Quote :

"I don't know why you felt the need to create this thread."

to stop LeonIsPro from ruining a thread in chitchat, and maybe with a vain notion that I could in fact address a few misconceptions of the Church. But there's really not much point in arguing about religion on the internet. However, it provided like two hours of entertainment at work today and I was bored.

Quote :

"The catholic church is no longer relevant."

People have been saying that for two thousand years...

9/23/2011 12:17:22 AM

Yes, trying to justify the history of the Catholic Church is an exercise in vanity.

9/23/2011 12:21:59 AM

Trying to argue with someone who believes every bit of vitriol and drivel ever written about the Church is a vain exercise, yes. but it did make the day go by faster. LeonIsPro probably believes the crazy guy on Ancient Aliens.

9/23/2011 12:28:29 AM

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."
John 18:36

"'Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake."
Luke 6:22

"If you were of the world, the world would love his own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
John 15:19

"You adulterers and adulteresses, know you not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."
James 4:4

"3. When, in 1933, We consented, Venerable Brethren, to open negotiations for a concordat, which the Reich Government proposed on the basis of a scheme of several years' standing; and when, to your unanimous satisfaction, We concluded the negotiations by a solemn treaty, We were prompted by the desire, as it behooved Us, to secure for Germany the freedom of the Church's beneficent mission and the salvation of the souls in her care, as well as by the sincere wish to render the German people a service essential for its peaceful development and prosperity."

Now is it just me or is the Catholic church very friendly with the world?

"And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."
Rev 17:15

"And here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits."
Rev 17:9

9/23/2011 12:35:33 AM

^^So now you try to discredit me, with an appeal to the worldly that I am mad?

does the Catholic church teach this method? And for what reason am I being rebuked?

Also if you could establish exactly what I said was drivel, I'd appreciate it. I had a quote from Bishop Hudal and some of my own opinions about Catholicisms stance and that encyclical.

I fail to see how I am blindly following drivel. I search the word of God for answers, unlike you I do not blindly follow man.



[Edited on September 23, 2011 at 12:41 AM. Reason : how]

9/23/2011 12:36:55 AM

Quote :

"I fail to see how I am blindly following drivel. I search the word of God for answers, unlike you I do not blindly follow man."

Surely we can agree that "the word of God" was written by men, copied by men, translated by men, and interpreted by men.

You clearly follow "the word of God" (read: the word of men) blindly and chastise others than when they don't follow suit.

Unless, of course, you've spoken with God directly or read his stage notes or something.

9/23/2011 7:41:03 AM

I chastise when an organization says they are Christian, but by their works they are known to be false teachers.


A tenet of Christianity is that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

2 Peter 1:20-1:21


That's the "first Pope" claiming the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

2 Timothy 3:16


"For whatever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."
Romans 15:4

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."

Deut 29:29



To say that scripture is flawed/unusable, or needs to be carefully winnowed by "experts" essentially destroys it's entire meaning, not to mention goes against many promises and covenants made throughout time. Now this may be a claim for an atheist or someone who does not believe to make. But when someone who says they are faithful to the truth says that not all scripture is correct but uses different parts of it to justify their doctrine I am in disbelief.

Peter himself said that the prophets were divinely inspired by the word of God. Which is achieved through the Holy Spirit and revealed in time by the Christ. This is why it confounds me that people follow an organization, when not actually seeking the answers themselves.

9/23/2011 8:51:29 AM

I do give the Catholic Church much credit for the work it has done on secularism's behalf. Watching the Church bumble hysterically through the post-Galileo world has done more to discredit the religion business - and I do mean business - than a thousand Hitchenses or Dawkinses could ever do.

9/23/2011 9:37:01 AM

I am of the same opinion.

9/23/2011 10:35:26 AM

Quote :

"That's the "first Pope" claiming the Bible is the inerrant word of God."

You realize that biblical scholars don't believe that Peter was actually written by Peter, right?

A guy wrote a letter claiming to be some other guy claiming to have witnessed supernatural events, and some others guys later decided this was good enough to be cannon...

...and you're using that to school us on the divine and inerrant nature of the bible?

9/23/2011 10:38:29 AM

Quote :

"A guy wrote a letter claiming to be some other guy claiming to have witnessed supernatural events, and some others guys later decided this was good enough to be cannon..."

According to Dr. Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University:

Quote :

"“The way the canon developed was by what was being read on Sunday in the centers of Christianity. What do you read on the 2nd Sunday after Easter in the church in Jerusalem? What’s the church of Rome reading at this time? And they found that again and again, they were zeroing in on the same stories in the gospels. And so the core of the canon kind of developed from the usage of the early church”."

So essentially what we have today is whatever stories the uneducated masses of the 4th century liked at the time. Inspired Word of God my aching ass.

9/23/2011 11:09:58 AM

^I commend you, sir. That is even more ridiculous than my initial research suggested.

9/23/2011 11:26:47 AM

I am confused...

Leon, haven't you said before that the old God who destroyed sodom and ghomora (sp?) is essentially differen than the one you worship today?

On what criteria do you cherry pick and choose on how to interpret God and the bible?

Didn't you just say that a strict adherence and interpretation must be met? Which books? Since several books contradict each other.

Do you not see how retarded and flawed this is becoming once you realize the bible is not the word of god, just a bunch of stories edited together by people from the bronze age?

[Edited on September 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM. Reason : p]

9/23/2011 12:06:21 PM

In before "you're reading the Bible wrong."

9/23/2011 12:30:11 PM

I'm not doing this all over again. The atheists and skeptics won't listen to my reasons, so why should I constantly have to repeat them?

But the answer is no, I did not say essentially different.

And no he's not reading the Bible wrong, because reading the Bible wrong would require skeptics to actually read it.

And not just use their preconceived notions and skeptic opinion sites to make their points.

Needless to say, I did not feel I was cherry picking when I showed a common theme in scripture, which was expounded by many authors at many different times. Nor is it taken out of context, I just figured people would not want to read an entire paragraph for each piece.



[Edited on September 23, 2011 at 3:02 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2011 2:57:35 PM

Don't confuse "won't listen to" with "disregard as nonsense." We listened.

9/23/2011 3:01:13 PM

Listened without considering.


With a "hard heart."

As in you will "Hear but not understand"

Needless to say there is no reason for me to continue to contend with you, since you have heard and rejected the Gospel. Anything I could do now is mere repetition. May you live peacefully and content for the rest of your days, because sadly, we have nothing further to discuss.

[Edited on September 23, 2011 at 3:09 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2011 3:04:44 PM

Actually the world's smallest violin was for your pre-edit post.

Regarding your post edit post, awesome. Let the rest of the theists in on this mindset, and stop voting.

[Edited on September 23, 2011 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2011 3:12:50 PM

Quote :

"And no he's not reading the Bible wrong, because reading the Bible wrong would require skeptics to actually read it."

We have. It's false. Sorry bro. You're free to believe in childish fairy tales if you like, but stop expecting rational people to respect it. It's unworthy of basic consideration.

9/23/2011 3:16:46 PM

You're free to believe in childish fairy tales if you like, but stop expecting rational people to respect it. shitting on nominally different childish fairy tales in every single thread where they come up.

Or you know, deal with it.

9/23/2011 3:35:34 PM

I am free to correct as I see fit, as you have no share in my or arghx's belief systems, I fail to see how it is any problem of yours.

9/23/2011 3:47:45 PM

Quote :

"There's a widely-held perception that Roman Catholicism does not follow the bible, or does not hold it to be very important."

Maybe I grew up around the wrong people, but who among Christians still believes this? This isn't the 19th century.

9/23/2011 4:01:54 PM

^ this guy apparently ^^

^^Troll and expect to be trolled in return.

9/23/2011 4:19:59 PM

Quote :

" up around the wrong people, but who among Christians still believes this? This isn't the 19th century."

Anyone who interprets the Bible literally or at least semi-literally. The Pope endorses Evolution and Big Bang Cosmology for christ's sake.

Most Christians don't because the Bible doesn't make a lick of sense and they know it. They just choose the parts they like and go with it (even though those parts don't make sense either)

But then 44% of Americans disbelieve Evolution, so maybe it's not as few as you'd think.

[Edited on September 23, 2011 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2011 4:22:04 PM

transubstantiation

/thread

9/23/2011 6:29:50 PM

I'm interesting to hear how Christ, being a man in the flesh, died and was raised from the dead, and now manages to appear in pieces across different continents and countries on Sunday Mass?

Exactly where in scripture is that.

9/23/2011 7:42:09 PM

You can say it's not in scripture all day long. Fine.

But in your first sentence, are you calling it out for being farfetched magical nonsense?

9/23/2011 7:52:04 PM

No, I'm saying it's not supported in scripture. The Son of Man has ascended into heaven, it would not be reasonable to think somehow he would split himself up and descend to the Earth every Sunday, as pieces of the Son of Man.

9/23/2011 7:57:13 PM

Quote :

"The Son of Man has ascended into heaven, it would not be reasonable to think somehow he would split himself up and descend to the Earth every Sunday, as pieces of the Son of Man."

But if some 1st century middle eastern peasant had decided that was a cool idea, you would now be finding it totally reasonable.

But seriously, when you use the word "somehow", I swear you're hinting that it's a farfetched idea. That part has me rolling.

[Edited on September 23, 2011 at 8:06 PM. Reason : thanksforthat]

9/23/2011 8:05:09 PM

"Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so."

Acts 17:11

If there is somewhere in Scripture to indicate the possibility of this, I would be interested to hear of it.

Somehow I can already see how this will pan out however, someone will use the figurative phrase "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" and I will call it a figurative device for signifying a relationship with Christ. A skeptic will then say to me that I am not being a literalist because being a literalist means you must take everything literally. I will then claim that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally at all times, such as parables spoken by Christ. Then they will claim, well how can you know when something is being taken literally or not. And this argument will play back and forth until one side gets tired.

So hopefully I just saved myself and someone else a decent bit of discussion which I have already had numerous times.

9/23/2011 8:18:09 PM

Quote :

"No, I'm saying it's not supported in scripture. The Son of Man has ascended into heaven, it would not be reasonable to think somehow he would split himself up and descend to the Earth every Sunday, as pieces of the Son of Man."

So you're cool with the idea that a man floated up into space? That's believable, but the idea that the same dude split up into pieces and scattered across earth, that's impossible? Is that what you're saying? Is that what you're getting at?

9/23/2011 10:09:31 PM

Dude the bible told him so.

9/24/2011 11:20:53 AM

^^Well Enoch was raised bodily into heaven in Genesis and the Gospel authors testify as to how the Christ rose up into heaven. They also testified that he would not come back until the final judgement. You can say it's absurd to believe in one miracle, while not believing in another but, if it has no Biblical support, why would I deem it true? Not to mention Christ currently sits as the Son of Man at the right hand of the Father in the Kingdom, so if you can describe to me the process or Biblical support as to how he splits himself into tiny pieces goes down to Earth, while staying at the side of the Father as the Son of Man, I'd be interested to hear it. And the reason why Christ was raised up was a miracle that had been prophesied about, and expounded in the Law.

9/24/2011 11:50:14 AM

Quote :

"You can say it's absurd to believe in one miracle, while not believing in another but, if it has no Biblical support, why would I deem it true?"

Why would you deem it true if it did have "Biblical support"? This is the point he's making.

[Edited on September 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ]

9/24/2011 1:05:36 PM

Leon, you would like Sam Harris. He makes a pretty good transubstantian joke here:
http://youtu.be/AcO4TnrskE0?t=8m27s

^that line of questioning is going nowhere. what interests me is how he can clearly see the ridiculousness of a claim irrespective of scripture.

if claim sounds reasonable
    believe it //(no problem here)
else
    //need to perform lookup (magic only happens in my 2000 year old book)
    if isInBook()
        believe it
    else
        sounds like bullshit

9/24/2011 1:28:10 PM

Quote :

"what interests me is how he can clearly see the ridiculousness of a claim irrespective of scripture."

He doesn't weigh claims irrespective of scripture. It is the scripture that leads him to determine some claims (i.e., the ascension) to be reasonable and others (i.e., transubstantiation) to be ridiculous. I figured you had noticed that.

9/24/2011 1:34:20 PM

No, Euro has the right line of questioning. LeonIsPro doesn't determine the accracy of *every* claim through Scripture because Scripture is obviously not all-covering.

9/24/2011 1:39:54 PM

^^Maybe I'm not being clear. He's first evaluating whether a claim is farfetched and only then if it turns out to sound like nonsense, checking to see if it's in scripture. He's implying that if it were reasonable in a material sense, then we wouldn't need an explanation from scripture (like other galaxies existing).

I just find it funny that the rationality is still there, clearly running on all cylinders. Leon, of course, displays an impressive amount of skepticism and critical thinking when it comes to Catholicism.

Quote :

"Not to mention Christ currently sits as the Son of Man at the right hand of the Father in the Kingdom, so if you can describe to me the process or Biblical support as to how he splits himself into tiny pieces goes down to Earth, while staying at the side of the Father as the Son of Man, I'd be interested to hear it"

[Edited on September 24, 2011 at 1:46 PM. Reason : fasdfasdf]

9/24/2011 1:40:59 PM

Instead of creating a new thread, i'll ask here:
----------------------------------------------------
Given that major themes in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam contain both prophecy and free will, I'm interested to hear from some theists how they reconcile the two.

If a prophecy is accurate, does that not imply determinism? If you can determine what choice I'm going to make ahead of time, does that not mean I have no choice in the matter at all? It's set at the moment the prophecy is made. If it wasn't then it's not really prophecy is it?

9/24/2011 1:45:18 PM

Quote :

"LeonIsPro doesn't determine the accracy of *every* claim through Scripture because Scripture is obviously not all-covering."

I'm talking about claims relating to Christianity. As is true about most sophisticated Christians, Leon's rationality is either superseded or somehow made compatible (in his mind) with the inerrancy of the Holy Bible. This accounts for his dismissal of transubstantiation, which he does not believe to be supported in the scripture, and his acceptance of the ascension of Christ, which he thinks has Biblical legitimacy.

^ We're also told that God wants every human being to love him, and that those that don't will bring him great sadness, and will burn and hell, and that he's omnipotent and can see the future, meaning he must have failed on purpose and knew it even before he started the whole human project, which I guess makes him some kind of sado-masochist.

[Edited on September 24, 2011 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ]

9/24/2011 1:49:08 PM

^,^^ Both questions are related to Eternity and how God the Sovereign King operates in eternity. Any explanation I could give would not only sound arrogant but would also be postulation. Calvinist's believe in predeterminism. I'd look for one of them to ask. But get ready to be condescended to when you do, they really think they are God's chosen people (not to say they aren't, but they like to tout it around).

Quote :

"Why is it so hard to believe transubstantion is real and it just didn't get recorded??"

Because it would be a pivotal facet of Christianity, as the Catholics claim and not mentioned anywhere in scripture.

For example, atoms and other scientific finds are not facets of Christianity, whereas transubstantiation and it's importance in Catholicism would need some strong scriptural support, unless someone would like to scientifically test it's legitimacy.

For example, Christ's ascension is a supernatural miracle, and it cannot be properly scientifically tested, but it has much scriptural support.

9/24/2011 9:46:47 PM

Quote :

"Both questions are related to Eternity and how God the Sovereign King operates in eternity. Any explanation I could give would not only sound arrogant but would also be postulation."

Explain away. I'd love to hear how scripture supports this. I know salvation requires free will because you must choose. But if the prophets forsaw Jesus's acts and birth and whatnot, then the future was set the moment they made the prophecy and no one in the Universe had any choices, right?

And if God can see the future, how in the world do we have any choices?

[Edited on September 25, 2011 at 1:53 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2011 1:47:54 AM

no, but seriously, Judas straight up got the short stick. 2000 years and counting in Hell for betraying Jesus in order to fulfill a prophecy? Dick move, God, dick move.

9/25/2011 3:28:36 AM

Judas was never one of the actually saved disciples.

"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?"

John 6:70


He was also a thief who openly stole from the Disciples.

"3Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. 4Then said one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bore what was put therein."

John 12

You can claim determinism if you want, but in the end it was Judas who destroyed Judas.

9/25/2011 11:26:53 AM

I am curious as to a Christian's explanation of flaws in the human body and mind...

Stuff like optical illusions, cognitive dissonance, the appendix, wisdom teeth.

If God is perfect, all knowing and omnipotent; why did he create something in his image that contains an array of seemingly useless flaws?

[Edited on September 25, 2011 at 11:55 AM. Reason : o]

9/25/2011 11:54:54 AM

Well, obviously we didn't have optical illusions in the garden of eden.

Satan promised we would get them if Eve ate the apple and he delivered.

9/25/2011 2:25:38 PM

Quote :

"Not to mention Christ currently sits as the Son of Man at the right hand of the Father in the Kingdom, so if you can describe to me the process or Biblical support as to how he splits himself into tiny pieces goes down to Earth, while staying at the side of the Father as the Son of Man, I'd be interested to hear it""

its called the holy spirit. its always on earth and it allows for the bread and wine to become his body and blood. think of it more like cloning than jesus leaving heaven.

9/25/2011 2:55:37 PM

So what you're saying is the Holy Spirit is creating an infinity quantity of Christ on Earth? Where is the scriptural support for this? Or does the Catholic church just get to randomly define miraculous doctrine?

9/25/2011 3:02:36 PM

It's kind of like how Edward can walk out in the Sun and sparkle, while bill compton roasts. What do you think would happen if Edward drank Sookies blood?

9/25/2011 3:16:16 PM

Quote :

"53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[a] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.""

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
there is a link to the catechism excerpt on the subject. Every phrase is referenced to scripture at the bottom.

9/25/2011 3:23:53 PM