Crazy things famous Christians say
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Do any of us really "know" that the Catholic church was made necessary by Christ? I don't think that they are talking about people who have merely heard about the claims that the Catholic church has made about itself, it's talking about those who know the truth of those claims and still won't cooperate.
My reason for saying that is that paragraph 15 goes on to discuss other non-Catholic Christians, virtually all of whom can be expected to know about (but not believe) the Catholic claims.
"Likewise we can say that in some real way, they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power"
In paragraph 16, they address non-Christian religions. The Jews (who doubtless know about the Catholic church's claims as well):
"In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues".
Then the Muslims:
"But this plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst them are the Muslims..."
Finally everybody else (the document doesn't seem particularly interested in or even aware of the Asian religions):
"Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives all men their life and breath and all things, and as Savior wills that all men be saved"
It eventually gets so expansive as to seemingly include sincere good-hearted atheists:
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
We can probably still complain that this doesn't go nearly far enough, but we should probably recognize how dramatic an historical move it already is. The Roman Catholic church was trying to heave its creaky old body from the Exclusivist camp into the Inclusivist camp. The new idea seems to be that God wants to save everybody, the Catholic church is the means that God set up to accomplish that, but God still hasn't given up on those who in good-will believe in and choose to take longer and less-direct paths.
It's probably unrealistic expect any religious group to entirely abandon its own unique claims. Buddhists still think that the way to nibbana is through Buddha-sasana. Jains think that path to enlightenment comes about through Jaina dharma. Hindus happily include Jesus among Vishnu's avatars, but believe that ultimate salvation comes from Vishnu.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
IOW, God hasn't given up converting all those people into Catholics. That's all I get from that. Most people know the Catholic teaching that they are God's chosen church on earth. The fact that they reject it, as stated already, means they're damned. Pretty clear cut to me.
That's a huge problem with religion imo, unless you're Bahaia or Unitarian Universalist. That's the only two I know of who don't insist on THEIR WAY as the only way to reach heaven nirvana or whatever. But Christianity derives its claims of exclusivity straight from the Bible. Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the light. No man comes to the Father but by me." That's pretty exclusive if you ask me. IOW, all non Christians go to hell.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I know what the Catholic Church teaches. That it is the only church Jesus founded on earth. But I reject it. So that means I'm damned. I choose not to believe in the Catholic Church. I also choose not to repent of any sins that the Catholic Church condemns me for. That also condemns me to hell. I'm also a practicing gay man. That lands me in inferno central too. You should probably study up on what your religion teaches before defending it. It'd certainly give you more credibility I think.
Oh, and the Vatican corrected their own Pope on that atheist question. Seems atheists, even good ones, are still going to hell. sniff...
http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-are-still-going-to-hell-says-vatican-spokesman-96734/
You truly feel you choose that? I know I do not. I do not have any choice to believe in something I do not know exists. Asking me to believe in this supposedly omnipotent god portrayed in the HolyBabble without proof may as well be asking me to believe Donald Duck created the universe from his farts.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No..I don't believe anything religion teaches. I'm saying I'm damned from THEIR perspective. Personally, I believe there's an afterlife and that we all go there. But it has nothing to do with how good you were or what you believed. It's like getting born all over again.
I understood that. When you said you choose not to believe in the Catholic Crap, do you think it is actually a choice? IF it is a choice, could you possibly choose to believe it?
Why then, do you denigrate the Bible, knowing that there are people on here who have a respect for it?
jan.
Who is ''I am''?
Who is ''me''?
The answer to that question is... we are all ''I am'' & ''me''.
In John 5.30-32 Jesus say's: I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
Another way to look at the quote you mentioned, is to see ''I am'' and ''me'', as more than just being a man. Before God breathed life into Adam, Adam was a man, but after He breathed life into the body, it became a ''living soul''. Adam could now claim ''me'' and ''I am''. ''Man'' is the vessel, whereas the identity of man, defaults to ''I am'' and ''me'', and it is through linking (yoga/religion/dharma) with that identity that one becomes one with the Father. ''I and my Father are one''.
jan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
But it is the claim of homophobic Christians that gay people HAVE this agenda--to destroy heterosexualist society and to corrupt children. YOU are the ones making the claim that gay people support this. And you continue to do it even after being shown it was satire. Talk about crazy things Christians say. I think the OP is proving itself quite nicely.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Jesus Christ ofcourse..
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Yes..I choose not to believe it. There are many who manage to believe in science AND religion at the same time. They say evolution is true, and cosmology, and psychology, and so on, while holding onto beliefs in Jesus Christ and God. I choose not to do that. I choose to view religion as a bunch of superfluous myths and antiquated dogmas that have no relevance in this world anymore.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Kill All Homosexuals
"Scott Esk, a Republican Tea Party candidate in Oklahoma, got into a debate on Facebook last summer in which he advocated killing homosexuals.
“I think we would be totally in the right to do it,” Esk wrote in comments uncovered by Oklahoma journalist Rob Morris. “That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”
When pressed, Esk added: "I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it."
Esk is running for the state's House of Representatives. The primary is scheduled for June 24.
When contacted by Morris, who runs the news outlet Moore Daily, Esk didn't deny making the comments or back down from the rhetoric.
"That was done in the Old Testament under a law that came directly from God and in that time there it was totally just. It came directly from God," Esk said, adding: "I have no plans to reinstitute that in Oklahoma law. I do have some very huge moral misgivings about those kinds of sins."
The Raw Story notes that in other Facebook posts, Esk has said that laws punishing gays should be instituted locally so people "can decide for themselves whether they want to live in a particular community based in part on how things like this are dealt with.”
"Scott Esk, a Republican Tea Party candidate in Oklahoma, got into a debate on Facebook last summer in which he advocated killing homosexuals.
“I think we would be totally in the right to do it,” Esk wrote in comments uncovered by Oklahoma journalist Rob Morris. “That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”
When pressed, Esk added: "I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it."
Esk is running for the state's House of Representatives. The primary is scheduled for June 24.
When contacted by Morris, who runs the news outlet Moore Daily, Esk didn't deny making the comments or back down from the rhetoric.
"That was done in the Old Testament under a law that came directly from God and in that time there it was totally just. It came directly from God," Esk said, adding: "I have no plans to reinstitute that in Oklahoma law. I do have some very huge moral misgivings about those kinds of sins."
The Raw Story notes that in other Facebook posts, Esk has said that laws punishing gays should be instituted locally so people "can decide for themselves whether they want to live in a particular community based in part on how things like this are dealt with.”
1. How have we been shown it to be satire?
2. Is it true that our sons have been sodomised?
jan.
I second this observation. I don't care how often Peter Pan tells me that al I have to do is believe I can fly, and then I can fly... No matter how hard I try, I can't believe it. Personal observation tells me he's wrong.
I cannot choose what to believe.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
When you quote someone saying "I am" and "me", it is a given that it is referring to the person quoted. How could it not?