Gunny's Thread on Religion

[tigerbob]

God only speaks through the Holy Father Pope Benedict. He communicates to man through him. By following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church you will follow God's ways.

What happened to Matthew 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."?

Those are red-letter words from Jesus during one of his most plainly recorded speeches. How does the Roman Catholic Faith spin that one Yukon?

-Joe

I'd be interested to hear that as well!

There are plenty of quotes in the bible with which to trip up dogma if one so chooses. Theologians will usually have an answer for it. If not, they will say something like "Well, of course it's not meant to be taken literally..." (how Pythonesque).

I've so little time for Yukon generally that I have not bothered to read his posts. I too will look forward to this one though.

 

[Care4all]

God only speaks through the Holy Father Pope Benedict. He communicates to man through him. By following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church you will follow God's ways.

What happened to Matthew 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."?

Those are red-letter words from Jesus during one of his most plainly recorded speeches. How does the Roman Catholic Faith spin that one Yukon?

-Joe

I'd be interested to hear that as well!

Again, don't know the answer but before researching the justification of the Catholic church for using the term Father for their Priests, I would FIRST want to find out what word was used for Father in the original text, and I believe, as with the word love, (there was a word for 'love' of your father, 'love' of your neighbor, 'love' of your sweetheart, there were many different words that cover the word Father as well...

I find it hard to believe for example, that all of us would not be permitted to call our own earthly Fathers, father...or Father in an endearing sense, Daddy or Dad....or that we could not label those that wrote the constitution, "Our founding fathers"....

so, maybe the Bible has lost something in translation of the word they gave for Father in this passage... to english? Father in the sense they meant, could have meant simply 'God the Father'....and calling an earthly figure, 'God the Father' would be a lie?

Care

 

[tigerbob]

What happened to Matthew 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."?

Those are red-letter words from Jesus during one of his most plainly recorded speeches. How does the Roman Catholic Faith spin that one Yukon?

-Joe

I'd be interested to hear that as well!

Again, don't know the answer but before researching the justification of the Catholic church for using the term Father for their Priests, I would FIRST want to find out what word was used for Father in the original text, and I believe, as with the word love, (there was a word for 'love' of your father, 'love' of your neighbor, 'love' of your sweetheart, there were many different words that cover the word Father as well...

I find it hard to believe for example, that all of us would not be permitted to call our own earthly Fathers, father...or Father in an endearing sense, Daddy or Dad....or that we could not label those that wrote the constitution, "Our founding fathers"....

so, maybe the Bible has lost something in translation of the word they gave for Father in this passage... to english? Father in the sense they meant, could have meant simply 'God the Father'....and calling an earthly figure, 'God the Father' would be a lie?

Care

Interesting point.

 

[JBeukema]

so, maybe the Bible has lost something in translation

-and 'God' was unable to protect hos word or inspire those who translated it, so that all could know his true word? Or just unwilling?

 

[Care4all]

so, maybe the Bible has lost something in translation

-and 'God' was unable to protect hos word or inspire those who translated it, so that all could know his true word? Or just unwilling?

freewill....of man.

the Bible specifically mentions and gives warning that man will try to change words or add words to the Bible for their own meaning....and what their destination is after death if they are one of the ones that did such.

Obviously God was well aware of what we would do or could do, with our own freewill....I still wouldn't give it up for anything in the world....who wants to be without their own free will and a puppet of sorts?

care

 

[JBeukema]

so, maybe the Bible has lost something in translation

-and 'God' was unable to protect his word or inspire those who translated it, so that all could know his true word? Or just unwilling?

freewill....of man.

So, unwilling? Your god was unwilling to protect his word, so that all could know it and be saved...

that means it is not benevolent

and, when it says 'worthy that none should perish, but all should have everlasting life'- it's really just lying, since it won't protect its word and make that possible?

You have successfully argued the impossibility of your religion and the contradictory and self-refuting nature of your beliefs

the Bible specifically mentions and gives warning that man will try to change words or add words to the Bible for their own meaning....and what their destination is after death if they are one of the ones that did such.

 

[Care4all]

-and 'God' was unable to protect his word or inspire those who translated it, so that all could know his true word? Or just unwilling?

freewill....of man.

So, unwilling? Your god was unwilling to protect his word, so that all could know it and be saved...

that means it is not benevolent

and, when it says 'worthy that none should perish, but all should have everlasting life'- it's really just lying, since it won't protect its word and make that possible?

You have successfully argued the impossibility of your religion and the contradictory and self-refuting nature of your beliefs

the Bible specifically mentions and gives warning that man will try to change words or add words to the Bible for their own meaning....and what their destination is after death if they are one of the ones that did such.

YOU my dear, have some serious issues....only YOU can solve them....and maybe being on this board and continually mouthing off on this subject and your own undeniable interest in the topic, will come around to help you someday....this isn't for me to judge or to know...

Every single person on earth can still have an afterlife, but it is up to YOU to discover this via your own freewill, you have to take the gift that is given, it can not be forced upon you....and personally, I would rather have it that way....where we do have the freewill to make this journey of awareness, instead of being forced in to doing such.

Care

 

[JBeukema]

YOU my dear, have some serious issues....

So, now you resort to personal attacks, because someone points out faulty reasoning- instead of seeking to rectify your thoughts and seek truth?

Every single person on earth can still have an afterlife

Non-Sequitur. The fact is you have refuted yourself. Your model is false.

 

[Care4all]

YOU my dear, have some serious issues....

So, now you resort to personal attacks, because someone points out faulty reasoning- instead of seeking to rectify your thoughts and seek truth?

Every single person on earth can still have an afterlife

Non-Sequitur. The fact is you have refuted yourself. Your model is false.

hahahahahaha! YOu call me saying that you have some serious issues on this topic, a personal attack? then what in the world have YOU been doing to everyone else on here that believes differently than you JB? Would that be a nuclear personal attack?

I did not mean it to be an attack, just an observation that is undeniable...YOU DO have issues on this topic that you need to work out for yourself....

Someone that is TRULY an atheist by their own accord, would NOT need to demonize the beliefs or religions of others....they would be at peace with thier own atheism, imo.

so it appears to me that you wish for someone, anyone, even God, to convince you that you are wrong...and it just doesn't work that way....only YOU can be at peace with what YOU via YOUR freewill, choose to do or believe.

 

[Care4all]

If someone reaches out their hand to help you up a cliff and you refused to take their helping hand and fell to your death, is that the persons fault that offered their hand to help you JB?

 

[JBeukema]

what in the world have YOU been doing to everyone else on here that believes differently than you JB?

pointing out logical fallacies and educating the ignorant.

Someone that is TRULY an atheist by their own accord, would NOT need to demonize the beliefs or religions of others....

1)No true scottsman fallacy
2)I have 'demonised' noone, I have merely been the voice of reason

so it appears to me that you wish for someone, anyone, even God, to convince you that you are wrong...

If you think you can build any logical case, then do so. the fact is that your model does not work and you have never forwarded any valid theory or model

 

[amrchaos]

I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.

It's a sad thing to say but there have been more people killed on planet Earth in the name of God than for any other reason.

That is a totally false statement.

Tens of millions of people were killed in both WWI and WWII. And it had zero to do with religion.

Also, tens of millions of people were killed and murdered during both the Russian and Chineese communist revolutions and subsequent takeovers.

And again, it had zero to do with religion, because the revolutions were led by secular atheists.

Problem about WWI--when the Russians were knocked out of the war due to the communist revolution.

WWII--the main killers came about mainly through the nazis. There is wide spread debate on the issue of whether the Nazis were christians or not, but whatever religion they practiced--it obvious was not of a secular nature(i.e.--the jewish holocaust) nor was it atheistic. Now the Communists were Atheists(Russian and Red China) but the Germans were not.


A Secular Atheists is an Atheists that tolerates other religion. Understand, Atheism has no religious laws or tenets, vows rituals or customs that must be adhered to and therefore Atheism has a secular nature. Although I make a fundamental distinction between my accepted definition of secularism and Atheistic "practice"(whatever that can be), one thing that must be acknowledge is this.

Secular Societies comes about through religious tolerance. An Atheists need not practice tolerance for any religion. The reason I wish to confer this difference is due to the fact that if one wishes to exclude all Religions, then it should referred to as Atheistic. If t is the exclusion of one religion, then call it Anti-(whatever that religion name is). Finally, if it is tolerance of religions, then reserve Secularism for that practice.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm reposting this from the "logical, rational, and reasonable debate" thread:

I think this might be a good place to pose a few questions to the religious people who are participating in this discussion.

So, for Christians, it's a given that those who do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah and died for their sins (meaning: all those who are not Christian, even Jews and Muslims who believe in the same god) are going to hell, which is a place where they will be separated from God and be tortured with fire and brimstone for all of eternity (although there are some Biblical scholars who believe that the Bible actually teaches that nonbelievers will be completely destroyed, but that's a whole other discussion). Please correct me if any of that is wrong.

It is also a given that God created man in his own image, and loves and takes a special interest in each and every one of the people he created. God's love for man is emphasized throughout Christianity.

Now, the word of God is revealed to us through the Bible. As God no longer makes his presence known the way he did in Biblical days, the Bible is the only direct communication we have from God. It is his word, written by him through man, and contains all the information we need in order to know what it takes to be saved. (Again, please correct me if any of this is wrong)

Here are some facts about the Bible and about the world today, from my understanding: the Bible was written (in installments) about two millenia ago, in a particular language (Hebrew) to a particular group of people. There is a story in the Bible about the Tower of Babel, in which God punishes mankind for trying to build a tower tall enough to reach Heaven by scattering them across the earth and splitting their languages. So, according to the Bible, the reason that we have about 7,000 different languages spoken on the planet today is because God made it so as a punishment. Because the Bible must be translated into so many different languages from its original Hebrew, and since the Hebrew language has changed and evolved so much in the last two thousand years, as all languages do, many things in the Bible are lost, confused, or the meaning changed in translation.

So, these are the questions I have for you:

God created us all and loves us all immensely. Any of us who do not believe in him will be doomed to suffer for all of eternity. Is there a way to reconcile those two ideas? Is eternal horrendous suffering a punishment that is fitting of the crime of not believing in the existence of God? Why would a loving God base the salvation of his creations on their belief in him, rather than their character or morality or some other criteria?

Also: is it fair that since the punishment for nonbelief is eternal torment, God made it so difficult to come to believe in him? Would he not be morally obligated to make his existence painfully obvious to each and every one of us, if the consequences for not believing in him are so severe?

I am not asking these questions as some sort of challenge; these are legitimate questions I have about Christianity and they are some of the main reasons why I do not believe. My mind is open to the existence of a higher power...I just don't believe that the higher power in question is the one I desrcribed above. But my mind isn't even completely closed to THAT possibility, since I acknowledge it's possible that there are things I don't fully understand...which is why I'm posing these questions, in hopes that someone can give me a good explanation for the discrepancies I feel I'm seeing here.

And, again, if I am wrong in any of those above assertions, please correct me. If I'm going to believe or disbelieve in something, I want to know the absolute truth about that something first.

They are legitimate questions, and your take is essentially thoughtful. A couple of things...

Christians do not believe that everyone including Jews will go to hell for not believing. The Jews are God's chosen people, and they have a different fate in store for them. The bible isn't specific about how God will deal with them in the end, but I think they have been set aside for now, to be dealt with later.

And it really isn't that difficult to believe in God. It's man's arrogance that makes it difficult, we do it to ourselves.

You can find the answer to every single one of the questions you have listed in the bible, btw.

 

[tigerbob]

YOU my dear, have some serious issues....

So, now you resort to personal attacks, because someone points out faulty reasoning- instead of seeking to rectify your thoughts and seek truth?

I'm not sure that follows.

You seem bound and determined to find fault with anyone who believes in the existence of a supreme being, or at very least to quote pieces of scripture (in which you clearly have little or no interest other than that of devil's advocate) for the sole purpose of dismissing faith as ultimately flawed or delusional.

When one person goes out of their way to point out inconsistencies in something that is intensely personal to others for no better reason than to try to prove an ultimately pointless point, it seems to me that they may have an issue. Having "an issue" isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, but it is an issue nonetheless.

Unless of course you are genuinely all about seeking "the truth", in which case you might be better off looking somewhere other than a political message board. As it is, you come across as someone who thinks they already know "the truth" and is seeking to open the eyes of others to what you believe is obvious.

As it is, do you really imagine we will ever really know "the truth"? The Bible is just a bunch of books, written by man, in many cases years after the death of Christ, and in many cases during the Iron Age. Surely trying to find "the truth" via scripture is a flawed exercise, at least from a scientific perspective. The only thing that can be found is "faith" or "a view".

It doesn't bother me one way or the other, but anyone who seeks to change the opinions of others has "an issue". This is somewhat different than passively stating an opinion but not using it to actively counterpoint the opinions of others.

 

[JBeukema]

You seem bound and determined to find fault with anyone who believes in the existence of a supreme being,

I have faulted numerous persons for illogical reasoning and self-refutation. Those Christians who think they are the only ones worthy of such consideration delude themselves with their own self-importance.

dismissing faith as ultimately flawed or delusional.

Their religion is based on ignorance, delusion, and anti-intellectualism

When one person goes out of their way to point out inconsistencies in something that is intensely personal to others for no better reason than to try to prove an ultimately pointless point, it seems to me that they may have an issue. Having "an issue" isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, but it is an issue nonetheless.

If that thing is a mindset and loyalty that has historically been detrimental to Mankind, it must be challenged.

 

[RodISHI]

Some do truly not know what ignorance is. Yet even in that they have been given over and will remain in such a state until a day of God's choosing that He will change their hearts if God so desires. I repeat the definition of hell in the scriptures is separation from God.

In 1970 I met the head of the Hell's Angels. Even he believed in Jesus Christ as his savior. He and five of his men at my invitation came to a potluck dinner at the local church/community center. His warning to the community was "Don't come into our camp". That warning is still as good today as it was yesterday, "Don't go into the camp of the Hell's Angels. If you do you will be subjected to whatever goes on there".

 

[Care4all]

what in the world have YOU been doing to everyone else on here that believes differently than you JB?

pointing out logical fallacies and educating the ignorant.

Someone that is TRULY an atheist by their own accord, would NOT need to demonize the beliefs or religions of others....

1)No true scottsman fallacy
2)I have 'demonised' noone, I have merely been the voice of reason

so it appears to me that you wish for someone, anyone, even God, to convince you that you are wrong...

If you think you can build any logical case, then do so. the fact is that your model does not work and you have never forwarded any valid theory or model

How does one come up with a valid theory or model to suit someone else, for ones own personal Faith?

 

[JBeukema]

How does one come up with a valid theory or model to suit someone else, for ones own personal Faith?

You faith is not a valid model.

that's why you have such troubles

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I just had a thought occur to me.

God knows everything that is going to happen, and has known since...well, since forever, right? And it's all part of God's plan, right?

And God endowed humankind with free will, right? Meaning that God doesn't control the decisions and actions we take, right?

Here's my point: If God knows what is going to happen, and its part of His plan, then how do we have free will? Either human beings have free will to make decisions which God has no control over which then are necessarily not part of His plan, or human beings act according to God's plan. Which is it?

If you expand the scope of the question to all humankind, meaning the billions of decisions made every moment of the day, how does God's plan account for the free will of all those decisions, especially after centuries of those decisions? For example, was Jesus Christ God's contingency plan when humankind wasn't going the way He planned for? Or was Jesus Christ planned for from the beginning? If God always knew that He would send Jesus Christ to Earth as a sacrifice, then He must necessarily have known in advance the decisions that would be made by each human being on Earth so that the necessary situation would arise in which Jesus Christ's sacrifice was needed.

Can anyone address that paradox?

 

[JBeukema]

Here's my point: If God knows what is going to happen, and its part of His plan, then how do we have free will?

Knowing what will occur (physics aside) =/= causing it. It;s like watching a recording of people in the real world the second time through- you know what's going to happen, but they do it of their won accord.

Either human beings have free will to make decisions which God has no control over which then are necessarily not part of His plan, or human beings act according to God's plan. Which is it?

That's a false dichotomy. Knowing what you will do is not equal to making you do it.

the correct question is: ig God knows what you will do, nothing happens that he does not will or allow, and he knows that you'll go to sheole when he makes you- how can it be a god of mercy, who is 'willing that none should perish'? Doesn't that mean the xtian god is a liar?

If you expand the scope of the question to all humankind, meaning the billions of decisions made every moment of the day, how does God's plan account for the free will of all those decisions, especially after centuries of those decisions?

The concept is that god exists outside of time, or in a higher dimension, able to see the entire spime of human activity (although xtians are too stupid and ignorant to forward the concept in remotely intelligent terms)