i am presbyterian i want to convert ..

[humble_in_doubt]

Call it divinely “coincidental”.

P.S. I have already mentioned in a previous post the perpetuity of Peter’s office, you did not give me a valid reason for not accepting this view (typology).

because the typological reference you made is such a stretch IMO it’s not reasonable. Obviously I understand typology well and acknowledge its importance in theology. Good examples are made frequently by Peter and Paul (when they themselves reach back to the Old Testament, like Peter does with Noah and the Ark & Christian baptism, or Paul does with Sarah and Hagar in Galatians and Romans). Jonah swallowed up by a fish (in his belly for three days) just as Christ was physically dead for three days (and as the myth goes went down into the abyss to preach to the antediluvians).

These are solid examples of typology (I could mention dozens more – but the point is typology must be intelligible). Catholic theologians have a habit of poor typology. For example I can remember reading way back when a common typological nexus Catholic theologians draw between the sanctuary door (and the revelation that it will one day close forever – made in Ezekiel) and the perpetual virginity of Mary. These theologians actually drew a nexus between the sanctuary door and a woman’s vagina (I remember being stuck somewhere between bewilderment and nausea). Obviously those passages are referencing Christ – not his mother. The sanctuary door reference is discussing the annual atonement ritual carried out by the Levitical priests in ancient Israel. Once Christ comes and dies for the sins of god’s people no longer will an annual atonement ritual be necessary. One sacrifice for all sins.

It seems failing to recognize Christologic typology is a Catholic habit. If there is anything to your dynastic perpetuity idea – it vests in Christ and no one else.

 

[josie_L]

because the typological reference you made is such a stretch IMO it’s not reasonable. Obviously I understand typology well and acknowledge its importance in theology. Good examples are made frequently by Peter and Paul (when they themselves reach back to the Old Testament, like Peter does with Noah and the Ark & Christian baptism, or Paul does with Sarah and Hagar in Galatians and Romans). Jonah swallowed up by a fish (in his belly for three days) just as Christ was physically dead for three days (and as the myth goes went down into the abyss to preach to the antediluvians).

These are solid examples of typology (I could mention dozens more – but the point is typology must be intelligible). Catholic theologians have a habit of poor typology. For example I can remember reading way back when a common typological nexus Catholic theologians draw between the sanctuary door (and the revelation that it will one day close forever – made in Ezekiel) and the perpetual virginity of Mary. These theologians actually drew a nexus between the sanctuary door and a woman’s vagina (I remember being stuck somewhere between bewilderment and nausea). Obviously those passages are referencing Christ – not his mother. The sanctuary door reference is discussing the annual atonement ritual carried out by the Levitical priests in ancient Israel. Once Christ comes and dies for the sins of god’s people no longer will an annual atonement ritual be necessary. One sacrifice for all sins.

It seems failing to recognize Christologic typology is a Catholic habit. If there is anything to your dynastic perpetuity idea – it vests in Christ and no one else.

Christ is the King (son of David), so that leaves us with the question, who in the NT represents the Prime Minister (every King of Israel had a prime minister to whom the keys of the Kingdom were given to)?

P.S. Did you believe that Jesus was present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist when you were Catholic?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Christ is the King (son of David), so that leaves us with the question, who in the NT represents the Prime Minister (every King of Israel had a prime minister to whom the keys of the Kingdom were given to)?

P.S. Did you believe that Jesus was present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist when you were Catholic?

what’s you’re really talking about here is the “key” symbolism used (that prefigured the events in Matt. 16). However, IMO the typical Catholic interpretation of Matt. 16 fails to take the following into account.

Here’s a quick narrative: The chapter begins with the Pharisees & Sadducees demanding a sign. Jesus here provides an important typology (to Jonah), but refuses to give a sign (I’ll reserve my opinion on these sorts of verses since it’s not relevant to the topic).

Then there’s a brief discourse about bread (and Jesus again enunciates the true meaning of his ministry. It’s not about actual bread to sustain the belly i.e. he is the bread of life – it’s the spirit that matters not the flesh).

At v. 12 his disciples understand that he was actually warning them against the teachings of the Pharisees. Then when he asks his disciples who they believe he is – Peter responds by saying he is the Messiah (the Christ). Jesus responds by saying the father revealed this to Peter (not any man – not even his, Peter’s, own intuition). Then Peter is handed the keys to heaven.

This does trace back to Isaiah 22:22 (where Shebna is thrust from office by god and replaced by Eliakim). The key to understanding the significance of this event is to contrast Jesus’ discourse with the Pharisees and Sadducees with his discourse with Peter. The Pharisees, prior to Jesus, in a sense were entrusted by god to act as his emissaries on earth. They broke that trust and forfeited their position, and the keys were (in a figurative sense) taken from them and handed to Peter. The contrast with the Pharisees is crucial because since they, who formerly held the keys, shut the kingdom in peoples faces, neither entering themselves nor allowing others to enter – whereas Peter and subsequently the apostles (and eventually all believers) are granted a commission to broaden god’s outreach. In Acts Peter is the apostle who first preaches the message of the kingdom to the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2), the Samaritans (Acts 8), and to the gentiles (Acts 10) "whatever you bind . . . whatever you loose."

Subsequently Jesus extends this office to all his apostles (see Matt. 18:18, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14, etc.). Indeed we see Paul (whose apostleship Peter affirms) rebuking Peter at Galatians 2:11-14. It’s also improper to interpret Peter’s office as standing for the idea that he would be infallible in teaching the doctrines of Jesus (since Jesus himself rebukes Peter at Matt. 16:23). Certainly Peter appears as a spokesman of the Jerusalem church, however, he is still “sent” by the other apostles to Samaria (Acts 8:14), he still had to give an account for his actions to the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1-18), indeed Peter is presented as having only one of many voices in the Jerusalem council (and James has the decisive final word). Though Peter certainly has a central role the establishment of the church, he disappears from the Acts narrative after Acts 16.

Peter’s authority to exercise discipline concerning right and wrong conduct in the church is extended to all the apostles and the church as a whole (Matt. 18:18, John 20:23). Jesus delegates authority to human leaders in the church who are called to govern, under his ultimate authority, through application of his word.

So as we can see the church is built on the foundation of ALL the prophets and apostles, however, Jesus himself remains the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). This it seems to me is the better view concerning this issue.

As far as dynastic progress for the king’s steward … I have no idea where you derive that notion from? Certainly the king always had a steward (who had the authority to act in his stead); however, there’s no reason to infuse concepts like dynastic progression, which only apply to the monarch himself, to the story of Shebna and Eliakim. Rather the typology stands for the idea that the church (build on the foundation of the apostles) is Christ’s steward. The preponderance of scripture supports this – and your reading is only possible if you take Isaiah 22 and Matt. 16 in complete isolation; and ignore the totality of Jesus’ teachings on this issue & how the role of the apostles and the church were shaped by Christ throughout the gospel.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

excuse my typos & grammatical mistakes (20 minutes is not a lot of time to produce a post on such an involved topic ). I should have used Word (but too early to overexert my brain & it’s Saturday after all).

 

[josie_L]

Peter’s authority to exercise discipline concerning right and wrong conduct in the church is extended to all the apostles and the church as a whole (Matt. 18:18, John 20:23). Jesus delegates authority to human leaders in the church who are called to govern, under his ultimate authority, through application of his word.

So as we can see the church is built on the foundation of ALL the prophets and apostles, however, Jesus himself remains the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). This it seems to me is the better view concerning this issue.

As far as dynastic progress for the king’s steward … I have no idea where you derive that notion from? Certainly the king always had a steward (who had the authority to act in his stead); however, there’s no reason to infuse concepts like dynastic progression, which only apply to the monarch himself, to the story of Shebna and Eliakim. Rather the typology stands for the idea that the church (build on the foundation of the apostles) is Christ’s steward. The preponderance of scripture supports this – and your reading is only possible if you take Isaiah 22 and Matt. 16 in complete isolation; and ignore the totality of Jesus’ teachings on this issue & how the role of the apostles and the church were shaped by Christ throughout the gospel.

What’s happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, “I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; ]and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David.”

**Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It’s a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, “I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” **Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.

The above passage I quoted states that at the time the events in Isaiah 22 took place we are already hundreds of years past David’s kingship. Also, the prime ministerial office given to Eliakim is stated as such:

“and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David”.

How would you define the “House of David”, is this not referencing the Davidic kingdom, and as such a Davidic dynasty. Hence the Prime ministerial role has always been alongside that of the King’s.

Now what power does having the keys to the House of David hold:

“I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”

Notice the singularity of authority, there is no mention of others, to further make you understand that this implies the role of the Pope, read this:

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister’s position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it’s the key of David; it’s the House of David.

It states that only Eliakim as Prime minister was given the keys to the House of David, not the other ministers (although they too exercised authority just not the authority that was given to the Prime (meaning first) minister) so you are wrong in suggesting that the keys of the kingdom were given to all the Apostles (loosing and binding, yes, but not the keys).

Peter is not subject to anyone in the NT, we notice many times throughout scripture how he is put first, it was Peter who was first to recognize Jesus for who he was (yes, through the Father he was able to know this, hence his infallibility, this is a foreshadowing in scripture that the Father speaks through Peter first, pope, and then the others, that make up the magisterium), Peter who stepped out onto the water during the storm, Peter who first addressed the crowd at Pentecost and as such the first to convert the first Christians, the first to heal, the first mentioned whenever the apostles were mentioned in Scripture, give you an example,

"Peter and the other apostles (see how he’s singled out) replied “We must obey God rather than men!” Acts 5:29

And how about the story of Ananias and Sapphira, it was Peter that recognized they were both lying, not the other apostles.

“Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit . . .” Acts 5:3

Also, the story of Peter’s vision (why was Peter given the vision if not because he was given an authority separate from the others), demonstrates the command he has over the people of God, see how they react when he explained to them that even the Gentiles would receive the Holy Spirit:

"When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” Acts 11:18

He had an authority singularly his own, that none of the other apostles shared, however, the Magisterium is necessary in terms of manifesting doctrine.

 

[josie_L]

Francis, I didn’t have time to edit my post as I wished, so please disregard the part in my post that states that Peter was subject to no one in the NT, I meant only that he was chief among the Apostles and as such was the first to whom the apostles turned to.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I fear you still miss my point. No the House of David is not like the House of Bourbon. Why the references to European monarchs & why do you insist on trying to infuse the concept of dynastic progression into something that was meant to have spiritual significance?

As I’ve shown with numerous references to scripture the commission first given Peter was extended to all the apostles, and ultimately all believers. The typological significance of the key in Isaiah 22 (that prefigures the events in Matt. 16) is ultimately referencing a paradigm shift. The Pharisees, the entire old covenant worship system and hierarchy, is replaced by the church of Christ. It is indeed important to recognize that it’s “the steward” in view here – “on this rock I build my church.” It’s always the church who has the power (and responsibility) to discipline believers and act as a “stand in” for Jesus (and god).

Peter is called the rock in this verse – however, as I’ve shown elsewhere (after Matt. 16) all the apostles are referred to as “the foundation” (and Christ the “cornerstone”). I’ve shown how the role of Peter and that of the other apostles evolved (not only as shaped by Christ in the gospels, but also as they defined themselves through their actions in the Acts narrative).

There’s nothing in scripture or in any of Peter’s actions or Christ’s words (taken in totality) that would lend support to a papacy. Peter never acted like a pope. Whether he was even a first among equals is debatable, since at the council of Jerusalem it’s James (not Peter) who has the decisive last word. Paul rebukes Peter at one point (even though of course Peter affirms both the apostleship of Paul & defines his epistles as “scripture” in his own letters). Nothing here is consistent with the office of Pope.

There is nothing beyond the internal claims of the CC that support a papacy.

 

[Bob_McKissick]

I fear you still miss my point. No the House of David is not like the House of Bourbon. Why the references to European monarchs & why do you insist on trying to infuse the concept of dynastic progression into something that was meant to have spiritual significance?

As I’ve shown with numerous references to scripture the commission first given Peter was extended to all the apostles, and ultimately all believers. The typological significance of the key in Isaiah 22 (that prefigures the events in Matt. 16) is ultimately referencing a paradigm shift. The Pharisees, the entire old covenant worship system and hierarchy, is replaced by the church of Christ. It is indeed important to recognize that it’s “the steward” in view here – “on this rock I build my church.” It’s always the church who has the power (and responsibility) to discipline believers and act as a “stand in” for Jesus (and god).

Peter is called the rock in this verse – however, as I’ve shown elsewhere (after Matt. 16) all the apostles are referred to as “the foundation” (and Christ the “cornerstone”). I’ve shown how the role of Peter and that of the other apostles evolved (not only as shaped by Christ in the gospels, but also as they defined themselves through their actions in the Acts narrative).

There’s nothing in scripture or in any of Peter’s actions or Christ’s words (taken in totality) that would lend support to a papacy. Peter never acted like a pope. Whether he was even a first among equals is debatable, since at the council of Jerusalem it’s James (not Peter) who has the decisive last word. Paul rebukes Peter at one point (even though of course Peter affirms both the apostleship of Paul & defines his epistles as “scripture” in his own letters). Nothing here is consistent with the office of Pope.

There is nothing beyond the internal claims of the CC that support a papacy.

How is it that the CC comes before all other off springs of the present day christian community? How is it that Protestantism continues to break up while the Catholic Church continues to grow despite the best efforts of Her enemies to destroy Her? The Church is 2000 years old and still going with Peter at Her head while the U.S. is the oldest secular government on the earth and is only a little over 250 years old and is on the verge of dying. What keeps the Catholic Church in existence? You have no more authority to teach than anyone else on this planet. Why should anyone listen to you while the Church has the divine authority of Christ to teach? bob

 

[josie_L]

I fear you still miss my point. No the House of David is not like the House of Bourbon. Why the references to European monarchs & why do you insist on trying to infuse the concept of dynastic progression into something that was meant to have spiritual significance?

As I’ve shown with numerous references to scripture the commission first given Peter was extended to all the apostles, and ultimately all believers. The typological significance of the key in Isaiah 22 (that prefigures the events in Matt. 16) is ultimately referencing a paradigm shift. The Pharisees, the entire old covenant worship system and hierarchy, is replaced by the church of Christ. It is indeed important to recognize that it’s “the steward” in view here – “on this rock I build my church.” It’s always the church who has the power (and responsibility) to discipline believers and act as a “stand in” for Jesus (and god).

Peter is called the rock in this verse – however, as I’ve shown elsewhere (after Matt. 16) all the apostles are referred to as “the foundation” (and Christ the “cornerstone”). I’ve shown how the role of Peter and that of the other apostles evolved (not only as shaped by Christ in the gospels, but also as they defined themselves through their actions in the Acts narrative).

There’s nothing in scripture or in any of Peter’s actions or Christ’s words (taken in totality) that would lend support to a papacy. Peter never acted like a pope. Whether he was even a first among equals is debatable, since at the council of Jerusalem it’s James (not Peter) who has the decisive last word. Paul rebukes Peter at one point (even though of course Peter affirms both the apostleship of Paul & defines his epistles as “scripture” in his own letters). Nothing here is consistent with the office of Pope.

There is nothing beyond the internal claims of the CC that support a papacy.

If as you say the entire old covenant worship system and hierarchy, is replaced by the church of Christ (which is true), then the similarities between the two should be obvious. As such the role of the Prime minister must be replaced by someone in the church of Christ, and this cannot be the whole church as we see that Eliakim was the only one given the keys to the kingdom. He is called Prime amongst the ministers because he is the chief, the first in rank, like our Pope is in the CC. In Ephesians you have the prophets and the apostles as the foundation, with Jesus as the cornerstone, Peter the rock deliberately named so by Jesus is part of that foundation, but he is that part which holds the keys. Those keys as they were given to one person in the OT (as part of the hierarchy) is also given to one person in the NT. The entire old covenant worship system and hierarchy is structured in the same manner as is found in the Catholic Church. You might as well read Matthew 16:18 like so:

"And so I say to you (Simon son of Jonah who is now Peter), you are Peter, and upon this Peter I will build my church, and the gates of netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you (Peter) the keys to the kingdom (just as they were given to Eliakim) of Heaven .

The Church has a hierarchical/authoritative structure which does not include all believers (also you refered to all believers as being priests whereas in the OT only the levites were allowed to be priests), otherwise Matthew 18:17 would not make sense.

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”

Also, the foundation of the Church which is made up of prophets and apostles does not include all believers.

Peter was the first pope, the bishop of Rome, and although he made personal mistakes (as we know this through scripture) never was it mentioned that he did so on matters of faith and morals. You are confusing impeccability with infallibility.

P.S. The information that I had originally posted by Albright (concerning dynastic succession), was not even a Catholic source; he was Protestant.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

If as you say the entire old covenant worship system and hierarchy, is replaced by the church of Christ (which is true), then the similarities between the two should be obvious. As such the role of the Prime minister must be replaced by someone in the church of Christ, and this cannot be the whole church as we see that Eliakim was the only one given the keys to the kingdom. He is called Prime amongst the ministers because he is the chief, the first in rank, like our Pope is in the CC. In Ephesians you have the prophets and the apostles as the foundation, with Jesus as the cornerstone, Peter the rock deliberately named so by Jesus is part of that foundation, but he is that part which holds the keys. Those keys as they were given to one person in the OT (as part of the hierarchy) is also given to one person in the NT. The entire old covenant worship system and hierarchy is structured in the same manner as is found in the Catholic Church. You might as well read Matthew 16:18 like so:

"And so I say to you (Simon son of Jonah who is now Peter), you are Peter, and upon this Peter I will build my church, and the gates of netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you (Peter) the keys to the kingdom (just as they were given to Eliakim) of Heaven .

just a huge exercise in missing the point … but anyway – arguing over ancient mythology is getting a little boring; so if you want you can win this argument.

The Church has a hierarchical/authoritative structure which does not include all believers (also you refered to all believers as being priests whereas in the OT only the levites were allowed to be priests), otherwise Matthew 18:17 would not make sense.

really … ummmm alrighty then

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”

so the pope is the church? Every time some Christian screws up do you guys have to report it to the pope?

Also, the foundation of the Church which is made up of prophets and apostles does not include all believers.

ahh good old exclusiveness … what would Christianity be without it?

Peter was the first pope, the bishop of Rome, and although he made personal mistakes (as we know this through scripture) never was it mentioned that he did so on matters of faith and morals. You are confusing impeccability with infallibility.

not the impeccability / infallibility distinction – did you think this is the first time I’ve ever heard it? At any rate – I’ll withhold my opinion on CC semantics with regard to infallibility .

P.S. The information that I had originally posted by Albright (concerning dynastic succession), was not even a Catholic source; he was Protestant.

who cares? Protestants are usually just as wrong as Catholics.

 

[josie_L]

just a huge exercise in missing the point … but anyway – arguing over ancient mythology is getting a little boring; so if you want you can win this argument.

really … ummmm alrighty then

so the pope is the church? Every time some Christian screws up do you guys have to report it to the pope?

ahh good old exclusiveness … what would Christianity be without it?

not the impeccability / infallibility distinction – did you think this is the first time I’ve ever heard it? At any rate – I’ll withhold my opinion on CC semantics with regard to infallibility .

who cares? Protestants are usually just as wrong as Catholics.

But you seem to hold many Protestant views about scripture? Did you believe that Jesus was present in the eucharist - body, blood, soul and divinity?

P.S. I’m not trying to win the argument. I’m giving you my understanding of scripture which you don’t agree with. But do you truly find discussing these matters boring (you use that word a lot by the way)? And why do you insist that the Church is like some sort of democracy, instead of what it really is a system of worship with a hierarchy? Do you really think that every believer has the authority to interpret the Bible and create doctrine based on his/her understanding? Don’t you see the inherent problems in believing that we all have authority? This is not about exclusiveness, Francis, it’s about preserving the Truth.

 

[wisdomseeker]

But you seem to hold many Protestant views about scripture? Did you believe that Jesus was present in the eucharist - body, blood, soul and divinity?

P.S. I’m not trying to win the argument. I’m giving you my understanding of scripture which you don’t agree with. But do you truly find discussing these matters boring (you use that word a lot by the way)? And why do you insist that the Church is like some sort of democracy, instead of what it really is a system of worship with a hierarchy? Do you really think that every believer has the authority to interpret the Bible and create doctrine based on his/her understanding? Don’t you see the inherent problems in believing that we all have authority? This is not about exclusiveness, Francis, it’s about preserving the Truth.

you are doing a great job in defending the Faith Josie. keep up the great work.

i also would like to know where in the Bible the Apostles says: it is me and Jesus, or it is me and my Bible?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But you seem to hold many Protestant views about scripture? Did you believe that Jesus was present in the eucharist - body, blood, soul and divinity?

Like I said if I were to pick a beef with the CC (reaching back to when I was a believer) it would be with regard to the papacy. There’s plenty of both historical and scriptural support for real presence (although I would argue a real but spiritual presence, but that’s certainly debatable & as an atheist it’s a debate I’m not remotely interested in having).

P.S. I’m not trying to win the argument. I’m giving you my understanding of scripture which you don’t agree with. But do you truly find discussing these matters boring (you use that word a lot by the way)? And why do you insist that the Church is like some sort of democracy, instead of what it really is a system of worship with a hierarchy? Do you really think that every believer has the authority to interpret the Bible and create doctrine based on his/her understanding? Don’t you see the inherent problems in believing that we all have authority? This is not about exclusiveness, Francis, it’s about preserving the Truth.

You see it your way – I know religion is a collection of false myths. You might have some reasonable debates when arguing with a protestant (and certainly the CC does have some things going for it in the religion game) – but reason cannot help the Christian against an atheist, because religion is unreasonable.

I might say something like the myth of Jesus tells a story of perhaps the most altruistic guy in history, but whether or not the man even ever existed – one thing I do know, no one cheated death (and no one will unless science makes it happen at some point in the future), all the miracles are just myths (no more compelling or convincing than Zeus’ thunder bolt).

Yes I prefer Nietzsche over scripture, not because I don’t have sort of a Jeffersonian view of the bible, but guys like Nietzsche have more value because they give us practical advice and help us understand real human nature (not a fictitious dreary and pessimistic view of humanity). So all the talk pertaining to individual denominations (or even different religions) is at the end of the day quite meaningless to me personally. I know what religion is – opiate for the masses. As for me … I don’t like opiates

 

[humble_in_doubt]

How is it that the CC comes before all other off springs of the present day christian community? How is it that Protestantism continues to break up while the Catholic Church continues to grow despite the best efforts of Her enemies to destroy Her? The Church is 2000 years old and still going with Peter at Her head while the U.S. is the oldest secular government on the earth and is only a little over 250 years old and is on the verge of dying. What keeps the Catholic Church in existence? You have no more authority to teach than anyone else on this planet. Why should anyone listen to you while the Church has the divine authority of Christ to teach? bob

If anyone were to listen to me Bob I’d advise them (as long as they had sufficient self-control and intellectual fortitude) to give up religion all together (because quite simply it’s not true). I a big fan of the real world – and fantasy land has little appeal for me.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Like I said if I were to pick a beef with the CC (reaching back to when I was a believer) it would be with regard to the papacy. There’s plenty of both historical and scriptural support for real presence (although I would argue a real but spiritual presence, but that’s certainly debatable & as an atheist it’s a debate I’m not remotely interested in having).

You see it your way – I know religion is a collection of false myths. You might have some reasonable debates when arguing with a protestant (and certainly the CC does have some things going for it in the religion game) – but reason cannot help the Christian against an atheist, because religion is unreasonable.

I might say something like the myth of Jesus tells a story of perhaps the most altruistic guy in history, but whether or not the man even ever existed – one thing I do know, no one cheated death (and no one will unless science makes it happen at some point in the future), all the miracles are just myths (no more compelling or convincing than Zeus’ thunder bolt).

Yes I prefer Nietzsche over scripture, not because I don’t have sort of a Jeffersonian view of the bible, but guys like Nietzsche have more value because they give us practical advice and help us understand real human nature (not a fictitious dreary and pessimistic view of humanity). So all the talk pertaining to individual denominations (or even different religions) is at the end of the day quite meaningless to me personally. I know what religion is – opiate for the masses. As for me … I don’t like opiates

I may be wiser to listen to those who gave their lives to the faith in God.

Hebrew 10

20 A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh: 21 And a high priest over the house of God: 22 Let us draw near with a true heart, in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with clean water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering (for he is faithful that hath promised): 24 And let us consider one another, to provoke unto charity and to good works: 25 Not forsaking our assembly, as some are accustomed: but comforting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching. 26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins: If we sin wilfully… He speaks of the sin of wilful apostasy from the known truth; after which, as we can not be baptized again, we can not expect to have that abundant remission of sins, which Christ purchased by his death, applied to our souls in that ample manner as it is in baptism: but we have rather all manner of reason to look for a dreadful judgment; the more because apostates from the known truth, seldom or never have the grace to return to it. 27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. 28 A man making void the law of Moses dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 32 But call to mind the former days, wherein, being illuminated, you endured a great fight of afflictions. 33 And on the one hand indeed, by reproaches and tribulations, were made a gazingstock; and on the other, became companions of them that were used in such sort. 34 For you both had compassion on them that were in bands and took with joy the being stripped of your own goods, knowing that you have a better and a lasting substance. 35 Do not therefore lose your confidence which hath a great reward. 36 For patience is necessary for you: that, doing the will of God, you may receive the promise. 37 For yet a little and a very little while, and he that is to come will come and will not delay. 38 But my just man liveth by faith: but if he withdraw himself, he shall not please my soul. 39 But we are not the children of withdrawing unto perdition, but of faith to the saving of the soul

 

[josie_L]

If anyone were to listen to me Bob I’d advise them (as long as they had sufficient self-control and intellectual fortitude) to give up religion all together (because quite simply it’s not true). I a big fan of the real world – and fantasy land has little appeal for me.

Ok, Francis, do you think that with my intellectual fortitude and self-control, I should give up religion, and give me a valid reason as to why (and no, stating I believe in a fantasy is not valid because you have no sure way of knowing that)?

 

[josie_L]

Like I said if I were to pick a beef with the CC (reaching back to when I was a believer) it would be with regard to the papacy. There’s plenty of both historical and scriptural support for real presence (although I would argue a real but spiritual presence, but that’s certainly debatable & as an atheist it’s a debate I’m not remotely interested in having).

You see it your way – I know religion is a collection of false myths. You might have some reasonable debates when arguing with a protestant (and certainly the CC does have some things going for it in the religion game) – but reason cannot help the Christian against an atheist, because religion is unreasonable.

I might say something like the myth of Jesus tells a story of perhaps the most altruistic guy in history, but whether or not the man even ever existed – one thing I do know, no one cheated death (and no one will unless science makes it happen at some point in the future), all the miracles are just myths (no more compelling or convincing than Zeus’ thunder bolt).

Yes I prefer Nietzsche over scripture, not because I don’t have sort of a Jeffersonian view of the bible, but guys like Nietzsche have more value because they give us practical advice and help us understand real human nature (not a fictitious dreary and pessimistic view of humanity). So all the talk pertaining to individual denominations (or even different religions) is at the end of the day quite meaningless to me personally. I know what religion is – opiate for the masses. As for me … I don’t like opiates

I don’t like opiates too, but then again I don’t like Karl Marx either.

Ok, what is it with you and Nietzche, I honestly don’t understand the fascination for this man’s philosophy, the little that I remember, made me think he was an egomaniac, all that talk about “supermen” and the like. As I understand it, he was somewhat influential in bringing about fascism.

P.S. I thought you might want something interesting to talk about.

 

[josie_L]

Like I said if I were to pick a beef with the CC (reaching back to when I was a believer) it would be with regard to the papacy. There’s plenty of both historical and scriptural support for real presence (although I would argue a real but spiritual presence, but that’s certainly debatable & as an atheist it’s a debate I’m not remotely interested in having).

You see it your way – I know religion is a collection of false myths. You might have some reasonable debates when arguing with a protestant (and certainly the CC does have some things going for it in the religion game) – but reason cannot help the Christian against an atheist, because religion is unreasonable.

I might say something like the myth of Jesus tells a story of perhaps the most altruistic guy in history, but whether or not the man even ever existed – one thing I do know, no one cheated death (and no one will unless science makes it happen at some point in the future), all the miracles are just myths (no more compelling or convincing than Zeus’ thunder bolt).

Yes I prefer Nietzsche over scripture, not because I don’t have sort of a Jeffersonian view of the bible, but guys like Nietzsche have more value because they give us practical advice and help us understand real human nature (not a fictitious dreary and pessimistic view of humanity). So all the talk pertaining to individual denominations (or even different religions) is at the end of the day quite meaningless to me personally. I know what religion is – opiate for the masses. As for me … I don’t like opiates

Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.
Friedrich Nietzsche

In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.
Friedrich Nietzsche

It is impossible to suffer without making someone pay for it; every complaint already contains revenge. (not sure if I agree, but I can see what he means to an extent)
Friedrich Nietzsche

It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.
Friedrich Nietzsche (hey, I actually agree with him on this one)

One ought to hold on to one’s heart; for if one lets it go, one soon loses control of the head too.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Not necessity, not desire - no, the love of power is the demon of men. Let them have everything - health, food, a place to live, entertainment - they are and remain unhappy and low-spirited: for the demon waits and waits and will be satisfied.
Friedrich Nietzsche (I agree again )

One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche

One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly.
Friedrich Nietzsche (wow, this should be the slogan for euthanasia enthusiasts).

Perhaps I know best why it is man alone who laughs; he alone suffers so deeply that he had to invent laughter.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Maybe you can help me to understand what he means by some of these quotes I posted.

 

[josie_L]

you are doing a great job in defending the Faith Josie. keep up the great work.

i also would like to know where in the Bible the Apostles says: it is me and Jesus, or it is me and my Bible?

Thank you, wisdomseeker for your encouragement. I like talking to Francis (humble in doubt), he makes discussing theology interesting to say the least (although he has complained of being bored from time to time, I wonder if it’s me? ).

 

[AlegreFe]

I am 15 now ia m what i am becouse of my parents, but i want to convert to catholicsm or orthodox…becouse they came earlier…uhhh how do i propose of doing so?

Wow, I’m so glad you decided this. The Holy Spirit is definitely working on you.

I know I’m a little late posting here, and I’m sure many Catholics have given you advice on how to become Catholic. Since you’re only 15 and you would need your parents’ consent to actually be baptized & confirmed, you can at least start to study the faith right now! You can start now and be baptized & confirmed at 18!

Good for you! I wish you the best and I’ll pray for you. I’ll ask my 15 year old daughter to pray for you also. Her name is Andréa and she would be happy to pray for another person her own age; not that she wouldn’t pray for someone another age. She prays for everyone!

God bless you!
Peace & Love in Christ.
Sandy