Damned Catholics

[Thor]

Which "rule" lets you butt-fuck children, your ass-holiness?

I love this! I have to remember it in case I ever get to meet the Dope.

"And how are you today, Your Ass-holiness?"

[Minimalist]

First heard in the 1974 cult classic "Flesh Gordon."

[dqualk]

The story of the flood is meant to convey a deeper and more profound truth. The intent is not to get caught in the little details. The deeper and more profound truth is that are sins displease God and make us worthy of death. It is also meant to teach that even though God will punish man He will never entirely destroy them. Whether or not the flood happened is not so important. And whether God was the primary agent in the flood is not so important. God allowing things to go on in a contingent manner means that God allows things to go on naturally without supernaturally altering what would happen naturally. God ordinarily allows nature to unfold natuarally. Many of the stories of the Bible are myths that teach us a deeper and more profound truth.

I think it is funny that you would say when is drowing a child justifiable but all morality is subjective? Which means it is justifiable when the individual thinks it is within atheism. Within an objective system of morality one can logically conclude that God has power over life and death of all things for many justifiable reasons. For one thing He created us and gave us the gift of life, and that gift belongs to Him. He can take it whenever He wants. Further we are all under a covenant that says if we do not sin God will bless us, all of us sin, and yes all children will sin at some point. This means they broke their end of the bargain. God owes nobody anything, and this is a logically consistent and sensible statement. However, God out of His love for us sent His only Son to save the world from condemnation. And Christ paid the price so that sin can no longer keep us from heaven. Only our hard hateful hearts can keep us from Divine bliss.

---

Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.

[Darwinian]

It seems to me that God has gone to an awful lot of trouble to create humans that constantly sin, displease him, annoy him, turn away from him, deny him, worship the wrong version of him etc. etc. etc.

Why would he do this?

[dqualk]

It seems to me that God has gone to an awful lot of trouble to create humans that constantly sin, displease him, annoy him, turn away from him, deny him, worship the wrong version of him etc. etc. etc.

Why would he do this?

Well it seems to me that the only reason He would ever do this is if this is the best possible of all worlds. I think He had to allow for some misery or else there would not have been virtues, which require some catastrophe, virtues like courage, unconditional love and so on, which are dependent upon free will. So the question is how much is just the right amount. I imagine that this world must have just the right amount, and at times it seems like its so much suffering and grief that surely there is not a God. But it seems like in order for someone to perseve there would have to be something very difficult to persevere through, not like a tiny pric on the finger.

I can understand if someone concludes that this could not be the best possible of all worlds. As I have said the problem of evil is the most difficult problem in Christianity and there is no perfect available response to it. I do believe that in the future something willl happen that will be so great that it will make us realize that the suffering was necessary in order that there be such a great good, like love, free will, courage, temperance, unconditional love, perseverence, sacrifice and so on.

[Minimalist]

The story of the flood is meant to convey a deeper and more profound truth.

I'd like to introduce you to a fundie I know who will take your words and conclude that you are not any sort of xtian.


http://www.phpbb88.com/archiesforum/inde...chiesforum


Tell him I sent you to discuss the "flood." He thinks the whole story is the literal truth. I might add that disliking catholics is one of the few things he and I agree on....for different reasons.

[Darwinian]

Not 'archaeologist'. I've had a few run-ins with him as well :S

[Thor]

The story of the flood is meant to convey a deeper and more profound truth. The intent is not to get caught in the little details. The deeper and more profound truth is that are sins displease God and make us worthy of death.

Oh, please! This deity creates people who he knows will sin, which displeases him, which makes us worthy of death.

Give me a break!

This is nothing but delusional mumbo jumbo.

It is also meant to teach that even though God will punish man He will never entirely destroy them.

How comforting.

Whether or not the flood happened is not so important.

It didn't.

And whether God was the primary agent in the flood is not so important.

How can it NOT be? If the flood really happened and it was really caused by your deity, he is a mass murderer on a scale that dwarfs Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot combined!

Many of the stories of the Bible are myths

I'd say that ALL the stories of the Bible are myths.

that teach us a deeper and more profound truth.

And what "profound truth" is there to be found in a story of mass murder?

I think it is funny that you would say when is drowing a child justifiable but all morality is subjective?

I would say that drowning a child is always unjustified and immoral. But that's just me. I see you don't agree.

Which means it is justifiable when the individual thinks it is within atheism.

Uh.... no.

Within an objective system of morality one can logically conclude that God has power over life and death of all things for many justifiable reasons.

Just because one has the power of life and death doesn't make it moral to use that power whenever the whim strikes.

For one thing He created us and gave us the gift of life, and that gift belongs to Him. He can take it whenever He wants.

Can you prove this deity created us? Yeah, didn't think so.

And if I were to concede your point, try explaining why this deity felt the need to drown everything on the planet when he could have simply waved his hand and expunged all the bad people in the world without drowning babies. This would be like burning down your house to get rid of a few mice. Your deity sounds like a retard.

Further we are all under a covenant that says if we do not sin God will bless us, all of us sin, and yes all children will sin at some point. This means they broke their end of the bargain.

Now explain what "sin" a baby or toddler could possibly commit...

God owes nobody anything, and this is a logically consistent and sensible statement.

Bull. If I bring a child into the world I am responsible for caring for that child until it reaches maturity and can take care of itself. If, as you insist, your deity created us, I would say he's responsible for caring for his creation. Not just sitting back waiting for us to fuck up so he can smite us.

However, God out of His love for us sent His only Son to save the world from condemnation.

You do realize there's no evidence that Jesus was a real person?

And Christ paid the price so that sin can no longer keep us from heaven. Only our hard hateful hearts can keep us from Divine bliss.

What hooey. Your deity sent himself down to Earth to sacrifice himself to himself so that he could remove a curse on people that he himself put there.

Yeah, makes perfect sense to me!

[Jaysyn]

I'd like to introduce you to a fundie I know who will take your words and conclude that you are not any sort of xtian.


http://www.phpbb88.com/archiesforum/inde...chiesforum

What a horrible looking forum. At least change the damn default pic at the top. Bah, I never liked PHPBB anyhow.

[dqualk]

Thor you refuse to confront Christianity on its own terms. I know this would be uncomfortable so I don't blame you for making straw men that you can ridicule. But if you ever want to man up and actually try to get into what Christianity is saying, then you can condemn it. Until I think it is best to accept that you really do not know a lot about it. Becasue what you are saying is Christianity from an atheists point of view. Which is all good and fine, but if you are going to dialouge with a Christian for real, then you should attemp to see Christianity through his shoes. I can make atheism look retarded by not putting on the glasses of an atheist. I have chosen instead to sincerely try to see what it is atheism is saying on its own terms. I encourage you to do the same if you ever find the time for Christianity.

Also, saying there is no evidence that Jesus lived is like saying there is no evidence that Julius Caesar lived. The fact is there are many very ancient historical documents closer to the time of Jesus and there are many other reasons to believe that Jesus was a real person. But you can be delusional all you want. It is one thing to say that Jesus may not have existed at all, its completely different to say that there is no evidence that Jesus lived. As there is certainly evidence, whether or not you think it there is enough to warrant truth is your business, but I will say that most scholars, including non Christian scholars who study Jesus conclude that at least he was probably a real historical person, based on the evidence we have.

---

Thanks for the address minimalist. However, I doubt I will go there because debating the literalness of the flood is not that exciting for me. It just seems pointless, especially for me, as I do not deny that the flood happened, even though I tend to think that it is an allegory. Its not important for me to deny it outright or accept it outright. Rather I tend to rarely affirm, seldom deny and always distinguish. However, I'm sure this guy gives XP a bad name. Maybe I'll give him some wisdom from St. Thomas Aquinas who says that the truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.