(May 29, 2015 at 10:06 pm)Spooky Wrote: A question:

Many of us Atheists have read the bible (which likely contributed to some of our "deconversions"). So, does it work both ways?

Suppose I provided you a copy of 'The God Delusion', would you read it? If not, why?

Spooky-

I decided to look into Dawkins' The God Delusion, and I found an interesting review of the book by Dr. Antony Flew.

Dr. Flew, you may recall, was a lecturer at the Universities of Oxford and Aberdeen and a Professor of Philosophy at the Universities of Keele and of Reading. Known for his 1950 publication of "Theology and Falsification", Flew was called "the world's most influential philosophical atheist" as well as "one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th Century".

(Until I have been a member of the forum for 30 days, I will not post links to outside material, but you can Google "Antony Flew The God Delusion" to find his full review.)

Dr. Flew, who did become a deist near the end of his life (authoring There is a God), denounces Dawkins for what Flew sees as Dawkins' "scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form." He goes on to say, "[Dawkins'] failure is the crucial index of his insincerity of academic purpose and therefore warrants me in charging him with having become, what he has probably believed to be an impossibility, a secularist bigot."

Well, perhaps The God Delusion is a good, representative overview of atheist perspectives, but in light of such a review, I'm inclined to look at Hitchens or Ehrman first.

What are your thoughts on Flew's review and the other authors I've mentioned?

---

(May 30, 2015 at 2:08 am)Brakeman Wrote: Why doesn't jesus, who loves you, want to talk to you with conversational words as he did to others in the bible?

Why do you assume He doesn't? Different people have different experiences.

Quote:Where in the bible does it explain that god won't talk to people in conversation anymore, but will begin to only converse with muted feelings and emotions, and images on toast?

You mean, apart from the fact that Jesus ascended into heaven and promised to send the Holy Spirit instead? That might account for a good bit of it.

However, Jesus does speak conversationally with some people, but since this is something that you cannot or will not accept as evidence, why bring it up?

(May 30, 2015 at 5:34 am)robvalue Wrote: Are you angry at Santa Claus?

A little, he hasn't brought me gifts in about 20 years.

(May 30, 2015 at 3:39 am)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: I can concede to that is what the catholic faith accepts, but that doesn’t make it very logical. Do you realize that the catholic faith contradicts the bible in multiple ways (and the bible contradicts itself)?

This is incorrect. I will be happy to address each and every instance you wish to discuss.

Quote:The bible says that jesus is the only mediator in 1 Tim 2:5. Catholics believe that mary and many other saints are mediators. I don’t think this is a requirement, but it shouldn’t be optional, when it clearly says in the bible that jesus is the only mediator. Which would mean, the rosary, and the countless other chaplets and prayers to saints, would be heresy.

I'll come back to the rosary if necessary, but let me address your concern about "mediators". Since you have quoted 1 Tim 2:5, I'm going to freely quote from additional verses that must also be considered. Fair enough?

First, let’s look at additional verses to gain a fuller understanding of the role of Jesus as mediator.

Hebrews 7:24-25
because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Here we see that Jesus “always lives to intercede” for “those who come to God through him.” The role of the mediator and the intercessor are synonymous; a mediator lives to intercede for others. All Christians are called to be mediators or intercessors for one another because we are all members of Christ’s body as we see from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:

Ephesians 1:22-23
“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”

Paul referred to himself as a co-laborer with Christ when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 3:9
For we are God's fellow workers.

Paul went further in his understanding of our responsibility as co-laborers with Christ when when he wrote:

Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

Is anything lacking from the perfect sacrifice that Christ offered upon the Cross? Paul clearly indicates that more is to be done and that he makes up what is “still lacking” in his own flesh.

2 Corinthians 1:6
If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation

Additionally, we know that we are called to share in the priesthood of all believers (cf. 1 Peter 2:5-9), and a priest, by definition, is called to be a mediator between God and men. Each of us is called to this role and to be a mediator or mediatrix for others before God.

Therefore, if we are all called to this role of mediator and intercessor for one another, how much more can this be said of Mary who said, “Yes” to God and brought Christ into the world?

Speaking of this, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it." "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."

I'll cover the perpetual virginity of Mary in my next post.

MODS: In this series of questions, I've been asked to explain and defend some very specific points of Catholic doctrine by a former Catholic. I would respectfully ask for a little latitude in answering his these short questions with longer, more robust answers that are necessary to do his questions justice. Thanks.

(May 30, 2015 at 3:39 am)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: Catholic doctrine teaches mary was a perpetual virgin, in Mat 1:25, it says, mary remained a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to jesus.

After he almost died in an automobile accident, my grandfather never took another drink of alcohol until the day he died.

Does the cessation of his life imply that he began drinking after he was dead? Read on...

There are actually TWO issues in Matthew 1:25 that need to be addressed: "until" and "firstborn", so my answer will cover both.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin and that Jesus did not have any brothers and sisters. Many non-Catholics doubt these claims, and they frequently cite Matthew 1:25 in support of their views that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations after they were married and that Jesus was only the first of many children that resulted from their union. Let’s examine this important verse more closely using two popular Protestant translations.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (NIV)

“Until”

In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Remove the word "until" from the verse, and you have the following:

"Joseph had no relations with her...she brought forth her firstborn"

Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word "until" is the whole argument. Either Joseph held off "until" and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).

Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that "until" doesn't actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word "until" because that word implies nothing...and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.

Genesis 8:7
The raven "did not return TILL the waters were dried up..."  

Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave "until this present day"

But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

Luke 1:80
"And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel."  
The Greek word translated "until" in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who also lived in the desert after he appeared in public (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

1 Timothy 6:14
"....that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing..."  

May this commandment be disobeyed after Jesus returns?

Because “until” does not require a cessation of activity, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

“Firstborn”

Many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, “firstborn” is merely a term applied to the first child that "opened the womb". The term does not imply a "secondborn". In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the "firstborn". Scripture also supports this understanding:

Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the "firstborn". Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old "firstborn" infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that "firstborn" was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.

---

(May 30, 2015 at 3:39 am)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: The bible says to only call your father in heaven, father. Not call priests father. I would agree that it’s minor, but I don’t understand why the church would contradict that.

The Church isn't contradicting what the Bible teaches; the problem is in understanding what Jesus was saying. If we followed the "Call No Man Father" prohibition literally, then no human on earth would have that title, and we would have lost the feel for the meaning of fatherhood since the word would have been expunged from our vocabulary and our conscience.

Think not? Consider how the trappings of European royalty have no meaning for Americans, and I think you'll get some sense of how this happens.

Now, if we had no understanding of what it means to have or to be a human father, the "Fatherhood' of God as revealed to us by Him would be completely sterile.

But since you have some familiarity with scripture, let's look first at the verse you are referring to and then at additional verses which are relevant.

Matthew 23:8-10
8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' (Gr. rabbi) for you have only one Master (Gr. didaskalos, kathegetes) and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' (Gr. patera) for you have one Father (Gr. pater), and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' (Gr. kathegetai) for you have one Teacher (Gr. kathegetes), the Christ.” (NIV)

Matthew 23:8-10
8”But be not ye called Rabbi (Gr. rabbi): for one is your Master (Gr. didaskalos, kathegetes), even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father (Gr. patera) upon the earth: for one is your Father (Gr. pater), which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters (Gr. kathegetai) : for one is your Master (Gr. kathegetes), even Christ.” (KJV)


Based on the preceding passage, many non-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church violates the scriptural prohibition against calling anyone “father” since its priests are commonly called “father” and the pope is referred to as the “Holy Father.” Is this really what the Bible teaches? Let’s take a closer look at other verses to see whether this is really what the Bible tells us.

Jesus Violates This Command

Luke 16:24
24So he called to him, “Father (Gr. pater) Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”

Jesus tells a parable in which He has one of the characters speak to “Father Abraham” which would obviously be a bad example for His audience. Does Jesus contradict Himself?

Paul Violates This Command

Romans 4:1-18
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

In this passage, Paul refers to Abraham as a spiritual father eight times. This is a terrible precedent to establish if Jesus has prohibited us from using the term “father.”

1 Corinthians 4:14-15
14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers (Gr. pateras), for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

In this passage, Paul refers to himself as the spiritual father of the Corinthians. This is a terrible precedent to establish if Jesus has prohibited us from using the term “father.”

Ephesians 4:11-13
11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers (Gr. didaskalovs), 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that God has established some people as “teachers” in the Church; this appears to be a direct violation of Jesus’ prohibition against calling anyone “teacher”. Does God contradict Himself?

James Violates This Command

James 3:1
1Not many of you should presume to be teachers (Gr. didaskaloi), my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that not many believers should presume to be “teachers.” This implies that a few (though not many) should and would rightfully have that position. Does God contradict Himself?

James 2:21
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, refers to the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham. This is a terrible precedent to establish if Jesus has prohibited us from using the term “father.”

Stephen Violates This Command

Acts 7:2
2To this he replied: "Brothers and fathers, listen to me!

+++

In light of all these passages, does it really make sense to suggest that we should "call no man father" in a literalist sense?

---

(May 30, 2015 at 3:39 am)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: I can actually see where you’re coming from, especially in context, with the verse before that saying, “My father has sent me, so I send you”, but I don’t see how this relates to a priest, bishop, pope, etc. needing to be a mediator between man and god, in order to be forgiven of sin. This is completely made up by the catholic church. Jesus doesn’t tell his apostles to bless their successors, so that they too, can forgive other sins.

The problem is one tiny word that you have omitted. Here is the passage:

21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

IOW, Jesus says, "In the same manner that the Father has sent me, so I am sending you." Well, how did God the Father send Jesus? With all authority. And how does Jesus send his own disciples? With all authority (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) which includes the authority to forgive sins. This is supported by this passage:

Matthew 9:4-8
4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

What authority is that? The authority to forgive sins.

Quote:I can’t interpret it the way you do, because of Jam 5:16 says to confess our sins to one another, pray for each other, and forgive one another that we shall be healed. This is a clear instruction in the bible, that can’t be left up to  interpretation. So, there is a contradiction here, if you interpret it the way you do.

First, the passage in James contains a clear reference to the priests of the Church if you read it in context...we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. Second, James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.

James 5:13-16
13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

Quote:I also don’t think this makes sense, because there are many people around the world that can’t get in contact with a catholic priest. That would mean that these people couldn’t be forgiven.. correct? And, if your response is that they don't know, so god understands, then why would jesus suggest it, knowing that his message would not reach everyone on this planet? This is another reason why this interpretation falls apart. You can confess your wrongdoings to one another, and confess your wrongdoings to god, without a priest. I would say, jesus is saying to forgive one another, if you don’t, then your father in heaven won’t forgive you. This is something that is more relatable to people, in general, in my opinion.

And there is some good and some error in what you have written. Yes, if someone is unable to confess to a priest, then God takes that into account. However, it is normatively necessary to confess grave (mortal) sin to a priest. So, the the interpretation does not fall apart; confession is a normal part of the life of the Church but there are exceptions that make sacramental confession impossible.

---

(May 30, 2015 at 5:34 am)robvalue Wrote: "Angry at god" has to be the most ridiculous strawman going, and an admission that you really can't, or won't, understand our position at all. 

To the contrary, Rob. I understand better than I'm being given credit for. 

Reading hundreds of posts in these threads over the past three weeks has led me to realize that there is no one, single "position" shared by all of you.

Some of you are not angry with God. Others clearly are, IMO.

The latter are not technically atheists, but they are hanging out with atheists in this forum because this is where ridicule of God can be found, and that is what they want to partake in since they are, you know, pissed off.

Quote: All Christians are called to be mediators or intercessors for one another because we are all members of Christ’s body

This would only fortify my Jam 5:16 argument (I see what you mean by the context of that, but when it says “confess your sins to each other”, I can’t see that being taken any other way). The people wouldn’t need a catholic priest to be forgiven. They would confess to each other and their god.

Quote:Hebrews 7:24-25
because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

I’d say that this, again, would be another good verse for your typical, bible-believing christian, but not the catholics. Catholics believe, as you quote from catechism, that mary is the mediatrix. This means she is a mediator, which contradicts 1 Tim 2:5. Also, it says that she is an intercessor. Why do we need an intercessor? Isn’t the savior who died for us, enough? Jn 14:6 says Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. This sentence jesus says, completely destroys the idea that we need saints and mary to intercede for us. This is another example where the catholic church does something that the bible doesn’t quite concur with. This, also, eliminates the necessity of confessing to a catholic priest.

Maybe, after looking closer at the verses you have quoted, and the ones that I have quoted, you should see some problems with them not agreeing with each other. You should be able to see why there are 40,000 sects of christianity as well. There are plenty of cherries to pick from in scripture.

Quote:I'll come back to the rosary if necessary

It’s necessary, after what I have had to say about it. This is just one of many vain, repetitious prayers, that the bible forbids, and that the catholic church is known for. I would imagine, that you would say, that you don’t think that all these catholic prayers are vain, but many christians would disagree with you, for good reasons, some of which I mentioned already.

Quote:In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Fair enough, but don’t you see a problem with god relating a message to someone, knowing that it won’t be translated correctly in the future? Or knowing some of the true ideas will never come to light, because later, the languages would become dead languages?

Also, just some additional basic questions. Especially, with regards to Jn 14:6, why would an omnipotent god need a savior to forgive people? Why does the catholic church insist on intercessory prayers from mary and other saints, when jesus said that the father is only accessed through him? How does a man suffering for a few hours forgive everyone that has ever walked on this planet? There are stories of people getting tortured for much longer periods than that. They could say that they are doing it for you sins too, but that doesn't make it true, not to mention..moral. Why does an omnipotent god need angels? He can do anything he wants.

Quote:Reading hundreds of posts in these threads over the past three weeks has led me to realize that there is no one, single "position" shared by all of you.

If you’re referring to some type of belief system, with regards to religion (which atheism is not), then your argument is heading in the wrong direction. All atheists share the same lack of belief in whatever deity being argued for, so we would all agree on that. Atheism isn’t a dogma, so we are going to differ on many issues in life.

(May 30, 2015 at 3:24 pm)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote:

Quote: All Christians are called to be mediators or intercessors for one another because we are all members of Christ’s body

This would only fortify my Jam 5:16 argument (I see what you mean by the context of that, but when it says “confess your sins to each other”, I can’t see that being taken any other way). The people wouldn’t need a catholic priest to be forgiven. They would confess to each other and their god.

Interceding for one another is one thing, but forgiving sins in the name of God is quite another.

I can ask God to heal you, to help you with a difficult work situation, or to show you that He is real, etc. That's intercession.
I can forgive you for something that you have done to me. That's forgiveness of a personal sin or affront.
But only God can forgive you of the offense against Him, and He has established the priesthood as the mechanism by which this occurs most typically.

However, CAN you confess directly to God? Absolutely, and you should. But to put a new twist on a common forum catch-phrase, extraordinary sins require an extraordinary means of grace.

Quote:

Quote:Hebrews 7:24-25
because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

I’d say that this, again, would be another good verse for your typical, bible-believing christian, but not the catholics. Catholics believe, as you quote from catechism, that mary is the mediatrix. This means she is a mediator, which contradicts 1 Tim 2:5. Also, it says that she is an intercessor. Why do we need an intercessor? Isn’t the savior who died for us, enough? Jn 14:6 says Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. This sentence jesus says, completely destroys the idea that we need saints and mary to intercede for us. This is another example where the catholic church does something that the bible doesn’t quite concur with. This, also, eliminates the necessity of confessing to a catholic priest.

I provided all the verses and commentary that you need to follow the logic. We as Christians intercede before God on behalf of others. We are able to do this because of what Jesus has done. No Jesus, no access to God. But now, He allows us to share in His work through the prayers we offer on the behalf of others.

Quote:Maybe, after looking closer at the verses you have quoted, and the ones that I have quoted, you should see some problems with them not agreeing with each other. You should be able to see why there are 40,000 sects of christianity as well. There are plenty of cherries to pick from in scripture.

There are 40,000 "sects" because of private interpretation and sola scriptura. The Catholic Church is teaching the same doctrines it has for 2,000 years.

Quote:

Quote:I'll come back to the rosary if necessary

It’s necessary, after what I have had to say about it. This is just one of many vain, repetitious prayers, that the bible forbids, and that the catholic church is known for. I would imagine, that you would say, that you don’t think that all these catholic prayers are vain, but many christians would disagree with you, for good reasons, some of which I mentioned already.

Okay. First, the rosary is a devotion. Not a doctrine or dogma.

Second, you mis-use the phrase "vain, repetitious prayers"...many non-Catholics believe that praying the rosary violates Jesus’ teaching about “vain repetition” found in His Sermon on the Mount:

“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” (Matthew 6:7-8)

Immediately after saying this, He went on to teach the crowd the following prayer:

Matthew 6:9-13
This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'”

Jesus didn't say, "You might want to say something like the following"...he said, "When you pray, say" and He gave us precise words that we should pray daily for our daily bread, and these words have been repeated for 2,000 years. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.

Matthew 26:43-44
43When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

Jesus prayed a third time saying the same things he had said previously. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.

Revelation 4:8
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."

The creatures keep saying the same thing over and over and over again - day and night. Is this "vain repetition"? Hardly.

So, "vain repetition" simply does not prohibit the repetition of words in our prayers.

Quote:

Quote:In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Fair enough, but don’t you see a problem with god relating a message to someone, knowing that it won’t be translated correctly in the future? Or knowing some of the true ideas will never come to light, because later, the languages would become dead languages?

Now you see the problem of sola scriptura and the Protestant notion of private judgment. Jesus built a Church; he didn't write a book. The Catholic Church has never had a problem with misunderstanding what that word or verse meant.

Quote:Also, just some additional basic questions. Especially, with regards to Jn 14:6, why would an omnipotent god need a savior to forgive people? Why does the catholic church insist on intercessory prayers from mary and other saints, when jesus said that the father is only accessed through him? How does a man suffering for a few hours forgive everyone that has ever walked on this planet? There are stories of people getting tortured for much longer periods than that. They could say that they are doing it for you sins too, but that doesn't make it true, not to mention..moral. Why does an omnipotent god need angels? He can do anything he wants.

It's not the amount of time on the cross but the identity of the victim that makes Jesus' sacrifice unique.

(May 30, 2015 at 5:29 am)Alex K Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 10:40 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No, they aren't "sick of the same old stuff"...they are anti-Christian, and they want to vent because they are angry at God,

Not sure if trolling or an idiot.

I'm voting "both."

(May 30, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: MODS: In this series of questions, I've been asked to explain and defend some very specific points of Catholic doctrine by a former Catholic. I would respectfully ask for a little latitude in answering his these short questions with longer, more robust answers that are necessary to do his questions justice. Thanks.

It hardly matters. Way too long to read anyway. If it makes you feel better to download all of that crap, knock yourself out.

Quote: MODS: In this series of questions, I've been asked to explain and defend some very specific points of Catholic doctrine by a former Catholic. I would respectfully ask for a little latitude in answering his these short questions with longer, more robust answers that are necessary to do his questions justice. Thanks.

Before you try to get the mods involved, you can ask me. On page 22 of this thread (post #214), I tried to answer you as thoroughly as I could. I’ll try to again here. It’s not my fault on post #224, that you wanted to spend so much time putting in useless material that doesn’t have much to do with what we’re talking about. I said, “fair enough” to your argument about UNTIL. Then you quote something about a raven and all this other stuff with UNTIL in it, and this firstborn thing that has nothing to do with anything. Then you spend so much time with explaining how jesus, paul, james, and stephen violated Matthew 23:9 for me. I don’t feel I need to address these issues very much, because you just did for me.

Quote:In light of all these passages, does it really make sense to suggest that we should "call no man father" in a literalist sense?

No, it doesn’t. I read Matthew 23, and I don’t see how you can not take that literally. Yes, I think those verses that you quoted with father in it, are antithetical to what it says in Matthew 23.

Quote:Interceding for one another is one thing, but forgiving sins in the name of God is quite another

And, I still don’t understand the point of heavenly intercessors. Is god that much of a dick that he needs ghosts of people around him to beg him to forgive someone, even after his son died on a cross supposedly for us? Wasn’t that the point of this blood sacrifice, to allow himself to start forgiving human beings that he created (and allow them into heaven)? (since he was incapable beforehand…?) It all doesn’t make sense.

Quote:There are 40,000 "sects" because of private interpretation and sola scriptura

If this was a true religion, and the claims in this book did happen, then private interpretation at this scale wouldn’t be possible. There would be nothing arguable in it. Instead, we see a plethora of contradictions, untrue data, and stories that are so farfetched that you have to be a little “out there” to believe.

Quote:The Catholic Church is teaching the same doctrines it has for 2,000 years.

This may be true, but, the catholic church has been changing it’s mind and making up new rules since it was first established. Also, yes, we know that science has changed over the years too, but this is due to observable, testable evidence, not some men in fancy hats and robes deciding to change the rules for their own reasons.

Quote:So, "vain repetition" simply does not prohibit the repetition of words in our prayers.

I can see what you’re saying there. However, when it’s a rosary, and there’s 53 hail mary’s in it, I’d say most christians would quarrel with you on that. They would describe the rosary as vain, repetitious, and blasphemous.

Quote:It's not the amount of time on the cross but the identity of the victim that makes Jesus' sacrifice unique.

Well, I’m going to stick to my opinion, and say a few hours is nothing for someone to suffer for the sins of all humanity.

The identity of a man in a story doesn’t hold much weight either.

Also, the way the story says he was sacrificed, is nothing unique.

(May 30, 2015 at 5:50 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(May 30, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: MODS: In this series of questions, I've been asked to explain and defend some very specific points of Catholic doctrine by a former Catholic. I would respectfully ask for a little latitude in answering his these short questions with longer, more robust answers that are necessary to do his questions justice. Thanks.

It hardly matters.  Way too long to read anyway.  If it makes you feel better to download all of that crap, knock yourself out.

Yeah, cause you don't want to have to read all that and actually learn something.

Best just to ignore it and tell yourself you have all the answers.

---

(May 30, 2015 at 7:14 pm)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote:

Quote:There are 40,000 "sects" because of private interpretation and sola scriptura

If this was a true religion, and the claims in this book did happen, then private interpretation at this scale wouldn’t be possible. There would be nothing arguable in it. Instead, we see a plethora of contradictions, untrue data, and stories that are so farfetched that you have to be a little “out there” to believe.

This is incorrect. For over 1,500 years, Christianity was essentially unified. Sure, we can talk about the Oriential Orthodox who split off after the third (or fourth) Ecumenical Council, and the Eastern Orthodox who split finally around the 13th century (due to political aspirations of their own), but Christianity WAS Catholicism - unified - for 15 centuries. Then people decided to try to interpret the Bible for themselves, and the rest is painfully obvious,

Quote:

Quote:The Catholic Church is teaching the same doctrines it has for 2,000 years.

This may be true, but, the catholic church has been changing it’s mind and making up new rules since it was first established. Also, yes, we know that science has changed over the years too, but this is due to observable, testable evidence, not some men in fancy hats and robes deciding to change the rules for their own reasons.

Name one example.

Quote:

Quote:So, "vain repetition" simply does not prohibit the repetition of words in our prayers.

I can see what you’re saying there. However, when it’s a rosary, and there’s 53 hail mary’s in it, I’d say most christians would quarrel with you on that. They would describe the rosary as vain, repetitious, and blasphemous.

And there are 20 mysteries on the life of Jesus that we meditate upon while saying those Hail Mary's. It's about JESUS.

Quote:

Quote:It's not the amount of time on the cross but the identity of the victim that makes Jesus' sacrifice unique.

Well, I’m going to stick to my opinion, and say a few hours is nothing for someone to suffer for the sins of all humanity.

The identity of a man in a story doesn’t hold much weight either.

Also, the way the story says he was sacrificed, is nothing unique.

God incarnate dies on cross. Film at eleven.

No need to stay up to see that story. G'night.