SoulandForm wrote: » How on earth can a document that is binding on no one supersede a dogmatic Papal Bull? Also what exactly do you mean by "extremist"?- either a position is true or it is not true. The position that Roman Catholics are bound to believe that there is no salvation outside of submission to the See of Rome is true. Such terms have no place in theology. Also what you said about the Orthodox is also not true-most Orthodox believe that not only there is no salvation outside of the Orthodox Church but also there are no valid Sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church.
Benny_Cake wrote: » Mark Shea makes a decent stab at the proposition that there is no contradiction:http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/shea/00059.html Moreover, the Catholic Church has traditionally been very reluctant to state who is in hell. Cormac Murphy O'Connor stated that while he'll exists, he hoped that it would be empty. Regarding the Feeneyites, describing them as extremists was something of an irrelevant aside - they've been raising all kinds of trouble in New Hampshire and have been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.
Dublin Red Devil wrote: » I'm an Atheist. Sorry religious people, But there is no God
Benny_Cake wrote: » That settles it so! Go home everyone, I'll lock up here
Morbert wrote: » You have more to contend with than atheists who won't listen. You also have to contend with atheists who are doing the talking. A lot of effort has gone into careful arguments for why atheism is true and Christianity is false. More specifically, "new" atheism is a movement that is building a repository of literature that supports the consistency of the materialist worldview, the application of empiricism as a sound epistemic framework, and the inadequacies of traditional "evidence for God". While I don't believe Christianity is inconsistent or incoherent as a belief, I do believe that all that is needed for atheism to flourish is social and economic stability, coupled with freedom of thought and speech.
Benny_Cake wrote: » Moreover, the Catholic Church has traditionally been very reluctant to state who is in hell. Cormac Murphy O'Connor stated that while he'll exists, he hoped that it would be empty.
SoulandForm wrote: » A lot of effort has gone into Austrian economics and justifying it with careful arguments but that doesnt stop it from being irrational nonsense- the arguments of atheists are much more shallow than their ones. I dont believe for a moment that atheists are atheists for intellectual reasons; I do accept however that there are people who are not Christians for valid intellectual reasons. There are various non-intellectual reasons for people being atheists- some of them are very understandable, however in southern Ireland I think its clear that most of those reasons dont apply to most atheists- therefore we are dealing with a moral problem; therefore as Christians are duty is either to be silent or threaten the judgement of being condemned to the hell fire unto the ages of ages.
SoulandForm wrote: » A lot of effort has gone into Austrian economics and justifying it with careful arguments but that doesnt stop it from being irrational nonsense- the arguments of atheists are much more shallow than their ones.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » The difference between the Austrian "school" of economics and atheism is that neoliberalism is a belief system. Like christianity it assumes the thing it is trying to prove is true, and then builds the case around that assumption, including assuming other things which need to be true to also be true, ignoring contrary evidence and data, assuming correlation is causation and flat out inventing evidence when it has none. Atheism does none of these things. It simply looks at avaliable evidence, and says "until we have better evidence which indicates otherwise, it is best to, for the moment, take the position that there are no gods". If it were proven tomorrow that there was some sort of god(s), then atheists would accept their existence.
SoulandForm wrote: » Only the above has absolutely nothing to do with Jansenism per se (infact the person who shouted this aspect of Roman Catholic dogma in the 20 th century was a Jesuit!). Jansenism was actually pretty cool-there was much more to it than hyper-Augustinism. The plays of Racine and the Penses of Pascal are both products of Jansenism.
tommy2bad wrote: » Actually its exactly the Jansenist heresy. That Christ died for the saved only. I never meant to impute the Jansenists themselves only used the term in reference to the specific heresy. Most of the heretical sects were pretty cool, I have a fondness for the Cathars myself.
Morbert wrote: » Actually, I find the arguments for atheism or, more specifically, materialism to be quite compelling, and I am confident enough to defend my beliefs. To be sure, there are a lot of nonsensical arguments out there, but there are also a lot of arguments backed by well-established philosophical ideas. But what I find perplexing is why you would not be willing to use intellectual arguments to refute atheism in the same way you would use intellectual arguments to refute, say, Austrian economics. Do you believe there is nothing to be gained in publicly and specifically stating why Austrian economics is nonsense?
SoulandForm wrote: » Christians should not be giving entertainment to atheists especially when God gets abused in the process. This is totally different from economics- you choose to go the hell fire out of your hatred so be it. Economic policy isnt a personal thing- its a social thing.
Morbert wrote: » Surely you must see how that is problematic. If you say atheism is based on hatred and insults, what will people say when they are exposed to atheism that isn't based on hatred or insults.
SoulandForm wrote: » Let people be exposed to atheism. Im not stopping them. But you personally if you die an atheist will pay for it. What is called for on this thread is hell fire and brimestone-not telling those who loathe God and loathe Christianity that they are nice people who have only made a mistake like kids do at maths.
pauldla wrote: » I no more loathe God than I loathe vampires, unicorns or aliens. I see no evidence of their existence, so how could I be said to loathe them? I do not loathe Christianity, any more than I can loathe any belief system. I'll mock, sure, but not loathe. I note that on a thread that includes 'debate' in its title, you call for 'hell fire and brimstone'. Is this what you mean by debate? No more mollycoddling of the heathens and apostates?
georgesstreet wrote: » It's not possible to loath something which is non existent. What I loath are people like soulandform who patronise others who don't believe as he does, and who actually believes if anyone does not believe the way he believes, they will not go to heaven and be not be rewarded for choosing to not believe. I urge anyone who is tempted to believe in god to read the bible, the whole bible, to get a complete picture of the christian god, rather than the kindergarden lovey dovey version so often portrayed in threads like this.
Geomy wrote: » There's a of different bible's, which translation is the most accessible ?
Morbert wrote: » You're still misrepresenting the atheist position. We don't loathe God and loathe Christianity. Instead, we think God doesn't exist and Christianity is wrong.
SoulandForm wrote: » There is NO rational reason to be believe that God doesnt exist if you sit down and think it through for even five minutes- so some other motive must be at work, no?
tommy2bad wrote: » Er what? No rational reason at all other than the lack of empirical evidence and no need for a God to make the whole thing work exactly as we see it working. I admit belief in god isn't rational in the sense of balance of scientific evidence. I rely on hope and faith and the belief that it's worth believing in.
SoulandForm wrote: » "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Psalm 19:1.
