Educate Yourself thread

Aboulia

Woodpecker
"since there are already many examples of solid proof which shows us god doesnt exist, keeping belief of god is considered weak minded,yes.
Although its mostly emotional, not logical. Not every person can differentiate."

So, you're not attacking our Christian beliefs, just saying they're false and for the weak minded. We'll see how the mods feel about the above. I'd like to see you thrown out. I can get condescending atheism from other sources if I feel like it.

Christians are called to maintain their calm in the face of persecution, being persecuted, persecute not. I wouldn't toss him out yet. He's got a basic standard view that's taught in schools. If he persists without reason, sure, but the last thing you want is an echochamber, it makes people weak.
 

bucky

Ostrich
Christians are called to maintain their calm in the face of persecution, being persecuted, persecute not. I wouldn't toss him out yet. He's got a basic standard view that's taught in schools. If he persists without reason, sure, but the last thing you want is an echochamber, it makes people weak.

I think "persecution" is a bit grandiose for dealing with a typical neckbeard atheist pseudo-intellectual. "Annoyance" is more like it. I'm a not a mod, but my guess would be that he'll be gone soon.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Come on, man. "Pope or no Pope" is far more than a 0.01% percent difference. I've never met a Catholic to whom the Pope is less than hugely important in the decade or so I've been in a Catholic marriage...
As @ilostabet has pointed out (not in this thread), prior to the Industrial Revolution, most Catholics did not even know who the Pope was, let alone seeing him in person. There were very bad popes throughout history, and it did not affect the local priests or the teachings of the local churches.

Furthermore, when the Orthodox and Catholics split, a random villager somewhere in Romania (or wherever) would not even be aware that a split had taken place until centuries later.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
I think "persecution" is a bit grandiose for dealing with a typical neckbeard atheist pseudo-intellectual. "Annoyance" is more like it. I'm a not a mod, but my guess would be that he'll be gone soon.

Christ only had harsh words for those who he knew wouldn't repent. If you look at his profile, he's Turkish, his views towards God could be directed toward Islam, and he's right to reject that. Not everyone here was born and lives in a Western liberal society.
 
The men who put the Bible together referred to clergy as “Father.” Not because the individual men were teachers in and of themselves, but because they are ideally reflections of our Father in Heaven, passing along the faith delivered to the Apostles.

St. Jerome wrote that calling priests Father was a tradition that developed in Eastern monasteries, and we can subsequently deduce that it wasn’t being done in the West up until that time. However, the West obviously saw no issue with it, as they kept the verse “call no man father” in the Bible - along with the parts where Paul refers to himself as one of the congregation’s fathers in Christ, as well as the parts where John refers to his parishioners as his children.

So even if it wasn’t a formalized tradition yet the way it is today, it’s clear from other verses that the idea and title of spiritual fatherhood are not what Jesus rebuked, but rather men who want to be your “teachers” in doctrines that aren’t from God.
 
He is talking spiritually here. The flesh and blood of Jesus Christ is the Word of God, the Bible, the scriptures. Also you are not actually eating God's physical flesh and drinking His physical blood when consuming the Eucharist, it is a symbolic ritual in rememberance of Christ and what He did.

That is part of the pagan influences in the Catholic/Orthodox church. Pagans always need visible symbols (idols, statues etc) and need to do physical things. They don't have as much faith in that which is unseen.

Ah yes, the old "gnosticism is the true faith, the Church had it backwards for the first 16 centuries" argument. The prideful underpinning of this thread is really a thing to behold, given that its author admitted he is a "new Christian" just before lecturing those who are both older in the faith and far better-read on Church history than he is. Perhaps you should take your own advice, Psalm27, and "educate yourself" on Christian history before telling everyone else that you know better than us.
 
The prideful underpinning of this thread is really a thing to behold, given that its author admitted he is a "new Christian" just before lecturing those...
You are correct; 1Timothy 3:6 could easily apply in this case. However...

who are both older in the faith
... 1Timothy 4:12 makes it clear that the age of the Messenger is not the measuring stick to use when ascertaining the validity of the word being spoken.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, Psalm27, and "educate yourself" on Christian history before telling everyone else that you know better than us.
The OP should have exercised more tact in the way he titled/engaged this thread, but his 'opponents' haven't exactly handled themselves in the best way either; maybe just a thought for all involved to consider.

Colossians 4:6
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
Christians are called to maintain their calm in the face of persecution, being persecuted, persecute not. I wouldn't toss him out yet. He's got a basic standard view that's taught in schools. If he persists without reason, sure, but the last thing you want is an echochamber, it makes people weak.
Having an unbeliever fly into a frothing, spittle-spraying rage as he screams blasphemies in your face is not being persecuted. In fact, this type of behavior is degenerate and unacceptable by even most pagan standards. And I can most certainly assure you that his view was not informed by schools, as schools mostly just ignore the subject altogether.

Even third world pagan people are utterly disgusted by this behavior. Don't be fooled. This person has a very personal problem that this forum cannot help him with other than by prayer.
 
since there are already many examples of solid proof which shows us god doesnt exist
Such as?

As an aside, myrica, why are you here? I'm not asking in an accusative manner (at least not yet), but I am curious why you would register for a website that is focused around the exact opposite of how you perceive the First Cause 'origins of the universe' to be.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Having an unbeliever fly into a frothing, spittle-spraying rage as he screams blasphemies in your face is not being persecuted. In fact, this type of behavior is degenerate and unacceptable by even most pagan standards. And I can most certainly assure you that his view was not informed by schools, as schools mostly just ignore the subject altogether.

Even third world pagan people are utterly disgusted by this behavior. Don't be fooled. This person has a very personal problem that this forum cannot help him with other than by prayer.

Well it's a good thing I'm not a pagan then or perhaps I would be flying into a rage demanding that he accept my views under threat of banishment. His posting history shows nothing of the sort. Are you a magical mind reader than can glean into his motivations? When I was a athiest in my teenage years I thought religion was just a mode of controlling people as well.
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
Christ came. Established his churches through the apostles. If you’re outside of the apostolic churches you are in a religion of your own design. I don’t know what else to tell you guy.
But what if the apostolic churches, in the hands of the apostles and especially their successors, have also become (at least partly) products of human design? Has human input not played a part in the development of every church? And are not all humans fallible and prone to error in our understanding of God and Christ?
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
since there are already many examples of solid proof which shows us god doesnt exist, keeping belief of god is considered weak minded,yes.
Although its mostly emotional, not logical. Not every person can differentiate.
What is this alleged “solid proof” that God doesn’t exist? I haven’t seen any convincing “proof”.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Religion isn't ONLY a means of controlling people, but it also is a means to that end. People do need to be controlled - not politically, mind you, but in a sense from a much higher order. Even incomplete religions (like primitive paganisms) are better than the pretense of not having one. SJWism, scientism and so forth are so much more dangerous and wayward because they pretend to not be religions - but we can see with our own eyes how the very necessity of religious creed and ritual manifest in a society which has claimed to abolish it. Just look at the way people reacted to coronavirus (scientism) or the race riots (sjwism). Utterly religious in nature, down to the wearing of special garb and kneeling.

This is why St. Paul says you are either a slave to sin, or a slave to virtue. There's no in between where you are not a slave to something. So religion is indeed, as infantile atheists point out, a way to control people. The infantile part is that they believe no control is needed.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Or, as several Catholic authors put it : man always has to worship something.
The Curé d'Ars used to say that if you leave a countryside Christian parish without priests, in ten years' time they'll start worshipping animals.

Monotheism and the prohibition of idolatry make much more sense when one realizes that.
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
As @ilostabet has pointed out (not in this thread), prior to the Industrial Revolution, most Catholics did not even know who the Pope was, let alone seeing him in person. There were very bad popes throughout history, and it did not affect the local priests or the teachings of the local churches.

Furthermore, when the Orthodox and Catholics split, a random villager somewhere in Romania (or wherever) would not even be aware that a split had taken place until centuries later.
If normative Catholic practice has long included local church independence, how is the Catholic Church different from some Protestant churches—especially the Congregational movement? (My guess is that according to Catholic teaching, the local priests and churches were sometimes in error—right?)
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
According to tradition it is, but the original sword fighting texts make no mention of this. They also point out that in the days of the original twelve sword fighting masters many sword fighting schools had already fallen into serious error, favoring rubber mallets or sharpened sticks over actual swords.

Nevertheless, many legit swordfighting schools adhere to tradition to this day, whereas others just stick to their interpretation of the original texts. All of these schools have had at least some degree of success at killing a guy by successfully sticking a sword in his gut.
 

bucky

Ostrich
But what if the apostolic churches, in the hands of the apostles and especially their successors, have also become (at least partly) products of human design? Has human input not played a part in the development of every church? And are not all humans fallible and prone to error in our understanding of God and Christ?

"It's older therefore it's true/better" seems like a logical fallacy to me. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to encourage anyone to come to me for theological advice, because I can't even make up my mind about whether or not I need to pick a church, and even if I did all of them have things I like as well as stuff I can't see myself ever believing.

I'm just not as quick as the Catholics and Orthodox to blanketly dismiss all Protestant churches because Protestants made America, and I'm a huge fan of America. I mean real heritage America, not the rootless multicultural international bazaar that is the modern USA. I respect the Catholic church, but at the end of the day it's not really an American church, and the various Orthodox churches are even less American.
 
Top