(July 12, 2015 at 3:16 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 12, 2015 at 3:03 pm)IATIA Wrote: Which of those "nine" does your bible fall in?

If you read the post carefully, you will see that all of them are found in the Bible.

Then my "rules' have been validated.  Thank you.

In addition to what Randy wrote, a single passage can have several layers of meaning, beyond the surface so to speak.

It seems that atheists and fundamentalists both insist on seeing only the most superficial approach to Holy Scripture.

The bible is supposed to be the "inspired word of god" and except where it is specifically stated that it is a 'parable', we have no recourse but to interpret it literally as we would expect that god would have inspired a 'literal word' for everyone to comprehend. After all, god is supposed to be "all powerful" and that does not seem to be too large a task for a god.

(July 11, 2015 at 4:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No, we are not called to sell all of our possessions. This is not a requirement that Jesus placed on all beleivers.

Luke 21 with the story of the widow with the two coins would strongly suggest otherwise. Those who give all they have willingly are the most holy, provided they give their all the quantity or quality is irrelevant.

I bet you were expecting the standard retort of the rich boy, the camel and the needle right?

Quote:Wrong again. And I do grow weary of these loooooooong posts which contain error after error. Where did you say you went to school again? Damn.

I attended both an Anglican and Greek Orthodox Seminary, as a matter of prudence I won't be any more specific. I don't need to be contacted at work.

Quote:Since I was a candidate at a Trappist monastery, I think I can speak a little of the monastic vocation despite the fact that it was not actually my ultimate calling. We are not ALL called to the ascetic life of the cloister, and not embracing the life of Franciscan poverty does not mean that people do not believe. If we were all monastics, there would be no future generations! If I am "tinged by avarice" this imperfection will be dealt with in purgatory but it does not disqualify me from heaven.

The scriptures are clear that not everyone is called to a life of celibacy. If you are ignorant of the verses, I can point them out to you.

May I direct you to the red letters you seemed to have skimmed over in Matthew 19:12? Jesus appears to agree with Paul that not all are built for celibacy, but unlike Paul he suggests people can despite this choose to live like Eunuchs for the sake of Heaven.

You may not be forcibly called, but it is very clear within Catholic religious life with the continual calling for prayers for religious vocations to increase it is very, very, very strongly encouraged to discard a potential vocation to marriage and take up orders or a religious rule.

To not give it all up is selfish, I have one older female co-worker who is a Catholic who testifies at her all girls school her Nun teachers made it very clear the religious were above the laity. I can find little in Catholic theology or in actual practice that would disagree with this notion, it's almost reminiscent of the Gnostic Cathars and their priestly class of "Perfects".

Quote:Because as the scriptures point out, the celibacy of the monk or the holy orders of the priesthood are vocations - just as marriage is a vocation. God calls some to the former and many more to the latter. It is a mistake to try to grasp the more ascetic vocation when the grace has not been given.

Actually the scriptures make no mention of the monastic life at all, it was a much later Egyptian innovation that sprang up in the desert regions in the early fourth century. As a former Protestant surely you would know this is why Martin Luther condemned them as unbiblical and they do not exist in Protestantism for this reason with exception to the Anglicans (who don't consider themselves Protestants but "Reformed Catholics").

It should be no surprise the scriptures do not address this. Marriage was not a vocation in the Early Church Randy, it was seen as lesser and dirty, there are several Early Church writers who actually condemned Marital sex as fornication. Marriages didn't even take place in a church or with a cleric leading the ceremony until the Middle Ages.

Quote:Well, if I am God's slave then I am so happily. But sure, we begin our lives as baby Christians considering the reward and gain because we do not yet know God or His love. This matures over time, and as I have said elsewhere, there are saints who have written that they would willingly go to hell for eternity if that was what their Beloved asked of them. He won't, of course, but there is that evidence of the mature Christian love that is indifferent to the suffering or reward of which you speak.

There are also Japanese women who visit a Shrine at a Railway station in Tokyo to pay their respects to their beloved recently deceased and also recently deified Cat Goddess.

People can feel love towards all sorts of things, there are plenty of women who have died from domestic abuse because they loved their husbands and wouldn't flee, it doesn't make it sensible or right.

Quote:It is my greatest desire to throw so much wood onto the fire that the brightness of the blaze would finally pierce into the corners of some truly darkened minds.

All you've done so far is create a lot of smoke, darkening the area further. The debates you've partaken in here while informative for many have also regually unearthed the "dark side" of Christianity, you've attempted to justify rape, murder, genocide and much more.

If anything you're attempts to fuel the fire have given people more reasons to dislike Christianity if they didn't have one already.

Quote:Ah, yes. Exactly as I have written elsewhere...even citing Hitchens to the same effect.

I'm actually not that big a fan of Hitchens, he makes perfectly valid points but I much prefer those apologists and critics who don't just point out the obvious but bother to take a pair of tweezers to and pick every last stitch of the opposition apart like the sedevacantist Diamond brothers.

Quote:If God appeared like a flaming behemoth in the sky, you would not acknowledge Him AS GOD because you simply don't want to. This is how and why people go to hell...BECAUSE THEY WOULD RATHER BE THERE THAN IN GOD'S PRESENCE so great is their hatred for Him. And I would also suggest that for those that feel no "hatred for God", they are driven by a great love for self. So, the end result is the same.

Uh, if the creator deity of the universe appeared like that I think it would be a preeety good confirmation of its claims being likely to be correct. You're not very familiar with assessment techniques are you?

Then again, if we were to use your own book I would have to call such a creature Satan, Anti-Christ or the Beast because less we forget the infernal powers can appear as or claim to be divine.

As for going to hell willingly let me pose a similar situation; your wife decides to dump you but she's got nowhere to stay for the night, what do you do?

1) Let her sleep on the couch, this may not be very appealing and some would understand you not wanting to do this.

2) Let her leave and find her own way.

or....

3) Sit down, plan, invent and build the most terrifying torture chamber ever created, boot her inside and begin pouring hot lava over her while other assorted acts of unspeakable brutality take place?

1) Would make you a pretty cool guy, 2) Would be neutral, 3) would make you a psychopathic and vindictive.

Quote:But I'll here from others about how no one hates God, blah, blah, blah.

FOLKS, I GET THAT YOU HAVE DIFFERING VIEWS, OKAY. NOT EVERYONE IS AT THE EXACT SAME SPOT ON THE SPECTRUM OF ATHEISM.

Not sure how this is relevant but okay.

Quote:Perhaps reading more of CS Lewis would help.

Because of his Anglican values supposedly contained within? It's a rather cute idea, but as with Tolkein one would only see Aslan as a Christ figure if one was purposefully looking for it. Yuna the Summoner Priestess in the Final Fantasy series could also be described as a Christ figure for much of her story with her willingness to accept Martyrdom while she had faith but again, this would only be picked out if one was purposefully looking for such an example. Being created by Japanese Buddhist/Shintoists it was very unlikely she was created to exemplify the ideal Christian martyr, it was purely coincidental.

Lewis may have had this in mind when he created Aslan, but there are so many savior figures in literature one wouldn't be aware this was an intentional comparison unless one had been told that that Lewis wanted to express Christian doctrine or that Galadriel was a Marian figure (not quite sure how that fits in with her fucking Gandalf but whatever...I got that from Catholic Answers, not from my own reading of the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings).

Quote:At least not one that you recognize for its quality, apparently. I'll keep trying...Bring more wood!

I admire your persistence.

Quote:I don't own that book, but I do have a fairly respectable library of titles. If you are going to read some Catholic theology/apologetics, I'd be happy to recommend some books.

By all means I'd appreciate suggestions. I have just ordered a copy of Akin's "The Fathers Know best" (I can't recall the exact title) as part of my search for decent Catholic doctrine revision for my module.

Quote:Or both. Could I be doing it for BOTH reasons?

Would this make it any better morally?

Quote:I recall you mentioned your study with the Protestants and the Orthodox, but I must have missed your mentioning this. I do apologize. And I wish I knew which diocese you are teaching in.

To be fair I didn't mention it; the CCRS is less a theological programme itself and more a driving test. They don't inform so much as examine for evidence you already know the material hence I didn't mention it, really the base topics are woefully inadequate for the exam and despite the advertising claiming it is primarily for outsiders and non-theologians I think they assume anyone who takes it is a practicing Catholic. I wouldn't have brought it up but you seem to think I must attend a Catholic university to learn about Catholic Theology which is a bit of a catch twenty two since as a "practicing homosexual" I'm not allowed to attend Catholic schools or universities. Still, funnily enough I am now qualified to teach Theology at them, overqualified actually.

You can rest easy in that I do not teach at a Catholic institution, but an nominally Anglican one. My employer simply wishes everyone who leads Theology is accredited and knowledgeable of the most well known Christian traditions. Anglicans themselves aren't generally as exclusive as the Orthodox or Catholics and try to balance everyones opinion for merit, rather than the automatic Catholic/Orthodox "Heretic!!".

It's why they're usually far better positioned when debating outsiders, they actually understand the opposition.

Quote:Do a search on the word "whores" posted by Randy Carson. Let me know what you come up with, okay?

All I found was me quoting YOU here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-33377-po...#pid970638

My search:

http://atheistforums.org/search.php?acti...order=desc

I said in more flowery language, not in those exact words but with that meaning. You've made it very clear you consider us all some more than others depraved and immoral.

(July 12, 2015 at 3:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In addition to what Randy wrote, a single passage can have several layers of meaning, beyond the surface so to speak.

It seems that atheists and fundamentalists both insist on seeing only the most superficial approach to Holy Scripture.

Or rather like myself we critique the fact the "right interpretation" happens to be the one most convenient for you in the circumstances.

A prime example of this is Ursury, forbidden as sin for several centuries....Until the Turks were positioning themselves as a potential threat to the Papal States, the Pope had screwed all his Jewish money lenders so much nobody would lend him the cash so he "understood" that Christians moneylending with interest wasn't actually bad anymore.

Give to caesars what is caesars is another good one, while the Churches were stronger Caesar got nothing but now that the state is independent they're entitled to their fair share. What a happy coincidence the Papacy realized this truth in the Lateran Treaty just before they were about to become bankrupt and that good kind old Mussolini was willing to give his Holiness $92 million dollars for him giving up claims to the ruler ship of Italy.

The Catholics aren't the only ones who do this, they're just probably the most well known in the west. There's plenty of hypocrisy in Orthodoxy too with how they alternated between condemning and applauding the communist regime and collaborating with the brutality of the Russian autocracy which they've funnily enough started doing again with Putin.

(July 11, 2015 at 10:25 am)Cato Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 12:44 am)Godschild Wrote: You however threw away God as one would trash, claiming He doesn't exist, so how is it you can say what you do about the God you claim doesn't exist, actually why do you say the things you do about something that doesn't exist. That would be like me getting mad at the pink unicorn and throwing a temper tantrum at the very thing I do not believe exists, for me it would be a stupid and foolish thing to do, even worse it would be a total waste of my time.

The last time I checked there wasn't a significant horde of gullible morons running around trying to wield political power to compel fellow citizens to live in accordance with their interpretation of what the pink unicorn is supposed to have said. It has absolutely nothing to do with your imaginary friend and everything to do with what the likes of you attempt to do with your fantasy. If you kept your childish deontology to yourself there wouldn't be any issues.

In this country I have the right to speak out about what I believe and will. So it's okay for atheist to bring uo a unicorn in a discussion but not Christians, good to see where you stand, biased to the max.

GC

(July 12, 2015 at 11:36 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 10:25 am)Cato Wrote: The last time I checked there wasn't a significant horde of gullible morons running around trying to wield political power to compel fellow citizens to live in accordance with their interpretation of what the pink unicorn is supposed to have said. It has absolutely nothing to do with your imaginary friend and everything to do with what the likes of you attempt to do with your fantasy. If you kept your childish deontology to yourself there wouldn't be any issues.

In this country I have the right to speak out about what I believe and will. So it's okay for atheist to bring uo a unicorn in a discussion but not Christians, good to see where you stand, biased to the max.

GC

Not to shit on your rainbow but if christians actually ran a country we atheists would be dead or in jail considering if you look at third world countries that are ran 
by forms of religion and christianity etc. Just be happy you live in a country that is ran by the godless government instead of the bible and fear. 
god can kiss my bum and look its on the internet and no one cares unless if i was in a country were its illegal in the middle east they would have my head on a pike.

(July 11, 2015 at 12:55 am)Godschild Wrote: No, and the simple explanation to this, Chad and I both have given, all choices in heaven will be choosing one good thing or another good thing, there will be no evil choices, God's ultimate will for heaven will be absolute perfection, without any faults.

GC

Rhonda Wrote:Then it is god's fault that Satan and the other angels sinned because if god can make it so we don't have the opportunity to choose anything bad in Heaven,

No it's not, I see you like to blame God for everything, I would bet you are a person who runs from responsibility when something you do goes wrong.
If Lucifer and the other angels had not rebelled there may have never been a need for heaven, that is as long as man never disobeyed God. There had to be choice to begin with, because God knew that without it some would complain, Lucifer was unhappy because he thought he should have been created higher than his creator, kinda' the way I see some here (cry babies).

Rhonda Wrote:he could have done the same for them. The catch is, if you explain how they sinned, you will also be explaining how we could sin as well.

No He couldn't, the question of God's superiority and those who wanted to be with Him for eternity had to be settled. Lucifer started this with his own wrong choice and man continued it. Like I said above if Lucifer and man had not disobeyed there would not have been a need for heaven.

Rhonda Wrote:Your answers are good if we don't look at them to closely. I have yet to meet a Christian who can give me an answer that doesn't fall apart upon close inspection.

You can't be serious. You haven't returned a good argument to me yet and you dodge most of what I bring to the table and cry about what you decide to answer. Something that seems to be religious conduct among many atheist here. 

GC

(July 11, 2015 at 12:44 am)Godschild Wrote: We're talking about now not when you thought you were a Christian, 25 years you were playing a game and this is why I believe what I do about you, not trying to put you down here this is what I honestly believe. If you had confessed Jesus as your savior and Lord all those years ago He would have proved to you He was real. If after that you decided you didn't like what you had found, I could believe that and slightly understand what you did. I could even understand your anger at God. You however threw away God as one would trash, claiming He doesn't exist, so how is it you can say what you do about the God you claim doesn't exist, actually why do you say the things you do about something that doesn't exist. That would be like me getting mad at the pink unicorn and throwing a temper tantrum at the very thing I do not believe exists, for me it would be a stupid and foolish thing to do, even worse it would be a total waste of my time. I just can't believe you ever had a personal relationship with God, for if you had you could not in all honesty ever deny His existence, be mad at Him for some reason yes, but to deny something you had a personal relationship with would be crazy.
want get back here before Monday, have a great weekend, talk to you soon.

GC

Rhonda Wrote:GC, I have only been here for 3 months and are you going to tell me my whole life story because you know my motives that I had when you did not even know I was alive?

I haven't said anything about your whole life, you need to quit crying about things and learn to be honest about what I say. I told you that what I said was my personal opinion and nothing more or less. I'm really not interested in your past life other than your leaving God out of your life.

Rhonda Wrote:  If you subscribe to the Once Saved Always Saved doctrine then that’s your belief but has nothing to do with me. I confessed Jesus as my lord and  savior and the worse other Christians treated me the more tightly I clung to what I believed was my “personal relationship with god.”

I said nothing about nor alluded to once saved always saved, I see how you might have gotten that, my being a Southern Baptist and writing what I did about you not possibly being saved to start with. I don't think you read what I said carefully enough, then that may have been my fault. I do not believe in once saved always saved anymore, I just can't see where the Bible teaches this doctrine. I do not doubt you confessed Christ, I've seen and known others to have done the same thing and may still believe they are save, but more than likely they are as lost as last years Easter egg. The shame of it all could be they were not being taught any better, I've seen that also. Now that you have said you were treated badly by other Christians (I can't fathom why), if you don't mind sharing I would like to know so I can understand. Limited information on both sides keeps us from understanding each other, we both loose when this happens. I've had bad experiences with other Christians in the past and let it effect my walk with God, I did not give up on God though and not so long ago I've had experiences with Christians but didn't allow it to get between myself and God, I learned from the experiences.

Rhonda Wrote:I am not mad at god. How can I be mad at something that I no longer believe exist?

You could have fooled me, the way you write about Him would lead many to believe you were and, you haven't yet said you didn't get mad at God and leave Him. I see hatred for God all over this forum, people can deny this but, they can't hide it, it's to obvious. Most of the Christians who use to be here have told me the same thing and I bet the ones here would say the same, but I'll let them speak for themselves.

Rhonda Wrote:I’m not even mad at you because you are where I was (unless the truth is that you are the one who’s playing a game, pretending to be a believer when as god told the Israelites, his name is blasphemed because of you - Romans 2:24).

I'm glad to hear you're not mad at me, because I wasn't able to tell if you were or not. I don't know where you were and I'm sure you do not know where I'm at in a relationship with God. I doubt very seriously we could have been in the same place, I know for a fact that God is real and, He is who He says He is. That's why I said I do not believe (my opinion) you ever really knew God, how could you and walk away and say He does not exist. I believe that many people have been saved and then decided to leave God for their own reasons, but I believe most were babes in faith and never really come to allow God to prove Himself to them. This takes a lot of study, real desire and dedication to God which would include deep prayer and asking God in those prayers to bring one's self into that knowledge, the NT teaches this is possible when we desire this above other things. Hoe does one deny God's reality if one knew for sure He is real, I can't ever imagine how that's possible. To me that would be the same as one saying they never had a mother and father, in the physical sense. I'm not mad at you either I will always make a determined stand for what I know is the truth and reality of God, and in my zealous stand it may seem I'm mad.

Rhonda Wrote:The rest of your post is just obfuscation and artful dodging, as anyone who reads what I said and your replies can tell.

Not really, I think you just want to avoid the rest, why, because you've ignored things from me thus far in this thread, and I've answered everything you've posted. So how could I've dodged anything.

GC

(July 12, 2015 at 3:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In addition to what Randy wrote, a single passage can have several layers of meaning, beyond the surface so to speak.

It seems that atheists and fundamentalists both insist on seeing only the most superficial approach to Holy Scripture.

Not this fundamentalist Chad, I depend on that deeper understanding because I want to be a fundamentalist who understands God on a level most Christians don't even want to approach. To me being a fundamentalist is getting deeper into God's word to grow in a deeper relationship with Him and to be able to tell others the greatness and wonders of God, even if they refuse to listen. As you can tell I totally agree with your first sentence.

GC