Why Did God Create......

[Cortes]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Oh, I see. Having kids suddenly reverses the lack of evidence for your creator and magically will make me accept a God who would allow (relatively) arbitrary finite actions to result in eternal torture… Makes perfect sense.[/quote]

No.

Again you miss the point; which is the point. [/quote]

??? Are you just making this up as you go along?
[/quote]

No. I know it’s difficult for you to imagine, but there actually is someone other than yourself who knows what he’s talking about.

Alright then, what exactly does having kids have to do with the discussion we were having?[/quote]

You said this:

Heaven, to me, is simply accepting yourself in your entirety. Hell is when you go on splitting yourself, rejecting certain parts for other parts. The most miserable people I know are those who claim to be “religious” for this reason. The most joyous people I know don’t even judge themselves, they simply accept themselves as they are. How can God cast judgment on such a man? How can God allow such a man to be subjugated to eternal torture? I cannot believe in any such God.

…which I believe is nearly the same advice Jeffrey Dahmer’s parents gave him.

Ah yes, how could I have possibly missed that incredibly vague refference… maybe because even now that you’ve explained it it still doesn’t make sense, perhaps?

So, if I have this straight, given what I wrote it’s clear that I don’t have kids because if I had kids and told them this they may grow up to be serial killers… therefore?
…That’s some air-tight reasoning you’ve got there Cortes.

But alright, ones opinion is validated by the actions of those who may or may not of held similar beliefs. My death count is 17 and the Christian death count is… Oh my, I’m going to need a bigger calculator for this. ;)[/quote]

I’ll tell you one reason you are getting a razzing from some of the older members, it’s because you walk around with that big old chip on your shoulder. I personally don’t care about your age, but you might think about adjusting that attitude if you desire respect so much. And it’s blindingly clear you do.

Now, at the risk of just making the dumb mistake of playing the foil to your ego in this foolish performance, to your question:

Here, again, is your quote:

Heaven, to me, is simply accepting yourself in your entirety. Hell is when you go on splitting yourself, rejecting certain parts for other parts. The most miserable people I know are those who claim to be “religious” for this reason. The most joyous people I know don’t even judge themselves, they simply accept themselves as they are. How can God cast judgment on such a man? How can God allow such a man to be subjugated to eternal torture? I cannot believe in any such God.

Would you or would you not agree that this would be good advice to give to a child? Feel free to adjust the analogy to fit earthly conditions. Please don’t complicate the question. I know you are smart and can figure out what I’m saying without our having to go back and forth for three more posts defining terms. A simple yes or no with a short caveat, if you please, will suffice.

[/quote]

My attitude? What a joke. I’m pretty sure every one of you has thrown out an insult at me at least once. I have done no such thing. If anyone is in need of an attitude check, it’s the lot of you. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care about your respect. Remember, I didn’t come here to talk to you. You all came to me, not the other way around.

Again, no. We’ve been here for years. You are the one with the May 2011 join date, Mr. Defensive.

[quote]
Yes, I believe this is good advice. If there is any adjustment to be made to make it more relevant to earthly conditions, it would be to replace “Heaven” with “happiness” and “Hell” with “misery”. [/quote]

Okay, thanks for the succinct answer. In fact, those are the exact changes I would have made.

So, we’ve been assuming that you are a parent and that you have a child. What do you feel your role is, as a parent? What, if any, is your duty toward your child?

I have a two year old son whom I love dearly. More dearly than anyone else on this earth. I know you don’t have any kids of your own, and that’s fine, but I would like to ask you to actually try and imagine you have your OWN child before answering further. Let both logic and emotion inform your response.

I have to get to bed, though. It’s 3:30am in Japan.

[pittbulll]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

…do you know if the Bible says whether there no are others like God ? …

[/quote]

…I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

Isaiah 46:9
[/quote]

Thank you , that wasn’t hard was it
[/quote]

That’s exactly the point. It wasn’t hard.[/quote]

I thought the point was that there is none other like God, I guess I do miss the big picture

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Not the OLD protestant myths. The NEW protestant errors.[/quote]

Well, I suppose you’re right, all your stuff is new, unless of course we’re talking about the stuff you bored from the heretics circa 1-2 century A.D.

[quote]Nobody “hears” God’s voice today. Nobody. However, He does communicate Spirit to spirit with His children. That is not a given though and those He does this with are not necessarily more special or holy. He wants faith before all which according to the 11th of Hebrews is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

What’s interesting Chris is that many of your criticisms of non Catholics are valid. I share them which is the point. The answer is not the papacy.[/quote]

Except the “Papacy” has never taught wrong.

It’s a return to the gospel restored in the reformation.

Yes, St. Francis de Sales did a good job at helping stop abuses by Bishops and the Popes, and the Church is bringing in the New Evangelization which is being ushered in by the last two Popes personally. Though I wouldn’t call them reformation, because that implies you’re taking the old form and reforming it, when in fact we’re taking the new form of the liberals and casting it off…surprisingly done by younger Catholics than the liberals.

[quote]The one that is nearly extinct in the western world due to modernistic liberal heresies and flagrantly sinful practice in the name of Jesus. There are more hints here regarding our other discussion I just realized. Work calls now. This was a very incomplete post.

I pray that both Catholics and non remember who they are and regurgitate all this squishy post vat. II poisonous ecumenism. [/quote]

What squishy post Vatican II poisonous ecumenism?

It’s bad for both of us. I am not a “departed brethren” to be kissed and coddled.

Of course you’re not a departed brother, that would imply you are dead (naturally, not supernaturally). Though you are actually a separated brethren. You were baptized Catholic and you left the Church, definition of separated brethren. Anyone baptized is part of the Catholic Church whether you like it or not, though this doesn’t count for invalid baptism (Mormons I am thinking of mostly).

I am a raging heretic to be burned alive for my blasphemy.

Well, you’re going to have to go find a State the considers blasphemy a capital crime, kind of like Geneva back in the day.

I have no respect for either side of this evangelical/Catholic orgy that’s going on. It’s a trick of the enemy through Rome to outflank, castrate and absorb all those claiming Christ in the earth. It will not work on me or mine.

How come it can’t be a trick of the enemy through Evangelicals. Lol, Jesus was the great Ecumenicalist. He tricked, outflanked, and absorbed all. I guess the Catholic Church has similar qualities (maybe because Jesus is the Church?) as Jesus, after all we are the largest Church, we have the largest growth, &c.

I do what I want.

Chris IV

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

It doesn’t , I just feel it is presumptuous to act as it is a given. There is no mention (TO MY Knowlege ) that god ever claimed to create Angels [/quote]

Okay, tradition says God created everything, except himself because he is uncaused (meaning he always existed). Since Angels are part of everything except God, they were created. They are creatures.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]CRisCO wrote:
No one is saved by anything but grace alone.

just sayin[/quote]

Where is that in the Bible? I thought it was faith alone?

[TigerTime]

@ Cortes

Yes, you’ve been on this site longer than me, but it’s not as though I joined this site for you. In this thread, however, you all have come to me.

My duty as a parent (aside from the basic food/shelter/etc.) would be to give my child the courage to inquire and to sharpen his or her intellect. I would go on to say, however, that it is also important to give the child ideological freedom and when I do have children I will make the conscious effort to not impose any belief onto them, even If I feel I am correct.

That includes my above advice on acceptance and separation. I would preface that statement to my children as being my personal belief and that they are free to dismiss or question it should they find something wrong with it. Even though I find intellectual and emotional amputation to be largely the cause of ones misery I am not so foolish as to believe these words cannot be read in such a way to mean something other than what I intend them to be read as.

For example, I don’t mean some mad man should accept themselves as a murderer and start killing people. Just the opposite, I want them to accept that they have this murderous streak in them because that’s the only way they can seek help and get rid of it. I believe most murders are the result of constantly bottling ones anger, rather than accepting and dealing with it.

To be completely honest I do find there is much value in the bible, especially the words of Jesus, but since he has been dead for thousands of years he is no longer around to preface his statements and sort out any misunderstandings, so for the common man the bible is a very dangerous book, as I’m sure you’re well aware of what can happen if one chooses to read the bible in search of an excuse to kill.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Zooguido wrote:
How can you say that the Christian faith is the right faith? The Jews have their faith and their beliefs that go back further than that of the Christian faith. The Muslims have their faith and their Prophet. Yet, in my eyes, the Muslim faith is clearly the most rational and reasonable. I can’t believe that you people are able to honestly practice a religion that has been devoutly corrupt for more than 2000 years.

From slaughtering Muslims and any non-Christians without a valid cause during the Crusades to the papal authority raping, sodomizing, and living lives of lust and grandeur you’d clearly think that someone would wake the fuck up and realize that this shit is beyond absurd. Yet you still stand by this faith that you believe to be so righteous in all regards.

It’s the same crap today just in different context.

TL;DR - This. Shit. Is. Fucked.[/quote]

Yawn.[/quote]

And this is from a 21 year old expert.

Come on you have to enjoy this Push. Hey at least he’s 3 years older than Tumble Time.
[/quote]

Thats right, when someone makes a valid point highlighting how painfully flawed and stupid religion is then the only response can be to ignore it. Thats what the religious do best, keep ignoring the evidence.
I find it hysterical how your defence is always young = stupid & entitled to no opinion, yet you are a grown man who believes in satan…LOL!!![/quote]

Your statement supposes a valid argument. I have not seen one.

OH and 2000 years > 21 years.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Zooguido wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Zooguido wrote:
How can you say that the Christian faith is the right faith? The Jews have their faith and their beliefs that go back further than that of the Christian faith. The Muslims have their faith and their Prophet. Yet, in my eyes, the Muslim faith is clearly the most rational and reasonable. I can’t believe that you people are able to honestly practice a religion that has been devoutly corrupt for more than 2000 years.

From slaughtering Muslims and any non-Christians without a valid cause during the Crusades to the papal authority raping, sodomizing, and living lives of lust and grandeur you’d clearly think that someone would wake the fuck up and realize that this shit is beyond absurd. Yet you still stand by this faith that you believe to be so righteous in all regards.

It’s the same crap today just in different context.

TL;DR - This. Shit. Is. Fucked.[/quote]
[/quote]

Guess what he also loves?

Little boys and threatening the general populace with eternal damnation for not conforming to the will of God.[/quote]

I wasn’t aware of the latter, where is your proof?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Not the OLD protestant myths. The NEW protestant errors.[/quote]

Well, I suppose you’re right, all your stuff is new, unless of course we’re talking about the stuff you bored from the heretics circa 1-2 century A.D.

Nobody “hears” God’s voice today. Nobody. However, He does communicate Spirit to spirit with His children. That is not a given though and those He does this with are not necessarily more special or holy. He wants faith before all which according to the 11th of Hebrews is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

What’s interesting Chris is that many of your criticisms of non Catholics are valid. I share them which is the point. The answer is not the papacy.

Except the “Papacy” has never taught wrong.

It’s a return to the gospel restored in the reformation.

Yes, St. Francis de Sales did a good job at helping stop abuses by Bishops and the Popes, and the Church is bringing in the New Evangelization which is being ushered in by the last two Popes personally. Though I wouldn’t call them reformation, because that implies you’re taking the old form and reforming it, when in fact we’re taking the new form of the liberals and casting it off…surprisingly done by younger Catholics than the liberals.

[quote]The one that is nearly extinct in the western world due to modernistic liberal heresies and flagrantly sinful practice in the name of Jesus. There are more hints here regarding our other discussion I just realized. Work calls now. This was a very incomplete post.

I pray that both Catholics and non remember who they are and regurgitate all this squishy post vat. II poisonous ecumenism. [/quote]

What squishy post Vatican II poisonous ecumenism?

It’s bad for both of us. I am not a “departed brethren” to be kissed and coddled.

Of course you’re not a departed brother, that would imply you are dead (naturally, not supernaturally). Though you are actually a separated brethren. You were baptized Catholic and you left the Church, definition of separated brethren. Anyone baptized is part of the Catholic Church whether you like it or not, though this doesn’t count for invalid baptism (Mormons I am thinking of mostly).

I am a raging heretic to be burned alive for my blasphemy.

Well, you’re going to have to go find a State the considers blasphemy a capital crime, kind of like Geneva back in the day.

I have no respect for either side of this evangelical/Catholic orgy that’s going on. It’s a trick of the enemy through Rome to outflank, castrate and absorb all those claiming Christ in the earth. It will not work on me or mine.

How come it can’t be a trick of the enemy through Evangelicals. Lol, Jesus was the great Ecumenicalist. He tricked, outflanked, and absorbed all. I guess the Catholic Church has similar qualities (maybe because Jesus is the Church?) as Jesus, after all we are the largest Church, we have the largest growth, &c.

I do what I want.

Chris IV[/quote]
Fixed your tags =]

[TigerTime]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Well I, unlike you, do respect the opinions of 8 year olds and I don’t judge what is correct and incorrect based on the age or any other irrelevant factor of the person making their argument.[/quote]

That’s because you are too young to appreciate the value of experience and wisdom which only comes with age. And that’s probably why my friend Cortes said something on the order that you don’t have children of your own. When you do you will soon realize the pure folly of your above statement.

If I am immature for having the audacity to determine truth from fiction by the statements relevance to reality rather than how many conscious moments said person has spent void of an umbilical cord, then maturity is over rated.

Okay, don’t get me wrong, it’s great that you are involved and you are thinking. It’s over stepping to think that you know enough to lecture others who have not only lived longer but have learned more in that time period. Look at it this way, if we are all around the same intelligence (say it’s close) but most of us have 10 to 30 years on you what does that mean? It means that many of us have been to college, Grad school, started their own business, entered the ministry, the military, traveled extensively and read far, far more books on the topic than you. And we’ve done this purely by virtue of having lived longer! That doesn’t make you stupid, it just makes you too young to have done what the rest of us may have done, not your fault. And it also means that over all we may have a better handle on separating truth from fantasy.

Really, don’t get all offended. Like I said stay on the issues that you know by virtue of your own experience and depth of knowledge and no one will say anything about your age.

Fair enough?

And I am your friend, who else would take the time to explain this to you?

ZEB[/quote]

Experience is certainly valuable relative to a skill, but when it comes to logic it isn’t necessary. When it comes to painting a flower, the more experience the better, but when it comes to something logical or factual; 1+1=2 for example, experience is irrelevant. No matter how old you are it will not make this statement any more or less correct. Just as in the bible, it is either consistent or inconsistent. No amount of experience will change this and so to say I am wrong for any reason other than for what facts are directly connected to the issue is a logical fallacy. If there IS a verse in the bible where God says his rules are now obsolete, then fine. If not, then it is wrong to assume so. No amount of age will change this.

Also, don’t make the mistake of claiming I am here lecturing you. You all came to me and began lecturing me for holding a different opinion than you.[/quote]

Age does in fact enter into it on every level. Especially when it comes to contemplating the vast universe. Many scientists have flip flopped on what they thought was truth after a decade or two of contemplation. But you in your 18 year old thinking can’t grasp this. You’re too busy being defensive and trying to explain why you are a really sharp cookie and depth experience and how well read someone is means nothing. If you think that the thoughts that you live with daily will not change by virtue of you growing older and adding a plethora of experience you are in fact proving my point about the immature mind.

And now we are at a place where many Internet arguments recycle. So I will begin with this one.

Please explain why the following is true:

[quote]In the long run age and experience mean a great deal. If they meant nothing there would be no age limit on driving, drinking voting and entering the military. Let’s face it when a government entity, or large corporation is looking for a really good man (or woman) to head up a new division they’re not thinking “what we need is a really smart teenager to pull this off…Someone with Internet experience…”
They’re looking for depth and breadth of knowledge and experience. And all of this just doesn’t come at the age of 18.[/quote]

[/quote]

No amount of aging will change the fact that God never deems his old rules about wearing mixed fiber shirts and eating shellfish as obsolete, no matter how hard you try to assert this. My outlook on life may or may not change to a significant degree, but this fact will never change.

This will probably be my last comment to you in this thread as my conversation with Cortes seems to be bearing fruit and I think there is a legitimate chance of us coming to an understanding - while you, one the other hand, have yet to say anything truly worth responding to and I’ve done so up till now for entertainment.

[Dbol123]

isn’t it hilarious how some people, in this day and age, actually believe the bible to be something more than fictional allegories… especially after it’s be refuted time after time

[Jewbacca]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No amount of aging will change the fact that God never deems his old rules about wearing mixed fiber shirts . . . . [/quote]

Of course, all those rules (there are 613, to be exact) do not apply to you, as a non-Jewish person.

And for a bit of color regarding the mitzvah about mixed fibre,s it was (and is) to prevent stealing and posturing — passing off a mixed clothe as 100% silk, for example and to prevent people from pretending to be something they are not — rich enough to wear 100% silk.

In short, thievery and posturing displeases G-d.

[Sloth]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

No amount of aging will change the fact that God never deems his old rules about wearing mixed fiber shirts and eating shellfish as obsolete, no matter how hard you try to assert this. [/quote]

Yep, you’re going on ignore. If you’ve never read the epistles or Acts, especially anything relevant to gentiles, yet still act as if you know what you’re talking about, you’re simply a troll.

[system]

whos to say satan is evil. we only have one books point of view on the matter. He wasn’t evil per se, he just got sick of taking gods shit. wanted to do things his way.

[CRisCO]

Not sensing a lot of grace coming from the catholics on this thread

[Sloth]

[quote]CRisCO wrote:
Not sensing a lot of grace coming from the catholics on this thread[/quote]

There’s showing grace, then there’s casting pearls to swine.

[Sloth]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

No amount of aging will change the fact that God never deems his old rules about wearing mixed fiber shirts and eating shellfish as obsolete, no matter how hard you try to assert this. [/quote]

Yep, you’re going on ignore. If you’ve never read the epistles or Acts, especially anything relevant to gentiles, yet still act as if you know what you’re talking about, you’re simply a troll.

[/quote]

As bright as the kid is he is plumb Pitbulll-like when it comes to this subject in particular. I repeatedly told him, and Jewbacca confirmed it, that shellfish and clothing regulations pertained to Hebrews. That is crystal fucking clear from even just a cursory study of the Bible.

Yet he continues to figuratively stick his fingers in his ears and chant, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, naj…I can’t hear you…nah, nah, nah, nah…the rules aint obsolete…the rules aint obsolete…the rules aint obsolete…the rules aint obsolete…nah, nah, nah…”
[/quote]

I’ve no expectations that non-Christians should have a working knowledge of the faith. But, if you’re going to try and tells us our own faith, as if you’re the authority on the subject, you’d better demonstrate at least a smidgen of knowledge. I refuse to entertain folks like him anymore. I’ll try one time to get them pointed in the right direction. One time. If it’s humble questions by the curious, no problem. But arguing with someone speaking as if they’ve found the missing ‘gotcha, Christians!,’ when it appears as such only if you’re completely ignorant of the faith…Not going to do it anymore. If I have to fill up an ignore list, so be it.