HA! I didn’t even answer your question and you still couldn’t help yourself. [/quote]
?
Okay, this is my fourth time telling you. I’ve read the bible. I’m getting the impression that this is just your “go to” argument to dismiss any legitimate criticism of your religion.
[/quote]
Which is my 4th time calling you a fucking liar. You can say it all you want, but you display zero knowledge of it. Which means you didn’t read it or you have the worst reading comprehention on the fucking planet.
You are boarding on idiot. Hitler was not a christian. History fail.
And technically, yes, a creator can do what he wants with his creation. Liking it is not required.
I am familiar. How is that something from nothing?
Matter existing indefinitely is not part of M-theory or any other flavor of string theory. I don’t know where you trump this shit up from. The idea that ‘information’ can survive indefinitely sure as shit ain’t matter. Further, no theory currently posits any scenario where matter will exist indefinitely. Further the theory posits that matter is really energy operating on frequencies. This is how the 11+ dimensions were derived. I think string theory is very interesting, but first it’s only a theory and one that has yet to actually be fleshed out as there are still several calculations to be fleshed out. Which means that with the turn of a single equation the whole thing falls apart. There’s other theories as well such as E8. But none of them put forth a theory of something from nothing. Some physicists will call it that when there is a lack of physical matter, but physical matter isn’t the end of the story. Gravity is a something, dark energy is a something, vacuums are somethings, dark matter is something. All these things are somethings not nothings. You cannot empirically prove a nothing because nothing literally does not exist.
I don’t give a rats ass about your problem. It’s your problem, not mine. You were trying to trap me with your pre-fabbed notion that your more moral than God because your wouldn’t have killed the amalekites, or some such shit as that.
Like I said, I know a setup when I see it. If you knew the whole story, as you claim you would have known why Saul was stripped of his kingship. You read a tiny sliver in a much bigger picture.
In this time in history, people were devoting each other to destruction all the time. The Amalekites were a people that served king amalek, not a race or an entire people. If you had read the bible, you would have known that, instead of going around with your bullshit genocide claim.
[quote]
You really want to have a rational discussion on God and Christianity? Calm the fuck down first.[/quote]
Don’t ask stupid questions about things you don’t understand. You aren’t God and you aren’t Saul. Those are the only two people who truly knew what happened back then and why. You are simply passing judgement on shit you don’t know about.
There are reasons God got pissed off in the OT sometimes, most of it isn’t like that at all. If you had read it, you would have known that too.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Now, I want it to be known that what most people think of “jews” are not people who follow Judaism. These are a race of people who descended from Cain, who Hijack various religious organizations in order to follow their master (Satan). They can manipulate the system so well because they are taught by “The God of this world” (Satan) They are in constant exile just as Cain was. They are evil, greedy, and worldy. This is why they obtain this stereotype, and make the Hebrew people look bad. They are the same people who hijacked and corrupted Judaism and served as the high priests during Jesus’ time. Why do you think these people hijacked Judaism? It’s because they knew they can’t be touched if they are “God’s chosen people”. Anyone who says anything bad about them is labled an “anti-semite” even though these people are NOT SEMITIC.
They answered him, ?Abraham is our father.? Jesus said to them, ?If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.? They said to him, ?We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father?even God.? 42 Jesus said to them, ?If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.?-John 8:39-47[/quote]
More evidence of your ill education.
Jews are the children of Cain, huh? Righto.
Good grief, you are full of shit. I am sniffing troll.[/quote]
Yeah, I am having a hard time believing this person is who they say they are and has and sincerity what so ever.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Growing up Roman Catholic, I always had a difficulty reconciling the God of the Old Testament with the Jesus. I know this isn’t just me, for this inconsistency was noticed extremely early in the history of the church. Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian who pointed out this apparent difference. A long line of heretics followed his path, notably the gnostic movement. Eventually, they were squashed, but their writings have been retained in discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library. I have been catechized, attended Catholic school for 16 years, and still practice. To this day I cannot help but notice that OT God (YHWH) and Christ didn’t seem to match with their messages. I have done plenty of research regarding this matter. As much as I cannot stand Atheists, I understand their concern when they point out the rather bizaare behavior of YHWH, who seems to be rather petty and angry in the narratives of the old testament. Here are some examples/food for thought
[/quote]
Jesus didn’t use the Tetragrammaton (the Holy name of God) because Jesus was an observant Jew. Jews didn’t pronounce the Tetragrammaton except by the High Priest, in the Holy Temple.
Go actually read the Old Testament. God was EXTREMELY forgiving and VERY SLOW to anger. For example, he gave Pharoah 20 chances, slowly increased severity of things before moving on.
I am Catholic (and a bad one at that) and anyone who sat through confirmation clas
ses for communion would not espouse the crap you have posted.[/quote]
First, Jesus was not a jew. If you are excommunicated from the Catholic church, then you are no longer a catholic. Jesus was put on trial for heresy/blasphemy, therefore excommunicated. Recall, there was not one type of “Jew.” Like christianity today, there were sects of Judaism. If you read your gospels, you’ll notice the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Essenes had extremely diverse points of view. John the Baptist was likely an Essene. Like jesus, this man was committing blasphemy [according to mosaic law] so the high priests had it out for him since the start of his ministry. To say Jesus was a Jew is misleading because I don’t know if you mean he was a Semite or you he was a follower of the Law/mishnah. I agree he had semitic blood.
[/quote]
There is no formal removal of Judaism in mosaic law. Jesus was a Jew, they could kill him, but they could not make him not a Jew. Likewise, being excommunicated does not make you ‘not Catholic’. It simply means that you was out of communion with the Church and cannot participate in the sacraments. The only way to cease being Catholic is by choice.
Wow! First, Jesus said to forgive your neighbor ‘Seventy time seven times’. Second, he did very much punish David when he sinned, he killed his son for his sins and let him know it to boot.
And this is what I mean when I say that you didn’t read the bible. Where in hell did you get that God punishes the innocents, and never the bad guys? Seriously? God didn’t take his admonitions lightly, in the OT. The Chaldeans, the Assyrians? You know, they practiced child sacrifice and did lots of abominable shit, you saying God didn’t punish them?
I am curious where you where you got this stuff that God punished the innocents in the OT and not the guilty.
Correct, as well as science and all the stuff of education.
Being out of communion of the Church also means you cannot receive the Sacraments until that excommunication is uplifted. Now you cannot be a Catholic and excommunicated. These are mutually exclusive. Why? Because the only things you can do to get excommunicated are extremely serious crimes against humanity and heresy. So when you say “The only way to cease being Catholic is by choice” then your choice was to be excommunicated by doing the act that caused you to be excommunicated. By doing these acts, you are openly stating you are not Catholic, this is why you are excommunicated.
[/quote]
You need to brush up on your catechism or your Catholic Encyclopedia. I am not going to argue semantics with you. Excommunication doesn’t make you not catholic. Reconciliation with the church is all you need and you are welcome with open arms. You don’t have to get rebaptized or go through any other rite of initiation.
Every time I give evidence you just say something on the lines of “damn, you need to read your scripture” even though this entire time you have not even used any scripture to defend your case. If we are going to debate scripture, then use it to defend your claim, and stop making stupid ad hominum arguments. I make claims. my claims were defended through OT and nT scripture passages. You insult and say I need to “read”.
You can not get re-communicated with the church unless they uplift the excommunication. This is due to the fact that when you are excommunicated, you can’t receive the sacraments. If you can’t receive the sacraments, you can’t go to the sacrament of confession. It is the Bishop of the diocese who has jurisdiction and he is the one who has to uplift the excommunication. The only other person who can is The Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, blessed Holy Father [Pope]. You should not argue with a cannon lawyer on this one.
What makes someone catholic is the profession of the catholic faith [baptism promise, Nicene creed] and participation in the sacraments which are “visible signs of God’s invisible love for us.” If you do something, for instance Heresy, then you are openly denying your profession of faith and you cannot receive sacraments. So if you openly deny your faith through heresy and you cannot participate in the sacraments, then until you get re-communicated you are not Catholic.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Growing up Roman Catholic, I always had a difficulty reconciling the God of the Old Testament with the Jesus. I know this isn’t just me, for this inconsistency was noticed extremely early in the history of the church. Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian who pointed out this apparent difference. A long line of heretics followed his path, notably the gnostic movement. Eventually, they were squashed, but their writings have been retained in discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library. I have been catechized, attended Catholic school for 16 years, and still practice. To this day I cannot help but notice that OT God (YHWH) and Christ didn’t seem to match with their messages. I have done plenty of research regarding this matter. As much as I cannot stand Atheists, I understand their concern when they point out the rather bizaare behavior of YHWH, who seems to be rather petty and angry in the narratives of the old testament. Here are some examples/food for thought
[/quote]
Jesus didn’t use the Tetragrammaton (the Holy name of God) because Jesus was an observant Jew. Jews didn’t pronounce the Tetragrammaton except by the High Priest, in the Holy Temple.
Go actually read the Old Testament. God was EXTREMELY forgiving and VERY SLOW to anger. For example, he gave Pharoah 20 chances, slowly increased severity of things before moving on.
I am Catholic (and a bad one at that) and anyone who sat through confirmation clas
ses for communion would not espouse the crap you have posted.[/quote]
First, Jesus was not a jew. If you are excommunicated from the Catholic church, then you are no longer a catholic. Jesus was put on trial for heresy/blasphemy, therefore excommunicated. Recall, there was not one type of “Jew.” Like christianity today, there were sects of Judaism. If you read your gospels, you’ll notice the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Essenes had extremely diverse points of view. John the Baptist was likely an Essene. Like jesus, this man was committing blasphemy [according to mosaic law] so the high priests had it out for him since the start of his ministry. To say Jesus was a Jew is misleading because I don’t know if you mean he was a Semite or you he was a follower of the Law/mishnah. I agree he had semitic blood.
[/quote]
There is no formal removal of Judaism in mosaic law. Jesus was a Jew, they could kill him, but they could not make him not a Jew. Likewise, being excommunicated does not make you ‘not Catholic’. It simply means that you was out of communion with the Church and cannot participate in the sacraments. The only way to cease being Catholic is by choice.
Wow! First, Jesus said to forgive your neighbor ‘Seventy time seven times’. Second, he did very much punish David when he sinned, he killed his son for his sins and let him know it to boot.
And this is what I mean when I say that you didn’t read the bible. Where in hell did you get that God punishes the innocents, and never the bad guys? Seriously? God didn’t take his admonitions lightly, in the OT. The Chaldeans, the Assyrians? You know, they practiced child sacrifice and did lots of abominable shit, you saying God didn’t punish them?
I am curious where you where you got this stuff that God punished the innocents in the OT and not the guilty.
Correct, as well as science and all the stuff of education.
Being out of communion of the Church also means you cannot receive the Sacraments until that excommunication is uplifted. Now you cannot be a Catholic and excommunicated. These are mutually exclusive. Why? Because the only things you can do to get excommunicated are extremely serious crimes against humanity and heresy. So when you say “The only way to cease being Catholic is by choice” then your choice was to be excommunicated by doing the act that caused you to be excommunicated. By doing these acts, you are openly stating you are not Catholic, this is why you are excommunicated.
[/quote]
You need to brush up on your catechism or your Catholic Encyclopedia. I am not going to argue semantics with you. Excommunication doesn’t make you not catholic. Reconciliation with the church is all you need and you are welcome with open arms. You don’t have to get rebaptized or go through any other rite of initiation.
Every time I give evidence you just say something on the lines of “damn, you need to read your scripture” even though this entire time you have not even used any scripture to defend your case. If we are going to debate scripture, then use it to defend your claim, and stop making stupid ad hominum arguments. I make claims. my claims were defended through OT and nT scripture passages. You insult and say I need to “read”.
You can not get re-communicated with the church unless they uplift the excommunication. This is due to the fact that when you are excommunicated, you can’t receive the sacraments. If you can’t receive the sacraments, you can’t go to the sacrament of confession. It is the Bishop of the diocese who has jurisdiction and he is the one who has to uplift the excommunication. The only other person who can is The Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, blessed Holy Father [Pope]. You should not argue with a cannon lawyer on this one. [/quote]
I didn’t make a case, hoss, you did. But your understanding is so flawed and so out of whack that the only way to glean the understanding you want is to actually read what’s written. It’s all explained. Believe it or not, God isn’t a big bad boogy man in the OT.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
What makes someone catholic is the profession of the catholic faith [baptism promise, Nicene creed] and participation in the sacraments which are “visible signs of God’s invisible love for us.” If you do something, for instance Heresy, then you are openly denying your profession of faith and you cannot receive sacraments. So if you openly deny your faith through heresy and you cannot participate in the sacraments, then until you get re-communicated you are not Catholic.[/quote]
Here is some light reading on the excommunication topic. This is an authoritative source so you should be good to go.
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come to you. 29Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house." Matthew 12: 25-29
How am I a White Supremacist if I have faith God loves everyone equally and infinitely? I am actually in the line of David, so if I was some hitlerarian who hated the Israelites then I would hate myself. In which case then I am a hypocrite. Anyone who claims that they are a chosen race of God is lying, for God did not choose a race of people. If this were the case, then the muslims are the chosen for they also descended from Abraham.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
What makes someone catholic is the profession of the catholic faith [baptism promise, Nicene creed] and participation in the sacraments which are “visible signs of God’s invisible love for us.” If you do something, for instance Heresy, then you are openly denying your profession of faith and you cannot receive sacraments. So if you openly deny your faith through heresy and you cannot participate in the sacraments, then until you get re-communicated you are not Catholic.[/quote]
Here is some light reading on the excommunication topic. This is an authoritative source so you should be good to go.
This does not contradict anything I said. Its obvious you are afraid to articulate it with your own words, so you default to a website to explain it for you. If you cannot articulate your own beliefs, then you do not understand them and therefore aren’t really a believer.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
What makes someone catholic is the profession of the catholic faith [baptism promise, Nicene creed] and participation in the sacraments which are “visible signs of God’s invisible love for us.” If you do something, for instance Heresy, then you are openly denying your profession of faith and you cannot receive sacraments. So if you openly deny your faith through heresy and you cannot participate in the sacraments, then until you get re-communicated you are not Catholic.[/quote]
Here is some light reading on the excommunication topic. This is an authoritative source so you should be good to go.
This does not contradict anything I said. Its obvious you are afraid to articulate it with your own words, so you default to a website to explain it for you. If you cannot articulate your own beliefs, then you do not understand them and therefore aren’t really a believer. [/quote]
It says no where that you are no longer Catholic when excommunicated.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
What makes someone catholic is the profession of the catholic faith [baptism promise, Nicene creed] and participation in the sacraments which are “visible signs of God’s invisible love for us.” If you do something, for instance Heresy, then you are openly denying your profession of faith and you cannot receive sacraments. So if you openly deny your faith through heresy and you cannot participate in the sacraments, then until you get re-communicated you are not Catholic.[/quote]
Here is some light reading on the excommunication topic. This is an authoritative source so you should be good to go.
This does not contradict anything I said. Its obvious you are afraid to articulate it with your own words, so you default to a website to explain it for you. If you cannot articulate your own beliefs, then you do not understand them and therefore aren’t really a believer. [/quote]
It says no where that you are no longer Catholic when excommunicated.[/quote]
It doesn’t have to. Its inferred. Use your brain God gave you. Is Martin Luther a Catholic? The answer is NO. Why? Because he committed heresy.
Which is my 4th time calling you a fucking liar. You can say it all you want, but you display zero knowledge of it. Which means you didn’t read it or you have the worst reading comprehention on the fucking planet.
[/quote]
Given your bias, your accusation doesn’t mean much. You’ve given no reason to support this accusation and it’s starting to look like you either don’t know how to debate and make up for it by shouting “LIAR” until your opposition gets tired of spaz-sitting and leaves, or you recognize how irrational your ideology is and so you barricade yourself behind a wall of ad-hominem attacks.
I’ve given you quotes outlining Hitler’s stance of Christianity. All you’ve done so far is say “nu-uh!”. Do you have anything, anything whatsoever to support this idea that Hitler was an atheist?
A creator can do anything with his creation? Hmm… is that a statement of ability or justification?
[quote]
I am familiar. How is that something from nothing?
Matter existing indefinitely is not part of M-theory or any other flavor of string theory. I don’t know where you trump this shit up from. The idea that ‘information’ can survive indefinitely sure as shit ain’t matter. Further, no theory currently posits any scenario where matter will exist indefinitely. Further the theory posits that matter is really energy operating on frequencies. This is how the 11+ dimensions were derived. I think string theory is very interesting, but first it’s only a theory and one that has yet to actually be fleshed out as there are still several calculations to be fleshed out. Which means that with the turn of a single equation the whole thing falls apart. There’s other theories as well such as E8. But none of them put forth a theory of something from nothing. Some physicists will call it that when there is a lack of physical matter, but physical matter isn’t the end of the story. Gravity is a something, dark energy is a something, vacuums are somethings, dark matter is something. All these things are somethings not nothings. You cannot empirically prove a nothing because nothing literally does not exist.[/quote]
Oh my. You don’t understand what I’m saying. Not at all. This is really my fault, I assumed your were scientifically literate enough to understand the implications of what I said. The fourth dimension passes through Time. For something to be greater than 4-dimensional means that time is not a constraint for it, like how a line drawn in sand is no limitation for us as we can pass through the 3rd dimension and go over the line. Our universe may be finite, but the “stuff” it’s made of is not. The energies that have gone into making our universe what it is have existed in some form or another long before our universe and they will continue to exist long after as these energies exist in a higher form of existence than even the “time” our universe exists in.
You came to me, Pat. If you want to leave, there’s the door. I won’t stop you, I have other playmates here. If you don’t want to play along, go.
Also, you’re farther off with where you think I was going with this now than you were before. You don’t know what I was getting at and it seems you don’t care to find out.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it” - Aristotle
[quote]
Don’t ask stupid questions about things you don’t understand. You aren’t God and you aren’t Saul. Those are the only two people who truly knew what happened back then and why. You are simply passing judgement on shit you don’t know about.
There are reasons God got pissed off in the OT sometimes, most of it isn’t like that at all. If you had read it, you would have known that too. [/quote]
Oh yes, God had his “reasons”. And I suppose all the worlds abusive fathers “had their reasons”. And it’s totally justified, right? you said it yourself, the creator can do whatever he wants with his creation…
Pat, you are a spaz. Re-read your post to me. Calm the fuck down, come back, then try again.
That’s what I suspect but I don’t really care who’s a headhunter sockpuppet or who’s some other headcase. But it surprises me that people are giving credence to someone who claims to be both a Catholic and an adherent of serpent seed theology - which is completely at odds with Catholic dogma. And the stuff about demons hiding in humans because they’re mostly water and all the rest of it. An ecclesiastical troll.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< You can not get re-communicated with the church unless they uplift the excommunication. This is due to the fact that when you are excommunicated, you can’t receive the sacraments. If you can’t receive the sacraments, you can’t go to the sacrament of confession. It is the Bishop of the diocese who has jurisdiction and he is the one who has to uplift the excommunication. The only other person who can is The Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, blessed Holy Father [Pope]. You should not argue with a cannon lawyer on this one. [/quote]I would have at least a particle of respect for Rome if it actually worked this way in practice. Ironically Pat would be excommunicate if examined by a faithful and consistent Catholic body.
Is fibroblaster tellin us he’s a canon lawyer now?
Which is my 4th time calling you a fucking liar. You can say it all you want, but you display zero knowledge of it. Which means you didn’t read it or you have the worst reading comprehention on the fucking planet.
[/quote]
Given your bias, your accusation doesn’t mean much. You’ve given no reason to support this accusation and it’s starting to look like you either don’t know how to debate and make up for it by shouting “LIAR” until your opposition gets tired of spaz-sitting and leaves, or you recognize how irrational your ideology is and so you barricade yourself behind a wall of ad-hominem attacks.
[/quote]
Somebody who demonstrates no knowledge of something and then claims to have knowledge of that thing he demonstrates no knowledge of tends to rock my bullshit meter. I know you didn’t read it based on what you said. People who have, demonstrate knowledge that they have, people who didn’t read it, show them selves as having no knowledge of the subject matter as you have. You’re not the first person to lie about it.
I never said he was an atheist. I just said he wasn’t a Christian. It’s your history fail I don’t owe you an education.
[quote]
A creator can do anything with his creation? Hmm… is that a statement of ability or justification?
No idiot, the 4 dimension is thought to be time or space-time. Further this was well established in general relativity long before string theory. Time, eternity have nothing to do with it doesn’t remove contingency as both factors are in fact contingent.
Further, there is no evidence what so ever that the ‘stuff’ of the universe is infinite. This universe is a either an opened or closed system, but not isolated. Therefore it is possible for said information to escape.
In the end, it does not matter if the universe is infinite or finite, temporary or eternal. It’s still contingent.
You asked the dumb question, I just refused to answer. That apparently gets your gored. The Aristotle quote is cute. I love Aristotle.
[quote]
Like I said, if you read the damn thing, you’d know these answers. Abusive fathers?
[quote]
Pat, you are a spaz. Re-read your post to me. Calm the fuck down, come back, then try again. [/quote]
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
What makes someone catholic is the profession of the catholic faith [baptism promise, Nicene creed] and participation in the sacraments which are “visible signs of God’s invisible love for us.” If you do something, for instance Heresy, then you are openly denying your profession of faith and you cannot receive sacraments. So if you openly deny your faith through heresy and you cannot participate in the sacraments, then until you get re-communicated you are not Catholic.[/quote]
Here is some light reading on the excommunication topic. This is an authoritative source so you should be good to go.
This does not contradict anything I said. Its obvious you are afraid to articulate it with your own words, so you default to a website to explain it for you. If you cannot articulate your own beliefs, then you do not understand them and therefore aren’t really a believer. [/quote]
It says no where that you are no longer Catholic when excommunicated.[/quote]
It doesn’t have to. Its inferred. Use your brain God gave you. Is Martin Luther a Catholic? The answer is NO. Why? Because he committed heresy. [/quote]
Martin Luther chose to create his own faith. Sadly, Martin Luther was right in going up against his bishop and the bishop stone walled him. I think Martin Luther took his new path to far, but I can’t say I blame him either after what happened to him. I think changing scripture to fit his “Faith alone” ideology was a grave error, but I kinda have to give him a pass. The RCC does at this point as well. There were some bad dudes who’d dress themselves up as clergy from time to time. Those guys do a lot of damage.
But yes, he was Catholic until he decided not to be.