If you were born into another religion..

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Benign, secular Inclusive democracy is the "wolves". Wow

A lot of this "secular inclusive democracy" when you speak to those atheists who propose it, involves exclusion of religious belief from the public square. I'm not saying that this is your opinion, but it is something that would cause me to be more sceptical than not about what people mean when they use the term "secular".

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I see Roman Catholicism oppose Christianity vehemently. In a way that has the outward appearance of being sheep-like. It's its fruit that shows up however: when you've a mode of salvation (works) in RC that matches the mode of salvation in all the religions you yourself would consider non-Christian (ands thus Satan-inspired) then it can't be that hard to see who it is whose behind that fruit.

Well I'm not particularly happy about being referred to as a puppet of Satan, or being a member of a Church that might be a puppet of Satan so if you have any evidence that is clear and unambiguous, to help me make the right choice... I'm all eyes

The Catholic Church as been, since it started, the biggest of all the Christian churches and as much of what Catholicism is today is changed little from what it was in it's earliest days I take it at some point in its history Satan took it over, in your opinion. Can you say when?

From my understanding there was Jesus and his Apostles and follows which led to the Catholic Church first, then the East West Schism, then the Reformation where various people had bones of contention and set up their own Churches and the current position where there is the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and a number of smaller demoninations many of which appear to be built on sand and frequently change their positions.

Hence it is possible that the schism at the beginning of the second millennium is what separates the true Church from the "not so true".

On a Christian note I find the designation of Satanist to any person of a Christian nature to be offensive.

I'm sure the atheists don't mind being referred to as Satanists because they don't believe in him anyway
Perhaps they are closet Satanists

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps we can agree that the benign types are cooks and quartermasters in Satans army .. and the more militaristic types are frontline troops.

That said, scratch the surface of a benign atheist and you'll reveal the God-hatred underneath pretty darn quickly.

I'm sure we could agree on much eventually - once the rest of Christianity is considered to be part of Gods army :pac:

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

Considering atheists don't believe Satan exists, this is really pretty amusing.

I don't know why. Since when did what you believe to be the case or not make it the case or not. I take it you agree that if God did exist then your not believing he exists wouldn't alter anything.

Ditto his influence.

Continuing with your analogy, it's like saying Quaker conscientious objectors in the second world war were Hitler's cooks and quartermasters.

I can't see what 'like' about it.

I think you'll find lots of atheists on these boards are also anti-theist, but your suggestion that they are Satan's quartermasters is frankly hilarious to me. Oh but I would say that! Unknowingly being in Satan's army and all.

Precisely!

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm sure we could agree on much eventually - once the rest of Christianity is considered to be part of Gods army :pac:

Don't get me wrong - there are unbelievers in all denominations, it's just that in the case of Roman Catholicism, the core doctrine of the Religion itself isn't Christian, it's Roman Catholic. Yet there will be Christians within Roman Catholicism despite this.

You would agree that the only Christian is the one who is a Christian as God defines it. Which means we need deal with individuals - not denominations.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

For the people who are saved that makes sense but why would a loving god create billions of people for what appears to be the sole purpose of punishing them for being exactly the way he made them? If he has decided in advance that the vast majority of people on the planet are going to spend their lives corrupted by sin and their after lives in infinite and eternal agony then why create them in the first place?

Or are the billions of non-christians the work of Satan?

When God created Adam & Eve, He knew they would fall from their sinless state. Their now-sinful nature is what their descendants are born with.

So God did not create sinful man, man did.

We may then ask a couple of questions:
1. Why did God create Adam & Eve when He knew they would sin, and that their sinful nature would pass on to their descendants?

2. Why did God not terminate the human race when Adam fell, and begin again?

The answer: God doesn't say, so we don't know. What He does say leaves us in no doubt that He is both perfectly righteous and omnipotent. So whatever He does is the best. The closest we get to an answer from God on these things is:
Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

God is intimately involved with His people - He sent His Son to become one of them, to bear Himself the punishment that was their due. This especially makes me sure He is no cruel despot.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yourself and Wolfsbane seem so confident of your positions but once we acknowledge that there is no requirement on God to make any sense whatsoever how can we possibly say anything about this being with any level of confidence? Maybe god isn't loving at all and he decided the bible would say he was loving for some unknown reason. Maybe he decided to say that those who believe in christianity are saved, again for some unknown reason, while in fact muslims or scientologists or those who don't believe in the supernatural at all are saved (and the introduction of the supernatural was a test of rational thinking or some unknown test that we have no right to ask to understand). Maybe no one is saved at all, maybe we're nothing more than ants in an ant hill to him and the whole concept of salvation is just a game for his own amusement or again, done for some unknown reason. This goes for all those personal experiences that people have too, how can we say what the purpose of these experiences is if god's actions do not have to make any sense to us?

Just because one does not see the sense in a particular course of action, does not mean there can be no sense in any thing. I'm saying all that God does makes perfect sense, even though we do not see it all yet.

Do you say science is unknowable because there are many things in it you do not yet understand?

As to the possibility that He has lied to us, if that is true then He is not the God we know and serve. But those who know Him have already experienced His faithfulness and veracity, so we have no doubts that all the Bible reveals of Him is true.
_________________________________________________________________
John 10:4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't get me wrong - there are unbelievers in all denominations, it's just that in the case of Roman Catholicism, the core doctrine of the Religion itself isn't Christian, it's Roman Catholic. Yet there will be Christians within Roman Catholicism despite this.

The core doctrine is the Creed. Do you dismiss this as anti-Christian?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would agree that the only Christian is the one who is a Christian as God defines it. Which means we need deal with individuals - not denominations.

No. Denominations are comprised of individuals. With no individuals there is no denomination. If you deal with the individual you are dealing with the denomination.

A Christian is one who believes in God and follows Christ, His teachings, His Word, His instructions.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well I'm not particularly happy about being referred to as a puppet of Satan, or being a member of a Church that might be a puppet of Satan so if you have any evidence that is clear and unambiguous, to help me make the right choice... I'm all eyes

I'm certainly not commenting on your personal case - I've no doubt there are Christians within the Roman church. Clear and unambiguous evidence is obviously not that easy to produce given the manner in which we both consider evidence. I'm reminded of the advice given by God-knows who, who said that when faced with a situation for which there is no absolute proof, the queston should become: "where does the evidence point"

For example: what do you think about the fact that a major theme of all major world religions and cults concerns "afterlife outcome". It is the a central raison d'etre for Religion. And in every case - without exception - a positive afterlife outcome is dependent on what you do and how you behave. Do what is required of you and a postive outcome you shall have. Don't and positive it will not be.

Bar for Christianities "salvation by faith alone" (whether or not you agree the Bible teaches that). A unique claim from one 'religion' that strikes to the very core of the issue in a different way to all the rest.

The Catholic Church as been, since it started, the biggest of all the Christian churches and as much of what Catholicism is today is changed little from what it was in it's earliest days I take it at some point in its history Satan took it over, in your opinion. Can you say when?

I'm not quite sure what size has to do with anything. The establishment of the Roman church scale-wise took a huge assist from a Roman emperor it need be remembered. And as history both at home and through the ages has taught us; the hand the rocks the keys of heaven rules the world - almost irrespective of what shenanigans it gets up to.

The warning about wolves in sheeps clothing came at the start of the Christian church because Satan has been active is twisting since the start. It didn't start with the Roman church nor is it restricted to the Roman church. It's just that in the case of the Roman church the departure is almost total: the core message Law. Not grace.

Because any message that teaches Law evaporates grace

From my understanding there was Jesus and his Apostles and follows which led to the Catholic Church first, then the East West Schism, then the Reformation where various people had bones of contention and set up their own Churches and the current position where there is the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and a number of smaller demoninations many of which appear to be built on sand and frequently change their positions.

You've doing History-lite here. Very lite. Read up a little on the Reformation and what drove Luther and others of like mind. It isn't correct to say either that things transmorgafied from apostles to Roman Catholic church. It was the 4th century when Roman power ascended into the manner of "big"

You seem to forget that the Roman church has evolved quite a bit in it's time. It amazed me to find out that core doctrines such a Mariology, Papal infallibility, Purgatory and the like are relatively recent introductions.

I'd recommend a book called "Once a Catholic" .. it outlines the history and circumstances of these doctrines.

Hence it is possible that the schism at the beginning of the second millennium is what separates the true Church from the "not so true".

To my mind the beginning of the second millenium is 1001 or thereabouts??

On a Christian note I find the designation of Satanist to any person of a Christian nature to be offensive.

I'm not referring to people as Satanists (which would imply Satan worshippers). Being under the "sway and rule of the wicked one" however is a title that belongs to all born until they are born again. It can't be helped (that title I mean - not the condition of being under the sway, which can be helped)

I'm sure the atheists don't mind being referred to as Satanists because they don't believe in him anyway
Perhaps they are closet Satanists

Under the sway. Under the influence.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

The core doctrine is the Creed. Do you dismiss this as anti-Christian?

The apostle creed? Probably not: I haven't studied it in detail.

No. Denominations are comprised of individuals. With no individuals there is no denomination. If you deal with the individual you are dealing with the denomination.

I see it differently. The fact that I belong to this or that denomination doesn't make me a Christian. Nor does it mean I am not a Christian. A denomination is a label aside from whether you're a Christian or not.

A Christian is one who believes in God and follows Christ, His teachings, His Word, His instructions.

Except that in the case of Roman Catholicism (as with all Relgions) there is an "..or else" attached. It's follow his instructions ... or else.

wolfsbane

sensibleken wrote: »

sorry to weigh in and i realise that this is off topic but would this not contradict the idea propegated by christians that god loves everyone?

In what sense can it be said that God loves everyone?

Some say He loves everyone in the sense of being His creation - He sends rain and sun on the good and the evil, showing His undeserved kindness. Calvinists have no problem with that.

Many say He loves everyone equally. That He loves Judas as much as He loves John or Peter, that He loves those in hell as much as those in heaven. The Calvinist has a big problem with that, for it contradicts all that the Bible says about His love for the elect.

The Bible tells us Christ gave His life for His sheep; these anti-Calvinists tell us He did the exact same for the non-sheep also.

The Bible tells us Christ loved the Church as His bride and gave Himself for her; these folk tell us Christ loved and gave Himself for the world just as much.

What can they say about His supposed equal love for the heathen who never hear the gospel, or those in our society who hear it in very contrary circumstances? How do they fare compared to those who have the gospel taught to them from an early age, or receive it in circumstances conducive to them seriously considering their spiritual need?

God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe. He also desires that they do, for that is the only righteous response a man can give - and God can only desire righteousness.

But it does not mean that God is obliged to intervene and change evil hearts so that they will believe. He can justly let them continue on their evil way. That He does intervene in the lives of countless millions and give them a new heart, by which they then repent and believe - that is all pure, undeserved mercy. Not their rights, not their deserts. His mercy.
Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
_________________________________________________________________
John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The warning about wolves in sheeps clothing came at the start of the Christian church because Satan has been active is twisting since the start. It didn't start with the Roman church nor is it restricted to the Roman church. It's just that in the case of the Roman church the departure is almost total: the core message Law. Not grace.

Because any message that teaches Law evaporates grace

I'm not with you here. Can you clarify?

antiskeptic wrote: »

To my mind the beginning of the second millenium is 1001 or thereabouts??

I would make it the first century of the second millennium - 1001- 1100.
The Schism was 1054

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Except that in the case of Roman Catholicism (as with all Relgions) there is an "..or else" attached. It's follow his instructions ... or else.

Christ Himself detailed the "...or else"

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Christ Himself detailed the "...or else"

That would be a matter of discussion.

My earlier point appears established however: every* world religion and cult shares a common theme at root: your position w.r.t God/positive afterlife outcome is determined by what you do.

*except one: salvation by faith alone.


Does that not strike you as a little odd?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

When God created Adam & Eve, He knew they would fall from their sinless state. Their now-sinful nature is what their descendants are born with.

So God did not create sinful man, man did.

If I create a robot that I know is going to do housework for 6 months and then go on a murderous rampage, can it be said that I am blameless for the murderous rampage because it didn't do it until a while after I created it and that I didn't create it in such a way that it would go on a murderous rampage?

wolfsbane wrote: »

We may then ask a couple of questions:
1. Why did God create Adam & Eve when He knew they would sin, and that their sinful nature would pass on to their descendants?

2. Why did God not terminate the human race when Adam fell, and begin again?

The second question is kind of redundant. The idea that god would terminate the human race and begin again when Adam fell only makes sense if he didn't know it was going to happen. If god created Adam knowing he would sin then that sin was a part of the plan. There's a third question that must be asked: why did he make them in such a way that they would inevitably sin in the first place?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The answer: God doesn't say, so we don't know.

good to see that

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

A lot of this "secular inclusive democracy" when you speak to those atheists who propose it, involves exclusion of religious belief from the public square. I'm not saying that this is your opinion, but it is something that would cause me to be more sceptical than not about what people mean when they use the term "secular".

What exactly do you mean by "the public square"? What exactly would you like to do that you think atheists would object to?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just because one does not see the sense in a particular course of action, does not mean there can be no sense in any thing. I'm saying all that God does makes perfect sense, even though we do not see it all yet.

Do you say science is unknowable because there are many things in it you do not yet understand?

As to the possibility that He has lied to us, if that is true then He is not the God we know and serve. But those who know Him have already experienced His faithfulness and veracity, so we have no doubts that all the Bible reveals of Him is true.
_________________________________________________________________
John 10:4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

Could it not be that god has lied in the bible to serve a greater unknown purpose and that the experiences he gave you that gave you the impression of faithfulness and veracity also served this greater unknown purpose? Since god can do anything he does actually have to have a true sense of faithfulness and veracity to make you think he does

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

If I create a robot that I know is going to do housework for 6 months and then go on a murderous rampage, can it be said that I am blameless for the murderous rampage because it didn't do it until a while after I created it and that I didn't create it in such a way that it would go on a murderous rampage?

Yes, you would be liable for its damage to man.

But what if the robot brought harm to only himself? Man has not harmed any other moral being, just himself. Some want to blame God for making a perfect person capable of sin, but God puts the blame solely on the man. I go with His judgement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We may then ask a couple of questions:
1. Why did God create Adam & Eve when He knew they would sin, and that their sinful nature would pass on to their descendants?

2. Why did God not terminate the human race when Adam fell, and begin again?
The second question is kind of redundant. The idea that god would terminate the human race and begin again when Adam fell only makes sense if he didn't know it was going to happen. If god created Adam knowing he would sin then that sin was a part of the plan. There's a third question that must be asked: why did he make them in such a way that they would inevitably sin in the first place?

That's quite like my Q1, but with a twist: you imply they had no choice, that it was inevitable they sinned. It wasn't. It was their choice, made without the effects of a sinful disposition.

I know we get confused by what is foreknown being in one sense inevitable, but it is important to see that God did not make them sin, nor was it mandated as part of their nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could it not be that god has lied in the bible to serve a greater unknown purpose and that the experiences he gave you that gave you the impression of faithfulness and veracity also served this greater unknown purpose? Since god can do anything he does actually have to have a true sense of faithfulness and veracity to make you think he does

Yes, it is logically possible, in the same way it is logically possible you are imagining your life and this is all a dream.

As you cannot know that if it is so, then you will be wise to go with what all your senses say.

All I have know of God, all the answers to prayer and the internal comfort of the Holy Spirit, make me go with this reality as opposed to your 'possible' scenario.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,