his existence and demands... for people who already believe! ah, so non-believers are turned away from those places... gotcha! ;)

By no "point of view;" by the fact that many of the rules have no rational basis. by whos rationality?

No, rules like the examples I specifically gave that you ignored just so you could assume I'm being an idiot. I've never assumed you were an idiot. let me set this Straight. not once.

No, I am not. Every moment, I am take information into account and come with the best conclusions I can from it. I don't "choose" to believe or not believe any specific thing, I just do or do not based on the evidence. yet there is NO evidence that supports the 'god exists' and the 'god doesn't exist'. you have a thousand + year old accounts from many eye witnesses that has been translated through various languages and you find 'flaws' in them. and that is 'evidence' enough for you. Gotcha. ;)

Because I find it interesting to discuss hypothetical situations. It can be intellectually stimulating. yet you are not arguing hypotheticals, you are trying to arguing facts.

You ARE saying it's wrong, and I didn't deny that I have my viewpoint; I merely claimed that you can't just dismiss my opinion by virtue of it being an opinion. If you want to refute it, you have to attack the arguments. please show me where I said your viewpoint is wrong and that I 'dismissed it'.


See what I said to Acrostica above. If you're going to insult me and accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, then I see no reason to discuss this with you further. I have tried to assume good faith on your part; if you refuse to extend me the same courtesy, why should I even bother? I am not trying to insult anyone. if I did, it was not intentional and I do apologize for that. yet you have repeatedly stated that 'god ought to...'

He set the rules and he's abiding by them. yet that's not enough for you. so he changes the rules and makes it easier. again it's not enough for you. and you think I'm accusing you of being intellectually dishonest? no, I've stated that you are telling god to change it so that you can get into heaven without doing anything different. you have yet to disprove that.


Again with the insults about my intellectual honesty. I am trying my best to find the truth, I just have come to a different conclusion than you have. The fact that you think I ought to be tortured for it says a lot about you. you cannot find the truth here on the forums. the best place to find such truths is to visit and talk to those who studied his word. the fact that Christianity has many denominations already tells you there are many variations of interpretations. If you are honestly trying to find 'the truth'. then let me tell you Honestly, the Internet Forums is not the best, nor is it even a good, place to start.

Meaning is given by the very soul of the individual.

Which, curiously, seems to agree with the 'spirit' of the OP of the thread, as well as Paul's letters to the Corinthians, the book of Acts and First John.

'Meaning' can be discerned. The 'soul' is a lens.

'Meaning' can be discerned. The 'soul' is a lens.

And through it, through the soul as a lens we will see through a glass darkly...

I must remember who said this in the first place.

Well, you assume that - if there is a 'god' it must be somehow connected to one holy book. That seems like a hell of an assumption to me (pun intended). So - you believe you know how your god describes himself - despite the generations of mortal men between that message and the reader.

I lack faith in such an explicit manifestation. If there's a god, it's unlikely he's WELL represented in ANY text. Much less, speaking to us verbatim.

well, we are discussing the Bible. ;)

no I don't believe that God is connected to ONE holy book. but A holy book is a good place to start in trying to find God.

and I never stated that Reading a holy book alone gets the job done. I've always said 'Prayer' is needed in conjunction.

the best place to find such truths is to visit and talk to those who studied his word.


This...


the fact that Christianity has many denominations already tells you there are many variations of interpretations.


...contradicts this.


If you are honestly trying to find 'the truth'. then let me tell you Honestly, the Internet Forums is not the best, nor is it even a good, place to start.

It's as good as any.

Some how we got to head of the class. You know the front runner. Everybody takes a shot at us.
Converting a Roman Emperor will have that effect. Maybe you should have stuck to carpenters and fishermen.

And through it, through the soul as a lens we will see through a glass darkly...

I must remember who said this in the first place.

First Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see througha glass, darkly".

First Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see througha glass, darkly".

Yes, Scripture. Thanks for refreshing my memory.

So, when something doesn't agree with your view of things you choose to ignore it or say it doesn't say what it says?
I don't think that's what he did at all. I think he was saying that some people interpret that verse literally, whereas it should be treated as a metaphor for a spiritual condition.

I also have often complained of excessive literalness from people pushing their religious texts on the general public.

well, we are discussing the Bible. ;)


We are discussing the Bible as a repository of truth - and the debate has been about what the nature of that truth is, to be found.

The common wisdom is that you compare your truth to the rest of the Word to evaluate it, and find out if you are reading a real truth - but it's not the only Way.

You could compare your truth to the rest of the World to evaluate it - the message could be true, but the carrier could be false.


no I don't believe that God is connected to ONE holy book. but A holy book is a good place to start in trying to find God.


You could argue, so is a vagina.

Yes, Scripture. Thanks for refreshing my memory.

De nada.

You could argue, so is a vagina.

And I know a few men who would agree with this. Sex can bring one close to the ecstasy one fancy deities cause. Sex is all we possess that brings us closer to divinity.

god says love your enemies so why would he send you to hell

Buddhism teaches re-incarnation until one can break the cycle by reaching enlightenment. Then nirvana is attained and personal annihilation is achieved. That's a bit different from Christianity which says God is a personal God, loves us, suffered for us while walking the earth, and someday you will experience one and only one death to go with the one life you got.

As for Muhammad, he belived Jesus was a prophet, an ordinary man. Christians believe Jesus is God, second person of the Holy Trinity.

The religions aren't compatible theologically. It's impossible to subscribe to one and also the other.
Some people see such differences as superficial compared to a more profound religious experience of divinity. Those people might say that you are elevating form above function.

And I know a few men who would agree with this. Sex can bring one close to the ecstasy one fancy deities cause. Sex is all we possess that brings us closer to divinity.

A wise philosopher once wrote: "I want to feel you from the inside... you get me closer to God".

If God is love, then the act of love is her blessing.

A wise philosopher once wrote: "I want to feel you from the inside... you get me closer to God".

If God is love, then the act of love is her blessing.

Trent Reznor, he did write something so true. And once again, we agree on the last count.

But he is not. No?

If there is an infinite and majestic god, benevolent and omnipotent, 'he' isn't judging people on who they kiss, or where they pray, or what they believe.

Mortal men make god a petty toy. A way to threaten one another to 'do as I do'. I don't accept a majestic and infinite universe, and attribute it to such a paltry muñeca marionette.
Now THIS I can wholeheartedly agree with you about.

Trent Reznor, he did write something so true. And once again, we agree on the last count.

He also said:

"He flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line
He made a virus that would kill off all the swine
His perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain
Demands devotion atrocities done in his name"

...and, he's probably right. If your god teaches hate, even while he preaches love? There's something wrong with the message.

Look, I gotta go. I have to pee and then Dancing with the Stars is on, and dammit, I have my priorities!

Good talkin' to ya.
Your so-called priorities are clearly screwed up. If you really understood what was important, you'd hold your piss till after Dancing With the Stars.

Yea and you can watch Dancing with the Stars in comfort knowing you will go to Heaven while the poor starving person or oppressed people in other nations, the Buddhist monks, the Sufi mystics, those who dedicated their life to spirituality are going to burn in an eternal hell or at the very least do not even have any spiritual wisdom or right connection to God.

Ok, I'm sorry, but I lol'd at this.

Your so-called priorities are clearly screwed up. If you really understood what was important, you'd hold your piss till after Dancing With the Stars.


Must be an empty coke bottle around, somewhere...

This...



...contradicts this.
how so? there are so many interpretations of God's word, how does one find 'the truth' if one limits themself to one interpretation?

It's as good as any. no it's not. God and Religon is not basied on science. I've never claimed otherwise. so any 'evidence' would be personal experience and we all know how much weight that would hold on an internet debate.

We are discussing the Bible as a repository of truth - and the debate has been about what the nature of that truth is, to be found. I have never claimed the Bible to be the sole repository of truth and I too have put forth that Islam and Christianity (and Judism) all worship the same God. that would make their respective Holy Book as valid as the other.

The common wisdom is that you compare your truth to the rest of the Word to evaluate it, and find out if you are reading a real truth - but it's not the only Way.

You could compare your truth to the rest of the World to evaluate it - the message could be true, but the carrier could be false.Correct. but with the bible undergoing so many versions and translations, finding the message becomes harder. thus my statement that people will find what they want to find in the bible. that does not mean that what they find is the true message. ;)


You could argue, so is a vagina. yes you could. :tongue:

...and, he's probably right. If your god teaches hate, even while he preaches love? There's something wrong with the message.

But isn't exactly this what we have made god to be?

I sometimes think the Neo-Platonists were right. The God we claim to worship is nothing else but a Demiurge.

how so? there are so many interpretations of God's word, how does one find 'the truth' if one limits themself to one interpretation?


You say the best place to find truth is to talk to those who studied his word... and then you admit that there is massive disagreement over the interpretation -AMONG those same people.

In effect, you are saying that the best way to find truth is to ask people who don't know, and can't agree. Maybe it's the word 'best' that makes that seem like it doesn't add up.


no it's not. God and Religon is not basied on science. I've never claimed otherwise. so any 'evidence' would be personal experience and we all know how much weight that would hold on an internet debate.


Ah, 'truth' perhaps might not make a great debate (as ironic as it seems) but that doesn't mean you couldn't find it on a forum.


I have never claimed the Bible to be the sole repository of truth and I too have put forth that Islam and Christianity (and Judism) all worship the same God. that would make their respective Holy Book as valid as the other.


Fro the point of view of Christians, maybe - to Jews you're godless idolators.


Correct. but with the bible undergoing so many versions and translations, finding the message becomes harder. thus my statement that people will find what they want to find in the bible. that does not mean that what they find is the true message. ;)


It seems like it would be so obvious. The central figure of Christianity is argued to be a man who embodies god (literally). Thus, the 'message' if there is one, would seem to be located in the words attributed to that person.

It sounds so simple. It's hard to imagine how there COULD be confusion over 'the true message'.

But isn't exactly this what we have made god to be?

I sometimes think the Neo-Platonists were right. The God we claim to worship is nothing else but a Demiurge.

I sometimes think maybe the Cathars were right. If there is a god, he's a spiritual manifestation uninvolved and unimpressed, by the mortal and mundane travails of the flesh, and caring only about spiritual truth, and about love.

You say the best place to find truth is to talk to those who studied his word... and then you admit that there is massive disagreement over the interpretation -AMONG those same people.

In effect, you are saying that the best way to find truth is to ask people who don't know, and can't agree. Maybe it's the word 'best' that makes that seem like it doesn't add up. sorry, but that's not what I said. I said Christianity has many denominations and each has their take on the bible. some think Cathoism = Chrisitanity. which is wrong. same with Baptist. because one who is looking for the truth, one should not just pick one and say "this is a sample of all." And you know people will do that. last thing I want is the Westborogh Baptist Acadamy to be speaking for me.

Ah, 'truth' perhaps might not make a great debate (as ironic as it seems) but that doesn't mean you couldn't find it on a forum. not when one is discussing religion. Religion is an emotional baised belief. not like science where things can be tested and proven.


For the point of view of Christians, maybe - to Jews you're godless idolators. and both are targest to Islam... but though out all the fighting... the one thing people forget is to whom we pray to.

It seems like it would be so obvious. The central figure of Christianity is argued to be a man who embodies god (literally). Thus, the 'message' if there is one, would seem to be located in the words attributed to that person.

It sounds so simple. It's hard to imagine how there COULD be confusion over 'the true message'."I said TO-MAY-TO! Not TO-MAH-TO!"

"You not circumcised! Heretic!"
"You are NOT bowing to MECCA! HERETIC!"
"You are Praying to a city! HERETIC"

I can actually see how the true message can be lost. :(

I sometimes think maybe the Cathars were right. If there is a god, he's a spiritual manifestation uninvolved and unimpressed, by the mortal and mundane travails of the flesh, and caring only about spiritual truth, and about love.

Perhaps, and that was why they were so thoroughly eliminated by the Church. Surely saint Peter was right in everything, and they wouldn't suffer these ''blasphemers'' to live, even when what they preached was right, was true, was in accordance to the very teachings of Jesus. And they did this to the Abyssinians too, and before the Langue d'Oc was something, they did it to the Gnostics.

What hasn't the Church done to suppress ''spiritual truth and love'' throughout the ages?

sorry, but that's not what I said. I said Christianity has many denominations and each has their take on the bible.

So why would any of these people be the 'best' people to talk to?

They all spend their lives becoming expert on the message as they see it, but they can't then agree what it is.

Experts who have been studying the matter for centuries, but STILL don't actually have ANY kind of consensus? Doesn't sound like the 'best' people to ask, at all - probably the worst.


not when one is discussing religion. Religion is an emotional baised belief. not like science where things can be tested and proven.


And why couldn't that be found in a forum?


and both are targest to Islam... but though out all the fighting... the one thing people forget is to whom we pray to.


Yes. Two of them pray to one god, and one of them prays to three.


"I said TO-MAY-TO! Not TO-MAH-TO!"

"You not circumcised! Heretic!"
"You are NOT bowing to MECCA! HERETIC!"
"You are Praying to a city! HERETIC"

I can actually see how the true message can be lost. :(

There's your problem - you're looking for a message that has to be found in a book.

Perhaps, and that was why they were so thoroughly eliminated by the Church. Surely saint Peter was right in everything, and they wouldn't suffer these ''blasphemers'' to live, even when what they preached was right, was true, was in accordance to the very teachings of Jesus. And they did this to the Abyssinians too, and before the Langue d'Oc was something, they did it to the Gnostics.

What hasn't the Church done to suppress ''spiritual truth and love'' throughout the ages?

Good point. That is because that organized religion was about control. The Vatican is just creepy to me. All the pomp, ceremony, and extreme control of the past.

Good point. That is because that organized religion was about control. The Vatican is just creepy to me. All the pomp, ceremony, and extreme control of the past.

The Vatican has all the pomp of Rome and all the intrigue of it too. Besides that, as you already stated, it's all about control. And human emotions are, well, uncontrollable.

I sometimes think maybe the Cathars were right. If there is a god, he's a spiritual manifestation uninvolved and unimpressed, by the mortal and mundane travails of the flesh, and caring only about spiritual truth, and about love.

*nods*

not when one is discussing religion. Religion is an emotional baised belief.

Yeah sure to some, not to all though.

So please Be Real. I really would like to know how many Christians are living this pure of life. If you are though I really commend you for being spiritually pure and close to God (of course if you are haughty or arrogant about it that is probably not the spiritual attitude either)

Which is why I will be heading off to purgatory.

Easter is a fertility holiday stolen from pagans, thus the egg & rabbit symbolism, & that is also why it is in the spring time & where its name comes from.

NOt to mention the Jews stole Passover from the pagans, after all Easter is meant to follow the same time period as the Jewish Passover. Granted the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic has different ways of calculating it and do come up with different dates but it is meant to be based on thew Jewish Passover. I think what you may mean is that some of the elements (egg and rabbit) that comprise parts of Easter today has been borrowed from pagan rituals in order to help with the conversion of local populations.

Yeah, as a Catholic, with your accounts, I'm probably going to hell. I just like reminding every else they're coming down with me. :p

jk.