PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
DAMN IT MAN CAUSE GOD SAYS SO!!! that's why
or their priests or holy book, or because they believe so. that's it.
Look, I cant help it if you do not see the reality of my snarfwidget. Brian Sapeint once tried to convince me of his Almighty Mammalian. But I was not fooled.
I pointed out this verse to him in the Book of Snarf, "Letter to the Mammalians",
Book 78 verse 2,573:
"Thus I have spoken that I am purple and the one true Snarf. Thou partisipate in folly to deny such. If thou persist in denial of my Snarfdom, it will only lead to self distruction. Thus as it is I implore thee to conceed my existance. If thus thy refuse I will cast the into a lake of Clay Akin music. Yea fear not, upon hearing such nails on a chalkboard, being the compassionate Snarf, I will thee, a recogintion that thy hath stumbled. When offered the redemtion in front of me if thy beith still in defiance, being the all mighty Snarf that I am, I shalt sumit thee too an eternity of Britney Spears excusses as to why she is a good parent. So saith the almighty Snarf"
I defy Brian Sapient to quote his pathetic "Mammalian" book to prove to me that his god is real when faced with that verse.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
How come whenever a question is posed to theists, a bunch of bloody atheists jump in to answer for them? We should stop doing that.
How come when a question is posed to atheists a bunch of superstitious morons answer for us?
We vent, they vent. Now can we get over human nature and get on with "evidence" or am I being too picky?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
It doesn't seem helpful to the OP.
Perhaps it's because of the profound silence from the theists.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
It was only posted a few hours before the atheists' response. Not a whole lot of time....
It is helpfull because once BOTH sides of any given issue understand that blasphemy doesnt have to lead to blood everyone gets to say their peice without it coming to blows.
I think you underestimate human nature. I am actually more optomistic than you are. You assume automatically that every context must be polite.
I cant stand boxing as a sport. My position is arbitrary. But I dont assume that because the objective of both partisipants is to knock the other out that they hate each other.
I dont assume that because some theists hate me that other theists who blaspheme atheists hate me.
If you are comfortable with quite library debate with theists, THAT IS YOU.
Some theists I have run into have the same nature I do in debate, they dont hate me, they just think I am full of shit. I dont assume that all diologue must incorperate "Leave it to beaver".
If anyone is going to quote the bible I am going tell tell them what I think of that. If someone wants dishonesty that is easy.
"What you beleive is pretty like Snow White" Is that what you want me to tell them?
Is that what you want me to say to someone who believes that ghosts knock up 9-14 year old girls? I am not talking about their right to believe it. I am talking about my ability to answer honestly when they claim it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
OK. I don't think I advocated the abandonment of debate.
That would make me a massive hypocrite, because I'm nowhere near polite. I don't think what I've argued in terms of minority issues in the other thread is about “politeness,” but the propagation of ignorance; and I compared taking issue with it to taking issue with the straw-man presented of atheism in the media, or even evolution.
No idea where you get this stuff.
I want to apologize to the OP for taking the thread off topic, but I think it's relevant. Brian, none of what you're saying has anything to do with atheists answering questions posed specifically to theists. I don't say this out of “politeness” to theists, but because I think the OPs of these threads generally know the atheist position; and even if they didn't, they didn't ask atheists. Maybe they are genuinely interested in knowing what a theist has to say about something, or they're setting up the premise for a more comprehensive point. I figure, and this is a general statement which I could be wrong about in any particular case, if they wanted the atheist view of theist logic posted preemptively, they would've asked.
THANK YOU HAMBI,
We get ignored, not because we are wrong but because they are afraid we are right.
I have less fear from those who debate us without fear than those who demonize us and expect us to shut up without question.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
To the OP:
One thing I've noticed is that many traditional theists are kind of scared to post here. Considering the (accurate) expectation that they will be ridiculed for their replies, I'd suggest you might find more fertile ground on another website. Maybe you can pose your question on a theist website. You'd definitely get lots of responses.
Just be sure not to respond to the responses. Most theists sites I've had experience with have a nasty habit of banning you if you make too much sense.
[edit: It would be interesting for you to post the responses you get here, both to preserve the thread (which is likely to be deleted from the theist website) and to potentially inspire debate here.]
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The post was snarked at twice within six hours of being up. If I was a anything but the most strident theist, and I saw how my remarks would be received, I wouldn't bother. So we're talking to ourselves now. Fuck-a-doodle-doo.
I think the problem is that there is too few Theists here.
On that note, I came to my beliefs myself, not through a religion.
It's a reasonable point. I'm not sure if that's what's happening, but it might well be. It's kind of a catch-22, though. If a thread isn't near the top of the recent posts, it's unlikely to be read. If no theists answer within twelve hours or so, it'll probably die. It would definitely be better if we gave them time to answer before we preemptively dismantle their answers.
I'm not sure if there's a solution other than to beg and plead in the OP.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Do you see a possibility in pantheism being a scientifically-mitigated version of traditional monotheism? I mean, is it possible in your view that some kind of theism isn't a natural consequence of wonder about the universe?
Another option would be bumping, reiterating, or cordially adding to the question. I'd even rather have feigned ignorance from atheists wanting to use the Socratic Method. Otherwise it's just fap fap fap.
I don't like feigning ignorance. It reeks of manipulation, even if it is socratic.
Actually, to clarify, on this website, feigning ignorance seldom works well. Theists who come here know what to expect. Personally, I'm thrilled at the fact that we have moved from over #200,000 to #136,770 in less than two weeks, and theists are not posting. Silence is as good as admission of defeat.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
What?
Ok so far it's been 12 hours plus and only one somewhat theists (i say this because your say your not religious and for me a theists is religious) Therefore, why not atheists answer the question with answers that have been given before (like I did) or with humour as others have, if theists don't answer it, I will, and if they don't like the answer too bad, if they don't answer someone will else will.
maybe theists were confused by the use of the word "then" in the title. from my experience it really seems like "than" is just barely holding on. it will probably be completely out of the english lexicon by 2015.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I do (sort of). and. Tis, in my view, possible.
I anticipate you'll ask how, next, or perhaps you've gathered as much from all my other posts? It's really quite simple at the heart of it: you take the version of neutral monism that I spend most days advocating and you exploit the fact that it explicitly underlines all definitions with axiomatic neutrality.
In short - Identities reduce to definitions, definitions are measurements of form, identities beg the question of what actually cannot be measured, ie independence. so that there is one identity only, that can be defined without begging definition "all".
From there you get basically mitigated traditional monotheism, without any leaps.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
*grimaces*
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
this is the murder them with courtesy thread; grimacing is not allowed. at any rate, that was more to poke fun at the op then theists (another joke, get it?) and he probably thought it was funny.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Thomathy would probably have better insight into this (and may actually want to correct me, since I'm no linguist), but speaking as a person just wandering through....
To be technical, it wouldn't be out of the lexicon, it would just suffer a morphological change (same word, but different spelling). One of my professors was showing me the results of a five year study that indicates that there is a major change in pronunciation of vowels sweeping across the country. Most people, it seems, whether we like it or not, are starting to merge vowel sounds. For example, many people use different vowel sounds when saying "ten" versus "tin", but more and more people (myself included), produce the same vowel in both words.
And, of course, over time, pronunciation can affect spelling. I don't know that it would definitely happen (and if it did, I don't know how soon), but it wouldn't be a shock to me if "than" eventually turned into "then".
*edit*
After posting this, I realized that the pronunciation of "then" is the same as "ten" versus "tin".
When I say "then", it rhymes with "tin". Not "ten".
So which pronunciation is "than" (rhymes with man) transforming into? Hmm.....
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
While the discussion of rudeness versus courtesy is quite interesting, and while I have thoughts on this issue, I'm choosing to respond to the question posed by the OP.
While my experience with polytheism is limited (most narrowly to the classical European pantheons), my observations of these religions causes me to reject them for one of several reasons. They are either:
1. obviously based on legend as opposed to theology. This would appear to be the case with the Norse religions. It seems obvious to me that Wotan (or Odin) was a real person, a legendary chieftain of great renown. Likewise would seem to be the case with Thor, who was most probably, a real, live warrior hero of skill whose accomplishements grew through time until they became as of mythic proportions. Or...
2. too busy bickering with each other to be concerned with the well being of humankind. The myths of Greece and Rome are a long tale of the interaction betwewen god and man, very often with no clear indication of which was the "good guy" and which was the villain. Or...
3. are demons masquerading in the guise of gods, eager to further the wishes of their adherents. In return, these "gods" exacted a terrible price, most notably Baal, Moloch, Dagon who demanded of their worshippers the most vile of sacrifices, that of human life.
The animism of these ancient cultures, by positing that the divine was immanent in created things, hindered the growth of science by making the idea of physical laws foreign. Christianity, reposing the Divine in one God, who tencends the world, avoids pantheisim and allows Christians to view the universe as a realm of order and predictability.
Islam, meanwhile, is simply the Christian heresy of Nestorianism taken to its logical conclusion.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
1. Are you saying that because no one has found Hebrew myths/legends beside the Bible that elevates it to theology? Is lack of information a sound basis for a conclusion?
2. Are you looking primarily at the NT when you make this claim? I'll give you that the writers created the Jesus character with more positive qualities than those around him. I can't really see that in the OT, though.
3. So when the God of the Bible asked the Hebrews to sacrifice an entire race to him as he did with the Amalekites <"destroy utterly" -> "make them a burnt offering to me">, he was a vile demon?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I once asked this same question to my youth pastor immediatley after I became an atheist.
His reply: "Because Jesus died for our sins. No other religious figure did that."
Me: "What about Buddha? Didn't he die trying to reach Nirvana?"
Him: "Jesus died for us".
Me: "So?"
Him: *Pascals Wager*
Me: *leaves room*
Before replying to your questions reagrding my post, let me say that I believe that all religions began as montheism, and that, as families became clans became tribes became states, compromises were made in which more deities were absorbed into religions as a compromise, thus forming pantheons.
I think that the first man (Adam) passeed this knowledge on to his descendants, but with time the knowledge of the true God became confused and hazy. It was the first Jew, Abraham, who rediscovered this knowledge and founded a religion based on the worship of the true God.
No. What I'm saying is that the verbal tradition of the Norse peoples took tales of actual warriors and chieftains, and through corruption and retelling made them into first legendary heroes and then gods.
That parts of the Old Testament could be legendary as well is quite possible, perhaps even probable. It may even be that some Old Testament figures are composites of real figures in Jewish history. That those figures were recorded by the wirters of the Old testament to keep alive the history of salvation in not in doubt for me however.
No. I'm not sure where in the Old Testament God acts other than with a singleness of mind and purpose. Through the prophets he reminds the Jews of their covenants, points out their errors and the ramifications that behavior will have unless they return to him.
No. I'm not sure what the Amalekites did to piss God off. I've heard it said that they knew of the one God andd rejected him by violating rules of hospitality and assistance to Israel thereby rejecting him. As with other tribes or nations, I'm nearly certain that God had sent prophets to reveal himself, like he did with Jonah at Nineveh.
Further, the Amalekites proved to be a very stubborn foe. It took a period of 400 years before Israel was finally completely victorious over them. It's not like they didn't have plenty of time to reconsider their opposition to Israel.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
You can be a theist without being religious: religion is a system of belief and worship whereas theist is someone who believes there is a god/gods. A true deist doesn’t bother with worship so they are not religious. Cpt_pineapple, you may have already posted this elsewhere, but I am curious. Would you be able to briefly explain some of you beliefs? Totus_tuus:
- I agree about the founding of the old religions, but there is a lot of evidence comparing parts of Jesus’ story with old myths. Eg. Odin was crucified voluntarily to gain knowledge for mankind. Many gods died and were reborn.
- Sure the Greek/Roman gods bickered a lot, the Norse gods were actually quite friendly on the whole. But at least none of these killed all living things on the planet except for one family and all of the animals it could fit in one boat, or randomly chose a tribe of people and told them to exterminate thousands of man women and children to claim a territory for themselves.
- see above.
I haven’t finished the Bible yet (it’s tough going), but so far there is no claim of being only one god. The god of Israel specifically says not to worship other gods because he is a jealous god, and that he can kick any other god’s arse, this implies that there are other gods.I can’t claim to know anything about Nestorianism, but obviously the followers of Islam don’t consider it a heresy, so why do dismiss it without a comment. Also, what about the Jews, Buddists, Shintoists etc. I think if you look at the more “primitive” religions polytheism comes first. In fact, the Jehovah based religions are the only monotheistic religions as far as I know. Thanks for mentioning Adam. Adam was the first human, then came Eve, they had two kids, Cain killed Abel, then Cain got married and had kids. Who did Cain marry? Genesis in the OT is just as ridiculous as in any other religion. So you believe that the Amelekites deserved their fate, just because they must have done something to piss God off? God was angry a lot in those days, even Moses argued with him to be nicer, and Moses committed genocide.How do you feel about worshiping a god that demands that you fear him?Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
Two reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
It's my belief that elements of the truth can be found in most, if not all religions. As I recall, Norse mythology also has an account of a great flood. I would be careful with Norse mythology thous, since the Norse Edda were nor written down until the 10th century, following a two hundred year overlap with Christianity in the Germanic lands, so it's hard to say in which direction the crucifixion accounts migrated.
I'm hesitant in general to rely too heavily on parallelism between mythologies anyway, since it's very likely that many coincidences will occur. After all, I can draw a parallel between McDonald's and ancient Babylon by pointing out that the ancient Babylonians treasured gold and were fond of building arches, and McDonald's prominently displays goden arches in front of its restaurants.
Actually, Norse mythology does recount a great flood which destroys the earth. Everything except for a coupla giants.
Are you sure that in the course of theri Imperial conquests, Romans and Greeks didn't wipe out a lot of people, that entire civilizations didn't vanish under their swords? I seem to recall and episode known as the Punic Wars which began with Cattalus' admonition that "Carthage must be destroyed" and ended with the army of Scipio plowing salt into the earth of Carthage to prevent its ever rising again (not that the destruction of Carthage wasn't one of the biggest favors that Rome ever did for the world).
Are you sure Norse gods didn't demand human sacrifice? You oughta look into that claim as well. Odin and the boys (Freya seemed to prefer pork to human flesh)were a pretty bloodthirsty lot actually.
I don't remeber what I wrote in "3" so I'll address that in a separate post.
I think that the name God identifies himself to Moses with, "I am Who am", is a clear indicator of his uniqueness. "I am the One exists" seems to rule out the existence of other deities to me.
Because Jesus Christ, the Son of God become man, established one Church. He prayed before his death for the unity of that Church. Any religion which omits any portion of the Truth of Jesus Christ is heretical and incorrect. Islam is loosely based on mistaken and misunderstood aspects of Christian theology.
Salvationn comes to us through the Jews. The Jewish religion is not incorrect, just incomplete.
Buddhism seems to me (granted based on a very cursory study) to be more a philosophy than a religion.
Shintoism is a very polytheistic religion with numerous (nearly infinite) immanent deities. I plan to address the issue of the immanance in a searate post.
Without benefit of evidence it's hard to say which way religions developed, from polytheism down or from monotheism up (up and down in numbers of gods, that is). Both options are possible. I think that my explanation of the adoption of additional gods by peoples to form pantheons as a compromise as peoples assimilated from families to clans to tribes to nations is perfectly reasonable. A hint to this fact is indeed attested to by the very name of the Greek god "Pan", that at one time he was the "everything" god to some people who in prehistory were amalgamated somehow into Greek culture and weaseled his way into "deity-hood" through some sort of religious compromise. In other words, I think that polytheism is a perversion of monotheism in much the way that Islam is a perversion of Christianity.
This is indeed a problem for Bible literalists (ie, fundamentalists). But since I'm not a literalist, two possibilities exist. The first is that Adam and Eve had unmentioned female children with whom Cain (and the later kids) had children. It's not unusual for women to be unmentioned in accounts of lineage since Jewish lineage was paternal.
The other possibility is that they mated with the predecessor species from which they evolved, the "giants" mentioned in Genesis.
I'll post in reponse to the last section in a bit. I gotta run right now.
Tchuss!
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
(chuckle)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yup, Hamby. About 30,000 different Christian denominations alone. Most started since the Reformation. About 29,999 of them by men who split from the only Christain Church extant for the first 1500 years of the Christian era. That's where heresy gets ya.
To be fair, many of the Catholic Churches listed in the beginning of your list are indeed subject to the primacy of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, with the same beliefs, but minor differences in traditions and rites. But I realize this doesn't narrow the list a whole lot.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Yeah, yeah. I know. They're all Christians, except for the ones who aren't, and all the names and ceremonies and interpretations are inconsequential if they happen to be True Scotsmen... er... Christians.
I can understand how that list looks like the meaning of the word "one" to you. It's sort of crucial to be able to accept really exotic interpretations if you're going to believe the bible.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Where, exactly, are you getting your information?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You forgot one - namely, the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism.
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
My estimate of the number of Christian denominations comes from the Handbook of Christian Denominations. My exact count of the number of churches actually established by Jesus Christ comes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts.
Schism between Eastern and Western (ie Orthodox and Catholic) traditions occurred in the 11th century, but each Church recognizes the validity of the others episcopacy, priesthood and sacraments.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
From my understanding, even the earliest christians were a diverse group. That's why there are Pauline tradition, Jerusalem tradition, gnostics, marcionites, etc. Those are just the ones I have heard about, I'm betting there were more. There has never been such a thing as one church.
Totus, I want to know where you got your information that the church was a single entity for 1500 years.
Census data's good enough for knowing the number of churches.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
totus, I would suggest you read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity
In less than 300 years there were 5 very different sects of Christianity, all teaching different things.
Which one is right?
Edit: If the link does not work, google early christianity. First link.
tt, good comeback on the historical stuff. You seem to have looked into that a bit more than me.
But it still, the god you are following and the "heroes" of the Bible commited many atrocities. This is a God that demands that you fear him.
I disagree about your quote meaning that there is only one god. There are many more quotes specifically mentioning that there are others.
As far as heretics go: you are still coming at this from the point of view of a Christian, not from the open point of view of someone choosing a religion. These other religions consider Christians as heretics. As far as the other Christian religions go, you called them heretics as well, do they still get to be saved or do they go to hell because they got the semantics wrong? (genuinely curious).
I haven't looked into Buddism much either. At it's base it is a philosophy. Shintoism is animistic I think it is more about spirits than gods (there is an issue with translation). But at least both of these say that how you are treated after death is based on how you acted in this life, not just on what you belived.
I look forward to your (and others) reply(s).
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
Thanks for the link.
Very interesting reading, but not accurate, I think. Not because these sects didn't exist, nor because these weren't inspired to one degree or another by the teachings of Jesus Christ, but because these sects denied the central tenet of Christianity. I think it was Hillaire Belloc, perhaps GK Chesterton, who sadi that all of the great heresies were either attacks on the divinity of Jesus Christ, or attacks on the priesthood of the Church.
Adoptionism was an 8th century heresy, so I'm not sure why it was listed in the article. Its predecessor was Nestorianism, bot of which insisted on the "adoption" of a human Jesus by God the Father, thereby denying Christ full divinity and his pre-existence prior to the Incarnation. That Jesus Christ was something special from the moment of his arrival in human form at his birth, in fact since his conception in n the womb of his Blessed Mother is made abundantly clear in the Nativity and Infancy narrative of Luke.
Arianism was the great heresy common around the time of Constantine. In fact, the Emperor himself may have been an Arian as opposed to an orthodox christian. An examination of Arianism makes quite clear its roots in the earlier group of errors collectively known as Gnosticism. Christ was seen as a second, "inferior" god, not acting as one Person of the Triune God. That this is not so is clearly seen from the prologue to the Gospel of John.
Gnosticism is a term applied to a group of early errors within the Church, the earliest of which was probably Cerinthianism, which may its appearance during the long lifetime of John the Apostle. In fact, the prologue to John's Gospel is a direct refutation of the admixture of Christain theology and Greek mythology to form a hierarchy of gods. Gnosticism held the inherent evil of physical existence, the idea that men were souls "trapped" within the matter of human bodies. This directly contradicts Genesis, where God sees that his Creation is "good", and never pronounces otherwise.
Marcionism demanded separation from Judaism, expurgated three of the four gospels from the Scriptures, held the concept of dual opposing gods (the demiurge of some Gnostic sects), the inherent evil of matter. This again contradicts Genesis, and John (whom Marcion held, along with Peter and James, to be a false apostle).
I could find little on the heresy of Montanism, save that Tertullian fell prey to its error, and that it held that the mission of salvation of Jesus Christ had been a failure. Which Gospel doesn't that contradict?
Three of the five errors listed above are not just heresy, but apostasy, IMO.
That Jesus Christ founded one Church is abundantly clear from the Scriptures. He indoctrinated his Apostles into this Church, charging them with safeguarding this Gospel and spreading it to the ends of the earth. He appointed Peter and his successors to guide the others in this mission. Any teaching counter to that enunciated by Jesus Christ, recorded and taught by his Apostles, and safeguarded by his Church is error. That Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church, the message is contained in Scriptures and sacred Tradition, the message is protected by the Magesterium of the Catholic Chruch, that is the bishops, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, successor to St Peter as Vicar of Christ.
Lets' take a closer look now at the "No True Scotsman fallacy" fallacy. Just suppose that there was a club for atheists which had several tenets to which members had to subscribe. We'll call it the "Society of Really, Really Smart Rational People". That principle among these tenets was healthy doubt in the existence of God. I join this club subscribing to that doubt, but after a period of membership, decide that I can hold all the tenets required for club membership except doubt in the existence of God. In fact, I begin to proudly proclaim my membership in the Society of Really, Really Smart Rational People side by side with my theism.
Am I still an atheist as defined by the club charter? Should I be surprised when my membership is revoked?
I think you'll agree with the answers "certainly not" and "not at all".
Sorry for being so long winded.
Hamby, I may be being presumptuous, but I think that perhaps I answered your question as well in this post. Lemme know if not.
Tchuss!
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Thanks. History if kinda a thing with me.
I suppose that I do fear the consequences of displeasing God, but I iknow that his punishments are just, and his mercy is great. I can only suppose that those peoples upon whom he took retribution in the OT were fairly warned (eg Egypt by Moses, Nineveh by Jonah), and then did not heed his message (like Egypt. Nineveh, on the other hand did heed his warning and were spared).
I realize myself that this citation is not conclusive. But there are philosophical problems with polytheism and its immanent gods and scientific inquiry which the montheism of Christianity manages to avoid. I'm still working on the way I want to present it here and hope to soon.
First off, I think my definition of a heretic is much narrower than yours. My definition would be a person who has been baptized in the faith denying some truth which must be believed. Only a person baptized into the Catholic Church can be a heretic. Ergo, Martin Luther was a heretic, my Lutheran friend is not.
Second, salvation is possible for believers outside of the Catholic faith. I hope to be able to explain later.
Time's short right now, and I goota run again. Hope to be able to post again later this morning.
Tchuss!
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Remember a film called "Return Of The Jedi"? And a quote from a certain Obi Wan Kenobi: "Many of the truths we cling to depend on a certain point of view."
On a side note, perhaps the atheists in the audience might like to allow theists to answer this (and other posts) without leaping in with any smug, "more intelligent than thou", smartass comments. Because, believe me, they make you look every bit as ignorant and intolerant as the religions you despise.
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." (Kris Kristofferson)
Except that you have it backwards - Jesus didn't establish the church and the writers wrote about it. Paul and the writers of the gospels created the religion and then wrote Jesus in as the establisher of the faith.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hold on it makes us look ignorant and intolerant when we make comments about things that we have heard as reasons? I bet every comment made by an atheist in this thread has been heard , in all seriousness , by some atheist, and thus is just trying to make comments about what they heard and thought was funny (because i'm sorry many of them are hilarious). So please do explain how it makes us soooo intolerant?
Also on the intolerence thing, when was the last time you heard an atheist on this board want to actually discrimate against some theist instead of either a) attacking some belief or b) making fun of some silly belief which are not intolerent whatsoever.
Interesting theory. How's the chronology for that run?
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Modern scholarship puts Paul completing his work around 55-65 CE. Mark was written in about 70 CE. That leads me to my conjecture that Paul created your religion and the Gospel writers made up a backstory and the Jesus character.
This is about the time you bring up the opinions of early church fathers and/or J.A.T. Robinson claiming that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses, isn't it?
My view is still a lot easier to believe than God died and still raised himself from the dead.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
So, totus, what you are saying is that you have somehow chosen the correct religion out of the 3,000 some denominations? Further, you know different than what common knowledge in the historical community says is truth?
Do you realize exactly how this sounds like every Christian that claims they have the 'one true flavor' after reading a few books that support one of the millions of different possibilities?