The SimTropolis House of Worship

Micah · December 29, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 9:27:12 PM Author: the_new_simman: You make us seem so bad.

quote>

Like Skigeek said, lets's not try to start a sentence with 'you'. Thank you.

the_new_simman · December 29, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 9:41:13 PM
Author: Micah

Date: 12/29/2005 9:27:12 PM Author: the_new_simman: You make us seem so bad.

quote>

Like Skigeek said, lets's not try to start a sentence with 'you'. Thank you.

quote>

I'm just being honest..and stop picking on me. Everyone does it.

EDIT: Really, in this thread it seems like the majority of atheists are saying that Christians are bad...and closed-minded. And as I said earlier, its a stereotype.

Micah · December 29, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 9:34:46 PM Author: vidioman

Date: 12/29/2005 9:27:12 PM Author: the_new_simman I also do know your stand point on how some Christians are 'close-minded' and that's just a typical stereotype out there. Most Christians arn't close minded, and actually are very nice ppl. You make us seem so bad.

quote> I know they're nice people, but the positions they take on certain things (ie. Gay rights) do seem closed minded. Unless you can sin without even choosing to sin. Sure, a snake told her to eat the apple, but who told me to be gay?

Satan? lol.

quote>

You are right there. That is one issue that I'm closed minded about (and most other Christians unless they haven't studied the Bible). God created Adam and Eve not...well you know (Adam and Steve). Not only that, but I believe Paul (possibly John) said that homosexuality was wrong. In my next post (or possibly someone else) I'll try to find out where exactly that is in the Bible. It's probably in Acts. I'll try to get my 23 yr old brother here. After all, he went to Bible college. I haven't even started (and probably won't).

Meg · December 29, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 9:42:13 PM Author: the_new_simman

Date: 12/29/2005 9:41:13 PM Author: Micah

Date: 12/29/2005 9:27:12 PM Author: the_new_simman: You make us seem so bad.

quote>

Like Skigeek said, lets's not try to start a sentence with 'you'. Thank you.

quote> I'm just being honest..and stop picking on me. Everyone does it.

quote>

I'm not picking on anyone. I'm just saying what I was taught in church school. If things are different now, that is an improvement but, for centuries, that was what was taught. I know that is what my parents learned in school and they both attended Catholic schools their whole childhood.

and that concept lead to most of the historical horrors performed in the name of religion. The Crusades, the slave trade, the slaughter of the American Indians, were all justified on the grounds that those people were heathens so it's okay to bring them to God. History shows there was more plundering, pillaging, enslaving, and killing than there was bringing people to God.

And Micah is right, please avoid starting a sentence with you.

the_new_simman · December 29, 2005

Alright, I've tried my hardest and it seems my time is done here. Good bye.

BTW, I wasn't talking to you ski, and it does seem like everyone is coming after me, probably because I'm posting so much in this thread so quickly. ugh..whatever.

See you guys around. I might pop in every now and then, probably everyday, every minute, until I get my points accross and everyone understands what I've said.

Micah · December 29, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 9:42:13 PM Author: the_new_simman

Date: 12/29/2005 9:41:13 PM Author: Micah

Date: 12/29/2005 9:27:12 PM Author: the_new_simman: You make us seem so bad.

quote>

Like Skigeek said, lets's not try to start a sentence with 'you'. Thank you.

quote> I'm just being honest..and stop picking on me. Everyone does it. EDIT: Really, in this thread it seems like 'the majority of atheists' are saying that Christians are bad...and 'closed-minded'. And as I said earlier, its a stereotype.

quote>

Yes, I understand. I just personally think if you and everyone else cools down a little bit, everyone will have a more clearer mind.

the_new_simman · December 29, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 9:52:03 PM
Author: Micah

Date: 12/29/2005 9:42:13 PM Author: the_new_simman

Date: 12/29/2005 9:41:13 PM Author: Micah

Date: 12/29/2005 9:27:12 PM Author: the_new_simman: You make us seem so bad.

quote>

Like Skigeek said, lets's not try to start a sentence with 'you'. Thank you.

quote> I'm just being honest..and stop picking on me. Everyone does it. EDIT: Really, in this thread it seems like 'the majority of atheists' are saying that Christians are bad...and 'closed-minded'. And as I said earlier, its a stereotype.

quote>

Yes, I understand. I just personally think if you and everyone else cools down a little bit, everyone will have a more clearer mind.

quote>

I do have a clear, mind and I am calm. LOL. You can't show emotion of the internet. Please..back on topic, my fault again, but seriously, don't use you in a sentence.

Its a sin.

Cjah · December 29, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 9:51:17 PM Author: the_new_simman Alright, I've tried my hardest and it seems my time is done here. Good bye. BTW, I wasn't talking to you ski, and it does seem like everyone is coming after me, probably because I'm posting so much in this thread so quickly. ugh..whatever. See you guys around. I might pop in every now and then, probably everyday, every minute, until I get my points accross and everyone understands what I've said.

quote>

Hmmm whatever good bye then....

Well I wanted to chat further on that if you never heard or found God thing.Its interesting because if the man never heard of God then he not damned,but people who cuss or sin alot are damned because they've heard of God....Even though I know I'm going to hell I just want to know why the guy who doesn't know is saved....Its kinda like letting a guy get away with murder.....The guy killed someone,but he could sayoh I never knew you COULDN'T kill......

Mikeaut1 · December 29, 2005

Yeah, I think we can diverge back onto topic now, in fear that this thread may close. Without much fighting we can see this thread be a success.

the_new_simman · December 29, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 10:00:38 PM
Author: Cjah

Date: 12/29/2005 9:51:17 PM Author: the_new_simman Alright, I've tried my hardest and it seems my time is done here. Good bye. BTW, I wasn't talking to you ski, and it does seem like everyone is coming after me, probably because I'm posting so much in this thread so quickly. ugh..whatever. See you guys around. I might pop in every now and then, probably everyday, every minute, until I get my points accross and everyone understands what I've said.

quote>

Hmmm whatever good bye then....

Well I wanted to chat further on that 'if you never heard or found God' thing.Its interesting because if the man never 'heard' of God then he not damned,but people who cuss or sin alot are damned because they've heard of God....Even though I know I'm going to hell I just want to know why the guy who doesn't 'know' is saved....Its kinda like letting a guy get away with murder.....The guy killed someone,but he could say'oh I never knew you COULDN'T kill'......

quote>

I'm not exactly sure what your saying here. I'll try my best ot answer.

If you kill someone you will go to hell, or spend a huge amount of time in pergatory.

If you have never heard of God and are a good all around person you will go heaven or pergatory.

If you have never hear of God and are a bad person, you will go to hell.

Bad people = Hell
Good people = Heaven

Everyone will be saved by the glory of Jesus in the end of the world.

louisville327 · December 29, 2005

simman, you're taking everything way too personally. I never said anything about you or called you out by name. My posts in this thread have been general and non-confrontational.

My general statement that a non-Christian would be doomed to hell (due to ignorance or rejection of God) was based on previous posts in this same thread that said, in no uncertain terms, that non-believers were doomed to hell.

Read back through these posts and you'll see Christians saying this exact thing. The only way to heaven is through Christianity and the acceptance of Jesus as a savior.

Apparently you disagree with that, or at least see some conditions where a person truly ignorant of Jesus could escape the fires of hell, but that's not what others have said. Anyway, it doesn't matter that you disagree, because I wasn't directing my post to you. It was a general statement meant to explore the doctrines of a specific religion as they have been expressed in this thread.

Please don't take offense to my posts, as I'm not bashing anyone or dissing Christianity directly, merely extrapolating on sentiments expressed by the Christian posters in this thread. No one is fighting here, so calm down and keep posting!

dev · December 30, 2005

Simman, don't leave. I see why you would want to, but don't, if this thread is becoming one people are keeping themselves from for reasons like this, someone close it.

Joesocwork · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 11:43:07 PM Author: louisville327

Please don't take offense to my posts, as I'm not bashing anyone or 'dissing' Christianity directly, merely extrapolating on sentiments expressed by the Christian posters in this thread. No one is fighting here, so calm down and keep posting!

quote>

That's cool.

I also want to make sure that it's clear that even though I made a distinction between persecution and harassment that I'm not invalidating the feelings toward being harrassed. Harrassment, including toward Christians, is real and the feelings toward harrassment is real.

Also, in general, just b/c a person openly shares that they believe in absolutes doesn't mean they're forcing their views about absolutes on others. By definition, absolutes either exist or don't exist regardless anybody's or any group's beliefs.

And for further clarification, as an admin directing this to the Members who participate, this thread like any others in SimTropolis is about sharing and discussing but not about belittling or proselyting. -JoeSocWork

ephorex_77 · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 4:22:04 PM Author: vidioman Water. Water is densest at 4

Ma8thew · December 30, 2005

If you kill someone you will go to hell, or spend a huge amount of time in pergatory.

If you have never heard of God and are a good all around person you will go heaven or pergatory.

If you have never hear of God and are a bad person, you will go to hell.

quote>
So...if you are a brutal Christian murderer, you may get off with pergatory, but if you a kind caring atheist you go to hell. Hmmmmm.

horrorkid64 · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/29/2005 9:09:52 PM
Author: the_new_simman

Date: 12/29/2005 8:49:25 PM

Author: louisville327

Unfortunately for millions of people on Earth, they have the misfortune of not being born in a region where Christianity is the dominant religion. Sucks for them, because unless they accept Jesus as their savior---even if they've never been exposed to Christian teachings---they're going to hell.

quote>

And once again, you are wrong. Please don't speak unless you know for sure what you are saying is a fact. If someone is never introduced to the one true religion, 'Christianity' and has never in their life heard about God they will not go to hell, as they have never been taught the right religion. At least that is what I believe. People will go to hell by outright shoving God out of their lives when they get the chance to feel his glory.

quote>

This might be a comfortable thought, but is anything like that mentioned in the Bible? An important point like that would surely be mentioned.

On a sidenote: So if we stopped teaching about christianity until it's completely forgotten, we could make sure that everyone is saved from hell - because no one will have heard about it and thus it eliminates the chance of anyone rejecting it.

nealos101 · December 30, 2005

Its that you again... I think he meant if people that don't beleive in god are kind, caring people they all go to heaven.

My views on religion are solid: If they are strong enough to make people go there every sunday and architects & governments bow down to them to create great majestic buildings, I respect them all. Even they have been created recently, there will be no 'name & shame' of any person who beleive in such a newly-found religion - again, they deserve respect for what they beleive in.

As for me I have no particular religion, just what I as a person beleive.

I beleive for everyone there is sort of a heaven and hell, but its what everyone makes of it - and most of what they make of it is what they do in life. If a person is kind, caring and a lovable person, then their heaven would be somewhere where every1 treats them the same way. If they are a brutal, heartless killer, then their heaven would be killing people, and, as a result, they may get tormented by it becuase they have to replay it all over and over again. If some1 is religious and beleive in it strongly, and whatever their religion states, they will go to (Same concept - they don't break any commandments, they go to heaven to be greeted by St. Peter and all their freinds & family that have been waiting for them up there).

It is my beleif to feel compassion for the people that do wrong against others - those who: steal, kill, bully, disregard for other human life, take advantage of, and even not give a simple chance for others to shine - These people deserve a chance to change their ways, or some help to change, and punishment for what they do can only go so far in this life (Take for example people who go to jail only to come out again and do whatever they did wrong again - or take a step further and do worse). Becuase, if you think about it, their afterlife won't be as great as yours, they will have to endure the pain of going through these moments over and over again, and it will destroy whatever sanity they took with them to the afterlife (If they have any left).

I beleive there was a powerful being or beings that created us, they designed the DNA and howd we start, but really, they left us to it, and now and then, they'd try to intervine to help us to become more intelligent, or at least good (Hence the messaihs, the messages sent to us). Eventually once we become more intelligent, good, and caring, we can join their ranks and be master-creators ourselves, but unfortunatly we are probably at lower stages, but in our evolution group we are at the highest rank. Should a mistake happen, say, a nuclear war or mass-famine, where our race instead of growing and improving, we become poorer and poorer until we are always in pain - that is when the beings stop and do a race a favour and restart it with something different.

As for rencarnation - I feel it is possible but it depends on what your soul wants to beleive again, what you left behind in your life. If you had children, then you could be the next great great grandchild, or a decendant far off into the future for that matter. Your soul takes with you what you learnt in the first life, and leaves it dormant in your memory (To be awoken when you get taught it again in preschool, college, uni ect). I guess its what makes us want to improve ourselves as a race - becuase if we leave nothing for our children, we will be the people that suffer in the end.

I also wear a cross, which states I was born Christian but am not Christian anymore. Its showing my respect again, becuase even though it didnt seem right to me, to others, it did.

Meh, thats what I beleive in anyway.

Nealos101

ephorex_77 · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/30/2005 4:55:26 AM Author: Ma8thew

If you kill someone you will go to hell, or spend a huge amount of time in pergatory. If you have never heard of God and are a 'good' all around person you will go heaven or pergatory. If you have never hear of God and are a bad person, you will go to hell.

So...if you are a brutal Christian murderer, you may get off with pergatory, but if you a kind caring atheist you go to hell. Hmmmmm.

For some people, snide comments annoy them. For others, it's disrespectful comments. I'm not easily offended, but it certainly gets to me when I have to keep telling people to read posts because what they ask or say has already been addressed.

I normally type my responses, but now, I'll just copy and paste what I've previously written and make sure that it's bolded so people don't keep missing it.

'Of course, Catholics do not believe that just because you are a Catholic, you're given a passport straight to Heaven. It's rubbish to assume as much. It's also rubbish to say that ' I was saved when I became a Catholic on xxxx date'. Salvation is not an instant thing. Just because we become part of the Church and accept God into our lives does not mean we are saved. We are saved by God's grace alone, through faith acting in charity. If we are in a state of Grace, we must continue to be so in order to be saved. It's not a rubber stamp system. Faith without works will not save us. Catholics do not believe in the doctrine of sola fide (faith alone).

I hope that clarifies some misconceptions anyone might have had. As Catholics, we have great advantages over other Christians (capacity for the Beatific vision for example), but because of that, we also risk far greater punishment if we do not obey.'

Please Ma8thew, read the above.

horrorkid: It is not mentioned in the Bible, but has been a teaching handed down to us through the Magisterium of the Catholic Chuch. The Bible is one of three pillars of the Church authority. Tradition and the Bible make up the other two pillars. There are many important points that are not addressed in the Bible by name. For instance, there is no word 'Trinity' in the Bible, yet it is one of the most fundamental things Catholics (and most Christians) believe in. The Bible isn't a step by step, word perfect guide on how to address world issues. The Bible is static; the world is changing. It's as simple as that. That is partly why we need the other two pillars of the Church to help guide us.

I won't even try to refute your sidenote as I'm sure the absurdity thereof is evident. If you truly believe you have a point and did not merely bring that sidenote up in sarcasm, then please mention it again, and I'm sure I'll address that.

nealos: Thank you nealos. It's nice to see that not all non-religious people are so hasty in their admirable desire to refute us that they don't read the posts that address the issues mentioned above. And I'll leave the comment 'it's that you again' between yourself and ma8thew as I'm sure it's none of my business.

Also, your theory on 'master-creators' sounds awfully reminiscent of the Mormon Church's doctrine. Have you had any experience with that particular denomination before or have perhaps heard of their teachings??

horrorkid64 · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/30/2005 5:58:52 AM
Author: ephorex_77

horrorkid: It is not mentioned in the Bible, but has been a teaching handed down to us through the Magisterium of the Catholic Chuch. The Bible is one of three pillars of the Church authority. Tradition and the Bible make up the other two pillars. There are many important points that are not addressed in the Bible by name. For instance, there is no word 'Trinity' in the Bible, yet it is one of the most fundamental things Catholics (and most Christians) believe in. The Bible isn't a step by step, word perfect guide on how to address world issues. The Bible is static; the world is changing. It's as simple as that. That is partly why we need the other two pillars of the Church to help guide us.

I won't even try to refute your sidenote as I'm sure the absurdity thereof is evident. If you truly believe you have a point and did not merely bring that sidenote up in sarcasm, then please mention it again, and I'm sure I'll address that.

quote>

It may be a Catholic belief, but the majority of Christians I know (mostly Protestants from the US) do not share this belief. In fact they believe, that if you do not actively accept Jesus as your saviour, you will go to hell. This will include people like Ghandi.

There are other versions as well. Some believe that everyone is going to heaven, some believe that only a selected few go to heaven (like the Jehova's witnesses), some say you only have to accept Jesus, some say you have to accept him and repent for your sins. Some say that even if you repent for your sins and accept Jesus, you won't go to heaven if you break the first commandment.

As you see, this is obviously a important point and there seems to be quite a confusion about it among Christians. But the Bible only mentions that by accepting Jesus you will we granted the entrance to heaven (as far as I know at least).

There are different teachings passed along, but they are the words of men, not the words of God or Jesus.

EDIT: I might add that there is a growing sentiment that the Catholic Church is not to be considered Christian - because many of their teachings are not based on the Bible and others are based on very far-fetching interpretations.

EDIT II: Yes, my sidenote was being sarcastic, but it would be a valid interpretation of the Bible and it's consistant with what ~~many Protestants~~ the Catholic Church teaches.

nealos101 · December 30, 2005

ephorex_77: I have had no teachings from any religion, do not take this as a personal attack but I found it odd it that not even Christian being taught to my class. It is more of a UK government attack really I admit, but Ill stop it there.

When I wrote that I had read pages 1, 4 and 5, I have now read all the pages and people like you is the reason why I respect & admire all religions. Like many people have said I find it wrong to think that becuase you do not beleive in a certain something, you will pay for it. But like you said, it isn't really forced onto someone. I have been given a choice to enter many religions, but many things just make me stop and turn away, being Christian for the start of my life was the best thing for me in the past - becuase I had no one to turn to back then except god and jesus. Now, the major problem I found was the part was some of the people that beleived in it.

You were the people that made me proud to be Christian, but, when it came to the people mainly in the past (Not just for Christian) that wadged wars on their fellow man, people that tortured and killed - named heretics, Protestant vs catholic, the halocaust, the holy wars, men that ordered beautiful buildings burnt to the ground or stripped bare - those people made me move away.

I don't think this is what god wanted, or the master race for that matter, forcing others to move to their religion or face the wrath of your fellow man or your deity. It has been the same for every religion, they had a good message, just when it got to the part when another person didnt beleive in what I beleived in, and when I offered them into my religion and they refused (especially to leave one religion and covert to mine) - I was supposed to think that they was going to hell or would be damned for the rest of their lives?

Correct me if im wrong here, I would like to be corrected, I really would becuase I know things are different now, and people arn't the same as each other.

Science in my honest opinion isn't no1 either, when we were in the stone age religion just didnt come from rocks or trees or creatures, it must have come from something holy at least.

Nealos101

ephorex_77 · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/30/2005 6:13:18 AM Author: horrorkid64

Date: 12/30/2005 5:58:52 AM Author: ephorex_77

horrorkid: It is not mentioned in the Bible, but has been a teaching handed down to us through the Magisterium of the Catholic Chuch. The Bible is one of three pillars of the Church authority. Tradition and the Bible make up the other two pillars. There are many important points that are not addressed in the Bible by name. For instance, there is no word 'Trinity' in the Bible, yet it is one of the most fundamental things Catholics (and most Christians) believe in. The Bible isn't a step by step, word perfect guide on how to address world issues. The Bible is static; the world is changing. It's as simple as that. That is partly why we need the other two pillars of the Church to help guide us.

I won't even try to refute your sidenote as I'm sure the absurdity thereof is evident. If you truly believe you have a point and did not merely bring that sidenote up in sarcasm, then please mention it again, and I'm sure I'll address that.

It may be a Catholic belief, but the majority of Christians I know (mostly Protestants from the US) do not share this belief. In fact they believe, that if you do not actively accept Jesus as your saviour, you will go to hell. This will include people like Ghandi. There are other versions as well. Some believe that everyone is going to heaven, some believe that only a selected few go to heaven (like the Jehova's witnesses), some say you only have to accept Jesus, some say you have to accept him and repent for your sins. Some say that even if you repent for your sins and accept Jesus, you won't go to heaven if you break the first commandment. As you see, this is obviously a important point and there seems to be quite a confusion about it among Christians. But the Bible only mentions that by accepting Jesus you will we granted the entrance to heaven (as far as I know at least). There are different teachings passed along, but they are the words of men, not the words of God or Jesus. EDIT: I might add that there is a growing sentiment that the Catholic Church is not to be considered Christian - because many of their teachings are not based on the Bible and others are based on very far-fetching interpretations. EDIT II: Yes, my sidenote was being sarcastic, but it would be a valid interpretation of the Bible and it's consistant with what many Protestants believe.

Whew...now we're getting into the wider stuff.

I was expecting to debate this with dev and timotheus (who was the one who said Ghandi was going to hell) but I might as well start now as you're obviously expecting an answer. I daresay that dev and timotheus will join the debate now. I'm not to sure as to why they didn't defend Christianity as a whole against the question of the Amaleks, horrorkid, seeing as it affected them as well as myself, but I have my theories...

Your main contention here is that the Catholic Church's teachings are not based on the Bible alone and has some non-Biblical docrine thrown in. You seem to have an understanding of basic Christianity and the problems protestants have with the Catholic Church and as such, bring this issue to the forefront. I will try to address this issue of whether Bible alone is what God intended to implement for His Church on earth.

It would seem to me that you accept or at least are aware of the doctrine of 'sola scriptura' meaning 'Scripture alone'. This was one of five slogans during the Reformation, as timotheus probably well knows seeing as the Reformation led to the formation of his religion. Basically, sola scriptura states that the Bible ALONE is the source of faith and is the ONLY thing which we must follow, nothing else. For instance, if I were to listen to the advice of my pastor as to the meaning of a particular Bible passage, that would not be sola scriptura.

There are many problems with this doctrine, the doctrine that was the main reason why Luther brought about the Reformation. Luther was displeased that some high ups (Church heirarchy) were interpreting the Bible for the masses. He claimed that the Church was controlling the masses and undermining the concept of personal interpretation of the Scriptures, which was supposedly what God wanted for the Church. He referred to the chaining up of Bibles as 'proof' the Church wanted a monopoly on interpretation. Let me address this minor bit of protestant 'evidence'.

In those days, Bible cost a fortune. Monks painstakingly copied out the Bible page by page, often embellishing them with beautiful illustrations. A single Bible could probably be the lifework of a single person. With common sense, one can tell that Bibles were expensive. Does your parent lock up your house?? Do they chain bicycles to posts?? Why?? Obviously to prevent their theft as they are valuable items. That is why they were chained to Churches in those days.

Also, in order for sola scriptura to be God's plan for all of us, this plan must work throughout the ages as the Church will exist until the end of time. It stands to reason then that if the plan doesn't work before a certain era or invention, then it must not be God's plan for us. Luther and Calvin claimed that personal interpretation of the Bible was what God truly wanted. Personal interpretation supposes that everyone (including peasants who had NO chance of owning a Bible due to their cost) had a Bible as otherwise, it would not be personal. Even if your neighbour had one, you couldn't just borrow it as you needed to be able to constantly study it. That also brings with it a question about reading which is addressed next. If everyone didn't have a Bible, then sola scriptura would not be able to function. Therefore it is false on this count.

Secondly, how is it that the common people were meant to interpret the Bible if they could NOT read?? Bibles as you know, were written in Latin, and not the vernacular. Even if people could read in the vernacular, what were the chances that the common people could read in Latin?? It's preposterous!!! Do you honestly think a person who could read in Latin would have enough time to indulge in a detailed analysis and study of the Bible in those times of war, famine, disease and death?? As any protestant worth his salt can tell you, a glance isn't enough. Bible passages are tricky to understand. You would have needed to have gone through the wording and grammatical structure and also flip back to check on the relevance of other tie-in passages. The said person must also be able to record what he has learnt which also means writing. Sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy (which was and still is, false) and is therefore false on this count.

Thirdly, everyone must also have had adequate scholarly material in order to analyse the Bible. The person must be able to read the Bible in its original language (not merely translations which could be wrong) which would have been various forms of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Even if he had to resort to interpretations, he must have had those at hand (scholarly material). Furthermore, you would have had to resort to commentaries (which would contradict sola scriptura in itself...) if there was this passage(s) which was extremely hard to interpret. Commentaries (scholarly material) would have had to be available. Now ask youselves in all honesty: did the common man during those times have this personal library stocked full of such material, which even the common man today has trouble getting hold of?? I daresay dev and timotheus cannot read Latin, the various forms of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and I know what fervent Christians they are. Common man then didn't have this wealth of scholarly material at his call, therefore sola scriptura is false on this count.

I have more points I can insert here, but I think I'll stop now for fear of boring you all too much. Think about the points above and consider them carefully and in a non-biased fashion. How can sola scriptura be God's plan if it wouldn't have applied to 99% of Europe then?? It doesn't apply even today as not everyone has a personal Bible, can read (much less in the ancient languages in which the Bible was written) and write and have scholarly material. If dev and timotheus or anyone else who subscribes to this false doctrine (upon which all forms of protestanism is based) are reading this, please think and pray on this. Please don't throw it out the window as papish rubbish, 'Whore of Babylon' or 'Anti-Christ' stuff. Consider it carefully with a non-biased mindset. What I'm saying isn't hard to understand, but perhaps is very troubling to protestants as it strips away the core of their teachings; their base.

Also if dev or timotheus want to discuss this further, then I'll be happy to do this on MSN whenever I see you. You know my enthusiasm for this.

Refuting something as important as sola scriptura can only be done in real time, not on a forum.

nealos: Thank you for those kind and heartfelt words. It's wonderful that they had such an effect.

It seems like you are wavering between Christianity and an quasi-atheistic belief. It seems to me that you have a problem with the members of the Church itself and not the Church as a body and its ideals. The human members of the Eternal Church can and will sin as they are human. Just because the individual constituents of the Church sin, that doesn't make the Church itself bad.

Think of it this way. A family and some bad family members. Assume some family members steal someting and are sentenced to prison. The family itself isn't wrong or bad is it?? Sure, it reflects badly on the family and people will say 'what a bad family', but that doesn't make the family guilty of stealing does it?? Please think about what I have said.

horrorkid64 · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/30/2005 7:17:04 AM
Author: ephorex_77
*snip*

quote>

The thing is that people claim, that the words written in the Bible are directly inspired by God and/or are accurate recordings of the teachings of Christ. Therefore it is the only thing we can use to base our beliefs on - even if that means that we must be able to read Greek and Hebrew to fully understand it. No one ever claimed that it would be easy.

Take the Islamic faith for example. The Koran is only considered to be the word of Allah if read in Arabic, because Arabic is the only language that's capable of fully communicating the words of Allah. That does not mean, that you can't use a translation as a guideline or that you can't teach Allah's words with spoken language.

Equally, having the Bible as God's own words does not mean, that you can't use translations or teach about God with spoken word - but it will only get you so far.

It can further be assumed that all important points would be covered in God's own book, that includes how you can reach heaven. That this point would be left out by God and instead be taught by hear-say seems rather unlikely to me.

The Bible itself is hard enough to read and interpret, further confusing it with words passed along by fallible men (not God) would not be very helpful.

Jesus told us how to reach heaven and we can find his words about how to do so in the Bible - do you have knowledge about words of Jesus or God that are not covered there?

On a sidenote: you accuse others of subscribing to a false doctrine. Is this not considered to be a sin? I'll have to look that up.

jmusshorn · December 30, 2005

I have a simple belief system, personally.

If you're a good person, and refrain from harming the plants and animals (that includes human-kind) as best you can, then you'll die knowing how good of a person you were.

If God exists or not, I don't know. I have no opinion on the existence of a deity, because I have not truly seen solid evidence for or against it.

I truly believe that someone's ability to do good things for others is what any deity would look highest upon. If someone's in trouble, help them out of it (provided it's not something that they really deserved, like jail-time for a criminal act). If they're hungry and can't get food, give them some food. These types of simple things that make the world a better place to live in are what any God would look highly upon, I would suppose (and hope).

There's something that we all have to keep in mind here, I think: We're all on the same level of non-disclosure. By this I mean that, unless you've spoken with God, Jehovah, Allah, Shiva, Satan, or Jesus Christ personally, you really can't say with full assurance that you're correct. We all have our theories, hypotheses, and inferences, but none of us are absolutely sure that we're correct on where we stand or what we say. Having an open-mind and a non-confrontational attitude in these types of debates and discussions is the best way to, not only avoid flame-wars, but leave the discussion a little wiser, which I'm sure is partly the reason why most of us are here.

Christianity. Hey, I have no problems with religion whatsoever. It's done great things for people, and great things for those in need. I do not like, however, how some religions generally believe that they're the only correct religion, and that everyone else must be wrong. How do they know? They don't; Bible, Pope, or otherwise. Christians, I do believe, have their faith deep-seated in being good to others and respecting their fellow human beings; of that I have no doubt. However, telling someone else that they're going to hell unless they do Task A, B, and C isn't essentially a live and let live attitude.

I mean, there are some radical Islam people out there who believe that Christians and Jews are the most evil people on the planet solely because of what they believe. They even have their own Bible (the Koran, I believe), with its own religious miracle-style occurrences, and their Koran, as they interpret it, tells them that Christians and Jews are evil. Does that make them right? No, I don't believe so.

[That example was not generalizing Islam as a religion, just the few extremists out of the entire group that practice the religion.]

My point is that we're all humans on this planet. If who/what you are, and what you do are not harming anyone else, then so be it; continue as you were. Praying, volunteering, being an all-around good person are all great by me. I think that any good behavior will be rewarded in the end, even if the reward is no more than being able to, at the end of your life, look back and say wow, I did some great things for some good people.

Good night, and Happy New Year, when that comes around.

~Jamie~

ephorex_77 · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/30/2005 7:59:40 AM Author: horrorkid64

Date: 12/30/2005 7:17:04 AM Author: ephorex_77 *snip*

The Bible itself is hard enough to read and interpret, further confusing it with words passed along by fallible men (not God) would not be very helpful.

You are extremely accurate in that appraisal of of the difficulty of the Bible's passages. And yes, confusing it with the words of fallible men would be detrimental. Do you assume that God, the Almighty Father would not have known of this problem in his omniscience?? That is why He left us the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) to faithfully guard against misinterpretations and the muddling up of Scripture by fallible men. The Pope's infallibility is guaranteed by Jesus Himself in the Bible (as you admit is infallible).

Matthew 16:18-19
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That THOU art Peter, and upon this ROCK [Kepha, Cephas] I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto THEE the KEYS OF THE KINDGOM of heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In order for the minions of hell to destroy the Church, the Church must have succumbed totally to moral corruption. God declared it would not happen, therefore we know the Church will never deviate in its moral spotlessness, whatever modern society thinks of it. Therefore it is infallible.

The giving of Peter, and by virtue of position, his successors, the power to bind and loose things on earth is great indeed. However, Jesus further gives him the power to do just that in Heaven. If it is bound on earth, that action will receive divine ratification from God. If it is loosed on earth, that too will be given divine ratification. As God does not condone sin, He cannot allow impure actions to be committed. This means that whatever action is done on earth by Peter and his successors is infallible and as God wants and permits. Peter and his successors are merely conforming to God's will.

If you want more Scripture passages, here they are:

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

What this means is that holy men of God, moved by the Holy Ghost (which is exactly what happens when the Pope exercises his extraordinary Magisterium [making it infallible]) gave the prophecies and explained them to the people, not by private interpretation of the Scripture. Can it be more explicit than that?? Of course, there'll be a way, splitting hairs.

More Scripture?? Here's another passage.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Well, it certainly says something about traditions now doesn't it?? Whether by word too. The Bible certainly isn't a tradition. The Tradition (as taught by the Church fathers) of the Church is.

You know horrorkid, I confess myself confused, quite honestly. I was under the impression that you're an atheist. Now I'm not so sure. You sound awfully like a fundamentalist Christian (no offence meant at all). But there you are. By the Bible itself (as you wished) it is shown that Scripture alone is not the way God wanted.

Date: 12/30/2005 7:59:40 AM Author: horrorkid64 It can further be assumed that all important points would be covered in God's own book, that includes how you can reach heaven. That this point would be left out by God and instead be taught by hear-say seems rather unlikely to me.

Oh yes, it was covered in God's own book. It shows how Jesus instituted a Church, a perfect Church (and no talk about the Inquisition and the like as I've already covered individual sin and it would make me extremely annoyed to have to repeat myself) and how Peter was the first to lead this Church on earth. It was also covered how there would be strife and divisions and unbelievers (all of which are evidenced by numerous posts on this thread) on earth. It was also covered that God desires that 'there may be one (not the 20,000 plus Christian denominations) fold and one shepherd'. The last time I checked, a shepherd leads and commands his flock, not scatters them. The sheep obey the shepherd, not question whether he is Jimmy from down the street masquerading as a shepherd which is what protestants are doing.

Like it or not, Jesus gave this task and authority to the Church and its leader. I submit to the Church, but I do not worship their members.

I am following Jesus' commandments as they lead to Heaven. And His commandments include being part of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation (before you start condemning me for this, read my posts above).

I'm following to the best of my ability all that God has commanded of me. And guess what?? It's all in the Bible!! If in the Bible it says to follow the Church and its leader(s) throughout the ages, I do that. The Church then expands upon what the Bible says as guided by the Holy Spirit, GOD Himself. That is where I come up with the doctrines not included in the Bible. I look at the Bible and it's the correct, infallible signpost. It says 'Follow the Church as well' and I do that. Am I wrong?? It's so simple and logical yet it fails to be understood.

And of course, I suspect you whizzed by my arguments against sola scriptura or merely gave them a cursory glance. It seems that I'm constantly defending myself against new arguments while you merely throw new ones at me. How about if my arguments and refutation started to become acknowledged or refuted in turn?? This dismissal of my rebuttals seem to be victories to me seeing as the failure to rebutt something is normally taken as a sign of defeat. I assume you have nothing you can say in defence of my arguments.

How about trying to rebutt my points about sola scriptura above (not this post just yet) before moving on?? It would be nice to see if my message has gotten through or has merely been relegated to the proverbial scrapheap and ignored because nothing could be said about its logic and truth.

And btw, it's 12:45 am here in Melbourne. If I don't respond, please understand that religious nutters have to sleep too.

TheCrybKeeper · December 30, 2005

One time: Friendo's Beliefs

...And not religion. Religion is false teaching.

Blue is peace. Peace to all. May God bless you, friends.

These are my own written words.

Some will understand what I write here and many will only believe they understood.

I am not a catholic, not a baptist, nor any denomination you can mention.

I follow The -greek- Word and the aramaic, arabic, hebrew and english.

I am Jewish, but not Isreali or Hebrew.

Sin is sin. All is equally bad.

Sin does not send you to hell.

We are all sinners by unnatural occurance and carry a generational curse.

We sin always, while we live in this Earth age.

My Belief; That Jesus was who He claimed to be, is what gets you into Heaven. Acceptance, gains acceptance.

Heaven is a place, outside of this universe. Where all things travel at light speed and time does not exist(time is another curse. the catalyst for physical death and decay).

Armegeddon does not mean the end of something. It means; a war that will end All Wars. It's a good thing, friends and brings in a reign of real peace on Earth.

This age will end, but Heaven and Earth, shall remain forever. (reference:King James Original v.)

I do not look at sin as the individual. I see the individual instead.

I am also a sinner. I never escape it and no human can.

I turn no one away. I love all peoples, as I would love my sister or brother.

The Friend Of ******* has spoken.

horrorkid64 · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/30/2005 8:46:14 AM
Author: ephorex_77
*snip*

quote>

You can back up your statements, that's for sure and that is more than I can say about many Christians I meet.

To clarify some points: I'm not a Christian and I'm surely not one of the fundementalists. But argueing about belief systems is best done within the system - that's why I have to assume things like the Bible being the word of God and thus infallible within a debate.

I did in fact not refute your statements about the 'sola scriptura', I simply gave another reasoning something more along the lines of the Muslimic faith and the Koran being the word from Allah. Both are in themselves logical, but no one refutes the other. I guess Protestants on this boards will have their say about this too. I guess I'll look into your Matthew quote and see what others have to say about it.

It was nice, especially since most discussions I have are with Protestants, so it was interesting to see some of the Catholic perspective.

ephorex_77 · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/30/2005 9:26:41 AM Author: horrorkid64

Date: 12/30/2005 8:46:14 AM Author: ephorex_77 *snip*

quote> You can back up your statements, that's for sure and that is more than I can say about many Christians I meet. To clarify some points: I'm not a Christian and I'm surely not one of the fundementalists. But argueing about belief systems is best done within the system - that's why I have to assume things like the Bible being the word of God and thus infallible within a debate. I did in fact not refute your statements about the 'sola scriptura', I simply gave another reasoning something more along the lines of the Muslimic faith and the Koran being the word from Allah. Both are in themselves logical, but no one 'refutes' the other. I guess Protestants on this boards will have their say about this too. I guess I'll look into your Matthew quote and see what others have to say about it. It was nice, especially since most discussions I have are with Protestants, so it was interesting to see some of the Catholic perspective.

quote>

Thank you for for compliment. A compliment from a persistent and articulate forumer is very welcome indeed (no sarcasm at all intended).

I failed however, to see how the Koran, the Muslim faith and their non-contradiction has anything to do with sola scriptura and the disproving thereof. I don't know how it is relevant, but perhaps you can explain it better next time.

Also, can you refute my arguments above regarding sola scriptura?? You merely stated that you didn't, not whether or not you could. Perhaps in your next post you could make that clear too. If you can, then please do so in the next post. If not, then please say so as well. It's good to receive feedback from comments one makes.

And I'm sorry (and perhaps you're thankful

) for the short post. I actually woke up specially to view your reply. I look forward to seeing your refutations, or lack thereof, in your next post regarding my argument against sola scriptura.

TheCrybKeeper · December 30, 2005

Date: 12/30/2005 8:46:14 AM Author: ephorex_77

Date: 12/30/2005 7:59:40 AM Author: horrorkid64

Date: 12/30/2005 7:17:04 AM Author: ephorex_77 *snip*

The Bible itself is hard enough to read and interpret, further confusing it with words passed along by fallible men (not God) would not be very helpful.

You are extremely accurate in that appraisal of of the difficulty of the Bible's passages. And yes, confusing it with the words of fallible men would be detrimental. Do you assume that God, the Almighty Father would not have known of this problem in his omniscience?? That is why He left us the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) to faithfully guard against misinterpretations and the muddling up of Scripture by fallible men. The Pope's infallibility is guaranteed by Jesus Himself in the Bible (as you admit is infallible).

Matthew 16:18-19 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That THOU art Peter, and upon this ROCK [Kepha, Cephas] I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto THEE the KEYS OF THE KINDGOM of heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In order for the minions of hell to destroy the Church, the Church must have succumbed totally to moral corruption. God declared it would not happen, therefore we know the Church will never deviate in its moral spotlessness, whatever modern society thinks of it. Therefore it is infallible.

The giving of Peter, and by virtue of position, his successors, the power to bind and loose things on earth is great indeed. However, Jesus further gives him the power to do just that in Heaven. If it is bound on earth, that action will receive divine ratification from God. If it is loosed on earth, that too will be given divine ratification. As God does not condone sin, He cannot allow impure actions to be committed. This means that whatever action is done on earth by Peter and his successors is infallible and as God wants and permits. Peter and his successors are merely conforming to God's will.

If you want more Scripture passages, here they are:

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

What this means is that holy men of God, moved by the Holy Ghost (which is exactly what happens when the Pope exercises his extraordinary Magisterium [making it infallible]) gave the prophecies and explained them to the people, not by private interpretation of the Scripture. Can it be more explicit than that?? Of course, there'll be a way, splitting hairs.

More Scripture?? Here's another passage.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.