Does God want us to judge him?

[ding]

God wants us to judge him, otherwise, how is He ever going to improve?

Is it because he created inferior races? And it needs to be shown? So He can improve?

God created deformed and retarded babies that live a short life in constant pain. Fucking doucher.

Then you should give God what for when you meet him.

For some reason, I'd like to see that .

It will look a lot like Job 40.

 

[james bond]

I was born Roman Catholic. And I rejected it at an early age. I studied many religions after that. And, guess what, they're all wrong, believing in false prophets and committing genocide to further their profits and power. Except maybe for Buddhism, or my current favorite, Pantheism.

I grew up learning Catholicism and rebelled against that around 12 yrs old. Too much guilt. The Catholic school kids were the worst. Eventually, I found my way to Christianity in 2012.

 

[ding]

I was born Roman Catholic. And I rejected it at an early age. I studied many religions after that. And, guess what, they're all wrong, believing in false prophets and committing genocide to further their profits and power. Except maybe for Buddhism, or my current favorite, Pantheism.

So if you argued the other side you would come up with a list of positives for religion. Then you could weigh the good with the bad. I've done that and can tell you that religion has overwhelmingly been a force for good.

Religion is effectively a tool. Tools can be used for good and evil. The tool itself is not evil. The tool just is.

 

[ding]

I was born Roman Catholic. And I rejected it at an early age. I studied many religions after that. And, guess what, they're all wrong, believing in false prophets and committing genocide to further their profits and power. Except maybe for Buddhism, or my current favorite, Pantheism.

C.S. Lewis chimes in on the discussion...

"People who all believe in God can be divided according to the sort of God they believe in. There are two very different ideas on this subject One of them is the idea that He is beyond good and evil. We humans call one thing good and another thing bad. But according to some people that is merely our human point of view. These people would say that the wiser you become the less you would want to call anything good or bad, and the more dearly you would see that everything is good in one way and bad in another, and that nothing could have been different. Consequently, these people think that long before you got anywhere near the divine point of view the distinction would have disappeared altogether. We call a cancer bad, they would say, because it kills a man; but you might just as well call a successful surgeon bad because he kills a cancer. It all depends on the point of view. The other and opposite idea is that God is quite definitely "good" or "righteous." a God who takes sides, who loves love and hates hatred, who wants us to behave in one way and not in another. The first of these views — the one that thinks God beyond good and evil — is called Pantheism. It was held by the great Prussian philosopher Hegel and, as far as I can understand them, by the Hindus. The other view is held by Jews, Mohammedans and Christians. And with this big difference between Pantheism and the Christian idea of God, there usually goes another. Pantheists usually believe that God, so to speak, animates the universe as you animate your body: that the universe almost is God, so that if it did not exist He would not exist either, and anything you find in the universe is a part of God. The Christian idea is quite different. They think God invented and made the universe — like a man making a picture or composing a tune. A painter is not a picture, and he does not die if his picture is destroyed. You may say, "He's put a lot of himself into it," but you only mean that all its beauty and interest has come out of his head. His skill is not in the picture in the same way that it is in his head, or even in his hands. expect you see how this difference between Pantheists and Christians hangs together with the other one. If you do not take the distinction between good and bad very seriously, then it is easy to say that anything you find in this world is a part of God. But, of course, if you think some things really bad, and God really good, then you cannot talk like that. You must believe that God is separate from the world and that some of the things we see in it are contrary to His will. Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, "If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realise that this also is God." The Christian replies, "Don't talk damned nonsense." For Christianity is a fighting religion. It thinks God made the world — that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God "made up out of His head" as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again. And, of course, that raises a very big question. If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling "whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?" But then that threw me back into another difficulty. My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too — for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity

 

[Meriweather]

I grew up learning Catholicism and rebelled against that around 12 yrs old. Too much guilt. The Catholic school kids were the worst. Eventually, I found my way to Christianity in 2012.

How many Catholic school kids are in your sample of "the worst." How did they make you suffer guilt? Were there any other variables involved in your situation?

I was a Catholic school kid, but I was also a public school kid. The problem with Catholic school kids is not that we felt guilty or were "too Catholic". Obviously we weren't. What was different between Catholic school kids and public school kids is class/school size. In a small environment like that, the only view you get of yourself is the class view of yourself--and that is stifling. In public school where classes are larger, and you continually change from classroom to classroom with different classmates, you get to be who you are instead of being forced into a role of who a small number of people decide you are. It wasn't the religion that made it difficult to be a Catholic school kid. It was the small class size with the same kids year after year. A kind of unhealthy inbreeding started to creep in.

I note you move Catholics outside of Christianity altogether. That's funny.

 

[Meriweather]

I was born Roman Catholic. And I rejected it at an early age.

This is a funny post coming directly after asserting the only reason someone is Catholic is because they were born into it.

Is there anything else you rejected in your upbringing or just the religion you were born into?

When people make any major decision, there are generally at least three reasons that factor into that decision--and that rule of three occurs in people who reject the religion they were born into and those who continue to practice the religion into which they were born. In the family into which I was born, more moved away from religion than stayed with it. Everyone had their three reasons (and most these reasons varied from person to person).

 

[ding]

I note you move Catholics outside of Christianity altogether. That's funny.

It's almost like they don't understand the consequences of that. Can bad trees produce good fruit?

 

[Taz]

God wants us to judge him, otherwise, how is He ever going to improve?

Is it because he created inferior races? And it needs to be shown? So He can improve?

God created deformed and retarded babies that live a short life in constant pain. Fucking doucher.

Then you should give God what for when you meet him.

I would if He existed.

 

[james bond]

I grew up learning Catholicism and rebelled against that around 12 yrs old. Too much guilt. The Catholic school kids were the worst. Eventually, I found my way to Christianity in 2012.

How many Catholic school kids are in your sample of "the worst." How did they make you suffer guilt? Were there any other variables involved in your situation?

I was a Catholic school kid, but I was also a public school kid. The problem with Catholic school kids is not that we felt guilty or were "too Catholic". Obviously we weren't. What was different between Catholic school kids and public school kids is class/school size. In a small environment like that, the only view you get of yourself is the class view of yourself--and that is stifling. In public school where classes are larger, and you continually change from classroom to classroom with different classmates, you get to be who you are instead of being forced into a role of who a small number of people decide you are. It wasn't the religion that made it difficult to be a Catholic school kid. It was the small class size with the same kids year after year. A kind of unhealthy inbreeding started to creep in.

I note you move Catholics outside of Christianity altogether. That's funny.

Small sample size of regional area, but there were too many rules regarding strict behavior. For example, if you missed a Mass, then it was a venial sin. There are only two kinds of sin -- original sin which we all have and regular sin. Catholics made up their own dogma such as the Seven Sacraments as opposed to following what the Bible says, i.e. God's word. Between the two, I would say Catholics have more money and more well known throughout the world. Just my opinion.

Agreed on the second paragraph.

Catholics are part of Christianity, but I would separate the two into Catholics and Christians (Protestants). The big question is will the Catholics be misled by the antiChrist seeing they follow the Pope and not the Bible? I suppose Christians are not immune. They could be misled by the antiChrist, too, such as are theistic evolutionist Christians and Catholics misled already? I don't have an answer for that.

 

[james bond]

Can bad trees produce good fruit?

I don't think it's that because Catholics believe in Faith + Works in order to get to heaven. The bad trees are usually non-believers, but even then that does not mean every non-believer does not produce good fruit. I suppose there is no generalization. People who have learned the Bible better than I know much more on this. Maybe you're one of those people.

 

[Meriweather]

Catholics made up their own dogma such as the Seven Sacraments as opposed to following what the Bible says, i.e. God's word

1. Jesus began his mission with Baptism and commanded the Apostles to baptize.
2. Jesus traveled throughout Judea and Galilee announcing the forgiveness of sins and telling people their sins are forgiven.
3. At the Last Supper, Jesus asked that we do the same in memory of him.
4. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (see Acts)
5. Jesus taught that God joined a man and a woman in marriage and what God joined, no one should put asunder.
6. Jesus selected Twelve Apostles, and other disciples, to go forth and teach all nations.
7. Jesus healed the sick.

All these seven sacraments mentioned above were the foundation of Jesus' public life--and all are recorded in the Bible. The question is why did Protestants kick these cornerstones of Jesus life and ministry aside? Do they not read the Bible?

Out of curiosity, where did you think the Church got the Sacraments?

 

[Meriweather]

The big question is will the Catholics be misled by the antiChrist seeing they follow the Pope and not the Bible?

Catholics who attend Mass weekly read through the Bible every three years as each Mass contains two readings from the Old Testament and two from the New Testament. Catholics who attend Mass daily read through the Bible every year. If we hear something the Pope says once or twice a year, that is extra. You see, the Pope's job is to serve the the servants of Christ.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't think it's that because Catholics believe in Faith + Works in order to get to heaven

I heard that Protestants don't believe in discipleship because it's too much work and that might interfere with their wish to get to heaven.

Catholics on the other hand believe that becoming a disciple of Jesus and doing what Jesus commanded is the most meaningful sign of faith there is. We enter through the narrow gate of discipleship into the Kingdom, and this Way of life leads to eternal life.

As I have pointed out before, when we go to work, it not the work we do that pays us--it is our employer who pays us. Work can no more get anyone into heaven than work can hand anyone a paycheck. However, Jesus noted that what we do for others we do for him; and what we fail to do for others, we fail to do for him. He (not what they do or what they fail to do) will repay them.

What Protestants miss out on in giving up discipleship is a wonderful way of life.

 

[james bond]

Catholics made up their own dogma such as the Seven Sacraments as opposed to following what the Bible says, i.e. God's word

1. Jesus began his mission with Baptism and commanded the Apostles to baptize.
2. Jesus traveled throughout Judea and Galilee announcing the forgiveness of sins and telling people their sins are forgiven.
3. At the Last Supper, Jesus asked that we do the same in memory of him.
4. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (see Acts)
5. Jesus taught that God joined a man and a woman in marriage and what God joined, no one should put asunder.
6. Jesus selected Twelve Apostles, and other disciples, to go forth and teach all nations.
7. Jesus healed the sick.

All these seven sacraments mentioned above were the foundation of Jesus' public life--and all are recorded in the Bible. The question is why did Protestants kick these cornerstones of Jesus life and ministry aside? Do they not read the Bible?

Out of curiosity, where did you think the Church got the Sacraments?

I knew this was coming and this is where one versed in the Bible better than I can put forth a better explanation, but here goes. Overall, the sacraments are outward signs or rituals of sanctifying grace instituted by Jesus for our sanctification. However, the Bible does not state that outward signs or rituals, i.e. sacraments, provide us with sanctification and that this was what is represented by Jesus. The ideas behind each sacrament seem to be what Jesus taught, but he did not state it to be a sanctifying ritual. Furthermore, Jesus did not teach that baptism was necessary for gaining heaven. He did not command infants have to be baptized. Thus, it's faith that gives us eternal life and not faith + baptism or faith + works. I'm sure the latter is in the Catholic dogma book. Finally, you gloss over what Jesus did to support the sacraments, but digging deeper into each we find that humans have put their own stamp upon Jesus' teachings. They have ritualized his teachings.

The Protestants have baptism and communion, but its from what the Bible states. They did not make it formal ritual such as the Holy Eucharist and receiving the actual blood and body of Jesus.

 

[Meriweather]

I knew this was coming and this is where one versed in the Bible better than I can put forth a better explanation, but here goes. Overall, the sacraments are outward signs or rituals of sanctifying grace instituted by Jesus for our sanctification. However, the Bible does not state that outward signs or rituals, i.e. sacraments, provide us with sanctification and that this was what is represented by Jesus. The ideas behind each sacrament seem to be what Jesus taught, but he did not state it to be a sanctifying ritual. Furthermore, Jesus did not teach that baptism was necessary for gaining heaven. He did not command infants have to be baptized. Thus, it's faith that gives us eternal life and not faith + baptism or faith + works. I'm sure the latter is in the Catholic dogma book. Finally, you gloss over what Jesus did to support the sacraments, but digging deeper into each we find that humans have put their own stamp upon Jesus' teachings. They have ritualized his teachings.

The Protestants have baptism and communion, but its from what the Bible states. They did not make it formal ritual such as the Holy Eucharist and receiving the actual blood and body of Jesus.

You seem to be arguing that following the pattern that Jesus instituted and followed is a waste of time; that just because Jesus practiced and taught these seven customs does not mean anyone should else should emulate Jesus--that basically doing so is a waste of time.

I am not talking about "going to heaven." I know that is all that seems to interest Protestants, but Catholics are interested in a way of life that begins right now, today--a Kingdom that continues on into the afterlife. We don't say, Jesus, when we die, we want to join you and become your disciples/followers then. We say, "Jesus, we are going to follow you TODAY and always." Therefore we pattern our lives today after his life then. You may think this is a time waster because people can all get into heaven without them, but Catholics see the benefits living the Sacraments bring to today's life in the Kingdom as well.

The only way we put our own stamp on Jesus' teachings (and this is exactly what each one of us should be doing) is that I am not a first century rabboni (spiritual instructor). I am who I am, incorporating as many of Jesus' practices, teaches, and beliefs into my own life as possible. If you feel that is a complete waste of time, that is your prerogative, but I see it differently because I have experienced the graces following these practices of Jesus have brought into my life.

 

[ding]

Can bad trees produce good fruit?

I don't think it's that because Catholics believe in Faith + Works in order to get to heaven. The bad trees are usually non-believers, but even then that does not mean every non-believer does not produce good fruit. I suppose there is no generalization. People who have learned the Bible better than I know much more on this. Maybe you're one of those people.

True faith is marked by action. If you say you have faith but there is no action, do you really have faith?

Let me ask this a different way, what would it look like if someone proclaimed they had faith but it was really just lip service?

 

[ding]

God wants us to judge him, otherwise, how is He ever going to improve?

Is it because he created inferior races? And it needs to be shown? So He can improve?

God created deformed and retarded babies that live a short life in constant pain. Fucking doucher.

Then you should give God what for when you meet him.

I would if He existed.

So when you discover that God does exist your plan is to tell him what for?

 

[james bond]

I knew this was coming and this is where one versed in the Bible better than I can put forth a better explanation, but here goes. Overall, the sacraments are outward signs or rituals of sanctifying grace instituted by Jesus for our sanctification. However, the Bible does not state that outward signs or rituals, i.e. sacraments, provide us with sanctification and that this was what is represented by Jesus. The ideas behind each sacrament seem to be what Jesus taught, but he did not state it to be a sanctifying ritual. Furthermore, Jesus did not teach that baptism was necessary for gaining heaven. He did not command infants have to be baptized. Thus, it's faith that gives us eternal life and not faith + baptism or faith + works. I'm sure the latter is in the Catholic dogma book. Finally, you gloss over what Jesus did to support the sacraments, but digging deeper into each we find that humans have put their own stamp upon Jesus' teachings. They have ritualized his teachings.

The Protestants have baptism and communion, but its from what the Bible states. They did not make it formal ritual such as the Holy Eucharist and receiving the actual blood and body of Jesus.

You seem to be arguing that following the pattern that Jesus instituted and followed is a waste of time; that just because Jesus practiced and taught these seven customs does not mean anyone should else should emulate Jesus--that basically doing so is a waste of time.

I am not talking about "going to heaven." I know that is all that seems to interest Protestants, but Catholics are interested in a way of life that begins right now, today--a Kingdom that continues on into the afterlife. We don't say, Jesus, when we die, we want to join you and become your disciples/followers then. We say, "Jesus, we are going to follow you TODAY and always." Therefore we pattern our lives today after his life then. You may think this is a time waster because people can all get into heaven without them, but Catholics see the benefits living the Sacraments bring to today's life in the Kingdom as well.

The only way we put our own stamp on Jesus' teachings (and this is exactly what each one of us should be doing) is that I am not a first century rabboni (spiritual instructor). I am who I am, incorporating as many of Jesus' practices, teaches, and beliefs into my own life as possible. If you feel that is a complete waste of time, that is your prerogative, but I see it differently because I have experienced the graces following these practices of Jesus have brought into my life.

I'm arguing that Jesus did not advocate practicing rituals such as baptizing infants. Baptism isn't what saves. Faith in Jesus is what saves us. All of these "sacraments" are formal rituals that the powers that be in the RCC made up as dogma. If that works for you, then fine, but my question is will believers be misled by the Antichrist when he rises to power. Some people believe it could be the Pope, but I don't think so. Yet, the whoever the Pope is during those times can be swayed. Catholics pray to statues and the Pope makes news around the world when he makes his personal statements. Pope Francis has been used by the media when they have their own agenda.

Maybe I better stop here because there are many differences between the RCC and Protestant sects and it just opens up a can of worms.

 

[james bond]

Can bad trees produce good fruit?

I don't think it's that because Catholics believe in Faith + Works in order to get to heaven. The bad trees are usually non-believers, but even then that does not mean every non-believer does not produce good fruit. I suppose there is no generalization. People who have learned the Bible better than I know much more on this. Maybe you're one of those people.

True faith is marked by action. If you say you have faith but there is no action, do you really have faith?

Let me ask this a different way, what would it look like if someone proclaimed they had faith but it was really just lip service?

Faith in Jesus is in one's heart. Eventually, this leads to works, as a good tree produces good fruit as you said, but works is not a requirement. Jesus saved all when he died in our place. His perfect life is what Adam was supposed to be. We cannot have anything more than the sacrifice Jesus made. It was so great, that once saved, always saved.

Of course, this does not mean lip service. The faith has to be sincere from the heart.

 

[RWS]

I was born Roman Catholic. And I rejected it at an early age.

This is a funny post coming directly after asserting the only reason someone is Catholic is because they were born into it.

Is there anything else you rejected in your upbringing or just the religion you were born into?

When people make any major decision, there are generally at least three reasons that factor into that decision--and that rule of three occurs in people who reject the religion they were born into and those who continue to practice the religion into which they were born. In the family into which I was born, more moved away from religion than stayed with it. Everyone had their three reasons (and most these reasons varied from person to person).

I was born Roman Catholic. I rejected it as being false based on logic at an early age. Most people don't reject their birthright religion, and claim it's true for the rest of their lives, no matter what. It's what they were born into believing, and changing that will result in catastrophic psychological problems.

For instance, some of the above are absolutely sure that the Earth and Universe was created approximately 6000 years ago. And maybe flat-Earthers too, but I'm not sure yet. There's no argument that will change their mind. Jus sayin... It's crazy... And it's only because they were born into that belief! They don't know any better. It's like still believing in Santa Claus even after you get told he doesn't exist! They refuse to let it go.