I am an atheist thread 3

[_A]

So are you saying is that this scripture is about genology?

I asked a question. I haven’t gotten past the first line, because I wanted to clarify. I will wait.

 

[lkddav]

Matthew 13:40: “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.” Doesn’t this metaphorical context strongly imply that the “furnace of fire” in verse 42 could be, you guessed it, a metaphor? Jesus was just talking about removal of weeds (by fire).

I disagree. 13:41 goes on to say that he will weed out everything that causes sin and evil. Jesus was not talking about weeds. Weeds are not evil.

Out of your original 18, we are left with two verses (Mat 5:22, Mat 18:9) that mention hellfire, and one (Mat 24:51) that mentions “cutting asunder”. The last one is buried in a metaphor about slaves waiting for the master of the household… I’m really not sure what to make of it.

Mat 5:22 says if you call your brother a fool, you are in danger of hell. Mat 18:9 is the gouge your eye out before you end up in hell threat. I agree with you on Mat: 24;51

What do we conclude? A couple things. For one, your whopping list of 18 quotes was either dishonest or incompetent. If you had looked at the verses at all, you would have seen that most of them didn’t serve to reinforce your position, they just made your list longer, so as to appear impressive. Kind of like a kitty cat puffing itself up.

They were neither dishonest nor incompetent if you had attributed them to their correct post. And you question whether i was dishonest? My position was they referred to someone being throw into hell for a wrong.

Second, what do the verses actually teach us about hell? Jesus refers to fire in a couple places that are not obviously metaphorical. Does that mean that liberal theologians’ opinions are invalid? By no means. The only thing we can take away from these verses with confidence is that hell is undesirable. What a shock. Does this contradict current church teaching? By no means.

In my opinion the verses teach us that hell is a place of fire and pain. How many times does the son of god have to mention fire and pain? I take away from these verses that the tradional hell is being described.
If your church teaches the watered down version, in my opinion, they are wrong.

I guess I’m having trouble understanding A and lkddav’s opinion that this teaching has been watered down, to attract more converts. It just isn’t clicking for me. Converts don’t go to hell. People who die in a state of mortal sin go to hell. What potential convert would say “Well, I would sign up if sinners’ souls were stranded in eternal limbo after death, but this business of fire… see ya!”

I never said converts went to hell. I don’t know how you got that out of my post. I said the church waters down hell to attract new converts.

By the way, I have no specialized training in biblical interpretation, and my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt except inasmuch as they are hopefully in line with church teaching.

I have no specialized training either. I don’t think it is necessary. If a person cannot read the bible and get anything out of it, maybe there is nothing there. If someone takes someone else’s word on it, they are allowing someone else to think for them.
This is no different in this than being a follower of Jim Jones or David Koresh

les

 

[c659smith]

I asked a question. I haven’t gotten past the first line, because I wanted to clarify. I will wait.

So then you admit that you cannot decipher scripture (the bible) as you do not understand the Bible and are not trained to do so. That is the answer I surmise from your question.

Just as I told Ikkav. I have put forth a question and await your reply.

I asked a question and please answer it without a question.

It should be a simple

Were you wearing a blue shirt yesterday?

Well what’s your definition of a blue shirt.

Thats stuff not going to work here.

 

[lkddav]

Again what is hard to understand. I asked a question and would like an answer.

What you have given me is another question. An answer does not end is a question mark.

I will not accept your answer to a question being a question or an answer as a request

I think you are afraid of your own answer.As it may for the most part reluctantly accepting parts of the bible as credible evidence and history…

c659

You are a liar and a dishonest one at that. You will go on my ignore list. No point in wasting time with a liar. My original assumption of you was correct. You WERE talking out your a-- and hoping no one would check.

Have a nice day.

 

[_A]

So then you admit that you cannot decipher scripture (the bible) as you do not understand the Bible and are not trained to do so. That is the answer I surmise from your question.

I will quote a famous writer who said…
lkkav:

If someone takes someone else’s word on it, they are allowing someone else to think for them.
This is no different in this than being a follower of Jim Jones or David Koresh

The quote with all the begats and begots…what was the point of that? I asked a question about it and you didn’t answer…just made some accusations.

 

[c659smith]

So then you admit that you cannot decipher scripture (the bible) as you do not understand the Bible and are not trained to do so. That is the answer I surmise from your question.

Just as I told Ikkav. I have put forth a question and await your reply.

I asked a question and please answer it without a question.

It should be a simple

Were you wearing a blue shirt yesterday?

Well what’s your definition of a blue shirt.

Thats stuff not going to work here.

To give you a little help though the question you have asked is a reason to look elsewhee in this scripture but within this scripture itself.

 

[c659smith]

I will quote a famous writer who said…
The quote with all the begats and begots…what was the point of that? I asked a question about it and you didn’t answer…just made some accusations.

The question was brought about by me as a series of threads stated you do not have to be qualified to understand the writtings in the bible.

A seventh grader can read War and Peace but few will understand it without a thorough knowledge of pre-revolutionary Russia.

Now I will wait for your answer and await your interpetation on the first section of the book of Matthew.

 

[Armor_of_God]

@Armor of God

Aw

Hey, I did mean that. Although you may not be able to relate, as you probably don’t have much snow in your country.

But I don’t believe in souls. Am I now incapable of deciding what is human and what is not? For that matter, if you use the soul as a guideline for what is human, how do you detect the soul?

You can’t just say a human has a soul and a soul defines a human, that is circular reasoning.

OK, I will use secular terms. I was really just trying to say that anyone who exists is equally human. That’s all. I was trying to cover the gamut from little bitty human embryo to three year old child to handicapped person (mentally/physically) to regular Jane or Joe adult to dear old geezer on a sickbed. They all have equal value and worth as humans.

Well, he failed in that then, his self-punishment makes no sense.

Please elaborate.

Thanks for that. I was glad to read the part when it said “original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.” But it does seem a mild contradiction to say that, despite having no personal fault, a bapsism is still needed to erase original sin.

I think it is worth quoting the passage from the Catechism again for reference:

“Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.”

(CCC 405)

The paragraph above explains that original sin is “a deprivation of original holiness and justice”. So, in this sense, what baptism does is it restores us to original holiness and justice, “by imparting the life of Christ’s grace”. Baptism is a Sacrament, and according to Catholic belief, all seven Sacraments impart grace and strength. We still struggle with sin, but this “life of Christ’s grace” gives us the strength to overcome.

Here is further explanation from the Catechism:

“It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.”

(CCC 404:6)

 

[psyche23]

It seems to me that everyone here is going in circles (myself included). I also think people are starting (if they haven’t already) to get defensive.

I’m really sorry to hear that.

I do think though that we’ve accomplished a lot in terms of communication here. I think we’ve at least come to some understandings of each other even if we can’t really figure out *why *the person(s) believe what they do…

I also think since it’s so close to being the end of the thread, it’s a good time to just bow to each other and recognize the well intentions put forth here.

If nothing else, I hope we’ve opened doors for both sides so neither one “condemns” the other.

As I’ve said before, I’ll continue to read because I don’t want to ignore good points from anyone, but all things considered I think it’s my time to politely back out. Not completely mind you, but at least in terms of large posts…

Hmmm… seems to me I’ve said this before so maybe I should actually stick to it this time…

Peace,
Anna

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

All stories have unique elements. Well, all popular stories seem to, anyway. I don’t see that unique claims make for some special kind of evidence.

I’m glad we agree.

Right - tithe is needed, too. I guess that church needs more gold to plate the popes bullet-proof car.

Tithe is not required, as I’ve said before. Are you just making stuff up?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Hello NE

Thirty years ago the church message was " come to church and get right with the lord or burn in hell". You didn’t have to use your imagination to invision hell. They had films of people burning in fire being tortured. If that wasn’t what hell was, as described in the bible, what was it?

I don’t know what church this was, but it wasn’t a catholic mass.

Over the years the message of the church has become for the most part " come to our church, we are tolerable, we think hell means a seperation from god etc.

You have evidence for a change in official church teaching on hell? Let’s hear it.

If you mean that priests and deacons today don’t emphasize hell as much in homilies, fine. I’ve heard that, although I wasn’t in the church 30 years ago to know for myself.

It was a list of quotes pertaining to hell. My quotes on hell were pertaining to another post. I did not say they were scary. They were examples of someone being thrown into hell. You attributed the quotes to the post i made to S4J. You were dishonest in doing this.

Sorry, I don’t get it. How was I dishonest?

Luke 16:23 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

I interpret this to be in the traditional hell. I will agree that the other four could simply mean in great pain also.

You can interpret it to mean anything you want. The text doesn’t say anything to that effect.

In Mat 13:42 and 13:50 jesus says the will be thrown into fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. I interpret this as jesus describing the tradional hell. He didn’t say you would be throw into a place of “seperation” or a place of "unhappiness.

I didn’t say anything about the Mat 13 verses except that they are in fact one passage.

Mar 9:43 and 47 are exactly what i intended them to be. An example of someone being thrown into hell. Again you are dishonest.

Again, all I said is that these are the same passage, so you don’t get double credit.

Mat 18:9 and Mark 9:47 are another example of being thrown into hell. They are the same passage and it isn’t fair to count them twice. I’ll give you that one, i missed it.

Cool.

3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

I agree that it is referring to speech. I interpret this to mean that running your mouth could land you in hell. Like you said, take it with a grain of salt.

continued

But your original point was that the plain text implies that hell is fiery torment, and this quote doesn’t back that up. Again, you can interpret it any way you want, but it’s not backing up your original point.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

They were neither dishonest nor incompetent if you had attributed them to their correct post. And you question whether i was dishonest? My position was they referred to someone being throw into hell for a wrong.

If I missed a step in the conversation, I apologize. It’s a big thread.


… I think that’s all I have to say about that, to quote a wise philosopher.

 

[_A]

It seems to me that everyone here is going in circles (myself included). I also think people are starting (if they haven’t already) to get defensive.

I’m really sorry to hear that.

I do think though that we’ve accomplished a lot in terms of communication here. I think we’ve at least come to some understandings of each other even if we can’t really figure out *why *the person(s) believe what they do…

I also think since it’s so close to being the end of the thread, it’s a good time to just bow to each other and recognize the well intentions put forth here.

If nothing else, I hope we’ve opened doors for both sides so neither one “condemns” the other.

As I’ve said before, I’ll continue to read because I don’t want to ignore good points from anyone, but all things considered I think it’s my time to politely back out. Not completely mind you, but at least in terms of large posts…

Hmmm… seems to me I’ve said this before so maybe I should actually stick to it this time…

Peace,
Anna

Thanks for your posts, and the encouragement.

 

[_A]

I’m glad we agree.

Tithe is not required, as I’ve said before. Are you just making stuff up?

My mistake, I thought the little envelopes they hand out were intended to be filled with money.
That is what the priest said. (well, he didn’t say filled with money, he used euphemisms like ‘contribution’ and ‘gift’)

 

[lkddav]

.

Sorry, I don’t get it. How was I dishonest?

.

Hello NE

Go back to my post where I quoted the scripture on hell. Show me where I said they were scary. No big deal, I just want you " to get it".

les

 

[lkddav]

If I missed a step in the conversation, I apologize. It’s a big thread.


… I think that’s all I have to say about that, to quote a wise philosopher.

NA

I missed this post before i posted the next one.

Me and you are cool !!!

les

 

[c659smith]

c659

You are a liar and a dishonest one at that. You will go on my ignore list. No point in wasting time with a liar. My original assumption of you was correct. You WERE talking out your a-- and hoping no one would check.

Have a nice day.

I have asked IKDDAV a question he refuses to answer. Looked at that question What is your definition of evidence?

It is a diffulcult answer for him to give and because of my insistence he has taken offense and calls me names.

This question was put forth as to what is the definition of evidence so one can reason with him as to why the bible for the most part is a book of evidence and can be proved with how the civilized world defines and evaluates such evidence.

His answer to that question is with a question and does not define. His answer is like that of a child.

He makes an accusation of calling me a liar to which I feel sorry for him that is the only way he can lash out and not substansiate his thoughts or reasoning process.

 

[_A]

He makes an accusation of calling me a liar to which I feel sorry for him that is the only way he can lash out and not substansiate his thoughts or reasoning process.

I don’t know if it will help you at all, but I was close to putting you on ignore also. I think if your were to post more like S4J, NE or Psyche, you would be getting more of the answers you seek.
As it is, I don’t feel like answering you (other than to joke) because you don’t seem serious.
Read those posters I mentioned, who all disagree strongly with me, yet aim for respectful discourse. I don’t expect you to listen to les or myself, but perhaps these others will be able to lead you.

 

[_A]

I just found an interesting quiz here. My score was

Ninety Percent
Practically perfect, a Mary Poppins award.

I don’t know what a ‘Mary Poppins award’ means, but I guess it is complimentary (or mildly and sarcastically derisive? - nah! )
Give it a try, see how you do.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

How is it that you think admitting ignorance takes faith? I think asserting knowledge where you have none takes faith.
From here, it looks like faith is the word you use when you want emotion accepted as fact.

I’m not sure i understand your meaning, A. I think you are claiming (perhaps facetiously) that i believe:

Faith = ignorance

My response is that i actually believe:

Faith = trust
I’m saying that you have faith (or trust) in the idea that some unknown cause created the genetic code of the first living creatures. So, i pointed out (tongue in cheek) that you have blind faith in this god we might call Mystery!



In contrast, i have faith (or trust) in the idea that the God created the genetic code of the first living creatures.

My point was that there is no scientific evidence that natural occurrences over time can create the DNA of living creatures, so you or i have to rely on some other kind of evidence to prove whether or not God exists.

Do you agree that science does not help us prove or disprove the existence of a God?