It might help you read the different gospel writers as different people with different agendas, different theologies. The differences show you what they're about.
The Virgin Mary
- Thread starter Humberto
- Start date
It might help you read the different gospel writers as different people with different agendas, different theologies. The differences show you what they're about.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Not sure about this - I've certainly seen no sign of it in the time I've been here.
andysays
Love and solidarity
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
In Judaism, Satan is hardly mentioned. When he is, he's seen as a servant of God, who tests people's faith. He certainly isn't the ruler of hell or anything like that.
andysays
Love and solidarity
I'll take your word for it.
I find it interesting that it's the various atheists on this thread who appear to be the most interested in picking apart intricate aspects of theology or religious doctrine.
To me, and to many religious believers who I know*, those things are not something to spend that much time thinking about, and I'd rather concentrate on the central elements of my faith which, as I've mentioned before, are about love and forgiveness.
I guess that means there will always be a problem with conversations like this, especially if people simply seek to demonstrate that elements of someone's faith are "wrong", without being able to understand what that faith is really about.
*even though I can't claim to speak for all of them, obviously
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
I understand your point of view. But speaking for myself, I can't just go along with a belief system when so much of it doesn't make sense to me.
At a very simple level, why would a loving and forgiving God create a place of eternal torment for those who don't love him enough?
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
The reason that the atheists are the ones who most interested in the inconsistencies and confusions is that, without faith, it becomes extremely difficult to make sense of what it is that religious folks actually believe and why. We're pointed to the books that are supposedly the word of God, and when we find things in them that are inconsistent, we're told, "oh, not those things". But if not those things then which things and why? Who gets to decide what in the book is true and what isn't? Who gets to decide who the people are who decide and why?
It sounds good to say that you just concentrate on the love and forgiveness part, but that's not what the religion actually says, so how do you know that you only need to concentrate on the love and forgiveness part?
PTK
Paul Kegan
The objection is that people are making a claim about history for which there is absolutely no evidence. They are repeating an untruth.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Fair. Whether or not it is literally the word of God isn’t really germane to the point I’m making, though, which is this: if what is in the Bible (and other doctrine) doesn’t define what you believe then what does define it?
I'm not a Christian Apologist, I just like correcting you in public.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
The objection * many atheists have to religion is that the faith, whichever one it happens to be, maintains various inviolable truths which are all, ultimately, reliant on faith itself. No proof is available for so much of the historical claims made. No proof available for claims made about the nature of reality or any afterlife. Holy texts have to be interpreted by some bunch of authoritarian, misogynistic, sexist blokes. And the institutions which promulgate those beliefs have historically been violent, oppressive, greedy, hypocritical, corrupt, homophobic, etc etc. No discernible benefits that I can see. Where improvements in religious faith has occurred it has been because of the influence of secular ideologies and belief systems, with a weakening of faith.
* actually that's more than one objection. There are others.
* actually that's more than one objection. There are others.
Humberto
anthropocene participant
I'd rather not drag posters in and probably shouldn't have mentioned it. It's a couple rather than loads.
It should come as no surprise that the best predictor of someone's religion is the religion of their parents. People follow a religion because respected people in their family and community follow that religion. When that religion does something to cause them to stop respecting it (eg. child abuse in the Catholic Church in Ireland), they can still bracket the "bad" parts and follow the "good" parts.
What very rarely happens is when someone reads the Koran or the Bible or what have you and then thinks, "well, this is for me!" It's not the doctrine that makes them religious so criticism of doctrine or pointing out contradictions to religiously inclined people is an odd move. They're just going to shrug unless they're follow a very peculiar religion (protestant fundamentalism) that demands complete acceptance of the texts.
Most religions are about practice not doctrine. Early Christianity is peculiar in that it demands acceptance of the resurrection (only if you follow Paul though, if you follow eg. Matthew it is about how you behave and if you follow Jewish law). Later on there is the Nicene creed.
Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has commented that his Catholic students have no problem at all with discussing contradictions in the bible. Just don't tell them that Jesus had brothers.
What very rarely happens is when someone reads the Koran or the Bible or what have you and then thinks, "well, this is for me!" It's not the doctrine that makes them religious so criticism of doctrine or pointing out contradictions to religiously inclined people is an odd move. They're just going to shrug unless they're follow a very peculiar religion (protestant fundamentalism) that demands complete acceptance of the texts.
Most religions are about practice not doctrine. Early Christianity is peculiar in that it demands acceptance of the resurrection (only if you follow Paul though, if you follow eg. Matthew it is about how you behave and if you follow Jewish law). Later on there is the Nicene creed.
Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has commented that his Catholic students have no problem at all with discussing contradictions in the bible. Just don't tell them that Jesus had brothers.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
The Bible nitpicking is laborious and nonproductive. Jesus left us a Church when He ascended into heaven, not an instruction manual. That is why most Catholics are so comfortable leaving interpreting the manual to theologians and attempting to live our lives in a manner pleasing to God
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
And sisters, according to Matthew 13.
PTK
Paul Kegan
You say it's not an instruction manual, then you say that it is a manual. A manual of what?
How can you claim that the Sermon on the Mount, etc, are not instructions?
bcuster
Well-Known Member
Poor choice if words. I was in the car. It's not a manual. It's a compilation work.
Jesus told us what the take-away is for us.
*To understand the concept of Jesus' greatest command, consider the following key points:
- Biblical Reference: The greatest command is found in Matthew 22:37-40.
- Love God: Jesus emphasizes loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
- Love Your Neighbor: The second command is to love your neighbor as yourself.
- Foundation of Law: Jesus states that all the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments.
- Unconditional Love: The command promotes an unconditional and selfless love towards others.
- Spiritual Priority: Loving God is presented as the highest priority in a believer's life.
- Community Impact: Following this command fosters a sense of community and compassion.
- Moral Guidance: It serves as a moral compass for ethical behavior and decision-making.
- Universal Application: The command is applicable to all people, transcending cultural and religious boundaries.
- Call to Action: It encourages active expressions of love through service and kindness.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
No sacraments available from AI
PTK
Paul Kegan
If you know all this so well, then why do you need to use AI?
bcuster
Well-Known Member
I hope you get well soon. You seem to be a very ill person
bcuster
Well-Known Member
Their are many sources for the Catechism far better then my ability to paraphrase. The quoted AI is a restatement of the Catechism.
I've posted numerous valid and informative apologetics links that I doubt a single person here has opened and for doing so, I've been mocked.
ouirdeaux is far more interested in doxing me and engaging in ad hominem attacks than in a rational discussion.
i think they are deeply insecure about their beliefs, or lack thereof.
PTK
Paul Kegan
What is "doxing"?
bcuster
Well-Known Member
Urban Dictionary: doxing
Using private information gleaned from the internet to attack someone with whom you disagree, often by publishing their person info, opening them to abuse and possibly, danger.
www.urbandictionary.com
PTK
Paul Kegan
Where is the evidence that someone was trying to dox you?Urban Dictionary: doxing
Using private information gleaned from the internet to attack someone with whom you disagree, often by publishing their person info, opening them to abuse and possibly, danger.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
There's really no need to be so rude. We can disagree with people in a civil manner, surely.
Similar threads
