Christianity: Don't Reason, Just Obey

[Cyberman]

"Every knee will bend.... and every tongue will confess Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father."

[Reads post]

[Reads thread title]

[Re-reads post]

I believe the chess term is "self-mate".

[JesusHChrist]

"Every knee will bend.... and every tongue will confess Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father."

[Reads post]

[Reads thread title]

[Re-reads post]

I believe the chess term is "self-mate".

Irony recognition is not one of the theist's core competencies.

[orangebox21]

Another important thing to note is that, when the bible says that, it is factually wrong.

Where have you been? I haven't seen you or your "dodgy eyes" in awhile.

The scripture in question deals with the heart/mind of another man. Given that I cannot see into the heart of another man I cannot prove this scripture true of my own authority. This is why I don't bring this scripture as an accusation against the members of the atheist forum. On the other hand, you have the same problem. In order to support your claim that the Bible is 'factually wrong' you take the position that: you are a man, you know there isn't a God, the Bible says all men know there is a God, therefore the Bible is factually inaccurate. The only proof you have is your word/authority. Serious question here: Why should I take your word for it? Can it be proven you're not lying to me?

Does the Bible teach that 'people need to accept it first?' Is belief a work of man, or a work of God? Is salvation a work of the will of man, or the will of God?

What odd questions. Man, obviously.

It's a means of determining if a person has an understanding of both the argument and the Biblical position.

Exactly. First you get admission into the school, and then, you start studying for the subjects. Imagine someone who studies engineering, but he's not admitted into the engineering program. Can he graduate or "be saved"? Naturally no.

First you accept the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ our Lord, and then you study his word. That's what Christianity is about. Blind acceptance.

You're criticizing the believer for doing the same thing the student does: First "acceptence", then studying (first you get admission, then you study/first you accept the teachings, then you study).

There is also something else you have overlooked. The person who is accepted into an engineering program presummably has a basic, if not moderate, knowledge of math, physics, language, etc. The engineering program allows the student to grow in and deepen their understanding of these subjects and how they apply specifically to engineering. In the same way the believer has a basic knowledge of Christian theology at the time of salvation. Their study then leads to a deeper understanding.

In your analogy, 'acceptance' would be salvation, 'graduation' would be sanctification. Not, graduation=saved.

If faith comes from hearing the word (Romans 10:17) and we are saved through faith, then a person must hear the word in order to have faith. The Bible doesn't teach 'blind acceptance.'

So Joyce Meyer has worked out that (her?) God is incapable of establishing a religion that can withstand critical review ??


Hmmm. Isn't there a verse in the Bible forbidding willful ignorance ???

I'm assuming your asking rhetorically but Romans 1:20, 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 1 Corinthians 14:20, and 1 Corinthians 13:11, are also example of how we are to think.

I'm not sure where you got this from, but you are simply wrong. Practicing Catholics are constantly in the Bible. I take it you've never been to mass where there are typically three readings. Typically there is one each from the OT, the epistles, and the gospel. I actually prefer this to the Bible hopscotch spewed by evangelicals.

Perhaps the explanation is in which Bible is used and who has the authority to interpret it.

---

COUNCIL OF TRENT: FOURTH SESSION, DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES:
And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."

"The Council of Trent also reiterated the Church's sole authority to interpret the Scriptures. This reinforced the position of the Magisterum or the teaching office of the Church. The exclusive right of the Church to interpret Scripture was one of the positions that Luther had attacked in his tract An Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. Luther taught that the doctrine of the priesthood of believer meant that the individual Christian possessed the ability to interpret the Scriptures accurately. Although the Church did not officially condemn vernacular translations of the Bible, this canon effectively accomplished the same result." (http://blog.guidedbytruth.com/anathema.php)

---

Even though the official Vatican position is that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God

Not exactly. They teach the infallibility and openess of the canon through the papal line. So the ultimate inerrancy and authority belongs not with the scriptures but within the papacy.

[The Grand Nudger]

In order to support your claim that the Bible is 'factually wrong' you take the position that: you are a man, you know there isn't a God, the Bible says all men know there is a God, therefore the Bible is factually inaccurate. The only proof you have is your word/authority.

Which is the only proof required...as it is a statement of what he does or does not believe, does or does not know. It is not declaration of the factual accuracy of the statement (that there is no god) but the factual accuracy of the statement that "all men know there is a god" He does not, in fact he knows the precise opposition to the claim. The claim as constructed is unfortunately absolute -all men- It's a done deal. I would repeat his claim as my own. So now there are two men...at least, in a world where "all men know there is a god"....and that's troubling for the claim, I'd say.

Do you know how a telephone works? Apply the statement "All men know how telephones work". What do you think?

Serious question here: Why should I take your word for it? Can it be proven you're not lying to me?

No more so than you could prove that you believed in god. Tread lightly, the floor of solipsism is thin(or maybe not).

I know, not meant for me..but that's the third time I've seen it (or it's ilk) today.

[Cato]

Perhaps the explanation is in which Bible is used and who has the authority to interpret it.

The NT is the same. Protestants reverted to the Jewish canon for the OT. So, not much difference relating to the basis for Christian doctrine.

Think of the church hierarchy as arbiters of conflict in interpretation. No different than going to a pastor or reverend or bishop or minister or trusted televangelist. At mass, after the three readings are given, the priest delivers a homily/sermon usually in an attempt to consolidate the teachings. All are encouraged to consider the scripture on their own and not take the homily as gospel (couldn't resist). The Second Vatican Council (if I remember correctly) gives general guidance on interpretation, basically to consider who wrote it, who it was for, and something about the holy spirit. Interpretation isn't making shit up or reading into what is being taught, but an attempt to apply the teachings to your own life.

Not exactly. They teach the infallibility and openess of the canon through the papal line. So the ultimate inerrancy and authority belongs not with the scriptures but within the papacy.

Papal infalibility ends at scripture, meaning the pope cannot contradict scripture. Scripture holds supremacy. Are you getting your knowledge of Catholicism from Protestants?

Keep in mind that Catholics have been discussing this for 2000 years. Most issues today are typically limited to conflicts with emerging science and ethical issues in changing societies. You likely won't see any sudden doctrinal changes, like the emergence of the prosperity gospel, out of the Catholic church. The hierarchy at least provides some stability; whereas, with many Protestant denominations your at the mercy of the mood of the guy on the riser.

I am by no means defending the Catholic church. I am simply trying to dispel the common misconceptions that keep popping up in this thread.

[Esquilax]

Where have you been? I haven't seen you or your "dodgy eyes" in awhile.

The scripture in question deals with the heart/mind of another man. Given that I cannot see into the heart of another man I cannot prove this scripture true of my own authority. This is why I don't bring this scripture as an accusation against the members of the atheist forum. On the other hand, you have the same problem. In order to support your claim that the Bible is 'factually wrong' you take the position that: you are a man, you know there isn't a God, the Bible says all men know there is a God, therefore the Bible is factually inaccurate. The only proof you have is your word/authority. Serious question here: Why should I take your word for it? Can it be proven you're not lying to me?

My word is the only thing you need, where it concerns the contents of my own mind. What reason would I have to lie? And please, don't insult us both by saying "so you can keep living in sin," we both know that makes no logical sense no matter which way you look at it, from an atheist perspective denying god doesn't remove the punishment for sin and if I really do know god exists nothing in that argument makes sense, and christians sin anyway so...

Besides, actually consider how the argument you're proposing goes: I say that the bible says all men know god, and that I don't know that god exists. Your potential answer is "you're lying." Well... great. Where do we go from here? You have no way of knowing I'm lying and no evidence to support that view, and meanwhile I and every other atheist here has self-verifying evidence that you're wrong in both your initial claim and your counter-argument. Why do I need to rebut an assertion with no evidence behind it, based on the contents of my own mind... which I already know?

[RobbyPants]

When was the last time you've been in church to witness the pews empty? More lies from pagans!

Last week when I was collecting research (not in my own parish). There was about eight over 60's and three couples.

LOL! And that's your research?

When was the last time you asked someone for something, they gave it to you, and you shifted the goal posts?

[Cyberman]

Every five minutes?

[Ravenshire]

So, what do you have to offer in return? I'll wait....

Not much. Just a harsh truth. I'll take that over your comforting lies any day.

[Rampant.A.I.]

No, it won't die off, much the same way as paganism hasn't died off.

What we will see (and are seeing) is continuing marginalization of religious belief, at least in first world countries. As the older, believing generation dies off, they will not be replaced by the younger folks. The stats don't lie, the pews are emptying, the clerical ranks not being refilled. The internet is a bitch!

Christianity is a slowly rotting corpse with only a few maggots left to feed on the tiny bit of sustenance remaining. Yuck.

Now, get down and give me FIFTY maggot!

When was the last time you've been in church to witness the pews empty? More lies from pagans!

There are more Christians then there ever were.... Because all you have to offer are maggots, and death. Choose LIFE!

Someone needs to look up the definition of "pagan."

---

So you're saying that as we get less religion, we'll make more babies?

Well, he's Catholic, so more babies, and more abortions, since Catholics get 38% of all abortions performed.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us...tatistics/