Heresy

[Dawkinsrocks]

That free will argment is pathetic.

God made free will in the knowledge of how it would be used.

Which makes god responsible.

Ask your 6 year old if he/she understands that.

If you can stop brainwashing then poor mite.

 

[numinus]

That free will argment is pathetic.

God made free will in the knowledge of how it would be used.

Which makes god responsible.

Ask your 6 year old if he/she understands that.

If you can stop brainwashing then poor mite.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What part of free will did you not understand, hmmm?

Do you actually wish that you could bang your stupid head against something hard and have others suffer its consequences?????

The extent of your stupidity is astounding!

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

More insults.

Still no fact or reason.

Moderators, I ask again, why do you permit this person to insult me time and time again and yet warn and ban me for far less?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

As I have said, it is the most basic definition of church. It is a definition explained somewhere at the beginning of any catholic catechism -- usually for 10 year-olds.

The church is the PEOPLE OF GOD. The people of god consists of the people god loves enough to bestow grace upon, whether they accept it or not. To my mind, that includes just about everyone -- past, present and future.

Which brings me to the very nature of christian soteriology. The salvation being offered here is UNCONDITIONAL. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much of a 'good news' or gospel, wouldn't it?

As for the question -- is salvation possible outside the organization of the catholic church heirarchy (and here I find it necessary to qualify my words, lest you misunderstand)?

No less than jp2 answered -- YES.

Nice dig about 10 year olds, but I suspect that Mormon 10 year olds get taught things that you don't know too.

Thank you for the Catholic answer. I've never heard your definition before, not even in the Catholic churches I've attended--though I have to admit never having gone when I was ten years old.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Eh?
I do not know if you are trying to be obnoxious or you simply do not understand what you are talking about.

NO HUMAN KNOWLEDGE CAN BE HELD TRUE WITHIN AN ARBITRARY DEGREE OF EXACTNESS.

pi=3=3.1=3.14=3.142=3.1416 etc. depending on how exact you want it to be. That goes for all transcendental numbers, irrational numbers and a host of solutions for partial differentials and binomial expansions

Is it intellectually honest to say, therefore, that mathematics is nothing more than a collection of truths, half-truths and lies????

If math was being billed as God's Word and being forced on others, then yes, it would need to be held to higher standard. You have set the standard low enough that the Book of Mormon can qualify. So in essence you are saying that the Bible is just an old book like any history of philosophy book and the Catholic church has been lying to everyone for about 2000 years. Okay, if you say so, I kinda suspected that...

Now, instead of pounding away at your keyboard on whatever catches your fancy, you might want to think about that.

Like this statement right here. Have you done a count of human rights violations of current religions?

On what basis do you consider an act a violation of human rights and when is such an act attributable equally to all members of that religion? And what is the factual basis you are using to determine if a human rights violation has indeed been committed.

And since you are fond of determining the comparative merits of paradigms, have you ever wondered exactly how many human rights violations have been committed in the name of, say, democracy?

Once again you didn't read what I wrote. Democracy is not a religion. The Catholic church is one of the oldest, biggest, richest religious institutions in the world. It's had the time, money, and dogma to allow it to call for crusades, set up the Inquisition, burn a lot of people at the stake, spread itself worldwide and destroy uncounted numbers of indigenous groups, collude with the Nazis, run an endless pogrom against gay people, right up to today with the sheltering of pedophile priests.

Democracy does not commit its crimes in God's Name, that's the difference. The Catholic church has claimed to have God's Authority in its actions.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I find the Lucifer argument interesting in that free-will is being postulated for a super-naturally powerful being capable of abrogating the free-will of others.

Or, Nums, are you saying that Lucifer is no more powerful than a human, that we can stand against him alone in the exercise of our free-will? I don't think that is what Christianity has been teaching for a couple of thousand years.

Is Lucifer a supernatural being with immense power to harm us, have demons possess us against our free-will, put thoughts into our heads without our knowledge, and do supernatural evil things to us against our will?

 

[numinus]

Nice dig about 10 year olds, but I suspect that Mormon 10 year olds get taught things that you don't know too.

That's entirely possible. That is why I do not go out in the public domain insulting mormons and their beliefs.

Thank you for the Catholic answer. I've never heard your definition before, not even in the Catholic churches I've attended--though I have to admit never having gone when I was ten years old.

You're welcome.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I love the argument that the bible is allegorical.

It evolved as science debunked more and more of the bible which is why the church hates science.

But here's the thing.

To write an allegory you have to know what it is that you are representing with you allegory.

So why the **** didn't whoever wrote the bible write it in plain language to start with?

 

[numinus]

If math was being billed as God's Word and being forced on others, then yes, it would need to be held to higher standard.

It really is not a question of high or low standard but whether the standard being employed is consistent with the purpose for which it is being employed.

Take the relativistic equation for energy:

E=mc^2+1/2mv^2+3/8m(v^4/c^2)+.....

It is a taylor infinite series that devolves to classical mechanics for v<<c. So, for artificial satellites orbiting the earth, you use newtonian mechanics. For radioactive particles travelling a very high speeds, you need einsteinian mechanics.

They are both TRUE within the purpose for which you employ them.

Understand?

You have set the standard low enough that the Book of Mormon can qualify. So in essence you are saying that the Bible is just an old book like any history of philosophy book and the Catholic church has been lying to everyone for about 2000 years. Okay, if you say so, I kinda suspected that...

Think what you wish. The bible is not a historical document. Its main purpose is to discern ethics to be employed by people of faith. And whatever criticism you'd care to mention regarding its scientific or historical veracity, you cannot deny that a lot of people have turned to reading the bible for help regarding personal trials.

Therein lies the truth that I am talking about.

Once again you didn't read what I wrote. Democracy is not a religion. The Catholic church is one of the oldest, biggest, richest religious institutions in the world. It's had the time, money, and dogma to allow it to call for crusades, set up the Inquisition, burn a lot of people at the stake, spread itself worldwide and destroy uncounted numbers of indigenous groups, collude with the Nazis, run an endless pogrom against gay people, right up to today with the sheltering of pedophile priests.

Now, you are talking of the church as a political entity wielding political power based on theology. It is NO DIFFERENT from a government wielding political power based on a political theory like democracy.

Political power is still political power.

Democracy does not commit its crimes in God's Name, that's the difference. The Catholic church has claimed to have God's Authority in its actions.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between committing crimes 'in god's name' or 'for democracy'. In both instances, the crimes are usually perpetrated by agents of the STATE'S COERSIVE POWERS.

The only reason you insist on stating the difference, if there is any, is to perpetuate your religious bigotry.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Except that the state does not claim to be an instrument of love and other-cheek turning.

That is what is so additionally disgusting about the church and its perpetration of vile acts.

 

[numinus]

I find the Lucifer argument interesting in that free-will is being postulated for a super-naturally powerful being capable of abrogating the free-will of others.

Are you saying that one needs to be supernaturally powerful to coerse another against his free will?

People coerse other people all the time, fyi.

Or, Nums, are you saying that Lucifer is no more powerful than a human, that we can stand against him alone in the exercise of our free-will? I don't think that is what Christianity has been teaching for a couple of thousand years.

Is Lucifer a supernatural being with immense power to harm us, have demons possess us against our free-will, put thoughts into our heads without our knowledge, and do supernatural evil things to us against our will?

You seem to be more of a medieval christian than an atheist if you are bringing in demon possessions in this argument.

From tradition, lucifer is an angel guilty of pride. The name itself means 'bringer of light' or 'knowledge'. The reference goes back to the genesis story of adam and eve when they partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Knowledge itself is not necessarily evil. What makes it evil is when one employs knowledge without moral restraints and in contradiction with divine law.

In catholic church tradition, evil does not have an independent existence. It is brought about by corrupting a good. Hence, the seven deadly sins are merely corrupted goods -- self-esteem is corrupted into pride, love is corrupted into hate, appetite into gluttony etc. etc. They are the opposite halves of the human condition.

What makes them corrupt is when such inclinations hinder man from fulfilling the divine imperative -- love god above all else and love thy neighbor as yourself.

Capice?

 

[numinus]

Except that the state does not claim to be an instrument of love and other-cheek turning.

That is what is so additionally disgusting about the church and its perpetration of vile acts.

Oh, you find nothing abhorent that a constitution that states human equality as a self-evident truth would condone slavery, eh?

But I already know you're mind works ridiculously slowly.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And you accuse Mare of Medievalism???????

Re-read what you just wrote.

It is like me saying...

When Santa comes down every chimney in the world this is of course achieved by his omnipresence and as we all know he conquered the problem of flight long before the aviation industry. This was because he had magic reindeer that could fly sufficiently fast to get to every house in the world in a couple of hours being guided by a luminous red nose attached to the lead reindeer.

The elves that remain in Greenland get ready for next year but obviously only making toys for good children. Bad ones get nothing.

Sound familiar?

God the father xams.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The chiurch was one of the biggest investors in and beneficiaries of the slave trade.

Next

 

[Dr.Who]

You said "It includes every Christian whether they know each other or not." That's not what I posted, that's not what Nums posted either, his definition says every single person made by God.

Care to rephrase your answer? You seem to be restricting it to Christians, and yes, I've heard that definition. Num's definition I have never heard despite his claim to it being a universally accepted one.

I only joined what I considered to be a stupid debate on the meanings of a word to defend you. I did not pay a whole lot of attention to who had the best definition.

In reviewing the posts that lead up to now I see that what I thought to be an accurate definition by you turned out to be wrong. Numinus is correct in his use of the word. Though I still think he mistreated you.

Numinus did not say that every single person made by God would be included in the Church. He said that the "people of God" would be. "People of God" clearly means the Christians only when it is said by Nums. If it were said by a Muslim we could assume it meant muslims. Here is an example.

http://www.unification.net/ws/theme031.htm

Here is a site that defines the Church as it includes all Christians:

http://www.gotquestions.org/universal-local-church.html

So clearly the definition that Num used is common and well known. Now that you know it you can use it too.