Endless Punishment, Fundie style

[CplFerro]

If Jesus opened the door did anyone before he died get to heaven?

Dear tsig,

As Jesus' sacrifice was for all time and space, I have to say yes. If they didn't, that would eg. make the entire Hebrew nation a mere collection of tools.

Cpl Ferro

 

[bruto]

Dear bruto,

I don't understand your objection to Christ's sacrifice. He offered himself as the final sacrifice to God, which was accepted, meaning that all who align themselves with his sacrifice have their sins atoned for. Christ's death did not Hoover away all sin for all time, but, opened a door for sinners to enter the Kingdom.

Also, do you know the Church's official position on comatose babies? I don't.

Cpl Ferro

Why did a door need to be opened?

The Church's official position is no secret, is it? Babtism is supposed to cleanse a person of original sin. Original sin is presumed to exist for all, including infants who are acknowledged, at least by the Catholic church, not to be an a position to commit sins of their own. From the little I've bothered to read on this, it's pretty clear that original sin exists as a condition of being, and not as a thing you do. If you're going to subscribe to the illogical craziness of original sin, then it must be a condition of being born human and apply to all, whatever they do subsequently.

If you have some knowledge beyond the common conception that is usually put forth, then by all means, tell us what it is.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Nor are you addressing my intent at all, Frozenwolf.

You claimed God is beyond logic. I said, no, he's not, because otherwise we wouldn't be debating him and formulating arguments about him using the tools of language and reason. You responded by changing the subject.

I agree, because such a being would still be a created entity and not the Creator.

You completely missed my point. I'm saying, even if we managed to encounter a being that is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the creator that many Earth cultures have worshiped through the millennia, it would be ethnocentric for you to assume it's your God.

They're irredeemable if God judges them to be irredeemable. And, again, you ignore my point about large-scale societal descent. Mannassa may yet live again.

Your point is based on your false assumption, that people who don't worship your God in your way are idolaters who worship other things. You make several unfounded assumptions in that one statement of yours. How do you know what God is thinking? How do you know which people God judges to be irredeemable? Also, God seems pretty impotent if it's beyond his capacity to redeem them.

All Christians are sinners, but, a true Christian is one who has oriented his heart toward Christ and thus become a new man. I think it entirely possible for someone to fake this, to walk and talk as though, but aren't. Wouldn't you agree? Or is everyone who says, “I'm a Christian!” a Christian, to you?

Yes, because it's dishonest to try and disassociate undesirable people from one's ranks in an attempt to keep the label untarnished. It's even more dishonest to claim that bad Christians are atheists. A Christian is simply someone who professes belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings. One can still do bad things in spite of, or sometimes because of this belief.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Or, Resume, He designed a friend, and gave that friend the ability to choose good or evil, and gave that friend many chances to choose good and hang out forever in His marvellous pad, and when that friend refuses to party cool, He finally turns His back on him and locks the door.

Cpl Ferro

More like he created a friend with a deliberate design flaw, and then punished that "friend" the moment something went wrong. It's like purposely failing to install eyes, and then getting angry with your friend when it stumbles off a cliff. God must have a very warped idea of the meaning of friendship if that's the case.

Fun fact. The creation myth in Genesis was written in an attempt to explain the state of the world as it was, not to blame Adam and Eve for causing the fall of man, or make any claim that the world was once literally perfect. So it's really no different from any other creation myth.

 

[Donn]

How do you know what God is thinking?
How do you know which people God judges to be irredeemable?

These kinds of questions cause the devoted sophist no hurdle whatsoever. They will be assumed as sensible within his special framework and you are the fool for asking. Press him further and you will run into simple bigotry with nothing backing it.

 

[abaddon]

My position, abaddon, is that I don't know.

Why don't you know? You seem quite happy to declare your "knowledge", nay even your certainty on other godly matters, yet on this issue, you claim to be utterly clueless. Did your god forget to cc you on the memo? Or is it that your god is bounded by your own lack of knowledge? Seems to me that your god only has certitude on those issues on which you also have formulated your own opinion. Why would that be? Why would your god agree with you on matters which you have decided, yet have no discernible opinion on matters which you coincidently also have no discernible opinion?

If I had to guess, I'd say the scheme appears to be largely no pain, no gain, so that someone who didn't exert themselves in the Christian life but had the proper desire, would be saved but left at the lower level of Heaven, as it were.

"Guess"? You admit that you are simply making it up?

Any other hard questions to needle me with?

Cpl Ferro

Why bother? You have no answers for even the simplest questions.

 

[tsig]

Why don't you know? You seem quite happy to declare your "knowledge", nay even your certainty on other godly matters, yet on this issue, you claim to be utterly clueless. Did your god forget to cc you on the memo? Or is it that your god is bounded by your own lack of knowledge? Seems to me that your god only has certitude on those issues on which you also have formulated your own opinion. Why would that be? Why would your god agree with you on matters which you have decided, yet have no discernible opinion on matters which you coincidently also have no discernible opinion?

"Guess"? You admit that you are simply making it up?

Why bother? You have no answers for even the simplest questions.

God always seems to have the same knowledge and hate as his followers almost like he's just a version of themselves writ large.

 

[Giordano]

God always seems to have the same knowledge and hate as his followers almost like he's just a version of themselves writ large.

Odd, isn't it?

CplFerro, Clearly, despite your protests otherwise, you must feel that you know the mind of God in great detail. You have clearly thought alot about it, and you have puzzled out what is wrong and right, the goals one should and shouldn't have, and what might happen to us after we die. I presume you lead your own life appropriately, so you must be fairly certain of your conclusions. You appear to deny yourself many things in this life that many of the rest of us enjoy, in your assumption that you are right about "the next life." Unlike a number of religious people, you have worked out a lot of the intricate details as to your religion.

You have suggested to the other people here how they would best lead their own lives. I am therefore disappointed by your "I do not know" responses. I am unwilling to die just to find out. Are there alternatives to find out if you don't know?

 

[CplFerro]

Why did a door need to be opened?

The Church's official position is no secret, is it? Babtism is supposed to cleanse a person of original sin. Original sin is presumed to exist for all, including infants who are acknowledged, at least by the Catholic church, not to be an a position to commit sins of their own. From the little I've bothered to read on this, it's pretty clear that original sin exists as a condition of being, and not as a thing you do. If you're going to subscribe to the illogical craziness of original sin, then it must be a condition of being born human and apply to all, whatever they do subsequently.

If you have some knowledge beyond the common conception that is usually put forth, then by all means, tell us what it is.

What I learned in catechism class, bruto, was that sin was the barrier between man and God, and Christ removed that barrier. The sacraments are secondary to the key sacrifice of Christ. Does the Church teach otherwise? That baptism is a magic ritual that doesn't require or depend on Christ's sacrifice for its efficacy?

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Frozenwolf,

Anyone who says he's a patriot is a patriot? No matter what he does? These words are then meaningless.

...

As I said, if the basic premise of a transcendent One escapes you, what difference does it make all the rest?

Cpl Ferro

 

[bruto]

What I learned in catechism class, bruto, was that sin was the barrier between man and God, and Christ removed that barrier. The sacraments are secondary to the key sacrifice of Christ. Does the Church teach otherwise? That baptism is a magic ritual that doesn't require or depend on Christ's sacrifice for its efficacy?

Cpl Ferro

Well, of course "what I learned in catechism class" automatically qualifies as doctrine rather than argument. But if Christ removed the barrier of sin, then what is baptism for? I have no doubt that, according to the doctrine involved, baptism depends on Christ's sacrifice, but this does not tell us why baptism is required at all.

And of course none of it answers the basic question of why a door needs opening at all.

Not entirely a propos of your post, but I married an ex-Catholic, and what she learned in catechism was dismally deficient. Not only did they miss huge amounts of what is in the Bible, but she managed to get through many years of catechism and confirmation utterly ignorant of many key points of Catholic dogma. Now I realize that you are rather more a student of the subject than that, but I feel it necessary to remark that out of context, "what I learned in catechism class" does not always amount to much!

 

[CplFerro]

Odd, isn't it?

CplFerro, Clearly, despite your protests otherwise, you must feel that you know the mind of God in great detail. You have clearly thought alot about it, and you have puzzled out what is wrong and right, the goals one should and shouldn't have, and what might happen to us after we die. I presume you lead your own life appropriately, so you must be fairly certain of your conclusions. You appear to deny yourself many things in this life that many of the rest of us enjoy, in your assumption that you are right about "the next life." Unlike a number of religious people, you have worked out a lot of the intricate details as to your religion.

You have suggested to the other people here how they would best lead their own lives. I am therefore disappointed by your "I do not know" responses. I am unwilling to die just to find out. Are there alternatives to find out if you don't know?

In great detail, Giordano? I work with what I have before me, the Catechism and the Saints and the Doctors of the Church and the Apologists I am familiar with, sifting through it to the degree I am able, looking for the truth. If you are a seeker after God, I would point you in the direction of Ravi Zacharias as most in keeping with the rationalist bent of this forum. Beyond that what can I say? As I said to Frozenwolf, it begins with the conceptualisation of a transcendent One. Without that idea, nothing I or any apologist small or great say will have any traction in your mind.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Anyone who says he's a patriot is a patriot? No matter what he does? These words are then meaningless.

I gave you a definition and a series of arguments to go with it. You chose to ignore them. I find it strange that your highest moral priority is to disassociate yourself from Christians you find undesirable in order to keep your group affiliation pure, rather than to address the fact that yes, people have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. I would think that the latter would be a greater concern for one calling himself a Christian, or for any moral human being for that matter. Instead, you shovel these undesirable elements off to the side, or dishonestly refer to them as atheists.

Further, you're one to talk about rendering words meaningless when you arbitrarily label all human beings born as sinners.

As I said, if the basic premise of a transcendent One escapes you, what difference does it make all the rest?

Thank you for admitting you don't have the answers to any of my questions. Your statements in this discussion are the height of sophistry.

 

[CplFerro]

Well, of course "what I learned in catechism class" automatically qualifies as doctrine rather than argument. But if Christ removed the barrier of sin, then what is baptism for? I have no doubt that, according to the doctrine involved, baptism depends on Christ's sacrifice, but this does not tell us why baptism is required at all.

And of course none of it answers the basic question of why a door needs opening at all.

Not entirely a propos of your post, but I married an ex-Catholic, and what she learned in catechism was dismally deficient. Not only did they miss huge amounts of what is in the Bible, but she managed to get through many years of catechism and confirmation utterly ignorant of many key points of Catholic dogma. Now I realize that you are rather more a student of the subject than that, but I feel it necessary to remark that out of context, "what I learned in catechism class" does not always amount to much!

I'll agree with you there, bruto, Catholic Church has in large part failed at apologetics. Most people just go along with it out of, habit I imagine. The Masses are to anyone with a glimmer of intellect tiresome and uninvolving.

Compared with a robust, growing (ie by other means than copulation) sect like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, who actually make it a point to teach their children their faith with the expectation they will apologise throughout their life, Catholicism is sad.

Cpl Ferro

 

[abaddon]

What I learned in catechism class, bruto, was that sin was the barrier between man and God, and Christ removed that barrier. The sacraments are secondary to the key sacrifice of Christ. Does the Church teach otherwise? That baptism is a magic ritual that doesn't require or depend on Christ's sacrifice for its efficacy?

Cpl Ferro

Nope. What you actually learned was that it is wrong to disagree with those clad in black who lie to you.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

In great detail, Giordano? I work with what I have before me, the Catechism and the Saints and the Doctors of the Church and the Apologists I am familiar with, sifting through it to the degree I am able, looking for the truth.

The fact that you would rather look to apologists, rather than scientific or peer-reviewed scholarly sources, says a lot about your devotion to the truth. It's especially telling that when I brought up child developmental psychology, you asked for the names of apologists.

If you are a seeker after God, I would point you in the direction of Ravi Zacharias as most in keeping with the rationalist bent of this forum.

That homophobe again? Bad move. You should start with evidence, as that's the only thing that's going to fly on a skeptical forum.

Beyond that what can I say? As I said to Frozenwolf, it begins with the conceptualisation of a transcendent One. Without that idea, nothing I or any apologist small or great say will have any traction in your mind.

In other words, you would rather people assume the conclusion, as you have done. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't work that way. It's a failure on your part to provide evidence of a God, not on my part to blindly and fully accept that one exists from the start.

 

[abaddon]

Dear Frozenwolf,

Anyone who says he's a patriot is a patriot? No matter what he does? These words are then meaningless.

Anyone who says he is a christian is a christian No matter what he does?

Indeed these words are meaningless.

 

[CplFerro]

I gave you a definition and a series of arguments to go with it. You chose to ignore them. I find it strange that your highest moral priority is to disassociate yourself from Christians you find undesirable in order to keep your group affiliation pure, rather than to address the fact that yes, people have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. I would think that the latter would be a greater concern for one calling himself a Christian, or for any moral human being for that matter. Instead, you shovel these undesirable elements off to the side, or dishonestly refer to them as atheists.

Frozenwolf, if you're so honest, name when I have said that people have never done "terrible things in the name of Christianity."

Further, you're one to talk about rendering words meaningless when you arbitrarily label all human beings born as sinners.

Blame Jesus for that one.

Thank you for admitting you don't have the answers to any of my questions. Your statements in this discussion are the height of sophistry.

"To give truth to him who loves it not, only multiplies ways of misinterpretation."
--Ravi Zacharias

Thanks for the discussion, Frozenwolf.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Frozenwolf, if you're so honest, name when I have said that people have never done "terrible things in the name of Christianity."

You seem to have forgotten a particularly lengthy debate we had where you tried to label Nazi Germany an "atheocracy" claiming it was based on the teachings of Nietzsche, while denying that religion had anything to do with it.

Blame Jesus for that one.

And the people who blindly parrot that line without thinking.

"To give truth to him who loves it not, only multiplies ways of misinterpretation."
--Ravi Zacharias

Another copout. You don't have a monopoly on the truth. You can't even provide evidence when asked. But do keep quoting Zacharias, as it does wonders for your credibility.

 

[Giordano]

In great detail, Giordano? I work with what I have before me, the Catechism and the Saints and the Doctors of the Church and the Apologists I am familiar with, sifting through it to the degree I am able, looking for the truth. If you are a seeker after God, I would point you in the direction of Ravi Zacharias as most in keeping with the rationalist bent of this forum. Beyond that what can I say? As I said to Frozenwolf, it begins with the conceptualisation of a transcendent One. Without that idea, nothing I or any apologist small or great say will have any traction in your mind.

Cpl Ferro

Yes, in great detail from reading your posts. I personally have studied Shakespeare's plays in detail to obtain insights into my life. I know my insights are based on fiction. You think otherwise, To each their own (is that Shakespeare or the Bible or something else?). Just be aware that there are many gods in history and different people believe in different ones, or none at all. Just be aware that you are agnostic toward all but one god. I am just a little, little more skeptical than you.

Good luck on your choice and remember that we are all mortal. And you could be wrong. Choosing wrong could at best waste your time, or at worse could having an angry, non-Christian god judging you.