So, you're too lazy to read and are trying to Ti based upon limited Te as a replacement for Te. Go read. You're not even intelligible on the subject matter. Y'all argue with me, argue with Eliza, and pat yallselves on the back for Ti, and don't even realize that y'all look ridiculous, because y'all are so extremely uneducated on the subject matter. It's like y'all's knowledge on the subject is derived solely from random google searches and assumptions.Originally Posted by Subteigh
You seem to presume that I have not read everything there is to know on the several tens of thousands of Christian sects.
Also, as you have accepted all those sects as having valid interpretations of Christ, I only have to take you up on one of those interpretations. One focusing exclusively on the bible would be a perfectly satisfactory choice.
Again, considering that you consider Jesus's teachings to have been ethical, why do you consider it ethical for a person like Anne Frank to burn in Hell for eternity, a doctrine that the biblical Jesus clearly thought was acceptable?
Either you're trolling, or you're borderline handicapped.
Let's just accept that you're wrong, and are unwilling or incapable of proving that you are correct.
You should stop these ad hominems, and apologise.
God you're dense. Let me spell it out for you, since you're that ignorant. Go read the doctrine and catechism.
You made the claim. The onus is on you to prove that Jesus was ethical. As you have already ascribed the entirety of all the collected works of all the Christian sects to Christ's "ethical" teachings (including contradictory ones), you have already demonstrated that your Jesus believed that the doctrine of Damnation was acceptable.
What reason do you have for thinking that God is dense? I consider God immaterial, based on the evidence.
Also, what reason do you have for the ad hominems? You've already made it relatively opaque that there is only beliefs, no proofs: I have no reason to even believe that you believe your insults - they are merely manifestations of your "ethics".
Onus? I'm sorry, but you've asked for proof, and I have given such.
Why are you being fallacious? Do you not understand what a fallacy is? You seem to be under the impression that fallacies are an acceptable practice in discussions.
LOL... no. no I am not.. , and I can reference all 73 of the canon if I need to.. I'm sorry, I am all of time for your unsupported assertions.. O.oYou're not even quoting the right book in your arguments.
Look up the definition of "immaterial" .. O.oI consider God immaterial, based on the evidence.
You're telling someone who has a formal education on the subject as being uneducated on the subject... That's cute..realize that y'all look ridiculous, because y'all are so extremely uneducated on the subject matter.
Incorrect, it's based on college and published academic journals in accredited journals of religion and theology.. If you like, I can also post some lectures from Yale regarding the Canaanite culture and the Israelites .. You can also feel free to look up "African Origins of Religion, and how religion evolved out of Africa" ... I don't have the time to educate you on every facet of the origin of your religious beliefs.., but it is safe to say that I am not the one who's uneducated on the subject here.. Your religion is nothing more than Pagan monotheism..., and even arguably still polytheistic giving that certain Christian denominations worship Jesus as a GOD, the son of Yahweh... Hell, there are even Atheist Christians out there if you want a bit of entertainment...It's like y'all's knowledge on the subject is derived solely from random google searches and assumptions.
Lastly, nobody said the Bible was "Christianity" vs the doctrine of "Christianity".. Christianity is the following and worshiping of Jesus Christ and his teachings, and Jesus would have been within the ranks of Judaism.. Also you are still avoiding the unethical aspects of his teachings and often pandering to Narcisism (Love me, love me more than your family and self, believe or be cast into the lake of fire)... You and I have a very different definition for what is "ethical" ..
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-22-2016 at 04:52 AM.
Here, I am going to prove that you're incorrect yet again.
There you have it. Case closed.Catholic Doctrine and Catechism
You didn't refer specifically to Catholic dogma before. You referred to Christ, and you said that one must reference all sects of Christianity in regards Christianity's (and Christ's beliefs). Thus, it is quite satisfactory to prove you wrong referring to only one sect that shows Jesus's views to be unethical. I do not need to go through what all the Christian sects say about Jesus - I do not need to refer to more than one sect to find unethical Jesuses. As it is, the New Testament: typically the core book of Christian religion is clear that Jesus had unethical viewpoints.
Catholic dogma - i.e. later modifications to the theology of the early Christian church is pretty clear that Jesus believed in Damnation, and that he considered it acceptable, and that he thought those who did not follow him and obey his commandants would end up in hell. Many later variants of mainstream Catholicism may deviate from these views while still considering themselves Catholic, but this is irrelevant to demonstrating what the bible taught, and what most Christian sects throughout history have taught and thought about Christ's views.
You could have said that in reality, Jesus did not actually hold these views. However, you would have had zero proof for this position, especially considering that the evidence for the historical Jesus is not especially strong. In all probability, it is probably more likely that he existed than he did not, but it is not even possible to verify that any of the words attributed to him in the New Testament were actually said by him, nevermind what you suppose him to have said, or what you claim he said according to later church traditions (and which you seem to allude to, in order to justify your claim that Jesus' teachings were ethical: you still will not say which teachings Jesus actually said, and which Catholic sect (or any Christian sect, as you previously indicated that all Christian sects were valid for establishing this "ethical" claim).
You still need to demonstrate how Jesus' teachings were ethical: mainstream Catholic doctrine does not remove the doctrine of Damnation. Are you sure you actually know what you are talking about? And why are you now intent on proving something, when before you said everything was merely "belief"?
I say God is immaterial, literally, because a god is a being of no substance, and also because there is no substance to those who say that such a being exists, and also, because such entities has no measurable effect on my life and in the wider universe.
1. Having no matter or substance.
2. So insubstantial as to be irrelevant.
You're lying and saying that someone's beliefs are not their beliefs lol
When did I say that?
Can you please demonstrate why you consider Jesus's teachings to be ethical?
I already gave you the answer. Go read.
So it's settled then; Jesus was round.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Too much fish and wine.
Sorry, I was short for time this morning.., thought I was quoting Jeremy ... I would agree
Square with rounded corners.. The Earth is a triangle while Christianity is still trying to decide what shape it is with 33,000 + undecided shapes.. But don't you give me a star, I am a rectangle this shit..!
I went through the last few pages and I haven't found a single place where you directly addressed anything cited in regards to the unethical conduct of Jesus.. However, I am not going to go through 13 pages .., so feel free to make an official response here.
Really?
All of it.Catholic Doctrine and Catechism
No, I was clearly joking.. /s
For you to prove that Jesus was ethical to both our satisfaction, you need to:
- Admit that things can be proven, and not merely be beliefs.
- Prove that Jesus existed.
- Prove that Jesus said the things attributed to him.
- Prove that those things were all ethical, without exception.
- Prove that you believe all these things.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".The Catechism is still pretty clear that those who do not believe in god and those who not accept Christ as their Saviour will be sent to hell for eternity...and that the bible itself is sufficient and representative of Christ's teachings.1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"614
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."616
Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."617
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;618 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":619
Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.
Nice try, but you just proved my point about premise-affirming searches. Try again.
Actually, it proved the latter.... , and we have yet to see you address whether you believe that to be ethical.. What is scary is when people like you will literally rationalize unethical things and atrocities as ethical and moral... As they say, if you can convince people of absurdities, you can get them to accept and even commit atrocities.. Worse yet, you literally worship Narcissism through what is Stockholm Syndrome. You should try looking those up, neither are admirable qualities.. Furthermore, you are using the above argument to literally avoid addressing each point and example presented..., and that tells me that you likely already know you are in a indefensible position and that which has been cited is indeed unethical
It didn't prove the latter lol. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know it didn't lol.
jesus didn't say it much in the synoptic gospels and there's a possible political interpretation since caesar probably referred to himself as the son of god.
Incorrect
Unfortunately for you, I do know what I am talking about..., and it did.. Even in the non-canon books the unethical message and narcissism is essentially the same.. By doctrine, your religion is sociopathic, immoral, narcissistic, and unethical.. Well, that and that it is Pagan Philosophy, mythology, oral traditions, and rituals. You treat woeful ignorance like it is a force to be strong with... O.oIf you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know it didn't lol.
If you want some fun.. do some research on Hadad and the sons of hadad "Sons of Thunder", and then reference Jesus's disciples who are "Sons of thunder"Oh the ring of Ba'al Hadad echos in Jesus's iconography, and as those of the apostles..
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-23-2016 at 12:14 AM.
No it didn't lol. You're ignorant as hell of my religion lol.Incorrect
Unfortunately for you, I do know what I am talking about..., and it did.. Even in the non-canon books the unethical message and narcissism is essentially the same.. By doctrine, your religion is sociopathic, immoral, narcissistic, and unethical.. Well, that and that it is Pagan Philosophy, mythology, oral traditions, and rituals. You treat woeful ignorance like it is a force to be strong with... O.o
If you want some fun.. do some research on Hadad and the sons of hadad "Sons of Thunder", and then reference Jesus's disciples who are "Sons of thunder"
You stated that your religion was Catholicism..., and whether you can admit it or not, I am correct. The Catholic canon is comprised of 73 books to which includes The Deuteronomy.. Even the Good News Bible Catholic Edition of the Bible is subject to everything stated above.. Even when Catholics use of liturgy (This to which is pretty much self-invented crank), They have tried to erase Yahwism entirely ..., this where "Yahweh" has been replaced by "the LORD" throughout theOld Testament. This especially when we have come to understand that Yahweh was a Pagan deity from the Canaanite Pantheon.. and the Psalms have been completely replaced by the 1963 Grail Psalter despite that the Psalms were actually the hymns of the Canaanite godhead El. They are as crank as the Mormons claiming the 2nd book of Abraham from Egyptian Papyri about Horus. The Catholicism is no more credible than Joseph Smith. Basically making up their own version of bronze age mythology.. This while St. John Damascene's "Fount of Knowledge" is nothing more than quote mined attributes /epithets from the Bible and the assimilation of pantheism and penentheism.. All you are doing is trying to say that the orange peel has nothing to do with the orange, this is pleading at best.., it all goes back to Paganism..
You can further feel free to tell me which of these doctrines you subscribe to:
- RSV-Catholic Edition (CE)
- RSV-2ND CE
- NRSV-CE
- NAB-revised edition
- Douay Rheims-Challoner Revision
- Knox Version
Even your Sacraments derive directly from Paganism while yet remaining entirely subject to the unethical immorality already cited..
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-23-2016 at 08:12 AM.
You're being pretty goofy. You're still attempting to argue validity of beliefs, which I already previously stated I would not do so anymore. What I am arguing is that you're off on what the beliefs are that you're attempting to argue the validity of lol.
You're not educated on what Catholicism is, so you're having to derp around resources to try and argue (Ti) due to your lack knowledge (Te). I'm point blank telling you that one of your arguments about the validity of Catholicism's beliefs is off, because it's not Catholicism's beliefs lol. If you want to discuss Catholicism, go learn it first. If you want to discuss Christianity, understand that Christianity includes Catholicism, and that your arguments will be derp if they are contradictory to Catholicism.
Validity matters..., and it's not just the historicity and validity of a belief, it is whether or not such are ethical and moral.. Are you saying unethical and immoral beliefs should be held in high regards as those that are ethical, moral, and honest? And what makes you think that your version of Pagan beliefs, oral traditions, mythology, philosophy, and rituals are more true and valid than those they evolved from? And you tell me that I am being Goofy? Seriously? O.o
Incorrect.. Your denial of what it actually is.., is not my problem ...You're not educated on what Catholicism is, so you're having to derp around resources to try and argue (Ti) due to your lack knowledge (Te).
Actually they are... The fact that you don't seem to know that they are is rather embarrassing on your part..I'm point blank telling you that one of your arguments about the validity of Catholicism's beliefs is off, because it's not Catholicism's beliefs lol.
I had learned Catholicism a long time ago, and you aren't educating me on that it's a denomination of Christianity... It's not my arguments that are derp kiddo, I am not the one trying to deny the orange peel having anything to do with the orange.. I am not the one who needs educating on Catholicism here.. All Catholic beliefs are rooted from scripture.., and that includes the very scripture we have discussed.. If you need help with that Jeremy, you can feel free to reference a 1st party source:If you want to discuss Catholicism, go learn it first. If you want to discuss Christianity, understand that Christianity includes Catholicism, and that your arguments will be derp if they are contradictory to Catholicism.
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/belief...e-bible-alone/
That's Catholicism for dummies essentially..., seriously, don't ever come to me and tell me that I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to Catholicism. You are in an indefensible position..
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-23-2016 at 08:48 PM.
They aren't, and now you're just blatantly lying.
Incorrect.. You will not find a single Catholic in the position of authority that will tell you that the foundation of their beliefs do not come from scripture etc (whether quote mined, referenced, or interpreted) .. Good luck with that..
Dude, you have serious issues with faulty logic. You're not even following the conversation.
The Catholic Church does not condemn nor pass judgement on anyone; Judgement is by God alone and is unknown by man
It often does, has, and will likely do so... Furthermore, Ecclesiastical Court exists, and the Bishop holds the power to judge for his church.. And furthermore, nobody here was directly just addressing the "Church"... You have to be completely dense to say it is I who isn't following along here.., and history is not on your side.., especially if we want to get into issue of misogyny and the subjugation of women..
No it doesn't.
You need a history lesson on the Catholic Church.., this including what they did to Galileo who was brought before an inquisition... I could also reference Joan of Ark, Jon Hus, William Tyndale, the inquisitions, mid evil witch hunts, putting people to death for heresy and so forth.. They are even still involved in witch hunts in Africa to this current day (Sub-Saharan Africa and Papua New Guinea) (Ally, Yaseen (June 2009). "Witch Hunts in Modern South Africa Retrieved 9 December 2013 / de Waal, Mandy (30 May 2012)."Witch Hunts: The Darkness won't go away". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 9 December2013... You can even look up Adversus Judaeos.. Further still they were directly and indirectly involved in the genocide of Croatian Jews, Serbs, and Roman citizens.Your argument that they don't is a laughable joke, and it wasn't until the rise of secularism and the age of enlightenment did Christianity become sort of tamed. The Church is by no means "innocent", and to this day it remains as corrupt as ever..., they don't even think they are subject to common law with their abuse of children.. You have no real argument in that matter..., and you would have best said that "some churches don't"..., but even then you are still praising and worship a sociopathic and Narcissistic religion.. The cognitive dissonance becomes apparent..
Last edited by TheJackal; 02-25-2016 at 04:58 AM.
You need a reality lesson. "Does" doesn't equal "did."
You can't just go around cherry-picking information to build a weak house of cards and call a belief of yours fact. Catholicism doesn't pass judgement on people, which is a fact. No amount of "logic" is going to change that, because it's a fact. You're just going to wind up a nutcase if you spend your whole life desperately trying to argue against reality.
Yes it does.. It wasn't the magical evil tooth fairy ...You need a reality lesson. "Does" doesn't equal "did."
Sorry, providing examples isn't "Cherry Picking"..., it is providing examples..., and I could go on right into what they did with the Incas in Peru.. Not only did Catholicism do this sort of stuff in doctrine, the church did as well.
You can't just go around cherry-picking information to build a weak house of cards and call a belief of yours fact.
Posting Permissions
