Ok, here is my question.

What would it take for you to deny your faith and admit your religion is wrong? Or is any proof that is submitted merely a test, the devil's work, etc.

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, I mean I don't believe in God, Allah, FSM etc, but you best believe if I saw angels coming down, trumpets, blaring, I'd start believing.

If someone offered you irrefutable proof that the Earth is older than 6000 years (say someone makes a time machine) would you believe it?

6/30/2011 3:33:20 PM

was anyone else here the kid who sat in church looking at the maps in their bible?

6/30/2011 3:36:48 PM

Quote :

"If someone offered you irrefutable proof that the Earth is older than 6000 years (say someone makes a time machine) would you believe it?"

Did you miss the part where he said if he saw aliens he would think that it was a trick? Anything that would contradict his already pre-determined conclusions is disregarded as a test to see if his faith is true.

There is no evidence that can convince him.

6/30/2011 3:40:58 PM

Quote :

"I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, I mean I don't believe in God, Allah, FSM etc, but you best believe if I saw angels coming down, trumpets, blaring, I'd start believing."

Might be too late then.

Quote :

"If someone offered you irrefutable proof that the Earth is older than 6000 years (say someone makes a time machine) would you believe it?"

Obviously, I'm not going to play into this trap. If someone did do this impossible thing. Then I would believe something impossible to me.

6/30/2011 3:42:11 PM

Quote :

"aliens he would think that it was a trick"

Don't tell me you'd think it was real.

6/30/2011 3:43:02 PM

why cant aliens be real? maybe God was disappointed with us and toddled off somewhere else in the universe to make someone better?

6/30/2011 3:46:55 PM

I think I'll just stick to answering the issue about Ephesians.

6/30/2011 3:54:38 PM

Quote :

"Obviously, I'm not going to play into this trap. If someone did do this impossible thing. Then I would believe something impossible to me."

lmao

6/30/2011 4:06:50 PM

Question:

Is religion or Christianity in specific fundamentally different from other philosophy? Why? What books other than the bible have struck the strong spiritual cord with you? What other activities or parts of life do you find to have significant spiritual meaning? What is your view toward other theism?

6/30/2011 4:44:15 PM

Quote :

"Obviously, I'm not going to play into this trap. If someone did do this impossible thing. Then I would believe something impossible to me."

So are dinosaurs an elaborate hoax, or did Jesus ride around on a Utahraptor?

6/30/2011 4:50:55 PM

Quote :

"Don't tell me you'd think it was real."

Depends on what we observed and what evidence is given.

Given the almost certainty that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe (though a much smaller chance of ever encountering them) I wouldn't automatically assume it was a trick perpetrated by a supernatural being. Additionally I don't believe in supernatural things so assuming I definitely wouldn't make that assuming a priori.

Quote :

"So are dinosaurs an elaborate hoax, or did Jesus ride around on a Utahraptor?"

Not that like speaking for him, but I think it's unlikely he'll answer this directly. Given his admission that he is a Biblical literalist and therefore essentially a young earth creationist, I'd say he thinks that dinosaurs existed along humans at some point in history.

[Edited on June 30, 2011 at 5:00 PM. Reason : dinos]

6/30/2011 4:58:29 PM

5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. "So ought men to love their wives."
5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.


I for one fail to see how loving your wife as Christ loves you is a horrible misogynist idea.

What are you saying that this implies? That subject yourself to your husband implies some horrible power breach? That might be true if it was not followed by: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.

6/30/2011 5:30:21 PM

the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing

thats us, dude!

6/30/2011 5:40:34 PM

If it weren't for Stu I think I'd abandon this all together. People in TSB have 0 respect.

6/30/2011 5:53:35 PM

Yes you're right. People have zero respect for a system of beliefs that takes zero account of the evidence. As it should be.

6/30/2011 5:57:57 PM

I, for one, do not get pissed off when someone argues that a philosophy of mine is inconsistent.

BRING IT NO YOU NONBELIEVERS

6/30/2011 5:59:57 PM

Quote :

"the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing thats us, dude!"

I fail to see how this is a philosophical argument.







And like that he's gone

6/30/2011 6:03:47 PM

Quote :

"Some people postulate that a deception will cause the rapture to appear to be "aliens" so as to justify the disappearance of some people. I would discount anything "alien" as mere deception."

So everything that goes against your ignorant belief is a deception, no matter how strong the evidence may be. Gotcha.

6/30/2011 6:22:58 PM

Quote :

""the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing thats us, dude!" I fail to see how this is a philosophical argument."

The amount of knowing-ness that we can attain is actually extremely critical for any philosophy that tries to address the philosophy of life and existence itself which overlaps with purview of theism.

You are misplacing your criticism of the "we can't know anything for sure" argument. It is as much philosophy as any ascertain can get. The good approach to criticizing the argument is to ask if anything useful comes of it.

Descartes formed most of what is the philosophical framework for modern scientific rationalism, exactly from the question of "can we really know anything?" He, however, concluded that there was one and only one fundamental thing that we can claim to know, which is that thoughts exist. Yes, that sentence was self-referential. The acceptance that our thoughts do, in fact, exist leads to the acceptance that we exist. This then seaways into a philosophical battle about the essence of the external world, which exists in some undeniable fashion through its interaction with our own existence. Ultimately a rule-based model of the mechanics of the world is found to make the most sense, not because it's proven or can be proven, but because it's useful, and the assumption that the world behaves as a result of replicable laws creates a system of experiential learning which leads down a rabbit hole that more-or-less consists of all observations and hypotheses in the sciences to date. It's an expansive and impressive rabbit hole, observations which argue for the previous assumption that the universe behaves through a set of replicable rules.

People think of saying like "if a tree falls in a forest..." and mistakenly think them to be useless. This is because they don't see such concepts for what they are, as an underpinning of logic exercised about other "worldly" things.

I would offer similar formulations of a Christian world view, but I don't know any. That's why I say I'm ignostic.

6/30/2011 7:24:10 PM

oh geez, not this shit again

6/30/2011 8:20:16 PM

" In that day there shall be a sprout of Jehovah for beauty and glory, and the fruit of the earth for excellency and for ornament for those that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass that he who remaineth in Zion, and he that is left in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem; when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have scoured out the blood of Jerusalem from its midst, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning."

Quote :

"No, it's exactly the opposite. Even within denominations, views on particular biblical "issues" are often in dispute. Christianity isn't really one religion, it's a whole bunch of religions, because each person has their own version of it. That's part of the reason religion is impossible to take seriously. If there isn't even agreement on the particulars from people that have supposedly read the bible and taken its teachings to heart, why should I take any of it as absolute knowledge?"

"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his great mercy, has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from among the dead, 4 to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance, reserved in the heavens for you, 5 who are kept guarded by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

1 Peter

Redemption through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ by faith in the power of the Father, who raised him first born from among the dead. I do not know all the answers the word holds, but no saint does. So there can be discrepancies from man to man, but this does not change the power of the word nor does it affect the power of Christ. Nothing man does could possibly corrupt the word of God. I have often been correct on things that I once held for true, but after reading another saints explanation or hearing a message, I have thought of scripture in a different way. That is the the wonder of the scripture, we gain new revelations from the scripture until all is revealed to the saints.

6/30/2011 10:55:14 PM

The Earth is DEFINITELY >> 6000 years old.

This alone demonstrates a fundamental flaw in presuming the Bible is the literal word of God, LOL.

I like how none of my questions from page 1 were answered

[Edited on June 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ]

6/30/2011 10:57:30 PM

Quote :

"1. free will of people to not become christians or deter others from being christians. Its amazing christianity has spread this much. How can something that was hunted down like al qaeda in its early day be practiced by billions today? How can christianity be in the far reaches of the planet? china?"

Because you conveniently ignored the eras when Christians were the al-qaeda, when Christians were the brutal mass murderers spreading their religion…

Not to mention that Christianity demands much less of its followers than other religions, any asshole can call themselves a Christian.

Quote :

"2.free will again. we can choose god or the devil. he lets us make whatever choice we want. God chooses not to fight because the devil too has free will. 3. free will of people to sin, lust, cheat etc. free will of people to call it quits when marriage gets tough. 4. free will of the devil 5. old testament figurative language 6.purgatory 7.purgatory Basically the concepts you need to look over are free will, purgatory and old testament literalism. "

What you’re basically saying is that prayers are worthless, god doesn’t intervene, and the cake the bible is a lie.

And purgatory isn’t accepted doctrine is it? What are we, dirty catholics?

[Edited on June 30, 2011 at 11:01 PM. Reason : ]

6/30/2011 11:00:51 PM

^You know the Catholics killed saints (those who are actually saved) during the inquisition right?

True saints often disagreed with the "Catholic Church" and were killed as heretics because of it.

Quote :

"Not to mention that Christianity demands much less of its followers than other religions, any asshole can call themselves a Christian."

On the surface it does appear this way doesn't it? But one most have true faith in Jesus Christ and repent of their sin continually, clinging to faith to be saved. But we must remember that salvation is a free gift given and if it were justified by works it would be hollow and empty. Faith must come first, with works following. I'm sorry that this is the sad state of things that many who call themselves Christian are the vilest of sinners and have an empty form of faith.

I'd also like to see E Man's response to Moron's idea. Where have you gone E Man?



[Edited on June 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM. Reason : WHERE ART THOU E MAN?]

6/30/2011 11:13:11 PM

How are you defining the word “saint” in this context?

Quote :

"On the surface it does appear this way doesn't it? But one most have true faith in Jesus Christ and repent of their sin continually, clinging to faith to be saved. But we must remember that salvation is a free gift given and if it were justified by works it would be hollow and empty. Faith must come first, with works following. I'm sorry that this is the sad state of things that many who call themselves Christian are the vilest of sinners and have an empty form of faith. "

But ... there doesn’t seem to be any real reason to have “faith” in Christianity. Christianity doesn’t seem inherently superior to any other religion. The Bible doesn’t have any rational consistency. God doesn’t seem to really be helping Christians out (which further makes the Bible more confusing).

Have faith so you can be part of Team Christianity™?

[Edited on June 30, 2011 at 11:26 PM. Reason : ]

6/30/2011 11:22:16 PM

A saint, according to scripture is anyone who is saved by faith. Whether this be faith in the manifested salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ or through the promise of salvation from God. Let me get some scripture references real quick.

6/30/2011 11:26:34 PM

That’s a pretty weak definition. So anyone can call themselves a saint if they think they’re saved?

6/30/2011 11:27:26 PM

Well obviously, only God can determine if someone is truly a saint or not. But for my argument I am saying that the Catholics often killed those who were truly saved in the eyes of God, they killed a pious "chasid" as it is defined in the OT. The Godly and pious are called saints. But I agree with you, those who work evil could also call themselves saints. I must say the Catholic church confounds me when it tries to beatify someone who is already dead. I am not sure how a group can change the way a dead man is justified in the eyes of God.


"Keep my soul, for I am godly; O thou my God, save thy servant who confideth in thee."

That is chasid in the OT. The godly and pious are saints.


"Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ by God's will, to the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus who are at Ephesus."

This is an example of saints within the NT, justified by faith in Jesus Christ.

Whereas in the OT saints were justified by faith in the promise of redemption through Jesus Christ.


The idea is spoke of earlier is a reason why many believe the Catholic Church is the great harlot of Rev. 17

"And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. And I wondered, seeing her, with great wonder."

6/30/2011 11:45:25 PM

Quote :

"That’s a pretty weak definition. So anyone can call themselves a saint if they think they’re saved?"

Considering how no one can actually demonstrate that they are saved, why not? Fuck I'm a saint. Prove me wrong!

6/30/2011 11:49:50 PM

Well if you are a saint then tell me your testimony (how you came to accept Jesus Christ and how you repented of sins). Like how/when/why. I actually like this hypothetical.

6/30/2011 11:52:32 PM

Does there exist such a thing as a clearly defined religious concept?

Look, I'm not attacking religion with this. I profess to not know what religion is. But yeah, I guess I am kind of attacking it when I start suspecting that the practitioners don't know either.

6/30/2011 11:56:57 PM

Quote :

"clearly defined religious concept?"

Well I'd say the most clearly defined concept of Christianity is that salvation is by faith in the resurrection of Christ and faith in Christ to forgive sins.

7/1/2011 12:00:22 AM

Quote :

"The Earth is DEFINITELY >> 6000 years old."

really? You've got a video feed? you've got absolute proof of this? Oh, let me guess, you are basing this upon an ASSUMPTION that perception and observation are 100% truth

Quote :

"So everything that goes against your ignorant belief is a deception, no matter how strong the evidence may be. Gotcha."

now that's craziness, lol

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 12:35 AM. Reason : ]

7/1/2011 12:30:37 AM

Quote :

"Because you conveniently ignored the eras when Christians were the al-qaeda, when Christians were the brutal mass murderers spreading their religion… "

Just like Islam isn't wrong today, Christianity was never wrong for that. How did Christianity become so powerful? Rome was centered around the gods and Christianity was punishable by death. All of a sudden Rome is ran by Christianity?

Quote :

"What you’re basically saying is that prayers are worthless, god doesn’t intervene, and the cake the bible is a lie."

God intervenes by showing people the way. They still have to choose to walk the path he has highlighted for them.

Quote :

"And purgatory isn’t accepted doctrine is it? What are we, dirty catholics?"

The Catholic church is the original church. All other churches are modifications of it.

Quote :

" I must say the Catholic church confounds me when it tries to beatify someone who is already dead. I am not sure how a group can change the way a dead man is justified in the eyes of God."

Your posts all portray a complete misunderstanding of the Catholic Church. The Catholic chuch doesn't make anyone a saint or change anything. All they do is look back on the life of someone and determine if its safe to say that person is definitely in heaven. If that is indeed the case, they are a saint. Everyone in heaven is a Saint but they are trying to figure out who is in heaven for sure.

Sure it doesn't sound like an absolutely perfect process but its still a good procedure to pray to a hypothetical saint for guidance in the area they specialized in.

7/1/2011 12:30:37 AM

Quote :

"really? You've got a video feed? you've got absolute proof of this? Oh, let me guess, you are basing this upon an ASSUMPTION that perception and observation are 100% truth"

No scientist in the world claims absolute certainty, and you know this. No one knows anything absolutely.

We can claim as fact knowledge which is supported by mountains and mountains of evidence, however and none of your equivocation about absolute knowledge changes that. Failing to provide significant evidence to the contrary, your cries of "you don't know for sure" ring hollow against the claim.

In fact, the only people claiming absolute certainty are the theists, which is how you know they're wrong.

7/1/2011 12:40:16 AM

Quote :

"No scientist in the world claims absolute certainty, and you know this."

well, moron most certainly did. and when someone does such a preposterous thing, I'll call him out on it. Likewise, if LeonIsPro were to do something similar, I'd equally call him out. FTR, I haven't read the entire thread, and don't plan to.

7/1/2011 12:42:02 AM

I'll let him respond to that assertion, but just because someone says 'definitely' doesn't mean they're claiming absolute certainty to the degree that you're suggesting. I imagine if moron were to be given sufficient evidence to the contrary he would change his mind.

And jesus fuck is it disingenuous to counter "the world is definitely older than 6000 years" with "do you have a video feed of the entire event?" A) You don't need a video feed of an event to have sufficient evidence of the event to strongly believe the event occured and B) a video feed itself doesn't even guarantee accuracy of the feed nor predicates absolute certainty. There is no way to be absolutely certain to the degree that you're haranguing moron about so your video feed comment is bullshit.

7/1/2011 12:52:49 AM

Quote :

"I'll let him respond to that assertion, but just because someone says 'definitely' doesn't mean they're claiming absolute certainty to the degree that you're suggesting."

what the FUCK else does "definitely" mean? Or are you now going to debate the meaning of the word "is"? And you accuse ME of equivocating. hahahah

Quote :

"a video feed itself doesn't even guarantee accuracy of the feed nor predicates absolute certainty. There is no way to be absolutely certain to the degree that you're haranguing moron about so your video feed comment is bullshit."

actually, I'm well aware of that. But it goes to show the point: that the absolute certainty he CLEARLY stated is not as absolute as he claims.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 12:55 AM. Reason : ]

7/1/2011 12:54:50 AM

Here's a rule of thumb that might help you.

No one in normal conversation is referring to the level of absolute certainty you're demanding. Even if they use words like "surely" "definitely" "definitively", they are not speaking to the absolute knowledge of every exact mechanism of their claim and absolute knowledge that we're not really just in the Matrix and none of this is actually real. You're being obtuse about this.

7/1/2011 1:01:36 AM

Quote :

"No one in normal conversation is referring to the level of absolute certainty you're demanding. "

so, "definite" means "maybe." "Up" means "down." "Yes" means "no." "Cat" means "dog." got it.
look, the entire premise of his argument in that quote was that the Bible was wrong because the Earth was "definitely more than 6000 years old." What OTHER fucking definition would you apply to that? I'm just curious, because YOU are accusing ME of equivocating, yet YOU are the one saying the definition of fucking words is subjective.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 1:07 AM. Reason : ]

7/1/2011 1:07:20 AM

Here's what you said:

Quote :

"you've got absolute proof of this? Oh, let me guess, you are basing this upon an ASSUMPTION that perception and observation are 100% truth"

This is what is unreasonable. He never claimed "absolute proof" or certainty of 100% truth because as I've repeatedly stated no one ever does this even when they use the word "Definitely".

"Definitely" in this case is an assumption that perception and observation of evidence are far and away the best methods to work toward truth, not claim 100% truth. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, but no scientific claim, including "The Earth is older than 6000 years old", even if preceded by words like definitely or absolutely are claiming the level of certainty that you're demanding.

"Definitely" in the context of a scientific claim means as certain as you possibly can be without the possibility of absolute certainty.

7/1/2011 1:16:46 AM

Quote :

"This is what is unreasonable. He never claimed "absolute proof" or certainty of 100% truth because as I've repeatedly stated no one ever does this even when they use the word "Definitely"."

The hell he didn't. What part of "the Bible is wrong because the Earth is DEFINITELY >> 6000 years old" makes you think otherwise? IT'S USED A FUCKING BASIS OF HIS ARGUMENT!

7/1/2011 1:23:05 AM

I'd like to address some of the things E Man said. First, I'll apologize for my misunderstanding of what their beatification actually was. However, I would like to point out the rather blatant scriptural issues with this process. I wonder how one by works, could possibly determine whether one was saved or not? Is it not by the Holy Spirit that the saints are recognized?

"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;"

Acts 15:8

Not to mention countless references within the OT.

"9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

10I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. "

Jer 17

I would also love to hear where anywhere in the Bible it says to pray to saints for guidance in specific areas. I'd say that sounds like ancient Greek paganism (polytheism).


I'd also love to hear the evidence behind the Catholic Church being the original church. Or are you saying that when Paul wrote the epistles he was writing to different branches of the Catholic church. If not what exactly was the assembly which contained Paul called.

Quote :

"Just like Islam isn't wrong today, Christianity was never wrong for that. How did Christianity become so powerful? Rome was centered around the gods and Christianity was punishable by death. All of a sudden Rome is ran by Christianity?"

I'm not sure why slaughtering a multitude of people would ever be accepted as being "Ok now" by any group of people. Has the law somehow changed? Did Christ ever say spread the word with a sword and with killing.

Let's outline the call of a Christian minister and see if the Catholic church erred in the crusades.

"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."
1 Cor 9:14
Establishes that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.


"14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"

Ephesians 6

Now here is what some might (I would hope not) view as a militant call to preaching but if we look closely: The breastplate is of righteousness:

"And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever."

Isa 32:17

Sounds quite the opposite of warlike to me. The feet I hope is self explanatory, as the gospel is a gospel of peace and forgiveness. Now the shield of faith:

"5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love"

Galatians 5

Another beautiful example of how faith is from love, not hate. I fail to see how what the Catholic church did to all those poor people could ever be justified.

Quote :

"Just like Islam isn't wrong today, Christianity was never wrong for that."

I say you need to redefine, Islam is wrong for causing militant Muslims, because Muhammad was a false prophet, and well let's just put this here:

"So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

He will guide them and amend their condition

And admit them to Paradise, which He has made known to them."

Surat Muhammad 47:4-6

So martyring yourself in battle was a quick way to achieve salvation in Islam. Sounds pretty violent to me. That is not to say that the OT isn't filled with violent battles fought by order of Jehovah. However, never is any KIA Hebrew offered immediate redemption on the fact that he was KIA. And according to the OT when the Hebrews fought with Jehovah (alongside) they normally either avoided battle completely due to Jehovah's manipulation of the environment or they caused "a great slaughter" without losing many men.

E Man I'd ask you to sincerely question your Catholic beliefs, for now just question this:

Where are any of the scriptural references for what the Catholic church is telling you?

7/1/2011 2:35:05 AM

The great thing about the catechism is that it has scriptural reference for every insert so I don't even bother looking them up anymore. The catechism is deeply rooted in scripture. Just scroll around and look at the footnotes for each section. Not easy to copy paste.

Purgatory

Quote :

"1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. 1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607 As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608 1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611"

Sainthood

Quote :

"By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to Gods grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessor. "The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church's history." Indeed, "holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal.""

Pope as Peter's successor

Quote :

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403"

Peter started the Church. Several schism have created new, protestant churches but they all branched off from the holy apostolic church created by the 12.

Free Will

Quote :

"1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26 Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27 I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY 1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude."

praying to saints

Quote :

" "The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom, especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints, share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives... They contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. Their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world." Pg. 645, #2683 "

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
Very elaborate referencing of scripture throughout the whole thing. Everything the Catholic Church does is deeply rooted in scripture and tradition.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 3:27 AM. Reason : k]

7/1/2011 3:20:54 AM

Quote :

"The hell he didn't. What part of "the Bible is wrong because the Earth is DEFINITELY >> 6000 years old" makes you think otherwise? IT'S USED A FUCKING BASIS OF HIS ARGUMENT!"

The Earth is definitely older than 6000 years old. There is enough evidence to support this claim that we can reasonably assume it as fact and use words of confidence like "definitely" and "absolutely" without being 100% certain that it is 100% objectively true. Sure, an omnipotent being could have planted all the evidence and all human memory and the world could have been created yesterday, that's always a possibility. But I can still say definitively that the world is older than 6000 years old and you hemming and hawing about me not being absolutely certain changes nothing.

Facts are facts independent of your absurd criteria for certainty.

7/1/2011 8:56:07 AM

haha, I’ll clarify my statement:

There is NO scenario where the earth is ~6000 years old AND the Bible is correct.

Because if you presume the Earth IS 6000 years old, then God is a liar and a cheat, which would make the descriptions of God in the Bible wrong.

If you presume the earth is >> 6000 years old, then the Bible can still work (stories are figurative, or they were written by men who couldn’t understand what they were seeing, etc.), but makes drawing the line between figurative/literal a bit “trickier”...

So… in the context of this discussion, the earth is DEFINITELY >> 6000 years old.

7/1/2011 9:28:39 AM

Quote :

"Very elaborate referencing of scripture throughout the whole thing. Everything the Catholic Church does is deeply rooted in scripture and tradition."

I have no doubt it's rooted in tradition, but I will look at the scriptural basis later tonight.

7/1/2011 10:10:40 AM

Silly questions:

Does the bible really say the Earth is 6000 years old? In ALL translations? U sure?

Also, if the bible said the Earth was 6000 years old, wouldn't it really be 6000+2000=8000 years old? I mean, come on people.

7/1/2011 10:13:03 AM

Here's the answer from kooks that believe it:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions

Quote :

"The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. The context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days. The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 make it clear that the creation days happened only about 6,000 years ago. "

7/1/2011 10:33:00 AM

Basically, a literal reading of the bible places the date of creation at somewhere between 3500 and 5000 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

If you found that interesting, I'd also recommend this article.

7/1/2011 10:40:05 AM