This is an interesting tack, but can you back up your claim that God did not give the Americas to the Europeans? Keep in mind that they very definitely thought so, as expressed in the doctrine of Manifest Destiny; that they in fact managed to take control, which they saw as a divine gift; and that objectively they did not behave any worse in breaking treaties than the Israelites did in genocide and enslavement.
Those are the words of a Christian who believes the Old Testament is the only historical proof. Muslims Believe Allah is giving them the world, Hitler believed god wanted him to eradicate the Jews, The Popes believed that god wanted Jewish land taken from Muslim peoples and made into a Christian land…
We may not survive science if people continue to kill over beliefs that are unprovable and have more to do with what happens to us when we die than with how we behave when we are alive.
If you don’t care, then why are you vesting so much effort in debating this?
Why not?
Actually, according to Aquinas, there’s this little Catholic concept called…um…purgatory. And purgatory is a painful process…"…to cleanse us from the remains of sin…the pain of fire only is ascribed to Purgatory."
Yes. Ow.
People have been murdering over things which do not require beliefs too, such as greed, fear, and lust. All these things have nothing to do with the after-life. They all have to do with the hear-and-now.
I do not care for the purposes of this thread what the sacrificial practices of the Semitic tribes of Canaan were because it is completely irrelevant not only to the questions I have asked but to the topic at hand.
The book of Jonah, chapters 3 and 4. Jonah was sent to Nineveh to preach repentance or destruction and eventually left the city in anger; he stayed outside its outskirts for a while under a large plant with a bag of popcorn ready to watch the fireworks God promised unless the Assyrians repented. They did, so his waiting and watching was for naught.
Hasn’t the Church moved on from that to proclaim heaven as the state of union with God, hell as the state of separation from him, and purgatory as hell with hope?
I was referring to your insults, not purgatory.Yes. Ow.
Maybe in your opinion. But all these things do directly pertain to the question of when a person of faith is legitimately allowed to terminate the life of another or not.
And where is the reference to raining fire and brimstone?
Mirdath said:(If you’ve seen the toilet paper thread, note that at the very end of chapter 4 God notes that the Ninevites do not know their left hand from their right – ie, they do not know how to use toilet paper properly…)
No. Regarding purgatory, it is still a painful process by which people enter heaven.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Yes. And I was responding to your insulting claims that I was not explaining Catholic doctrines correctly.I was referring to your insults, not purgatory.
And this?
And this?
I’ll repeat this again for you: You’ve essentially accused me of being heterodox, which is pretty damn ignorant when someone’s actually trying to take the time to politely explain something to you.
Hardly. Everyone who goes through purgatory will at some sooner or later point get to heaven. No hope there, but certainty (although delayed).
They do not directly pertain to the question of whether Israel was justified in invading their lands, and are only relevant to the question of whether humanity will survive religion as an obvious and hard-to-discuss negative.
How does it matter? Fire and brimstone (I only said brimstone by the way) seems to have been God’s favored method of disposal of large groups of human beings after the Deluge.
I see nothing in those quotes that says it is a physically painful process. Time was you could be purified by killing a couple of doves on an altar, and the only pain involved for the soul to be purified is if you nicked yourself with the sacrificial knife. Punishment does not require physical pain.
Because, as far as I can tell from what I know about Catholic doctrine, you are mistaken in some places. That’s not insulting, it’s asking for clarification of your stance. Insulting would be calling you names (and I did not call you heterodox) or using foul language against you (as you did me by calling me ‘pretty d*** ignorant’).
And here you go again! Somehow I’m not seeing the ‘politeness’. Note that each of my quoted sentences regarding your stance ended with question marks? Those are not accusations.
What have I been offered here except ranting?
No backtracking there.
As far as I can tell, you have. Feel free to offer me a polite, well-reasoned, and convincing rebuttal.
I asked if you were.
I said you could, not that you would.
Lots. Like the point of this thread, like the points I’ve tried to make, like the logical inconsistencies in your own arguments, like the fact that I’m not actually a monster bent on the destruction of religion.
I always heard priests say it was hope that differentiated purgatory and hell. Though I was pretty young back then – your statement is worded better, but a child of six can’t really be expected to be certain about things that don’t involve candy!
You’re using loaded questions Mirdath, not much different from asking someone if they stopped beating their wife yet.
You are making assertions within your questions, and framing them so that regardless of how I try to answer them, I will end up looking as if I’ve contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church-- and it’s really annoying.
You still aren’t hearing what I’ve been saying, are you?
There’s no excuse for loaded questions like that-- the kind that assume the other person doesn’t know what they’re talking about to begin with, even before they really begin to explain the Catholic position, the kind of questions which assumes that whatever answers are given are going to be incorrect, the kind that calls the person’s faith in their own religion into question.
And that’s another thing.
What the hell are you talking about!
How were CatholicBob and myself proven wrong?
The Scriptural record is proof of documentation of the historical invasion of the Canaanites by the Israelites.
I have provided what he asked for, unless you’re saying I need to provide proof of documentation from the Canaanites themselves.
I can assure you that these cities within these areas described within the Scriptures were real cities. Archeological discoveries over the last 150 years or so have continued to vindicate the Scriptural record for these places as having been real places.
But details are emerging that these Scriptural depictions are more than likely accurate after all.
But details are emerging that these Scriptural depictions are more than likely accurate after all.
So why the hell do I have to whatever he asks me to do even though he insults me in the process?
If you’ll take the time to reread Oneiron’s ‘ignorant heathen’ post, you might see that he was asking you to explain your beliefs as if to an ignorant heathen. Come off it already.
Dictionaries, definitions, common usage of words.What the hell are you talking about!
So why have you consistently chosen to berate me for a definition when you yourself admit its accuracy and I explicitly say I’m talking about pitchfork-wielding mobs?
I have said time and time again that my use of the term specified those who are dangerous, not the merely devout – whom I spoke of separately from the ‘blrmfzl’, if you prefer that word.
I offered – I asked you a few times to provide your own term. You didn’t, so I continued using the best words that are to my knowledge extant in the English language. If you have such a big problem with that, why didn’t you suggest an alternate that would leave nothing unclear?
If a definition cannot be tied down what good is it? I’ve been quite liberal in my offers to you to provide a better term or a better definition. However, the terms ‘fanatic’ and ‘zealot’ do not merely conjure up images in the popular imagination of people quietly going to church every Sunday, but of people inspired by their belief and their own mental instability to acts any rational person would consider horrifying.
They have the will; all that remains is the means.
Personally? How? Are you calling yourself a fanatic? You may be right if so – but until I see you burning something down I will call you devout, as I have other deeply devoted people who were not menaces to others.
There are harmless devotees of religion. Fanaticism implies the will to harm for it. I’ve seen people here apply the label ‘extremist’ to themselves so I won’t comment on that, except to note why I didn’t use that term instead.
I did, many times. I said I would use those terms for that concept in the absence of a better. I’m not going to write all that out every time; not only is it insulting to the intelligence of people who can read both my points and my little notes of what I mean beforehand, it’s just a pain.
In my mind, in Oneiron’s mind, in the popular imagination since the development of Latin (fanatic) and the first century AD (‘zealots’ were originally a Jewish terrorist sect…well, whaddaya know?). They are accepted definitions and sources have been provided for them.
Sure, it isn’t the only way it might happen – where’s that ‘will we survive science?’ thread you were talking about starting? I’ll be there with bells on.
Petty diatribes against dictionaries are not ‘logic’ or rhetoric.