|
|
Post by Wasp on May 5, 2008 22:47:34 GMT
I agree with your last line, but BH it is not because I believe it to be true, the bible does. Thats the difference.
BH you don't believe in God nor am I trying to convince you to believe in him, it is your choice. I believe what the bible teaches to do with salvation etc, so it is not my opinion it is my faith in the bible. Big difference.
I did not try to word it anyway, I stated facts not an opinion. I thought this fact was well enough known to most people who debate religion especially Christianity.
No BH what I posted is perfectly inline and on topic with the rest of my posts, if you read one of my first posts I said about unbiblical beliefs/practices/doctrine. As an athiest it baffles me why you have such a problem with me stating facts about the RC Church which are all on topic and inline with my previous posts.
Why the fuck then should you care what I say about any faith if you are an athiest. Bit hypocritical for you to get at me for exactly what you are doing yourself.
Yes each to their own but if you don't give a shite why rant at me? I will defend my beliefs and support my arguements or points, I am not going to keep quiet because an athiest or anyone else for that matter takes offence or is annoyed at what I have to say. I don't get at you for being an athiest and go off on a rant which you often have done with me because I speak out against certain beliefs and practices.
Now I am more than happy to change the topic of faith and speak out about say Billy Graham who as you know is PROTESTANT. I argue/debate with by far more Portestants than I do Catholics and that is by a long shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on May 5, 2008 23:32:01 GMT
Right, this is my last attempt to try to point out where I think you are error. As you say it doesn't bother me, I was only debating points you raised, so once more unto the breach...
"I agree with your last line, but BH it is not because I believe it to be true, the bible does. Thats the difference."
The difference is that you are presupposing that the Bible is the ultimate truth. Fair play if you believe that, not everyone does and you are basing your argument on the premise that the Bible is the last word in everything. Again, you believe this to be so but it does not make it so in the sense of it being an objective, unassailable truth.
"I did not try to word it anyway, I stated facts not an opinion. I thought this fact was well enough known to most people who debate religion especially Christianity."
I never said you worded it any way. You placed two separate sentences next to each other and it would be a strange person indeed who did not link the two, ie that Catholics do not have Bibles in their homes and that the Catholic church banned Bibles in homes. The first point is based on events today, the second on events centuries ago. They are two separate issues, yet you put them side by side with a clear inference that they were linked.
"No BH what I posted is perfectly inline and on topic with the rest of my posts, if you read one of my first posts I said about unbiblical beliefs/practices/doctrine. As an athiest it baffles me why you have such a problem with me stating facts about the RC Church which are all on topic and inline with my previous posts."
We were talking about Bibles in homes and you took the opportunity to have another swing at the RCC on matters not relevant to the issue of Bibles in homes. That may be logical to you, it isn't to me.
"Why the fuck then should you care what I say about any faith if you are an athiest. Bit hypocritical for you to get at me for exactly what you are doing yourself."
As I said, out of a spirit of debate. You brought it up first, remember, I was merely replying to your assertions that Catholics were not Christian.
"Yes each to their own but if you don't give a shite why rant at me? "
See answer above.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on May 5, 2008 23:37:04 GMT
Oh and as to why I defend the RCC against your posts it is because of the weighting of your arguments. While you criticise Protestant churches in a mild fashion ("oh I disagree with protestant churches too you know") I have never seen you go into any more than superficial reasons as to why you disagree with them. Meanwhile, you haul out screeds of information to pack your always lengthy posts about the RCC. Your posts on the RCC are long, repeated and frequent. Perhaps you could link to somewhere you have deconstructed the doctrine of a Protestant denomination in such detail and with such relish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on May 6, 2008 4:24:11 GMT
hey hup no-ones mentioned the woman who rides the beast yet -if you going to do the whole 'the catholic church is the root of all evils ever anywhere anytime bit', you need to include that to complete the comedy routine  |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on May 6, 2008 6:07:51 GMT
what is this rubbish about catholic not having bibles in their home - yes there were issues with in the middle ages. but unless you have the tardis wasp that's about as relevant as quoting the salem witch trials as an index to how modern protestant denominations work. hoary historical ghosts live on in ulster still long after protestants and catholics put them to sleep in more sensible parts of the world it seems still. Im not the best candidate to play devils advocate for the RCC as historically it has many crimes and misdeeds to answer for but as constantly pointed out here so do many protestant denominations - admitting the fuckups and trying to prevent them happening again is surely a better option than this constant attempt to cast th RCC in some role of the woman who rides the beast. Half the time you sound like you are trying to convince yourself of that wasp even though your common sense is telling you it's a foolish way to view things and it lack in intellectual discrection.
protestants, catholics and all other christians would be better to admit some things seperate them and then look at what joins them.
and oh yeah there were at least 4 bibles i can remember in my house growing up, one childrens one and 3 adult translations...
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on May 6, 2008 6:10:27 GMT
what is this rubbish about catholic not having bibles in their home - yes there were issues with in the middle ages. but unless you have the tardis wasp that's about as relevant as quoting the salem witch trials as an index to how modern protestant denominations work. hoary historical ghosts live on in ulster still long after protestants and catholics put them to sleep in more sensible parts of the world it seems still. Im not the best candidate to play devils advocate for the RCC as historically it has many crimes and misdeeds to answer for but as constantly pointed out here so do many protestant denominations - admitting the fuckups and trying to prevent them happening again is surely a better option than this constant attempt to cast th RCC in some role of the woman who rides the beast. Half the time you sound like you are trying to convince yourself of that wasp even though your common sense is telling you it's a foolish way to view things and it lack in intellectual discrection.
protestants, catholics and all other christians would be better to admit some things seperate them and then look at what joins them.
and oh yeah there were at least 4 bibles i can remember in my house growing up, one childrens one and 3 adult translations...
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 6, 2008 8:48:14 GMT
Early you are taking out of context the laws of man and God's laws, but regardless of what you are saying what on earth has that got to do with some of the doctrines that the Catholic church has introduced such as how they see Mary, purgatory, indulgences, priests being a go between for confessions, bowing to idols (probably made in China) etc etc. I'm making the point hat just because something is biblical, it doesn't make it right, just as if something isn't biblical, then it doesn't necessarily make it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 6, 2008 8:58:14 GMT
WASP
That doesn't make sense. If something is quite clear, then there is only one interpretation. For example, the plot to the Arnie classic, Commando, is quite clear and there would be only one interpretation as to what that movie is about. On the otherhand the movie Donnie Darko's plot is not clear, and is open to many interpretations.
Show us how clear the Bible is, interperate this:
* If a man has sex with a menstruating woman, they both "shall be cut off from among their people."If a man has sex with a menstruating woman, they both "shall be cut off from among their people."
And do you practice it? If you don't, why not, it's in the Bible?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 6, 2008 20:36:00 GMT
ok
Ok we are looking at this at different angles. Any faith amongst those who belong to the Christianity group would hold the bible up as the word of God, they would hold it as the truth etc. I am referring to those who introduce manmade doctrine to do with things such as what is needed for salvation etc. It is many of these things that are unbiblical and contradict God's word and what Jesus and his disciples clearly taught.
I clearly was talking about many of the Catholics I know, I then made it clear that it was the Catholic church which banned people from owning a bible, infact they demanded it was spoke in Latin. Now my last point was inline with the fact I was talking about some of the unbiblical beliefs/practices/doctrine. Never on a month of Sundays would I try to link the two as it would be downright foolish of me to even think about trying that as it simply would be a lie if I tried to claim Catholics didn't have bibles because the vatican told them so, so you are wrong with your assumption
Again your assumption is wrong, completely wrong. You are clutching at straws to try and create an arguement by taking what I said and turning it into me meaning something else.
Now BH you are definately twisting things here and jumping to more wild assumptions. Here is part of exactly what I said in my first reply to jim.
From my first paragraph (no mention of bibles here)
Since the reformation as you know Portestants were at the receiving end of the Catholic church, infact present day doctrine condemns us to hell and those who are in a mixed marriage are to be punished if there children are not brought up as Catholic........................the fact modern day cannon law has the murder of a Portestant as not murder at all if done by a Catholic in the name of religion.
My last paragraph
Basically most if not all Catholics have been brought upto go by what the church says, not being allowed to question it too much, many don't read or even own a bible but they will go through the various prayers their church has taught them.............She has never read a bible yet believes her taking part in the sacrements gets her into heaven. That couldn't be further from the truth and is totally unbiblical.
You will clearly see that my last paragraph clearly said about Church doctrine, so we weren't just talking about bibles, and you will see my first paragraph clearly talked about doctinal issues without the bible being mentioned.
As usual nice try at twisting what I said and turn it into some flamin rant that I went off topic etc.
And I also said there were plenty of Protestants that were not Christians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 6, 2008 20:41:58 GMT
Earl what I try to do is live as Jesus commanded, sadly I fail to do that everysecond ofd everyday. You can try and twist the law of man around to God's law which is clearly taught by Jesus and his disciples.
BH I was once told that I shouldn't be having a go at the Islamic faith as none of them belong to this forum(or rather the old one), so what is the point in me going deep into say the charasmatic movement only for me to be told there is no charasmatics here. Out of those who class themselves as Chrsitian denominatioons then it certainly would be the RC Church that I would have more problems with because they have alot more doctrinal errors than the rest that I know of.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on May 6, 2008 21:39:33 GMT
I give up. I think we'd have to ahve this debate in person, mate, as clearly we are both misunderstanding what the opther is typing. Good old religion, eh? Always good for an argument
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on May 6, 2008 22:26:14 GMT
It's easy to misunderstand when we are reading what someone has typed. Anyway in all seriousness what would be your instant reaction if asked what do you think of Billy Graham?
|
|
|
|
Post by bearhunter on May 7, 2008 1:24:28 GMT
Dodgy, neo-con gobshite. But that's just based on what I know of him, of course...
|
|
|
|
Post by leeside on May 8, 2008 12:35:43 GMT
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you!!!
-- George Carlin
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 8, 2008 20:43:14 GMT
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you!!! -- George Carlin George carlin knows the score. |
|
