Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:
If someone is saved there should be a “war” going on with in them. One that desires to do good at all cost, and one that desires to not do good. Sometimes to even be out right evil.
[/quote]

Lulz! Wait…what? Oh, I thought I was supposed to become virtuous and not be tempted to do evil, my bad. I just go back to being okay with having “war” with my temptations over sleeping around with promiscuous women.[/quote]

No need for sarcasm. We are talking about a subject that can be very deep. The opinions and observations that you and forlife have expressed concerning this view have been very surface level up to this point. So why respond that way to my surface level comment?

[/quote]

Because you say shit like very surface level. Any intelligent fool can complicate simple logic, this includes doctrine. [/quote]

Wait I am keeping it surface level? didn’t I post information for both sides of the argument? Was that part where I went into the greek surface level too? I didn’t know that you wanted an all out discussion on this topic.

If I remember correctly the only reason why I jumped into the discussion was because I thought the verse cited by forlife was a surface level interpretation and I am the one who attempted to give a deeper understanding of the word enlightened. Now I am not being dogmatic about my stance on it, but I am giving a simple defense of it. As well as disagreeing with forlife’s understanding of the word used in Hebrew 6.

I also reject your comments which make it appear that all of us who accept this position as good doctrine are using it as a get out of hell free card. That we simply go about sinning anytime we choose and don’t try to live a life that is pleasing to God. Which is what the person forlife cited was getting at. Which you aptly jumped on to say that we all over look mortal sin.

Now with all of that said I have no issues with you or your position. I disagree with with it, but I also disagree with catholicism over alot of issues. Just like you disagree with my flavor of doctrine, but that is no reason for our conversation to degrade.

102

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

But surely that cant be possible - the bible says he created everything and that humans started, as humans. And all this occurred at the start of “time” -

BUT we know humans evolved later in the piece. So, to combine the two is in complete opposition. ???

[/quote]

What are you mumbling about? Obviously you’re not looking at the literal meaning of what Moses was trying to convey. Let me explain…Yes, God created everything, good. If Genesis was a historical account, why would one man write the story two different times right next to each other? In the same book? Moses was trying to get across that there was order to the world. Hebrew translates day in English to mean something ultimately different than 24 hours or even what they considered a day back then (sunset to sunset). (Jewbacca if you’re in here reading, correct me if I am wrong and also do you speak Hewbrew or Yiddish?)

Well science pretty much proved that humans as we know them have been around for maybe 200,000 years. Kind of hard to be here at the start of time, when the universe is 13.5 million years old? Or, is it billion I do not remember been a long time since I took a science class.

Evolved later in what piece? To combine what two?[/quote]

AHHH i get it! The dude who wrote the good book was a fuckin lunatic so you only take out of it what you need to justify your own beliefs. good hustle. BUT without following what is written in the book/s, what is religion? I mean you either follow the historical “reality” or you dont… as it would appear, you substitute your own.

Just to be clear - do you or do you not believe in the adam/eve scenario?

Because if you do… and also believe in evolution, you’re very confused.

This is what i meant by “combining the two” - ie. evolution and the bible - I refuse to agree with anyone who says they can go together because they are directly contradicted in more than just this case.
[/quote]

Are you intentionally this stupid?
[/quote]

AH another constructive post from cortes…

But alright douche bag…

Adam, was supposedly the perpetrator of the original sin…but as has been insinuated, the adam and eve story was only ever symbolic, right? SO Jesus had himself tortured and executed as a vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual (adam) - so that everyones sins could be forgiven both current and in the future…sounds reasonable :confused:

A small insight into my confusion of what you take literally or symbolically.

And you have no right to call anyone stupid…its MUCH less probable to believe in a god than any other theory…

103

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
AHHH i get it! I am a fuckin lunatic
[/quote]

Wait…what? You do understand that your entire argument is a fallacy right? The Catholic Church does not go off Sacred Scripture alone. You do understand you don’t take from poetry like you do a science book? You don’t take from a metaphor as you do a history book. Yes, I believe there is an Adam and an Eve (Catholics even have a feast day for them…oh so creationism), there has to be first humans right? Or did evolution snap it’s fingers and apes turned into humans?

I’m sure I’m not confused, I’ve been looking at science for a long time. I know what I am talking about. Well, I’ll make sure to tell the Pope. He’ll be devistated you won’t agree with him, but I’m sure he’ll get over it.[/quote]

well this has undoubtedly proven that you are confused… “snap its fingers and magic” no, that is what religion is for -

If you have “researched” science, as you say, you should understand the process of evolution is nothing close to a snap of the fingers. theories such as natural selection have animals evolve so that they better fit their environment, hence we have an appendix but we dont need it, and we have two kidneys but we only need one, we have muscles that can be removed but we still stay 100% functional, the list goes on. we have evolved past the use of the features we still physically hold on to. Apes still share much of our genetical makeup, but it doesnt take much of a change in the structure of DNA to dramatically alter the outcome. ITS TAKEN MANY MANY YEARS TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE…might i say, with NO help from a god…

and dont say “youve looked at science for a long time”, i have a degree in science so please…

to answer your question, no, there didnt have to be “first” humans, we have evolved through different stages to get to where we are, its a never ending process - youve just proven your an uninformed religious follower, good day sir.

104

“the Adam and eve story” can be a symbolic story, that doesn’t means that the sin itself is symbolic.

it just means that this sin is explained in a symbolical (narrative) way.

Adam and Eve could be “non-existent”, they are still archetypal. paradigmatic characters.

telling their story is a way to tell our story (a story which happen everyday) and to explain the sins committed by every existent individuals since the dawn of time.

you know, christians aren’t stupids. they can read their own story in the same way you would read the pandora’s box story.
with some intelligence, hopefully.

105

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:
If someone is saved there should be a “war” going on with in them. One that desires to do good at all cost, and one that desires to not do good. Sometimes to even be out right evil.
[/quote]

Lulz! Wait…what? Oh, I thought I was supposed to become virtuous and not be tempted to do evil, my bad. I just go back to being okay with having “war” with my temptations over sleeping around with promiscuous women.[/quote]

No need for sarcasm. We are talking about a subject that can be very deep. The opinions and observations that you and forlife have expressed concerning this view have been very surface level up to this point. So why respond that way to my surface level comment?

[/quote]

Because you say shit like very surface level. Any intelligent fool can complicate simple logic, this includes doctrine. [/quote]

Wait I am keeping it surface level? didn’t I post information for both sides of the argument? Was that part where I went into the greek surface level too? I didn’t know that you wanted an all out discussion on this topic.

If I remember correctly the only reason why I jumped into the discussion was because I thought the verse cited by forlife was a surface level interpretation and I am the one who attempted to give a deeper understanding of the word enlightened. Now I am not being dogmatic about my stance on it, but I am giving a simple defense of it. As well as disagreeing with forlife’s understanding of the word used in Hebrew 6.

I also reject your comments which make it appear that all of us who accept this position as good doctrine are using it as a get out of hell free card. That we simply go about sinning anytime we choose and don’t try to live a life that is pleasing to God. Which is what the person forlife cited was getting at. Which you aptly jumped on to say that we all over look mortal sin.

Now with all of that said I have no issues with you or your position. I disagree with with it, but I also disagree with catholicism over alot of issues. Just like you disagree with my flavor of doctrine, but that is no reason for our conversation to degrade.[/quote]

I’ve had issue with what you said when you said we should have war inside us. I disagree, we shouldn’t we should be virtuous, thus not tempted by sin. I never said you all look over mortal sin, I am sure there are people in here that believe in mortal sin. I don’t even know what your flavor of doctrine is. 36,000 Churches each with different doctrine, hard to know them all.

106

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
AHHH i get it! I am a fuckin lunatic
[/quote]

Wait…what? You do understand that your entire argument is a fallacy right? The Catholic Church does not go off Sacred Scripture alone. You do understand you don’t take from poetry like you do a science book? You don’t take from a metaphor as you do a history book. Yes, I believe there is an Adam and an Eve (Catholics even have a feast day for them…oh so creationism), there has to be first humans right? Or did evolution snap it’s fingers and apes turned into humans?

I’m sure I’m not confused, I’ve been looking at science for a long time. I know what I am talking about. Well, I’ll make sure to tell the Pope. He’ll be devistated you won’t agree with him, but I’m sure he’ll get over it.[/quote]

well this has undoubtedly proven that you are confused… “snap its fingers and magic” no, that is what religion is for - [/quote]

Ad hominem? I believe so, no one in religion snaps their fingers and things happen. God doesn’t do magic. Sorry. This just shows your an prejudice ignorant fool. The fact that I believe evolution to be correct, but because I believe in God you close your mind and start throwing insulting comments around. Interesting, because that is the definition of open mindedness.

[quote]
If you have “researched” science, as you say, you should understand the process of evolution is nothing close to a snap of the fingers.[/quote]

Never said it was.

Where is your proof?

Congratulations, I’ll call up New York Times, tell them I found the only person with a degree in science…

There would have to be the first humans, in order to have other humans. That is what I am saying, at sometime in history there would have to be the first homo sapiens sapiens.

For someone that I would assumes tells himself or fancies himself as enlightened and open minded to the truth. You sure are thick headed. I mean, you don’t even seem to know what the Catholic Church says on evolution. Let alone open to listening to the evidence that evolutionist propose.

107

[quote]kamui wrote:
“the Adam and eve story” can be a symbolic story, that doesn’t means that the sin itself is symbolic.

it just means that this sin is explained in a symbolical (narrative) way.

Adam and Eve could be non-existent, they are still archetypal. paradigmatic.

telling their story is a way to tell our story and to explain the sin committed by every existent individuals since the dawn of time.

you know, christians aren’t stupids. they can read their own story in the same way you would read the pandora’s box story.
with some intelligence, hopefully.
[/quote]

Well, I do put forward that there was a mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam. At some point in time there had to be what we would consider the first man and first woman.

108

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:
If someone is saved there should be a “war” going on with in them. One that desires to do good at all cost, and one that desires to not do good. Sometimes to even be out right evil.
[/quote]

Lulz! Wait…what? Oh, I thought I was supposed to become virtuous and not be tempted to do evil, my bad. I just go back to being okay with having “war” with my temptations over sleeping around with promiscuous women.[/quote]

No need for sarcasm. We are talking about a subject that can be very deep. The opinions and observations that you and forlife have expressed concerning this view have been very surface level up to this point. So why respond that way to my surface level comment?

[/quote]

Because you say shit like very surface level. Any intelligent fool can complicate simple logic, this includes doctrine. [/quote]

Wait I am keeping it surface level? didn’t I post information for both sides of the argument? Was that part where I went into the greek surface level too? I didn’t know that you wanted an all out discussion on this topic.

If I remember correctly the only reason why I jumped into the discussion was because I thought the verse cited by forlife was a surface level interpretation and I am the one who attempted to give a deeper understanding of the word enlightened. Now I am not being dogmatic about my stance on it, but I am giving a simple defense of it. As well as disagreeing with forlife’s understanding of the word used in Hebrew 6.

I also reject your comments which make it appear that all of us who accept this position as good doctrine are using it as a get out of hell free card. That we simply go about sinning anytime we choose and don’t try to live a life that is pleasing to God. Which is what the person forlife cited was getting at. Which you aptly jumped on to say that we all over look mortal sin.

Now with all of that said I have no issues with you or your position. I disagree with with it, but I also disagree with catholicism over alot of issues. Just like you disagree with my flavor of doctrine, but that is no reason for our conversation to degrade.[/quote]

I’ve had issue with what you said when you said we should have war inside us. I disagree, we shouldn’t we should be virtuous, thus not tempted by sin. I never said you all look over mortal sin, I am sure there are people in here that believe in mortal sin. I don’t even know what your flavor of doctrine is. 36,000 Churches each with different doctrine, hard to know them all.[/quote]

This is why I described it as a war

Romans 7:15-24

15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to doÃ?¢??this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging “war” against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to Godâ??through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

I am sorry if you disliked my choice word, but it came from the Bible. This is what I was thinking of when I wrote that.

Do you take issue with Paul too?

109

[quote]
Well, I do put forward that there was a mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam.[/quote]

indeed.

but the women the scientists called “mitochondrial Eve” was not the first woman. she is the common mother of all today humans. there were other women before this Eve, but their mithocondrial lines are now extinct.

same thing for the “Y-chromosomal Adam”. He was not the first human male. he is only our common father. his brother’s lines and brethren’s lines are now extinct.

and as far as we know, this Eve and this Adam didn’t lived at the same time.

yes, but we can’t know for sure that the first homo sapiens were two, and were a couple.
the last pre-human mother(s) could have had more than two human children.

110

I’m also fairly certain that there’s a really blurry line between last proto-human and first human. In just a few thousand years, there’s some major genetic developments for some peoples like adult dairy tolerance (northern European descent) and adaptation for digesting grains (Asian descent). I sometimes wonder what would happen if a truly global economy never developed, how humans may speciate from each other.

111

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What if your own pursuit of truth, which you knew to be 100% sincere, led you to conclude something contrary to church doctrine? Would you follow your conscience, or would you follow the church?[/quote]

Speaking for myself, follow my conscience. If I’m not a Catholic, after all, why would I show up for mass? Though, I would also know that the true members of the church are following theirs. However, I did follow my conscience. Followed it right in to the arms of the church. I follow my conscience, 100% sincerely, when I protest the state recognition of gay marriage, the killing of the unborn, etc. Maybe you in turn believe something else, but I’m still following my own beliefs spiritually and politically, without apology. Our ideas are at war with yours. No reason to speak past it. We would both like to see the world more aligned with our way of thinking. Or, neither of us would feel the need to even debate the other. Most likely yours will prevail, so you have that going for you. But, we’ll never be completely silent.[/quote]

This pretty much sums up my position on the matter.

112

Now, on the subject of conscience… This is to continue my discussion with eph, but anyone else can feel free to join in.

Would it be right to deliberately disobey your conscience?

113

…that’s a very odd question Cortes. To whom would it be right or wrong? All i know is that if i ignore my conscience i end up guilt-tripping myself, and that sucks, so…

114

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Now, on the subject of conscience… This is to continue my discussion with eph, but anyone else can feel free to join in.

Would it be right to deliberately disobey your conscience?[/quote]

Well, if your conscience was giving you the green light to shoot a homeowner and take his stuff, I’d hope so.

115

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Now, on the subject of conscience… This is to continue my discussion with eph, but anyone else can feel free to join in.

Would it be right to deliberately disobey your conscience?[/quote]

I like that you didnt reply to me. classic

116

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
AHHH i get it! I am a fuckin lunatic
[/quote]

Wait…what? You do understand that your entire argument is a fallacy right? The Catholic Church does not go off Sacred Scripture alone. You do understand you don’t take from poetry like you do a science book? You don’t take from a metaphor as you do a history book. Yes, I believe there is an Adam and an Eve (Catholics even have a feast day for them…oh so creationism), there has to be first humans right? Or did evolution snap it’s fingers and apes turned into humans?

I’m sure I’m not confused, I’ve been looking at science for a long time. I know what I am talking about. Well, I’ll make sure to tell the Pope. He’ll be devistated you won’t agree with him, but I’m sure he’ll get over it.[/quote]

well this has undoubtedly proven that you are confused… “snap its fingers and magic” no, that is what religion is for - [/quote]

Ad hominem? I believe so, no one in religion snaps their fingers and things happen. God doesn’t do magic. Sorry. This just shows your an prejudice ignorant fool. The fact that I believe evolution to be correct, but because I believe in God you close your mind and start throwing insulting comments around. Interesting, because that is the definition of open mindedness.

[quote]
If you have “researched” science, as you say, you should understand the process of evolution is nothing close to a snap of the fingers.[/quote]

Never said it was.

Where is your proof?

Congratulations, I’ll call up New York Times, tell them I found the only person with a degree in science…

There would have to be the first humans, in order to have other humans. That is what I am saying, at sometime in history there would have to be the first homo sapiens sapiens.

For someone that I would assumes tells himself or fancies himself as enlightened and open minded to the truth. You sure are thick headed. I mean, you don’t even seem to know what the Catholic Church says on evolution. Let alone open to listening to the evidence that evolutionist propose.[/quote]

You call me a fucking lunatic and suddenly im the one in the wrong?

You said, and i quote “ive been looking at science for a long time, I know what Im talking about” - but you dont, youre a clown mate. hence me asking you not to say “you know about science” as it misconstrues you as an authority figure of which you are not.

pleasantries aside -

1 - my proof? a simple example, Darwinian theory explains evolution of species independent of any god character…OR perhaps an argument of probability, which is in favour of there being no god.

2 - I know your saying there has to be first humans, I just don’t agree…no need to call me thick headed.

For example if we are now assuming humans werent created at the snap of a creator’s finger and that we evolved from apes(or some other species) - how could you possibly pick the blood line at which we turned to “humans” - it would be impossible due to genetic differences/abnormalities/geographical difference etc etc…maybe a generalised time period of when it occurred but certainly no “alright heres adam and heres eve”

who, conveniently i might add, speak the same language and with perfect diction - ie. language would have evolved as well… its a vague old world you have placed yourself into…

3 - if you can prove there is a first human (other than saying “there must be”) Id be very happy and surprised.

117

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…that’s a very odd question Cortes. To whom would it be right or wrong? All i know is that if i ignore my conscience i end up guilt-tripping myself, and that sucks, so…[/quote]

Just talking about you right now.

So, would it be all right to say that the only thing that keeps you from groping unsuspecting women on the subway is the guilty feeling you would later incur?

(For the sake of arguing hypotheticals, let’s assume you would not get caught and were confident enough you wouldn’t get caught that it would not affect your motivations.)

118

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Now, on the subject of conscience… This is to continue my discussion with eph, but anyone else can feel free to join in.

Would it be right to deliberately disobey your conscience?[/quote]

I like that you didnt reply to me. classic[/quote]

Aww, you are butt-hurt that I ignored you. How touching.

Well, then, let me ask you, are you saying there was NO first human? I realize that may indeed be the case for you, personally, but would you mind explaining how the rest of us got here?

119

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
how could you possibly pick the blood line at which we turned to “humans” [/quote]

Why does Cortes have to pick? Our claim is that God made this decision. He chose when the first humans were ready for the first revelation. We don’t know when or why. We don’t claim too. The creation account relates God’s revelation of himself from the beginning, in the form of a cosmology familiar to an ancient people. It is a statement through recognizable imagery (darkness, light, water, earth, air, celestial lights, fowl and best) of a singular creator, responsible for all of creation.

We do believe there a first human pair, in the sense that God judged they were good and ready. From then on revelational history begins. The bible isn’t even supposed to be a complete history of God’s people–as evidenced through skipped years and generations–much less a history or science text. The truths are found within songs, poetry, stories, actual accounts, and even the ‘science’ of those ancient people. Are you of the sola sciptura-evangelical-atheist sect, or something?

120

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…that’s a very odd question Cortes. To whom would it be right or wrong? All i know is that if i ignore my conscience i end up guilt-tripping myself, and that sucks, so…[/quote]

Just talking about you right now.

So, would it be all right to say that the only thing that keeps you from groping unsuspecting women on the subway is the guilty feeling you would later incur?

(For the sake of arguing hypotheticals, let’s assume you would not get caught and were confident enough you wouldn’t get caught that it would not affect your motivations.)[/quote]

…no, i have no desire to grope women on the subway, not even the hot ones. If other people are involved other reasons become involved why i wouldn’t go against my conscience; the golden rule for example…