One Question, One Response (aka - Stump the Apologist)

[Randy Carson]

Randy,

YOUR QUOTE: "But Christianity is not just about what happens when we die. It's about a relationship with a loving Savior and about our relationships with one another."

HUH? How can you now state that your Savior is loving when you earlier and explicitly called him earlier a "moral monster?!"  Please explain!

I'm happy to explain, again, because some kids in the class are slower to catch on than others, apparently.

1. You wanted to debate me about what you perceive to be the evils of God as seen in the Old Testament. 
2. In order to have a debate, there must a statement or "resolution" that both sides agree upon and which will be the centerpiece to be attacked and defended.
3. I proposed a resolution that I thought you would find acceptable since it captures your view of God in the OT.
4. Realizing that you were about to get your clock cleaned in grand fashion, you chose to abandon the debate and to focus your pathetic efforts on the theologically erroneous proposition that I have committed the unpardonable sin by the mere proposition of a statement of YOUR belief - a statement I would have demolished in due course.

How long have you been off your meds, 21C?

And is that your room number at the institution where you are currently being supervised by medical professionals?

[Johan]

WWJD? Insults apparently. Nice.

[21CIconoclast]

I'm happy to explain, again, because some kids in the class are slower to catch on than others, apparently.

1. You wanted to debate me about what you perceive to be the evils of God as seen in the Old Testament. 
2. In order to have a debate, there must a statement or "resolution" that both sides agree upon and which will be the centerpiece to be attacked and defended.
3. I proposed a resolution that I thought you would find acceptable since it captures your view of God in the OT.
4. Realizing that you were about to get your clock cleaned in grand fashion, you chose to abandon the debate and to focus your pathetic efforts on the theologically erroneous proposition that I have committed the unpardonable sin by the mere proposition of a statement of YOUR belief - a statement I would have demolished in due course.

How long have you been off your meds, 21C?

And is that your room number at the institution where you are currently being supervised by medical professionals?

Randy,

All of your rhetoric shown above is yet another excuse for you to RUN from debating your primitive faith, duly noted. What's next, if its cloudy at the time you're posting and you're wearing blue underwear and the tempature is under 58 degrees, you have an extra day to respond in a debate with me?  Additionally, if you can't find the apologetic book that you need to support your ignorance in your fairy tale belief, and it's raining outside, and you're out of coffee, then you don't need to address my questions?  Unfortunately, you're unable to see how outwardly ridiculous you are. LOL

Randy, get used to the FACT that I have superior biblical knowledge over your feeble attempts of defending your primitive faith, as it has been explicitly shown in the threads where you've become eerily silent to my posts to you. I eat insidious apologetic books for lunch, and hermeneutics for dinner. It goes with the territory when the pseudo-christian like yourself comes up against the Atheist that has forgotten more about your primitive Bronze and Iron Age bible, than you'll ever learn about it. FACT!

Listen, I understand completely why you don't want to debate me on the fact that you're to follow the Old Testament, and other primitive topics of your faith, and that is because I pointed out to you that without question, you've committed the UNPARDONABLE SIN, and where you even admitted to this fact!, Therefore, you're afraid that I will uncover more of your biblical ignorance, where in turn, your Yahweh will be holding the hottest place in Hell for your eventful arrival.  Thats it, isn't it? LOL   


Randy, what running shoes do you wear, Nike, Converse, Reebok, or?  The picture below is the last pseudo-christian that tried in vain to debate me on their primitive belief, and he did exactly what you're doing now, USING EVERY EXCUSE IN THE CHRISTIAN PLAYBOOK TO RUN AWAY SO THEY WON'T BE MADE THE FOOL AGAIN!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why?

If you promised to take your kids to Disney World if they made straight A's in school, would you take them if they screwed around all year and earned C's instead?

Dmdass level 99.

[marom1963]

All of that, and the Promised Land was already occupied.  Since these occupants were human and of this Earth, I'd suspect god created them.  So, he owned them and could do what he goddamned well wanted to.  Wasting them was no big deal--all in a days work; and child's play according what he had to do for the Flood.  A few times around Jericho and Joshua, the Savior, got to be the instrument of all that destruction; but it's all good, none of the good guys died.  Man, those must have been the good old days for him--now all he gets to do is rig up things like 9/11 or Katrina.

Yeah, well, he's getting old. And bored. And we're not so interested in his work any more. So he just wakes from his nap now and then and throws a few planes at towers and lets the guy in the funny hat make monsters into saints. Once in a while, he cuts a fart and turns it into AIDS for the fags, you know, nothing special. Then he goes back to sleep.

[aitm]

Question: Is every verse absolutely provably true?
Answer: No

Then I feel for a person who spends so much time in their life scurrying to confirm the religion their parents convinced them was true but now realizes it is complete bullshit but is too embarrassed to admit it to themselves, so they feverishly try to convince other people that the same bullshit it true to justify their gullibility and stupidity. Too bad randy, you had real promise when you were younger, but it's still not too late to bring some real relief to your tortured self. Do the work yourself. Go thru that babble one verse at a time and demand the same morality of your god as you would your child.

If you can do that and still claim your god is a god, then please stay the fuck away from my kids and grandkids….and society in general because that is one sick piece of shit you call god.

[Johan]

I like aitm's line of thinking. So I withdraw my previous follow on question about the fate of all who existed before the first jesus world tour. I may want to reinstate it later, but you seem to be ignoring it so lets go down a different path for now.

We understand that certain parts of the bible are metaphor and not be taken literally while other parts are absolutely meant to be taken exactly as they are written. To my knowledge, the scriptures were not written in color coded ink using certain colors to denote passages which are metaphor from those that are literal. Therefore, someone has to decide which is which. So who gets to decide? And why should I respect their authority any more than I do my own?

[dtq123]

I like aitm's line of thinking. So I withdraw my previous follow on question about the fate of all who existed before the first jesus world tour. I may want to reinstate it later, but you seem to be ignoring it so lets go down a different path for now.

We understand that certain parts of the bible are metaphor and not be taken literally while other parts are absolutely meant to be taken exactly as they are written. To my knowledge, the scriptures were not written in color coded ink using certain colors to denote passages which are metaphor from those that are literal. Therefore, someone has to decide which is which. So who gets to decide? And why should I respect their authority any more than I do my own?

The best case scenario? A person's who's studied everything about the bible to the point where he can quote the most obscure verse in the book.

The Pope's the best shot we have.

[Johan]

I want randy's answer.

[Randy Carson]

I like aitm's line of thinking. So I withdraw my previous follow on question about the fate of all who existed before the first jesus world tour. I may want to reinstate it later, but you seem to be ignoring it so lets go down a different path for now.

I apologize. I did not mean to ignore that post. If you would like me to address it, just let me know the post #. Thanks.

We understand that certain parts of the bible are metaphor and not be taken literally while other parts are absolutely meant to be taken exactly as they are written. To my knowledge, the scriptures were not written in color coded ink using certain colors to denote passages which are metaphor from those that are literal. Therefore, someone has to decide which is which. So who gets to decide? And why should I respect their authority any more than I do my own?

This is a good question, and the answer is going to open a huge can of worms, but that's okay...I'm ready.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current.

"For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter.

"Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

As has been pointed out by others in this forum, the Bible did not simply drop out of the sky. And the New Testament, specifically, was written by the Church for the Church to understood within the context of the Church.

As you know, Jesus did not write a book; he promised to build a church (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) and to give all of the authority he had received from his Father to her. The Catholic Church is that church built by Jesus upon Peter, the rock and first pope. This Church speaks in his name and cannot lead the sheep of His flock astray by teaching error in His name. Consequently, we say that the Church is protected by the charism of infallibility.

When in doubt about the proper interpretation of scripture, look to the teaching of God's infallible Church for guidance.

Hope this helps.

[sdelsolray]

Question: Is every verse absolutely provably true?
Answer: No

Then I feel for a person who spends so much time in their life scurrying to confirm the religion their parents convinced them was true but now realizes it is complete bullshit but is too embarrassed to admit it to themselves, so they feverishly try to convince other people that the same bullshit it true to justify their gullibility and stupidity. Too bad randy, you had real promise when you were younger, but it's still not too late to bring some real relief to your tortured self. Do the work yourself. Go thru that babble one verse at a time and demand the same morality of your god as you would your child.

If you can do that and still claim your god is a god, then please stay the fuck away from my kids and grandkids….and society in general because that is one sick piece of shit you call god.

Carson projects his own internal emotions and psychology upon his imaginary sky fairies, with the help of prior indoctrination and peer pressure from others of similar persuasion.  I doubt he is able to objectively see them as immoral or, as you put it, "sick pieces of shit".  That's because if he did, he would be calling himself that as well.  Can't have that.

[Johan]

When in doubt about the proper interpretation of scripture, look to the teaching of God's infallible Church for guidance.

Hope this helps.

Not really. In a nut shell I asked what makes them (those who get to decide how to interpret the bible) qualified to do so. And your answer is essentially because they said so. Maybe that answer works for you and maybe you're willing to gamble that the church is infallible simply because the church says so. But I don't for a minute believe the church is infallible. The church can kiss my ass for all I care.

[Randy Carson]

God sent his son here to spread the word and whatnot so that we could all be saved. So what fate awaited all the people who lived and died before jesus came for his first and so far only visit? I mean, were they all just fucked from the get go?

No. They awaited Jesus in a place we refer to as the "Limbo of the Fathers".

Also known as “Abraham’s Bosom”, Limbo of the Fathers gets its name from the Latin word “limbus” which means “hem” or “edge” of a garment. Limbo is envisioned as the edge of the Netherworld.  It contained trees and water, and it was in this natural paradise that the ancients who died before the time of Christ dwelled after death while waiting for the Messiah to redeem them. When Jesus promised the good thief that “today you will be with me in Paradise”, the Limbo of the Fathers is the place to which He was referring.

The term, “the harrowing of hell” refers to the harrowing or harvesting of the good souls who were waiting for Jesus to take them to heaven. He did not, however, descend all the way to the depths of Gehenna, the lowest point in the underworld, and Thomas Aquinas refutes this heresy in the Summa Theologiae (III, q.52, a. 2.)

The Limbo of the Fathers:

•   Contains water
•   Abraham is present
•   Souls are at peace

Luke 16:22-23 (RSVCE)
22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also dies and was buried 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz′arus in his bosom.

Below the Limbo of the Fathers, the Jews envisioned the “underworld” (Latin â€" infernus) as being made up of She’ol and Gehenna.

[Randy Carson]

Not really. In a nut shell I asked what makes them (those who get to decide how to interpret the bible) qualified to do so. And your answer is essentially because they said so. Maybe that answer works for you and maybe you're willing to gamble that the church is infallible simply because the church says so. But I don't for a minute believe the church is infallible. The church can kiss my ass for all I care.

And that is your choice. However, you should choose based upon knowledge and not upon your feelings.

Infallibility Explained by Reasoning from the Scriptures
Excerpted from an article by Jeffrey Mirus, PhD
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith -- indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed "my" (Christ's) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ's absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master's return is very much to the point.

Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. This authority was exercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ's will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).

Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation -- that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ's own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.

Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error -- else the powers of hell would prevail.

This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.

Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ's teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible -- the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable".

[reasonist]

And that is your choice. However, you should choose based upon knowledge and not upon your feelings.

Coming from a theist...