No Zeb, I’m saying that the dead sea scrolls are writings by men just like the other biblical passages are writings by men. I’m also saying that other major religions have similar writings, which they claim as proof for their own beliefs. How about addressing that point?
You’re dead wrong about the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Born again Christians. They don’t believe the others will be saved, as you claim. Catholics devoutly believe that you must be baptized into the Catholic church to be saved. Born again Christians devoutly believe that Catholics worship a false god, and that you must be born again like them in order to be saved. Now here you are with yet another claim, that both are wrong, and all of them will actually be saved because they believe in Jesus.
All three of you use the same bible as evidence for your contradictory beliefs, which are not minor differences, but which pertain to the salvation of souls.
So tell me again how your bible is reliable evidence for drawing conclusions about reality?
Let’s pick an easy example for starters. Catholics use your evidence to support their claim to being god’s true church, and devoutly believe that people not baptized in their church will go to hell…[/quote]
Nope.
Huh?
Nope.
[/quote]
Are you claiming the catholic church doesn’t believe in the necessity of baptism into their church for salvation, in the triune god, and in transubstantiation?[/quote]
Baptism is a sacrament which is valid inside or outside of the Church. Where is the supposed difference of believing in a triune God? It’s a common tenent regardless of denomination. I didn’t respond about transubstantiation.[/quote]
You believe that someone must be baptized in order to be saved, yes? If a child dies without being baptized, it can never go to heaven. Baptists believe that Catholic sprinkling is insufficient and full immersion is necessary for salvation. Yet other Christians devoutly believe that baptism is optional, and all that really matter is confessing Christ.
Catholics believe that god, jesus, and the holy spirit are the same person. Other Christians vehemently disagree, and insist they are separate personages.
Only Catholics believe in literal transubstantiation. Other Christians insist it is strictly symbolic.
All of these differences pertain to the salvation of a person’s soul. You all disagree, yet you claim the same holy book as proof for your particular beliefs. What does that say about the reliability of your holy book as actual proof of anything?
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Are you all that different from Ephrem? The only difference between you and him is that he hates one less religion than you do.
Only if you assume that no one is right. I’m betting with my eternal soul that I’m right. And you are betting with your eternal soul that I’m wrong. The good part is that someday we both get to find out who was right.
More accurately, you’re betting with your hypothetical eternal soul that your particular brand of religion is correct, and the thousands of other brands, including the other brands of Christianity, are false.[/quote]
You don’t even know enough about Christianity to know that it matters not what “brand” you practice which dictates whether or not you reach heaven?
You are twisting the truth again forlife, just like you know who does. I already gave you a short list of evidence which I looked at BEFORE I became a Christian. But you choose to not look at it, or even discuss it. Are things that black and white in your world? Or are you just trying to pull one more person away from God?
[/quote]
Sounds like you need to educate yourself on the various Christian faiths.[/quote]
You think so? I’m not the one who said that the Catholics think Mary can save them and send them to heaven. LOL, you goof.
[/quote]
A blatant misquote is all you can offer in response to my posts? Seriously?
I said nothing about Catholics believing they are saved by Mary. What I said was that many Catholics claim they’ve been visited by the virgin Mary, and that various dead saints have saved them from all kinds of catastrophes. Christians from many other faiths believe these claims are delusional. Yet all use the same bible to prove their particular beliefs.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You believe that someone must be baptized in order to be saved, yes? If a child dies without being baptized, it can never go to heaven.[/quote]
No
A minority. Belief in a triune God is by far the common tenent, stretching from Born Again to apostolic denominations.
There’s the Orthodox and high-church anglicans. Though, we don’t use the same language.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You believe that someone must be baptized in order to be saved, yes? If a child dies without being baptized, it can never go to heaven.[/quote]
No
A minority. Belief in a triune God is by far the common tenent, stretching from Born Again to apostolic denominations.
There’s the Orthodox and high-church anglicans. Though, we don’t use the same language.
What does it say? Nothing. Says more about man. [/quote]
Precisely the fact that it says more about man is the problem here. It says that man has the ability to appraise the same sets of “facts” in a variety of ways. And given that so many christians use the same scripture to vehemently defend their own brand of the faith shows that the scripture is vague enough to allow this.
Why … I forgot where I was going with all of this, haha!
[quote]forlife wrote:
You believe that someone must be baptized in order to be saved, yes? If a child dies without being baptized, it can never go to heaven.[/quote]
No
A minority. Belief in a triune God is by far the common tenent, stretching from Born Again to apostolic denominations.
There’s the Orthodox and high-church anglicans. Though, we don’t use the same language.
What does it say? Nothing. Says more about man. [/quote]
Precisely the fact that it says more about man is the problem here. It says that man has the ability to appraise the same sets of “facts” in a variety of ways. And given that so many christians use the same scripture to vehemently defend their own brand of the faith shows that the scripture is vague enough to allow this.
Why … I forgot where I was going with all of this, haha![/quote]
It says more about man because Christianity isn’t the bible. The bible is a flower blooming from Christianity, the Church. As far as vehemently defending brands of faith, it bothers the New Atheist more than it bothers us. Inter-faith cooperation has been a nifty thing. And in the end, when it comes to the arena of ideas, we’ll come together, circle the wagons and resist you.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You believe that someone must be baptized in order to be saved, yes? If a child dies without being baptized, it can never go to heaven.[/quote]
No
A minority. Belief in a triune God is by far the common tenent, stretching from Born Again to apostolic denominations.
There’s the Orthodox and high-church anglicans. Though, we don’t use the same language.
What does it say? Nothing. Says more about man. [/quote]
Of course it says more about man, because all of it is manmade.
Again, the point is that Christians use the same holy book to draw directly contradictory conclusions, not about minor doctrinal differences, but about critical sacraments and beliefs pertaining to a person’s soul and ultimate salvation.
Who is right? Are the Catholics correct that a person must be baptized on hearing the word of god in order to be saved? Or are Born again Christians right that you only need to confess Jesus, without being baptized?
The actual truth is critically important. Billions of souls hang in the balance. Yet each group devoutly believes they are right, and are willing to bet their souls on that belief.
The same holy book produces contradictory conclusions, and thus is useless as a reliable source of evidence for the veracity of their beliefs.
So where is the reliable proof that you all claim to have? Faith clearly doesn’t cut it, since Catholics and Born again Christians all have faith, yet vehemently disagree on critical doctrines pertaining to their salvation.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Are you all that different from Ephrem? The only difference between you and him is that he hates one less religion than you do.
Only if you assume that no one is right. I’m betting with my eternal soul that I’m right. And you are betting with your eternal soul that I’m wrong. The good part is that someday we both get to find out who was right.
More accurately, you’re betting with your hypothetical eternal soul that your particular brand of religion is correct, and the thousands of other brands, including the other brands of Christianity, are false.[/quote]
You don’t even know enough about Christianity to know that it matters not what “brand” you practice which dictates whether or not you reach heaven?
You are twisting the truth again forlife, just like you know who does. I already gave you a short list of evidence which I looked at BEFORE I became a Christian. But you choose to not look at it, or even discuss it. Are things that black and white in your world? Or are you just trying to pull one more person away from God?
[/quote]
Sounds like you need to educate yourself on the various Christian faiths.[/quote]
You think so? I’m not the one who said that the Catholics think Mary can save them and send them to heaven. LOL, you goof.
[/quote]
A blatant misquote is all you can offer in response to my posts? Seriously?[/quote]
You said in your second to last paragraph on a post in the previous page: [quote]Catholics see the virgin Mary and are saved by saints, [/quote]
You like to play fast and loose with the facts and you got caught on this one by Sloth. You said it and it’s wrong. This is only one demonstration of how little you know about religion and God. The fact that you are denying it also plays to your history of twisting your way through one of these debates. But it just doesn’t work (all the time), sorry.
This is a lie. And this is why they gave you the name "forliar on other threads. You post things that are blatantly untrue to make a point and when they are caught you back peddle.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
This is how you sustain your delusions zeb; by ignoring facts. I’m 39. I’ve said this numerous times now, and if you want to be childlike and believe everything you’re told, be my guest.
[/quote]
People are living into their 80’s and 90’s. You think that at the age of 39 you will never have a change of opinion? Well, I have news for you my friend, you will! And if you never change one of your opinions then you’re not as smart as I thought you were.[/quote]
I have changed my mind over the years. Have you?
I don’t think anyone can ever be “smart” enough to you, if they don’t believe like you.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You believe that someone must be baptized in order to be saved, yes? If a child dies without being baptized, it can never go to heaven.[/quote]
No
A minority. Belief in a triune God is by far the common tenent, stretching from Born Again to apostolic denominations.
There’s the Orthodox and high-church anglicans. Though, we don’t use the same language.
What does it say? Nothing. Says more about man. [/quote]
Of course it says more about man, because all of it is manmade.
Again, the point is that Christians use the same holy book to draw directly contradictory conclusions, not about minor doctrinal differences, but about critical sacraments and beliefs pertaining to a person’s soul and ultimate salvation.
Who is right? Are the Catholics correct that a person must be baptized on hearing the word of god in order to be saved? Or are Born again Christians right that you only need to confess Jesus, without being baptized?
The actual truth is critically important. Billions of souls hang in the balance. Yet each group devoutly believes they are right, and are willing to bet their souls on that belief.
The same holy book produces contradictory conclusions, and thus is useless as a reliable source of evidence for the veracity of their beliefs.
So where is the reliable proof that you all claim to have? Faith clearly doesn’t cut it, since Catholics and Born again Christians all have faith, yet vehemently disagree on critical doctrines pertaining to their salvation.[/quote]
As I pointed out (and you ignored) even Paul and Peter had dissension. Man is inherently flawed. We see what we want to see (you should know that more than anyone). The main point is that ALL Christians have one thing in common. That is we believe that Jesus Christ came to earth and sacrificed himself on the cross so that through our belief we can enter the kingdom of heaven.
That separates US (whichever Christian doctrine you choose) from YOU…for ETERNITY! And that’s the ONLY thing you should concern yourself with.
So where is the reliable proof that you all claim to have? Faith clearly doesn’t cut it, since Catholics and Born again Christians all have faith, yet vehemently disagree on critical doctrines pertaining to their salvation.[/quote]
Faith does cut it. Faith cuts it every day in society. It underpins society. Mankind doesn’t even begin to function without it.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
ZEB wrote:
ephrem wrote:
This is how you sustain your delusions zeb; by ignoring facts. I’m 39. I’ve said this numerous times now, and if you want to be childlike and believe everything you’re told, be my guest.
People are living into their 80’s and 90’s. You think that at the age of 39 you will never have a change of opinion? Well, I have news for you my friend, you will! And if you never change one of your opinions then you’re not as smart as I thought you were.
I have changed my mind over the years. Have you?[/quote]
Actually I have, 24 years ago I was a Buddhist. I know, I know, but it’s true. A few years before that I was agnostic. As for Christian religions I’ve been a Catholic a Methodist and a Baptist. I’ve had quite the religious journey. Tell me what brought you to atheism? Were you always an atheist?
[quote]I don’t think anyone can ever be “smart” enough to you, if they don’t believe like you.
I can live with that.
[/quote]
I know you’re an atheist and I’m a Christian so I expect you to have all kinds of hostile feelings toward me, and you do (No Zeb it’s not because you’re a Christian it’s because you’re just so very wrong on everything and you make me sick :). But in reality at the heart of the comment that I made was that intelligent people change their minds when new information arrives on the scene. If you want to attack that statement have a ball.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
ZEB wrote:
ephrem wrote:
This is how you sustain your delusions zeb; by ignoring facts. I’m 39. I’ve said this numerous times now, and if you want to be childlike and believe everything you’re told, be my guest.
People are living into their 80’s and 90’s. You think that at the age of 39 you will never have a change of opinion? Well, I have news for you my friend, you will! And if you never change one of your opinions then you’re not as smart as I thought you were.
I have changed my mind over the years. Have you?[/quote]
Actually I have, 24 years ago I was a Buddhist. I know, I know, but it’s true. A few years before that I was agnostic. As for Christian religions I’ve been a Catholic a Methodist and a Baptist. I’ve had quite the religious journey. Tell me what brought you to atheism? Were you always an atheist?
[quote]I don’t think anyone can ever be “smart” enough to you, if they don’t believe like you.
I can live with that.
[/quote]
I know you’re an atheist and I’m a Christian so I expect you to have all kinds of hostile feelings toward me, and you do (No Zeb it’s not because you’re a Christian it’s because you’re just so very wrong on everything and you make me sick :). But in reality at the heart of the comment that I made was that intelligent people change their minds when new information arrives on the scene. If you want to attack that statement have a ball.
[/quote]
So you haven’t changed your mind for 24 years, Zeb?
I entertained some belief in a higher force until i was 27 or thereabouts. Then i realised even this attachment needed to be let-go if i wanted to be free.
I don’t expect you to believe me, but i don’t have hostile feelings towards you. I’m simply addressing your logical inconsistencies.
So you haven’t changed your mind for 24 years, Zeb?[/quote]
Well, I changed my mind with in the various Christian religions as I said.
[quote]I entertained some belief in a higher force until i was 27 or thereabouts. Then i realised even this attachment needed to be let-go if i wanted to be free.
I don’t expect you to believe me, but i don’t have hostile feelings towards you. I’m simply addressing your logical inconsistencies.
[/quote]
I have no logical inconsistencies.
And I do believe that you have no hostility toward me.
Hmm, how do I say this? Um, want to ride bikes together?
So you haven’t changed your mind for 24 years, Zeb?[/quote]
Well, I changed my mind with in the various Christian religions as I said.
[quote]I entertained some belief in a higher force until i was 27 or thereabouts. Then i realised even this attachment needed to be let-go if i wanted to be free.
I don’t expect you to believe me, but i don’t have hostile feelings towards you. I’m simply addressing your logical inconsistencies.
[/quote]
I have no logical inconsistencies.
And I do believe that you have no hostility toward me.
Hmm, how do I say this? Um, want to ride bikes together?
So you haven’t changed your mind for 24 years, Zeb?[/quote]
Well, I changed my mind with in the various Christian religions as I said.
[quote]I entertained some belief in a higher force until i was 27 or thereabouts. Then i realised even this attachment needed to be let-go if i wanted to be free.
I don’t expect you to believe me, but i don’t have hostile feelings towards you. I’m simply addressing your logical inconsistencies.
[/quote]
I have no logical inconsistencies.
And I do believe that you have no hostility toward me.
Hmm, how do I say this? Um, want to ride bikes together?
[/quote]
Sorry Zeb, i don’t roll that way, lol.
Anyway, ehhmm… now what?
[/quote]
Ha, that was actually pretty funny!
Okay, I have to get to work now. Does anyone else fully realize how much time this stuff takes from your day? Sheesh, I hate being so opinionated.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
People are living into their 80’s and 90’s. You think that at the age of 39 you will never have a change of opinion? Well, I have news for you my friend, you will! And if you never change one of your opinions then you’re not as smart as I thought you were.[/quote]
The subtext here is that if he doesn’t change his mind to suit YOUR worldview, he’s not as smart as you thought. You still seem hellbent on classifying everyone that disagrees with you as some young whippersnapper. Get over yourself.[/quote]
I don’t know how you live. But, where I come from one sign of intelligence is being able to form a different opinion as new information enters yours realm. Now I know that’s not how you operate. But others smarter than you, which would include me, him, and just about everyone else on this board do operate that way.
Run along now, go find a funny new cartoon to post. GOOD BOY (pats head) - Go on now…
[/quote]
Interesting game you try to play. A little sad, but interesting nonetheless.
You see, you are right. Intelligence is being able to form new ideas as new information comes to light. That is the exact opposite of how you’ve demonstrated you work. Anything that contradicts your world view is quickly discarded and anything that can be used to support it is triumphed as a golden standard.
You are a sad little man, and your posts prove this.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But in reality at the heart of the comment that I made was that intelligent people change their minds when new information arrives on the scene.[/quote]
