«12. . .144145146147148149150. . .516517»
I will do this by paragraph.
1) If you have determine that I am unqualified, then there is nothing I can do to change your mind. But while qualifications are good, it is what I am saying that is important. If I sad I was studying to become a Baptist minister, then I am unqualified because I am not a catholic. Regardless, a claim was made that the bible does not condone slavery, and I have shown that it in fact does with a Catholic bible. By all means, say that these rules do not apply because it is from the Old Testament, just remember the 10 commandments are in the Old Testament. If I offend you, that was not my intent, bit if I offended your ideas, then I don't care. Some ideas are ridiculous and ideas are not people. How have you determined what that the church is not biased?
2) You sad that God does not deceive and is clear in scripture. Well, God says, according to scripture, that you can own slaves and that homosexuals deserve hell. These exist, in one way or another, in both Testaments of the bible. So I am asking, if God is clear and the bible clearly says slavery is OK, can I own slaves? Or is this part outdated?
3) That was my entire point, that they misuse the verse to say non-believers are fools. So we agree on something. Great!
4) Fair enough, could I ask you what your opinion is on the question? If the church degrees that killing abortion doctors is moral, would you agree with them?
5) No, actually I have read books about it. Though let me say what just happened. I said I researched it, and you decided to attempt to insult me. I asked you if you could provide evidence and I ask you if you could do that. Do you see the differences in our approaches?
6) Well, my research says that Jesus did not exist, that the absence of evidence is much too loud to be ignored. It also says that the God of the bible is a logical impossibility. It shows that much of what is described as historical happenings, either didn't exist or didn't happen as they are described. My research makes me a stronger atheist, it makes me laugh at the Christian invention that is hell, and it makes me sad that otherwise intelligent people have to accept that most people go to hell unless you ignore much of what the bible says. Though perhaps I am wrong. I can admit that, though I do not think that you can do the same.
So yes, I would love for someone to explain to me why God exists and why their sect is the true sect using logic and reason.
And he said to them: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand: lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
So then unless you understand then you don't understand? Then how can I be guilty of sin if I fail to understand the law due to the will of the lawmaker? Do you honestly want me to believe what I do not understand so that I can understand it? How do you know that you understand the true meaning of this passage? Or, if you claim not to, how do you know the Church does? This seems like a case of something that looks profound, until you stop and think about what it is actually saying.
You asked me why God did not use plain language. I gave you an explanation said by Christ.
I don't know if you are guilty of sin.
I don't believe you do. I'm not trying to control you.
I don't. You may be right about everything. Do you believe you are?
I asked why God didn't use plain language and you gave me a bible verse that says Jesus wasting to not speak clearly. This is like you asking me why the sky could not be green, and me saying, because the sky is blue. There are literally thousands of denominations of Christianity, and this ignores all other religions and cults, each one saying they have the truth and the correct interpretation. I cannot determine you are correct because you say you are correct, or your governing body says that they are correct, because there is a bias. If I ask another Christian, they might say all Catholics go to hell because they are not born again. So if a God really does exist that cares about all humanity, let alone those who believe in him, I would think a bit more clarification is needed.
If you do not understand something, I hope you do not simply believe it. You do not need need to be an expert , but some simple understanding should be obtained. My point was that the passage seems to be saying you can only know the truth when you accept the claim, and once you accept the claim, no more evidence is need, so just believe. Are you OK with this answer? Does this not bother you?
I am sure I am wrong about things, but I am willing to accept I am wrong and change my beliefs accordingly. This is how I know I am not deluded, so if someone proved me me that God exists, I would believe in God, I am not going to deny the evidence. Are you willing to change your beliefs?
Can I ask why the "United Secular States of Knights of Shame" is even a member of our region (Catholic) when the description clearly states that we are a region of Christian nations, and they have informed us that they are atheist?
Because silencing decent is usually not a sign that you are correct. I also have not gone around insulting people personally, but have made arguments and points. You also cannot exist for your entire life in a bubble, one day you will be confronted by someone who differs from you in belief. Take the opportunity when you have hours or even days to think of and research a response to hone your arguments because there are 3 things that can happen, you'll hold onto your current rebuttals, you'll improve your rebuttals, or you'll accept that one or more point is flawed or wrong.
You believe you have the obvious truth, so you have nothing to fear from inquiry, right?
Problem is they normally run on ordinary zinc carbon batteries.
Fine
You give way too much credibility to Protestantism with that. There's only thousands of denominations because of them.
Let's say you have a maths teacher who has explained many things to you and answered all your questions about them. And then you go onto higher level maths and struggle with some of it. Just because you do not understand parts do you stop trusting that the teacher actually knows what he is doing?
Once we don't have to start over again.
I wish to contest this statement.
Let us suppose that a Catholic Cardinal is out on a stroll, oh, let us call him Cardinal Angelo Raffaele Sodano. So Cardinal Sodano is out and witnesses a Muslim Imam forcing his penis into the mouth of a young Muslim boy. What do you think Cardinal Sodano will do? I would hazard a guess that the Cardinal would immediately alert the authorities of the action, and likely give interviews about how evil Islam is.
Now, let us have the exact same situation, but have it be a Catholic Father and an alter boy that Cardinal Sodano witnesses. I no longer believe the Cadinal would alert the authorities, I now believe the Cardinal will try to cover it up and perhaps pay off the family, perhaps even attempt to pressure the pope into brushing off the claims.
If he would do this, then it is a clear indicator of bias of this one Cardinal. So the question now becomes, how many people, or how high do you have to go, in order to say that enough individuals are bias to claim that the entire group is bias?
Like all atheists I run on pure hatred and sandwiches made from babies, the other other white meat.
Fine? So do you accept your answer to my inquiry is not a satisfactory answer?
I have been told that Catholicism is right because the Catholic Church says it is right. So I give them the same credit I give you. I have yet to be informed oh why God exists or why a particular sect is right. You say they interpret the bible wrong, they say you do not take it literal enough or interpret the bible wrong. I read the words, and it does not seem to be inspired or divine to me. Perhaps I actually do not understand, but no one seems to be able to explain to me how to understand so that I may believe the claims, I have to believe the claims so I may understand. But I cannot honestly say I believe something I do not understand.
No, but if the Maths teacher says that they do not know the answer, and the advanced Maths teacher says that I have to accept the advanced Maths are true before I understand it, then I would have to say I do not believe in the advanced Maths claims until I can be made to understand, but the regular Maths teacher was right to say they do not know. Of course, this is an equivocation fallacy since math is a concept we both understand and although technically abstractions, math can be shown in a tangible way to work in the real world. When you say god, I do not know which god or the qualities you give to that God.
Also, if the teacher kept being wrong about what they said about the Maths they taught until forced to accept it, like the Catholic Church has done with many scientific findings, I would be hesitant to believe the current claims of that teacher. But the teacher that tested what they believed, and discarded what was shown to be false and thanked the person who corrected them, that would be the teacher I would respect even if they said thy did not know things they did not know.
Am not sure what you mean here.
Arrgh. It's the same maths teacher.
I accept it's not satisfactory to you.
Failed I have.
Into exile I must go.
Let's call him Cardinal Brady. I have no time for him. He is not the Catholic church. He just resides in it in a position of power. I would not look to him for anything; neither should you.
If the Maths teacher you describe tells me to believe something without evidence or understanding, then it is illogical to believe it. That does not mean everything the person said is wrong, he might very well be able to explain why the sky is blue, but I doubt his knowledge about Maths, particularly, what he says I must accept without question.
Are you OK with Jesus talking in parables not everyone understands and not caring about the fragmentation of the faith he started?
He is not the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church did try to cover the sex scandal. Let me ask you this, if no one spoke out about it, do you think the church would ever have told what was happening?
I by no means am trying to imply that I don't want to be asked about my religion and I am happy to answer questions but, and I'm not trying to be rude it was an honest question, why have you chosen to join a region who obviously has the complete opposite views as you. Again I am purely just wondering why? I could understand just posting on the board while being a member of another region that agrees with or accepts your beliefs, but I just don't think I would be able to join a group who's purpose I don't believe in
Really? The complete opposite views as me? Your catholic, not insane. Let me show you what I mean. As a Catholic, you are likely more liberal than other religions, evolution is something you likely accept, and much of the bible is metaphor or hyperbole. I am an Independent politically, so it is hard to be the opposite of that, and assuming you are the opposite, we are still pretty close on most issues. Now the main thing is likely your belief in a God and my lack of belief in any deities. This could be called the opposite, but the true opposite of believing in no gods is to believe in all of them. Also, besides one deity that you believe in, we are both atheists about the vast majority of deities that people have made up.
To have a discussion. Ideas stagnant and minds go dull if you allow yourself to live in a bubble.l
I give up about the maths teacher thing.
Oh no. THEY started it.
Again you give them credibility they do not have.
No. They are only being forced to half apologize and still cover up as much as they can. It is beyond disgrace.
If I were to guess I would guess Christ is not happy with their behaviour. I wonder what they would guess?
Actually corruption and disagreements started it. Though I have no way of knowing if Catholicism was the first church, they are the oldest so they just got to claim it. How do you know you are not wrong about the history? Who taught you about it?
They cover it up? Do you mean the church?
That is not an answer to my question. This went on for 50 years. I want to know your opinion, if the Catholic Church could have suppressed that members of the hierarchy were molesting children and get away with it, do you think they would?
Could you explain it differently? You seem to be saying for me to accept God without being shown evidence of God. I am sure if I said no gods exist, you would question me and not be satisfied with "because I am right about how evolution is true."
They? The men in the church who are covering it up.
You asked a question. I replied 'no'. I call that an answer.
No. I gave up.
So just so I am not misrepresenting your answer, you beleive that the organization who you entrust your immortal soul to, would not have made it public that members were molesting and raping children? Doesn't that bother you?
Also, I feel you do not have enough exposure to Christian fundamentalists. You say they have no leg to stand on, let me take a moment to outline an argument you are likely to hear, "You say that Catholocism is correct because it was the church Jesus founded, this is incorrect. Jesus founded a church that would listen to him and read the bible, his perfect message to humanity. It was not Catholics that founded Christianity, but The Lord our Gid and Jesus Christ. You do not take the bible as literal, you twist it to say what you want it to say. Worse yet, you rely on what man says the 'correct' interpretation is when God is quite clear. If you do not accept Jesus as your savior, and start going to a bibke believing church, you are destined to burn in hell forever. Your Catholic friends and family scream and explore you to change your ways as they burn in agony. Jesus loves you, won't you repent to him? It is not mans duty to forgive you, it is only God who can, but only if you accept that He gave his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for your sins. I live love you too much to not warn you, turn away frm your dark path of following men, and start following God. It is all in the bible after all.
Something like that, though I am not as good at the emotional manipulation, also, you would likely be between the ages of 4 and 14, not the likely adult you are now.
Sorry for the iPad caused misspellings. Personally, besides the way Catholics treat crackers, it is better than other sects of Christianity, still based on baseless assertions, but better than fundamentalists.
iPads cause misspellings in much the same way that the Church causes sin.
I agree. My misspellings are a result of a created spellcheck that auto corrects what I say. Sin is the result of the beliefs of the people who created the church, and everyone is automatically placed in the "sinner" category.
She (I apologize if that's wrong) was talking about the iPad, not the spell check software. The envelope full of money in Church is an insistent to sin, not the Priest.
«12. . .144145146147148149150. . .516517»
Advertisement
