The backbreaker

[Nihilist Virus]

I've spoken with Christians who are OK with contradictions in the Bible, Christians who believe in the Big Bang and unguided evolution, and Christians who disregard the unsavory things in the Old Testament. But I have never seen a good response to my backbreaker here.  The Christian retreats behind the shield of faith, no longer even sure what that faith is in.

It's a simple question:
Is God above the law or not?

Simple answer: yes.

Then why did Jesus have to die? What was the point?

[drfuzzy]

---

Firstly, you want to say that Jesus had no power on earth and yet he was never denied power by God. In other words, he never said, "is this your card?" and then the people said no. He was never left hanging by God, except for when He was crucified. So however you want to describe his miracles, it is quite factual that my interpretation in your interpretation are indistinguishable.

---

---

 How do you know God the Father wouldn't give Him power to heal certain people. There's a huge difference in the way you see Jesus and I see Him. If Jesus had brought His powers from heaven to earth then Satan could have and would have claimed Jesus used powers greater than man to avoid sinning. Satan would not have missed such an opportunity to gloat. Please remember I have said God the Father gave Jesus powers to heal and do other miracles, not the power to resist sin. I given evidence of this through the scriptures in my last post.  

---

---

 Now the rest of our argument here is kind of irrelevant to the original post, so before I get into all that stuff some more let me just ask you a couple questions: if I could get you to agree that Deuteronomy 24:16 is talking about a physical death, or a physical execution, then would you agree that I have proven my case? Would you agree that I have provided the backbreaker as advertised? If no, what else do you think I'm lacking in my premises? 

---

---

 All the truth I given goes to show you have no back breaker, so yes they are relevant.

---

 GC: You can't get me to change my mind on the truth,        Fuzz:  (   --- followed by another quote from the idiot book, aka the wholly babble)

  

---

Deut. 24:16 is not speaking to physical death. The verse says a son shall not be put to death for a fathers sin and visa versa. As I said before not all sin required a physical death but all sin requires a spiritual death. The verse doesn't specify certain sins so the meaning therefore is all sin. God allowed generations of families to suffer from certain sins, but death wasn't always part of what God allowed.
Your lacking any proof, you haven't disproved not one of my arguments against what you've presented.

GC 

---

[athrock]

I don't think this is the message that is trying to get across. Even if you take the OT literally, which I certainly don't.   

Since the child was innocent of personal sins, we know that he/she would have been received into heaven immediately upon death. And in this way, the child was spared a lifetime of being mocked and scorned by the people of Israel who would have known that the child was the illegitimate son of David resulting from his adultery with Bathsheba.  

Basically, the child was not punished for what David did, as you seem to think. But rather, God showed mercy to the child by taking it to heaven. 

Respectfully, Cath, that's horse-hockey about the "lifetime of mockery". Solomon was the second child born of their liaison, and he ascended to the throne.

Let's be really clear, Rocket: David married Bathsheba after Uriah was killed. Consequently, Solomon was a legitimate son and heir to David's throne.

2 Samuel 11:26-27
26 When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.

And whether or not that kid "ascended into heaven", it was still a *baby* who was tortured to death (via lingering disease) in order to punish his father. It clearly states that, A->B. 

"Tortured"? You know this for a fact how, Rocket? "Tortured" has all sorts of negative connotations, and you'll have to do more than simply assert that God "tortured" the child in order to make your point. Yes, ch. 12 discusses the matter in detail, and yes, God caused the illness which resulted in his death. But merely causing the child to die is not proof that God is a psychopath. Only people who do not hope for life after death would see things this way. You're in that camp, aren't you?

It's either one of two things: God is real and a psychopath, or else God is imaginary and this stuff about disease being the wrath of a deity is as ignorant as the people who claimed lightning striking someone was the wrath of Thor.

Or that God showed mercy to the child by taking him to heaven quickly where he has been enjoying the Beatific vision ever since. The either-or that you propose does not admit this possibility.

But that is due to YOUR presuppositions, isn't it?

Oh, one more point before I forget...your signature...some Protestant spoke to you about how it's not possible for someone to lose his or her salvation. I realize that you were raised in a Protestant home, but "once saved always saved" is a relatively modern Protestant heresy, and "Bible Christians" ought to know better.

In Romans 11:22, Paul says, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." This verse implies that they were united with Christ and in grace before they fell. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

This is not the language of "once saved always saved."

[Nihilist Virus]

Respectfully, Cath, that's horse-hockey about the "lifetime of mockery". Solomon was the second child born of their liaison, and he ascended to the throne.

Let's be really clear, Rocket: David married Bathsheba after Uriah was killed. Consequently, Solomon was a legitimate son and heir to David's throne.

2 Samuel 11:26-27
26 When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.

And whether or not that kid "ascended into heaven", it was still a *baby* who was tortured to death (via lingering disease) in order to punish his father. It clearly states that, A->B. 

"Tortured"? You know this for a fact how, Rocket? "Tortured" has all sorts of negative connotations, and you'll have to do more than simply assert that God "tortured" the child in order to make your point. Yes, ch. 12 discusses the matter in detail, and yes, God caused the illness which resulted in his death. But merely causing the child to die is not proof that God is a psychopath. Only people who do not hope for life after death would see things this way. You're in that camp, aren't you?

It's either one of two things: God is real and a psychopath, or else God is imaginary and this stuff about disease being the wrath of a deity is as ignorant as the people who claimed lightning striking someone was the wrath of Thor.

Or that God showed mercy to the child by taking him to heaven quickly where he has been enjoying the Beatific vision ever since. The either-or that you propose does not admit this possibility.

But that is due to YOUR presuppositions, isn't it?

Oh, one more point before I forget...your signature...some Protestant spoke to you about how it's not possible for someone to lose his or her salvation. I realize that you were raised in a Protestant home, but "once saved always saved" is a relatively modern Protestant heresy, and "Bible Christians" ought to know better.

In Romans 11:22, Paul says, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." This verse implies that they were united with Christ and in grace before they fell. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

This is not the language of "once saved always saved."

athrock,



The first thing you ever said to me was this:




Now you are saying that God had mercy on an infant that he tortured for a week.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Respectfully, Cath, that's horse-hockey about the "lifetime of mockery". Solomon was the second child born of their liaison, and he ascended to the throne.

Let's be really clear, Rocket: David married Bathsheba after Uriah was killed. Consequently, Solomon was a legitimate son and heir to David's throne.

2 Samuel 11:26-27
26 When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.

Bathsheba was not the first wife of David. He already had sons by his first wives, which is why there was a power struggle for the throne. The entire story of the "wisdom of Solomon", in which he offers to cut a baby in half, is a metaphor for his ascension to the throne. Israel was only recently united under the David kingship, and there was a real possibility for civil war when Solomon took over-- in other words, when it says the illegitimate mother was willing to let the baby be killed while the legitimate mother would rather see her baby given to the pretender than to die, it's Solomon's triumph over the legit heir... Solomon had amassed enough support to split Israel in half fighting for that throne, and if the people really loved their country, they should give it up rather than see it cut in half.

Despite all that, the fact is that Solomon was the second child born of that liaison (wife or not), and he ascended to the throne. I guess killing the firstborn baby was enough to satisfy God's wrath for the death of Uriah?

And whether or not that kid "ascended into heaven", it was still a *baby* who was tortured to death (via lingering disease) in order to punish his father. It clearly states that, A->B. 

"Tortured"? You know this for a fact how, Rocket? "Tortured" has all sorts of negative connotations, and you'll have to do more than simply assert that God "tortured" the child in order to make your point. Yes, ch. 12 discusses the matter in detail, and yes, God caused the illness which resulted in his death. But merely causing the child to die is not proof that God is a psychopath. Only people who do not hope for life after death would see things this way. You're in that camp, aren't you?

Yes, it is. Have you ever watched an infant die a lingering death (especially in an age without modern medicines) of disease? Have you watched anyone? I would rather die about a million ways other than that. A slow, lingering death inflicted on purpose to a baby by any intelligent actor, especially to get revenge on that baby's father, is the action of a psychopath. The worst kind of psychopath I can imagine.

It's either one of two things: God is real and a psychopath, or else God is imaginary and this stuff about disease being the wrath of a deity is as ignorant as the people who claimed lightning striking someone was the wrath of Thor.

Or that God showed mercy to the child by taking him to heaven quickly where he has been enjoying the Beatific vision ever since. The either-or that you propose does not admit this possibility.

But that is due to YOUR presuppositions, isn't it?

Quickly? It says the baby lingered and took a week to die!

2 Samuel 12:15-18 English Standard Version (NASB)

"Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick. 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them. 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died."

Oh, one more point before I forget...your signature...some Protestant spoke to you about how it's not possible for someone to lose his or her salvation. I realize that you were raised in a Protestant home, but "once saved always saved" is a relatively modern Protestant heresy, and "Bible Christians" ought to know better.

In Romans 11:22, Paul says, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." This verse implies that they were united with Christ and in grace before they fell. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

This is not the language of "once saved always saved."

Yes, yes, I know you all are experts on the Bible and What It All Means™. I'm sure YOUR version is the right one (insert quoted verses _here_), though!

I wasn't JUST raised in a Protestant home, I was raised in a fundamentalist and therefore Biblical literalist home. However, I do agree with you that it's an incorrect reading to think of it as "once saved, always saved". I simply found their assertion ludicrous enough to mock, for the reasons I state in the second half of my signature.

[athrock]

Let's be really clear, Rocket: David married Bathsheba after Uriah was killed. Consequently, Solomon was a legitimate son and heir to David's throne.

2 Samuel 11:26-27
26 When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.

Bathsheba was not the first wife of David. He already had sons by his first wives, which is why there was a power struggle for the throne. The entire story of the "wisdom of Solomon", in which he offers to cut a baby in half, is a metaphor for his ascension to the throne. Israel was only recently united under the David kingship, and there was a real possibility for civil war when Solomon took over-- in other words, when it says the illegitimate mother was willing to let the baby be killed while the legitimate mother would rather see her baby given to the pretender than to die, it's Solomon's triumph over the legit heir... Solomon had amassed enough support to split Israel in half fighting for that throne, and if the people really loved their country, they should give it up rather than see it cut in half.

Despite all that, the fact is that Solomon was the second child born of that liaison (wife or not), and he ascended to the throne. I guess killing the firstborn baby was enough to satisfy God's wrath for the death of Uriah?

You are entitled to your opinion, Rocket, but the scenario I offered is plausible and reasonable. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit with your current view of God.

"Tortured"? You know this for a fact how, Rocket? "Tortured" has all sorts of negative connotations, and you'll have to do more than simply assert that God "tortured" the child in order to make your point. Yes, ch. 12 discusses the matter in detail, and yes, God caused the illness which resulted in his death. But merely causing the child to die is not proof that God is a psychopath. Only people who do not hope for life after death would see things this way. You're in that camp, aren't you?

Yes, it is. Have you ever watched an infant die a lingering death (especially in an age without modern medicines) of disease? Have you watched anyone? I would rather die about a million ways other than that. A slow, lingering death inflicted on purpose  to a baby by any intelligent actor, especially to get revenge on that baby's father, is the action of a psychopath. The worst kind of psychopath I can imagine.

That's because you are a mere man and do not have the mind of God. But let's do a bit of math here...

Infinity in heaven + 80 years on earth = Infinite Happiness
Infinity in heaven - seven days of suffering on earth = Infinite Happiness

No, I'm not seeing that the child was cheated in any way. Missing out on those 80 years as a result of dying in infancy does not seem to have diminished the boy's happiness at all.

What YOU can't see (and seriously, this is because you don't WANT to see it) is that God could, in His omnipotence, know that the child may have been destined for a life of suffering because of the circumstances surrounding his conception. See, for an atheist like you, this life is all there is...happiness here on earth is as good as it gets. It never occurs to you that dying and going to heaven is BETTER. Paul wrote:

2 Corinthians 5:8
We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

You can't say that, can you? Because death is the end for you...at least, that is the best you can hope for. (As a former Christian, you might be nagged by "What if..." doubts when you're alone with your thoughts.)

Or that God showed mercy to the child by taking him to heaven quickly where he has been enjoying the Beatific vision ever since. The either-or that you propose does not admit this possibility.

But that is due to YOUR presuppositions, isn't it?

Quickly? It says the baby lingered and took a week to die!

2 Samuel 12:15-18 English Standard Version (NASB)

"Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick. 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them. 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died."

Yes. Quickly. I don't think the infant went to purgatory at all. Since Jesus had not yet come, the child would have remained in a rather pleasant place known as the Limbo of the Fathers until Jesus came and preached to all of the righteous who had died prior to the incarnation. You Baptists were never taught any of this basic theology, were you?

Oh, one more point before I forget...your signature...some Protestant spoke to you about how it's not possible for someone to lose his or her salvation. I realize that you were raised in a Protestant home, but "once saved always saved" is a relatively modern Protestant heresy, and "Bible Christians" ought to know better.

In Romans 11:22, Paul says, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." This verse implies that they were united with Christ and in grace before they fell. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

This is not the language of "once saved always saved."

Yes, yes, I know you all are experts on the Bible and What It All Means™. I'm sure YOUR version is the right one (insert quoted verses _here_), though!

I wasn't JUST raised in a Protestant home, I was raised in a fundamentalist and therefore Biblical literalist home. However, I do agree with you that it's an incorrect reading to think of it as "once saved, always saved". I simply found their assertion ludicrous enough to mock, for the reasons I state in the second half of my signature.

And for this reason, Rocket, I can understand some of your reaction to bad theology. The Protestant Reformers screwed up...badly. And I could show you this from the writings of the Early Church Fathers, if you like. No doubt you're familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"? Well, Rocket, if you have based your disagreement with Christianity upon flawed theology, is there any wonder you feel the way you do about God?

But would you still feel the same way if the errors in your thinking were corrected to your own satisfaction?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You are entitled to your opinion, Rocket, but the scenario I offered is plausible and reasonable. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit with your current view of God.

I don't have "a current view of God". I'm just reacting to the myriad versions of this fictional being with which I am bombarded endlessly. I evaluate your fictional character's actions the same way as I evaluate any other being, fictional or real, and killing a baby to get back at its father for something that pissed you off (or other bad deed he did) is P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H-I-C. Especially if you let the baby suffer for a week in order to increase the pain of the father.

The difference between us is that I'm not a rose-colored-glasses-wearing fanboy, willing to overlook these glaring moral failures in your favorite character.

That's because you are a mere man and do not have the mind of God. But let's do a bit of math here...

Infinity in heaven + 80 years on earth = Infinite Happiness
Infinity in heaven - seven days of suffering on earth = Infinite Happiness

No, I'm not seeing that the child was cheated in any way. Missing out on those 80 years as a result of dying in infancy does not seem to have diminished the boy's happiness at all.

What YOU can't see (and seriously, this is because you don't WANT to see it) is that God could, in His omnipotence, know that the child may have been destined for a life of suffering because of the circumstances surrounding his conception. See, for an atheist like you, this life is all there is...happiness here on earth is as good as it gets. It never occurs to you that dying and going to heaven is BETTER. Paul wrote:

2 Corinthians 5:8
We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

You can't say that, can you? Because death is the end for you...at least, that is the best you can hope for. (As a former Christian, you might be nagged by "What if..." doubts when you're alone with your thoughts.)

Nope. Never worry about it. I really don't. I find it a little bit embarrassing for you that you have to fantasize that I do. Again, read my signature... I neither fear nor desire the things your cult threatens or promises.

As for that "have the mind of God" bullshit... dude, really? I know the whole "my ways above your ways" thing, but I really don't see a way around the sentence "God killed an infant to get revenge on the father of that infant for something the father did."

And besides, according to your "a little math, here", the nicest thing I could do would be to abort ALL the babies I could. Think about what you're arguing on behalf of, here!

Yes. Quickly. I don't thing the infant went to purgatory at all. Since Jesus had not yet come, the child would have remained in a rather pleasant place known as the Limbo of the Fathers until Jesus came and preached to all of the righteous who had died prior to the incarnation. You Baptists were never taught any of this basic theology, were you?

Um, I'm Cajun, so every member of my family on my mother's side are Catholic, and I know all about Catholic theology. (Mom converted to SB when she married dad, and became quite rabidly fundamentalist.)

Isn't self-righteousness a sin? I mean, really dude, re-read what you just presumed about me!

"Never taught any of this basic theology", indeed.

And for this reason, Rocket, I can understand some of your reaction to bad theology. The Protestant Reformers screwed up...badly. And I could show you this from the writings of the Early Church Fathers, if you like. No doubt you're familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"? Well, Rocket, if you have based your disagreement with Christianity upon flawed theology, is there any wonder you feel the way you do about God?

But would you still feel the same way if the errors in your thinking were corrected to your own satisfaction?

My disagreement with Christianity wasn't an overnight thing, jackass. Once I realized the Young-Earth Creationism in my church was bull, which meant a lot of the other theological ideas might be suspect, I began to study other forms of Christianity in order to change churches. The Catholic church was the first place I looked. Then I started studying religion in general, seeing how humans make things up according to various cultures, and assign their own human frailties to the fictional beings they create.

Granted, I tend to use the [a] Protestant version as my "default", when arguing because most of my arguments are with Protestants... mainly because most of the Catholics I know are significantly less arrogant and dickish.

[Edited to change "the" to "a", because there is no one, or even one thousand, Protestant version(s).]

[athrock]

You are entitled to your opinion, Rocket, but the scenario I offered is plausible and reasonable. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit with your current view of God.

I don't have "a current view of God". I'm just reacting to the myriad versions of this fictional being with which I am bombarded endlessly. I evaluate your fictional character's actions the same way as I evaluate any other being, fictional or real, and killing a baby to get back at its father for something that pissed you off (or other bad deed he did) is P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H-I-C. Especially if you let the baby suffer for a week in order to increase the pain of the father.

The difference between us is that I'm not a rose-colored-glasses-wearing fanboy, willing to overlook these glaring moral failures in your favorite character.

You don't currently have a view of God? No, of course not.  

You INTERPRET the events of the story through your own lenses, Rocket. You are pissed off at God (and your mom), so of course you see God as doing something to the child in order to punish the father. Well, have you read the rest of the story? Does David seem punished to you? In point of fact, after the child's death, David took a bath, had sex with Bathsheba and God blessed them with a second son. So, where is the punishment that you desperately try to read into the story?  

That's because you are a mere man and do not have the mind of God. But let's do a bit of math here...

Infinity in heaven + 80 years on earth = Infinite Happiness
Infinity in heaven - seven days of suffering on earth = Infinite Happiness

No, I'm not seeing that the child was cheated in any way. Missing out on those 80 years as a result of dying in infancy does not seem to have diminished the boy's happiness at all.

What YOU can't see (and seriously, this is because you don't WANT to see it) is that God could, in His omnipotence, know that the child may have been destined for a life of suffering because of the circumstances surrounding his conception. See, for an atheist like you, this life is all there is...happiness here on earth is as good as it gets. It never occurs to you that dying and going to heaven is BETTER. Paul wrote:

2 Corinthians 5:8
We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

You can't say that, can you? Because death is the end for you...at least, that is the best you can hope for. (As a former Christian, you might be nagged by "What if..." doubts when you're alone with your thoughts.)

Nope. Never worry about it. I really don't. I find it a little bit embarrassing for you that you have to fantasize that I do. Again, read my signature... I neither fear nor desire the things your cult threatens or promises.

LOL. Okay, Rocket, whatever you say.  

As for that "have the mind of God" bullshit... dude, really? I know the whole "my ways above your ways" thing, but I really don't see a way around the sentence "God killed an infant to get revenge on the father of that infant for something the father did."

Right. Because your presupposition is that God is a moral monster and this is one of your favorite examples. But if you were able to be OBJECTIVE, you might be able to say, "Gee, I hadn't ever considered that God was actually sparing the child a life of misery."

You're not as open-minded as you atheists want everyone to believe.

And besides, according to your "a little math, here", the nicest thing I could do would be to abort ALL the babies I could. Think about what you're arguing on behalf of, here!

Silly Rocket. Now I know you have stopped thinking and are simply typing off the cuff. If YOU take a life that does not belong to you, that is called murder. If you take your own life, that is called suicide. Either way, you may not do so without culpability because all life belongs to God, and you may not end it without incurring His judgment.  

Now, in point of fact, you probably WOULD be doing each of the aborted babies a favor...after all, they will face much hardship in this life, and some of them will grow up to be hell-bound, godless heathens.    But you would not be doing their PARENTS any favors (assuming the parents are not consenting to these abortions), and even with the approval of the mother (and father), abortion is not acceptable to God.

Yes. Quickly. I don't thing the infant went to purgatory at all. Since Jesus had not yet come, the child would have remained in a rather pleasant place known as the Limbo of the Fathers until Jesus came and preached to all of the righteous who had died prior to the incarnation. You Baptists were never taught any of this basic theology, were you?

Um, I'm Cajun, so every member of my family on my mother's side are Catholic, and I know all about Catholic theology. (Mom converted to SB when she married dad, and became quite rabidly fundamentalist.)

Isn't self-righteousness a sin? I mean, really dude, re-read what you just presumed about me!

I simply go by what I see you post, and as you pointed out, your mom is a fundamentalist and not a practicing Catholic.

"Never taught any of this basic theology", indeed.

We shall see how well you learned your lessons.  

Yes, yes, I know you all are experts on the Bible and What It All Means™. I'm sure YOUR version is the right one (insert quoted verses _here_), though!

I wasn't JUST raised in a Protestant home, I was raised in a fundamentalist and therefore Biblical literalist home. However, I do agree with you that it's an incorrect reading to think of it as "once saved, always saved". I simply found their assertion ludicrous enough to mock, for the reasons I state in the second half of my signature.

And for this reason, Rocket, I can understand some of your reaction to bad theology. The Protestant Reformers screwed up...badly. And I could show you this from the writings of the Early Church Fathers, if you like. No doubt you're familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"? Well, Rocket, if you have based your disagreement with Christianity upon flawed theology, is there any wonder you feel the way you do about God?

But would you still feel the same way if the errors in your thinking were corrected to your own satisfaction?

My disagreement with Christianity wasn't an overnight thing, jackass. Once I realized the Young-Earth Creationism in my church was bull, which meant a lot of the other theological ideas might be suspect, I began to study other forms of Christianity in order to change churches. The Catholic church was the first place I looked. Then I started studying religion in general, seeing how humans make things up according to various cultures, and assign their own human frailties to the fictional beings they create.

I did not say it was an overnight thing. And Catholic theology (which you claim to know) is not built on "Young-Earth Creationism". Consequently, what you should have found - if your study of Catholic doctrine was thorough - would be a very comprehensive world-view that is intellectually satisfying. Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas...(those are just the A's)...some of the brightest minds in all of human history have been Catholics. Our doctrines have been pretty thoroughly vetted and tested. We're still here.

Granted, I tend to use the Protestant version as my "default", when arguing because most of my arguments are with Protestants... mainly because most of the Catholics I know are significantly less arrogant and dickish.

That default was what prompted my comments, of course.

[athrock]

Rocket-

Consider the following...especially the first paragraph:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned.

Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth.

Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..."

--Bishop Fulton Sheen 

[Nihilist Virus]

Infinity in heaven + 80 years on earth = Infinite Happiness
Infinity in heaven - seven days of suffering on earth = Infinite Happiness

Where's it say the baby went to heaven?

I thought Jesus was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one could come to the father but by him.

Or are you of the opinion that people who are ignorant of Jesus are somehow judged differently?