The majority of earth's population is not Christian and is going to hell according to Christian logic.
Based on a historical tendency to threaten death if people didn't convert?
They used to literally burn heretics at the stake, and even amongst Christians, if you were catholic or alternatively protestant at the wrong time or in the wrong place, you could end up being hung, drawn and quartered or other hellish fates
The real hell was in the way that Christians treated other human beings.
Actually the Catholic Church has always taught that no one is to be forced to profess belief. However It did teach that society could prohibit non-believers from PUBLICLY PROFESSING other faiths. Many secular and Church authorities have committed atrocities but you can't use that as an excuse to reject God's Grace. Judas was one of the first Bishops. And the first act of "collegiality" of the bishops? ...when our Lord was arrested they ran away. I don't blame the Catholic Faith for their faults.
Based on a historical tendency to threaten death if people didn't convert?
They used to literally burn heretics at the stake, and even amongst Christians, if you were catholic or alternatively protestant at the wrong time or in the wrong place, you could end up being hung, drawn and quartered or other hellish fates
The real hell was in the way that Christians treated other human beings.
Actually the Catholic Church has always taught that no one is to be forced to profess belief. However It did teach that society could prohibit non-believers from PUBLICLY PROFESSING other faiths. Many secular and Church authorities have committed atrocities but you can't use that as an excuse to reject God's Grace. Judas was one of the first Bishops. And the first act of "collegiality" of the bishops? ...when our Lord was arrested they ran away. I don't blame the Catholic Faith for their faults.
That’s what I have been saying all along. The devil Satan seeks to obfuscate and sow lies and deceit in the hearts and souls of mankind by saying many Christians committed crimes thus debunking the myth of Christianity but that is precisely one of the pillars of deceitful belief.
people need to understand that because sin rules in this earth so they have to expect some Christians past present and future would be committing crimes against humanity but that doesn’t change the nature and character of the divine God who is not sinful and not human!
👌
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Fixed punctuation
So you'd rather believe what specific "ants crawling on earth" two to three thousand years ago wrote about metaphysical existence and spiritual domains...
You seem so open minded...I'm surprised this is difficult for you. This is why we need a Church founded by Jesus beginning with the Apostles to explain the meaning.
You seem so open minded, Father Fuentes. I'm surprised this is difficult for you.
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Matthew 24:34 (Mng. Ver. II) (emphasis added).
Jesus Christ is speaking to people included in "this generation." They all passed away, long ago. "All these things" recounted in Matthew previously, did NOT happen before that generation to whom Jesus Christ was speaking, and many more other generations, passed away.
Fat. Fuentes wrote:
The generation referred to both the destruction of the Temple in 70AD as well as the future generation at the end of time. Many biblical events foreshadow future events.
Your very strained construction of Jesus Christ's alleged words "this generation" to mean whatever current or future generations fit the apocalyptic prophecies is a perfect example of what I was referring to above by "wildest circular logic, tautologies, and mental gymnastics that Christians will go through to defend their holy book."
You have engaged in what is often called circular reasoning, tautological argument, circular definition, moving the goalposts, begging the question, fallacy of definition, and probably several other logical fallacies. You know you did.
Fat. Fuentes wrote:
Here's a supreme example. Jesus was crucified, died and rose from the dead. He now lives in the lives of those in a state of grace in His Church. This BODY of CHRIST, the Church, will suffer, seemingly die and resurrect. We're experiencing that Passion now.
Whatever you believe the above is a "supreme example" of, it has nothing to do with anything I posted about Matthew 24:34, specifically "this generation" and "all these things have happened" and the factually supported opinion that the Jesus Christ described in the Gospel of Matthew was, rather ironically, a false prophet. His prophetic apocalyptic predictions in Matthew 24:34 simply did not come true even in the rather expansive period of "this generation."
The problem here is that you are using the word "generation" as a specific age range, when the Bible uses it to also mean another thing: a group of people who are alike, whether it be a mindset, or a trait of heritage. In the Psalms, it is used to describe people who have a wicked mindset (not a specific time period), whereas other places use that term to speak of the Jewish nation as a whole.
no religion has "logic", all based on fear, insecurity, and inability to reason
You'll be changing your tune if you or a loved one gets cancer.
It’s such small minded thinking to believe that every atheist is one personal tragedy from belief in a higher power. Sometimes our loved ones suffer and get their time on earth cut too early, too.
You seem so open minded, Father Fuentes. I'm surprised this is difficult for you.
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Matthew 24:34 (Mng. Ver. II) (emphasis added).
Jesus Christ is speaking to people included in "this generation." They all passed away, long ago. "All these things" recounted in Matthew previously, did NOT happen before that generation to whom Jesus Christ was speaking, and many more other generations, passed away.
Your very strained construction of Jesus Christ's alleged words "this generation" to mean whatever current or future generations fit the apocalyptic prophecies is a perfect example of what I was referring to above by "wildest circular logic, tautologies, and mental gymnastics that Christians will go through to defend their holy book."
You have engaged in what is often called circular reasoning, tautological argument, circular definition, moving the goalposts, begging the question, fallacy of definition, and probably several other logical fallacies. You know you did.
Whatever you believe the above is a "supreme example" of, it has nothing to do with anything I posted about Matthew 24:34, specifically "this generation" and "all these things have happened" and the factually supported opinion that the Jesus Christ described in the Gospel of Matthew was, rather ironically, a false prophet. His prophetic apocalyptic predictions in Matthew 24:34 simply did not come true even in the rather expansive period of "this generation."
The problem here is that you are using the word "generation" as a specific age range, when the Bible uses it to also mean another thing: a group of people who are alike, whether it be a mindset, or a trait of heritage. In the Psalms, it is used to describe people who have a wicked mindset (not a specific time period), whereas other places use that term to speak of the Jewish nation as a whole.
What word is used in the original text? Of course, this is problematic because Jesus preached in Aramaic but the original text is in Greek.
The Gospels were written well after Jesus had died with ample time to incorporate crucial events like the destruction of the Temple. It makes as much sense to believe that Jesus was resurrected because the Bible says so as it does to believe that Muhammed split the moon in two because the Quran says so.
Well based upon your prior comments I'm sure you'll jump all over this but, here goes...since we're really trying to explain belief, it is actually supernatural Faith that gives us our understanding. Faith is a gift from God available to all, but it requires our assent.
Even as a young child my initial reaction to that teaching was that it was a way to stop the debate. As I got older, read more, prayed more and strove to remain open to Grace, I came to understand and receive the gift.
If I said to you, “hello, I have this book called the Quran and it is the most recent revelation from the one true God” what would it take to convince you that I were speaking the truth?
So you'd rather believe what specific "ants crawling on earth" two to three thousand years ago wrote about metaphysical existence and spiritual domains...
They were truly the messengers of God and God in his supreme diligent ability to nano-manage space and time supernaturally induce these messengers to narrate every word in space and time according to his inerrant and perfect wish! Get it
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
How many gods do you have? If Jesus is God, why refer to him separately?
Jesus and God are one in the same. I use OR to mean exactly this. There is only 1 God in 3 different forms. Holy Spirit, Jesus himself, God el padre. Get it?
How many gods do you have? If Jesus is God, why refer to him separately?
Jesus and God are one in the same. I use OR to mean exactly this. There is only 1 God in 3 different forms. Holy Spirit, Jesus himself, God el padre. Get it?
So when Jesus prayed, he was praying to himself? And then there are also the angels, yes?
Jesus and God are one in the same. I use OR to mean exactly this. There is only 1 God in 3 different forms. Holy Spirit, Jesus himself, God el padre. Get it?
So when Jesus prayed, he was praying to himself? And then there are also the angels, yes?
Yes Jesus prayed to his other version of himself which is God el padre. And yes there are also the angels which belong to him and which he created
I'm not arguing for or against a Biblical code of ethics. I am simply pointing out that without an agreed upon code of ethics that originates from a higher power, all morality must be considered subjective. Concepts such as something being wrong or unfair are completely open to the interpretation of the individual. Society has laws that attempt to limit actions that could prove disruptive to a peaceful society, but laws, although often in line with religious beliefs, do not dictate morality.
You can't even figure out if theft is wrong, and now you're arguing this?
Well, "an agreed upon code of ethics that originates from a higher power" sound pretty subjective to me. Which higher power's code of ethics? What is in and what is not in the higher power ethics code? Which one of his many ethics codes and how much of it should be adopted? Oral/verbal ethics codes handed down from the higher power or only written ones? How do we know what the ethics codes cover? How many ethical code judges and administrators will we need to determine what the codes cover? How do we know this ethics code originated from a higher power, rather than just being relayed to us as legend? The answers to those questions and many more are all saturated with awful degrees of subjectivity.
Do you have an example of a society that follows "an agreed upon code of ethics that originates from a higher power"? They only ones I can think of are Iran and Taliban Afghanistan. Yes, their morality is arguably objective, but both places are total sh!tholes.
You still haven't been able to tell me WHY theft is wrong.
In regards to a higher power being subjective, I disagree. Subjectivity is based on experiences and perceptions. Five people could all witness the same event and interpret it differently without any individual knowing the truth of the event. An omniscient creator, on the other hand, would fully understand the truth of any and everything by understanding all perspectives involved and the full truth of the matter.
It's not up to me to decide how an omniscient creator conveys morality to people. Nor am I advocating for a specific higher power; I am just making the case that without one, all morality is subjective.
Iran and Afghanistan are indeed societies predicated on a moral code they claim has ben handed down from a higher power. Perhaps they have bastardized the moral code to fit their own interests, or they've adopted a code from a creator who does not exist. In any case, my argument is not for the utility of a moral code handed down by a higher power, but rather that an objective moral code cannot exist without a higher power handing it down.
The thing is, there just isn’t independent scientific evidence for anything remotely close to Biblical teachings. Every shred of independent evidence indicates we evolved to where we are now: self aware, short lived, community-loving beings. The Bible, meanwhile, is an ancient collection of books, cobbled together from even more ancient verbal and written texts of mostly uncertain origin, developed and pushed by humans who had little or no reason to doubt unsupported supernatural claims. When I decided to grow up and accept the scientific method, then arguing about what the Bible says or doesn’t say felt as unproductive as arguing about Harry Potter, Star Wars, or Star Trek.
You can't even figure out if theft is wrong, and now you're arguing this?
Well, "an agreed upon code of ethics that originates from a higher power" sound pretty subjective to me. Which higher power's code of ethics? What is in and what is not in the higher power ethics code? Which one of his many ethics codes and how much of it should be adopted? Oral/verbal ethics codes handed down from the higher power or only written ones? How do we know what the ethics codes cover? How many ethical code judges and administrators will we need to determine what the codes cover? How do we know this ethics code originated from a higher power, rather than just being relayed to us as legend? The answers to those questions and many more are all saturated with awful degrees of subjectivity.
Do you have an example of a society that follows "an agreed upon code of ethics that originates from a higher power"? They only ones I can think of are Iran and Taliban Afghanistan. Yes, their morality is arguably objective, but both places are total sh!tholes.
You still haven't been able to tell me WHY theft is wrong.
And you still can't figure out that stealing stuff from other people is wrong. Between the two of us, you seem significantly more confused than I.
In regards to a higher power being subjective, I disagree. Subjectivity is based on experiences and perceptions. Five people could all witness the same event and interpret it differently without any individual knowing the truth of the event. An omniscient creator, on the other hand, would fully understand the truth of any and everything by understanding all perspectives involved and the full truth of the matter. It's not up to me to decide how an omniscient creator conveys morality to people. Nor am I advocating for a specific higher power; I am just making the case that without one, all morality is subjective. Iran and Afghanistan are indeed societies predicated on a moral code they claim has ben handed down from a higher power. Perhaps they have bastardized the moral code to fit their own interests, or they've adopted a code from a creator who does not exist. In any case, my argument is not for the utility of a moral code handed down by a higher power, but rather that an objective moral code cannot exist without a higher power handing it down.
That is all reasonably well said (or better said than a few other nitwits here have tried), but you have veered into various fallacies (circular reasoning, definist fallacy): An objective moral code is one from a higher power, therefore, no moral codes are objective unless they are from a higher power.
In any case, everything you typed is also irrelevant unless you tell us where you got the objective moral code you live by. And is theft moral or immoral in that objective code?
Well based upon your prior comments I'm sure you'll jump all over this but, here goes...since we're really trying to explain belief, it is actually supernatural Faith that gives us our understanding. Faith is a gift from God available to all, but it requires our assent.
Even as a young child my initial reaction to that teaching was that it was a way to stop the debate. As I got older, read more, prayed more and strove to remain open to Grace, I came to understand and receive the gift.
If I said to you, “hello, I have this book called the Quran and it is the most recent revelation from the one true God” what would it take to convince you that I were speaking the truth?
My understanding is that the Book of Mormon -- which is basically the third book of the Bible -- is the most recent revelation from the one true God. Published in 1830. I don't know of any other more recent revelations from God since then.
God appears to only communicate in book form. Even in today's media age, God doesn't do movies, documentaries, live performances, broadcasts, billboards. It's still just books.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.